(March 19, 2018 at 7:59 am)Jörmungandr Wrote:(March 19, 2018 at 3:39 am)pocaracas Wrote: Holy crap!
I've been reading a book by a fellow called Feser, a philosopher, talking about Aristotle and Aquinas, and the parallels to the OP are astonishing!
He goes into triangularity to describe an abstract concept; a ball breaking a window to account for instantaneous (read timeless) causation and he did make the jump from abstract concepts (forms) exist and are not represented by anything physical (there are no perfect triangles or circles in the real world), a mind capable of thinking about forms cannot (??) be represented by something in the real world, hence a person's abstract reasoning capability is then defined as "soul".
And there's more, since abstract notions (forms) exist in the absence of reality (?!), and the ultimate form is that of the intellect, the abstract reasoning, then the ultimate abstract reason is what gets defined as god.
Who had to generate all the souls that have ever been and ever will be in a timeless manner so they can then populate every single real mind capable of abstract thought.
Yeah, I know I can't use those big bs words.
I've been looking at reading some Feser. Which specific book are you reading?
One that was advised to me by the good Catholics at CAF: The Last Superstition.
It's a reply to common misconceptions that "the new atheists" have written in their books - Dawkins, Dennet, Harris, Hitchens - and he's quite quick to say that these guys are writing nonsense, but then... as he goes on to explain the classic philosophy, there are these niggling details that one could forgive on those people that lived so long ago, but really need further thinking in light of "recent" Astrophysics and Quantum Mechanics... and he, like a good philosophy major who couldn't cope with college maths, never even goes into these.
[paraphrasing]"Silly Krauss talking about things coming from nothing? Nonsense! impossible" Meanwhile, Krauss explains that the nothing he put in his title was purposefully provocative.
"Silly Dawkins attacking a caricature of christianity, instead of its core? Stupid!" Meanwhile Dawkins admits he was targeting mainstream creationist beliefs.
etc
etc
etc
He does seem to have a better book called "Five Proofs for the Existence of God". Maybe that one is easier to remain level-headed. The one I'm reading seems like it was written by an angry guy.
