Christoid Logic

[Neo-Scholastic]

As soon as you use concepts such as a "mover" in your philosophical argument and then talk about its properties, it doesn't seem to be a hierarchy any more where physics is secondary…Can you give an example of an argument they make that says something about reality without relying on physics?

I find it difficult to reply since I do not know your level of familiarity with the Scholastic nomenclature. Generally, physics deals with particular beings and the types of changes they undergo. Metaphysics deals with being itself and what does not or is not subject to change. So if someone makes an observation about existence as such, and not just a particular thing or type of thing’s existence, then it is an observation of a higher order than physics.

Fortunately they [the 5 Ways] don't lead to the conclusions that Aquinas claimed for them either.

Only because you have made a prior existential commitment to the notion that causal relationships are ‘brute facts’. The problem is that you generally refuse to lie in the bed you’ve made for yourself.