Ed Feser's Aristotelian Proof of the Existence of God

[HopOnPop]

Okay, I actually muddled through this guy's STAGE 1 (of 3) in detail and digested it a bit, which is I believe all you were asking for? Skipping a lengthy reiteration of the set up given, I will jump right into my criticism of his proposed “Hierarchy Series” concept.

The failure I saw was based upon this guys really poor understanding of basic Newtonian physics. He kept ascribing “support” only in one direction – the cup depends upon “support” from a table, which in turn is “supported” by a floor....and in the end its ALL “supported” by the Earth (because he wants a ubiquitous source for "support" to call his “first member” – the equivalent of Aristotle's Prime Mover, or Aquinas' First Cause, or just... something to call God). But, in physics 101, this is not how anyone would describe this little scene of his, if it were to represent a real Newtonian model. He failed to acknowledge, for instance, that each physical object would have its own gravitational force (its own innate power) that, no matter how small it may be by comparision to the Earth, would still exerts gravitational pull, and thus "support" all the others objects too, no matter how large, in reference to its own gravity. Thus one can alternatively describe this example by saying the cup also is a prime member, because it “supports” the table, and through the table, the cup also “supports” the floor, and in turn, also “supports” the Earth too – just in terms of its own tiny gravitational force. A similar narrative exists for all the other members in this scenario. So, in the end, there simply is no real “first member” in this kind of scenario but rather a complex web of mutual support. Everything would be a first member to some extent, proportional to their relative sizes.

At some point in the argument, in his attempt to explain the omni-importance of the Earth to this example, he makes the mistake of saying that if one remove the Earth, the ultimate “support” it provides will vanish, causing everything remaining to come crashing down. He, of course, fails to realize that to remove the Earth is to also remove Earth's gravitational influences too, so rather than the rest of the scenario crashing down without the Earth there, everything pretty much would remain in the same position just as it was when the Earth was present (thus ruining the analogy of Earth, as the first member, to God). Moreover, once you remove the “opressively” overwhelming presence of the Earth's domineering gravity (i.e. reality without God) what you are essentially left with is another kind of scenario that functions just as well, but differently, and without any need of the Earth at all. In fact, there would be no real heirarchy in this Earthless model, merely an interdependent system of mutual support between objects. In such an alternative example, his explanation of what is occuring simply stops making sense. With bodies of more equal size and gravity, the whole notion of some "hierarchy" of "support" fades away completely, leaving only a true scenario that is better described as shared mutual cooperation with no need for a over-dominant, dictatorial gravitaitonal presence.

That's my two-cents on the matter, at least. Hope that helps.

Aristotelian proofs are merely a Philopher's of Religion homage to "Treasure of the Sierra Madre" -- “Evidence? To god-damned hell with evidence! We have no evidence. In fact, we don't need evidence. I don't have to show you any stinking evidence, you god-damned cabrón”

[bennyboy]

I hope you're not talking about Aristotle himself, as he was one of the first natural scientists and a truly great mind.

[Dolorian]

In fact, there would be no real heirarchy in this Earthless model, merely an interdependent system of mutual support between objects. In such an alternative example, his explanation of what is occuring simply stops making sense. With bodies of more equal size and gravity, the whole notion of some "hierarchy" of "support" fades away completely, leaving only a true scenario that is better described as shared mutual cooperation with no need for a over-dominant, dictatorial gravitaitonal presence.

That's my two-cents on the matter, at least. Hope that helps.

Yeah, really nice response, thanks.

I guess if we take your suggestion to remove the earth from the picture and go a step further and remove everything from space and leave only the cup; with the cup being the sole existing thing in the universe, as far as I know, the cup would simply stay put as there would be nothing for it to fall to or from. Would that be correct? If so, then where is the need for everything to be "sustained" by God?

[HopOnPop]

I guess if we take your suggestion to remove the earth from the picture and go a step further and remove everything from space and leave only the cup; with the cup being the sole existing thing in the universe, as far as I know, the cup would simply stay put as there would be nothing for it to fall to or from. Would that be correct? If so, then where is the need for everything to be "sustained" by God?

Yes, that's correct. But even with all of the universe still intact around this house and its contents, gravity is such a weak force especially over long distances, even with the universe still present (including the moon and the sun) everything in the cup-house model would still just appear to be "floating" in space for a very, very long time, relatively undisturbed. It might even, if its initial trajectory is just right at the moment the Earth disappears, simply slide right out of the solar system into interstellar space, remaining much as it did when it was "sitting on” the Earth, to travel vitually forever, fairly undisturbed, through open space (radiation and micro-meteor exposure asside).

