Ed Feser's Aristotelian Proof of the Existence of God

[bennyboy]

That demonstration, at least as far as humanity has been able to determine so far, must use empiricism to do so. We have no other tool that has proven reliable in this task.

Let's say I make this logical inference: "The things I experience represent an objective reality." According to you, I must use empiricism in order to validate this idea. The problem is that this particular inference happens to be the foundation of empiricism, and circular hilarity instantly ensues. It seems to me you must therefore either make a special plea-- that the use of empiricism should not be subject to means of validation required of any other idea-- or accept that some ideas may be accepted on the basis of logic exclusively.

If special pleas about dependency are acceptable, then the Christian quantity "X," namely that something creates all but magically avoids the requirement of being created itself, can no longer be discarded easily without hypocrisy. Therefore, it seems to me that we must establish new criteria for the validation of ideas: WHEN is empirical evidence really required, and when is a purely logical argument sufficient? But I don't think there is a non-arbitrary answer to this question; it's much more likely that camps will assemble around their philosophical assumptions of choice, and insist that said assumptions are brute facts.