So, prompted by recent ponderings about Aquinas' arguments (and especially the Second Way), I was thinking for the past few hours about the notion of existential inertia. I think if there's anything that could somewhat be a fair challenge to the idea that all things in existence (aside from first cause) require something else to sustain its existence at any point in time, it would be existential inertia. However, I'm not sure how effective this counter could be. Even if it doesn't demolish the arguments of Aquinas, it seems like an alternative worldview for those who don't find themselves convinced by such arguments as the Second Way.
However, it's not without its challenges. And one of the challenges has to do with the principle of sufficient reason.
Here's a link to a post you may want to refer to to get a better idea of what the topic is:
https://strangenotions.com/existential-i...ighty-god/
I haven't read it in its entirety yet. But will read it properly the next time I'm free and then probably share my thoughts here. You can share yours in the meantime.
In a nutshell, these are the competing positions:
Thomists reckon that, at any point in time, a particular thing like a chair can only exist if it is sustained by something else external to it.
Existential "inertians" reckon that the chair, since it exists, exists unsustained because nothing else "killed" its existence.
Which one sounds more reasonable to you? Is there a third alternative view to ponder that's related to this topic? And how would you address the sufficient reason challenge from an "inertian" perspective?
However, it's not without its challenges. And one of the challenges has to do with the principle of sufficient reason.
Here's a link to a post you may want to refer to to get a better idea of what the topic is:
https://strangenotions.com/existential-i...ighty-god/
I haven't read it in its entirety yet. But will read it properly the next time I'm free and then probably share my thoughts here. You can share yours in the meantime.
In a nutshell, these are the competing positions:
Thomists reckon that, at any point in time, a particular thing like a chair can only exist if it is sustained by something else external to it.
Existential "inertians" reckon that the chair, since it exists, exists unsustained because nothing else "killed" its existence.
Which one sounds more reasonable to you? Is there a third alternative view to ponder that's related to this topic? And how would you address the sufficient reason challenge from an "inertian" perspective?