But its not just a poor analogy, his whole idea is rather misguided. This guy is trying to insist reality itself has a general "hierarchy" to it -- one thing may seem to provide "support" (or provide the needed component to cause "change") to another, in some long chain of 'supporters' and 'the supported' (or changers and the changed), and from that, he concludes there must be a need to be some eventual, "ultimate" source of "support" (or "change") involved that is present and indispensable to everything being “supported.” But this idea is simply not what his example illustrates, nor is it what reality demonstrates in general when one turns to a more rigorous examination of this system, using, say simple Newtonian physics, rather than merely relying on common sense (which is the problem with Aristotelian reasoning).

What common sense doesn't show you (but science does) is that every entity in the universe has its own innate contribution of energy to provide to any given system (like an individual gravitational force). The cup supported by the table, supported by the floor....only *appears* that way because we, as the observer are sitting on the Earth surface too. What science shows us (relativity, in this case) is that if we take on a neutral point of view (off-planet, for instance) of this scenario, all we would have is a group of objects with mutual gravitational attraction to one another and each supporting one another in some way. Thus, the ultimate source of "support" (or "change") is not the Earth (or God) but merely the innate features that arrise out of each constituent piece in any scenario. This is how gravity works, its how energy flow works, and I would contend, this is how every system one can imagine works, much to the chagrin of people who rely upon Aristotelian “common sense” based reasoning.

[Brian37]

You can be an apologist for Allah or an apologist for Yahweh, or even an apologist for the Vedas, and it would still be the same as arguing for the existence of Luke Skywalker and Darth Vader.

People and places existing will never make magic real nor will any holy book ever be able to replace a science textbook.

[genkaus]

You can be an apologist for Allah or an apologist for Yahweh, or even an apologist for the Vedas, and it would still be the same as arguing for the existence of Luke Skywalker and Darth Vader.

People and places existing will never make magic real nor will any holy book ever be able to replace a science textbook.

I've never seen anyone argue for the existence of Luke Skywalker or Darth Vader using Aristotelian principles of causality.

And to be fair to the philosopher here, he is neither invoking the existence of magic nor is he claiming the validity of a holy book.

[Dolorian]

And to be fair to the philosopher here, he is neither invoking the existence of magic nor is he claiming the validity of a holy book.

Yeah, that's definitely not the case here.

[Neo-Scholastic]

The failure I saw was based upon this guys really poor understanding of basic Newtonian physics...Aristotelian proofs are merely a Philopher's of Religion homage to "Treasure of the Sierra Madre" -- “Evidence? To god-damned hell with evidence!

First, the validity of the cosmological argument does not depend on any particular empirical, i.e. evidence -based, physical theory (Newtonian or otherwise) because any rational deduction about the very nature of reality is a more fundamental claim.

Second, refuting the analogy does not invalidate Feser's main point. The analogy he uses conveys the idea of contingency. The idea of the cosmological argument is that the existence of whatever is contingent and subject to change is causally dependent on something else whose existence is neither contingent nor subject to change, a first cause.

[Mudhammam]

First, the validity of the cosmological argument does not depend on any particular empirical, i.e. evidence -based, physical theory (Newtonian or otherwise) because any rational deduction about the very nature of reality is a more fundamental claim.

Second, refuting the analogy does not invalidate Feser's main point. The analogy he uses conveys the idea of contingency. The idea of the cosmological argument is that the existence of whatever is contingent and subject to change is causally dependent on something else whose existence is neither contingent nor subject to change, a first cause.

In other words, another classic case of ignoratio per ignotius.

[genkaus]

First, the validity of the cosmological argument does not depend on any particular empirical, i.e. evidence -based, physical theory (Newtonian or otherwise) because any rational deduction about the very nature of reality is a more fundamental claim.

Rational deduction about the nature of reality without empirical observation of the reality? How would that work? By presupposition?

The fundamental claim regarding the nature of reality has to be validated by empirical evidence - that is how we determine if the claim is justified.

Second, refuting the analogy does not invalidate Feser's main point. The analogy he uses conveys the idea of contingency. The idea of the cosmological argument is that the existence of whatever is contingent and subject to change is causally dependent on something else whose existence is neither contingent nor subject to change, a first cause.

To the extent that analogy is a representation of his argument, it does refute it. Feser's idea is that existential contingency - like gravity - is unidirectional. As gravitational support goes from cup to table to floor to earth, the existential contingency goes from water to molecules to atoms to subatomic particles. But as the former is refuted, it gives us another possibility for the latter - that existential contingency may not be unidirectional either. For example, one object may be contingent on two sources which in turn are contingent on three sources and so on. Thus his conclusion of a single first cause is in error. Further, since by his analogy, the removal of gravitationally non-contingent earth does not affect the position of the cup, so he'd have to justify why the removal of the other non-contingent should be any different.