Ed Feser's Aristotelian Proof of the Existence of God

[Dolorian]

Wondering what some of the folks here think about his argument.

Ed Feser makes an argument for God by starting with change; using a hierarchical series of causes as opposed to a linear series (he even admits that a linear series could well be infinite, having no first member). What the argument seeks to establish is that at any given moment, the universe stands in need of being kept in existence by God (ie. the water is held up by the cup which is held up by the table which is itself held up by the floor, which in turn is held up by the earth, etc, all the way to God).

Feser makes this argument (more elaborately) in the first 30 minutes of this video. He also addresses some objections to the argument there:

[LastPoet]

You can make anything up to excuse a believe for god. You can't however, argue gods into existence

[vorlon13]

So, it is turtles all the way down !!!!!

[downbeatplumb]

So, it is turtles all the way down !!!!!

Bugger, that's what I was going to say.

[genkaus]

Ed Feser makes an argument for God by starting with change; using a hierarchical series of causes as opposed to a linear series (he even admits that a linear series could well be infinite, having no first member). What the argument seeks to establish is that at any given moment, the universe stands in need of being kept in existence by God

The argument he makes sounds more like proof for the God Particle than for god.

(ie. the water is held up by the cup which is held up by the table which is itself held up by the floor, which in turn is held up by the earth, etc, all the way to God).

And the earth by the four elephants and those elephants by the cosmic Turtle. (I know, others beat me to it).

I couldn't listen to all of his bullshit, but I did brave through up to 36 minutes. Much of his arguments come from Aristotelean physics - something the real world has moved on from quite some time ago. There is also a lot of equivocation going on along with a host of other logical fallacies every step of the way. All in all, his reasoning sounds all profound and insightful but wouldn't stand up to any serious scrutiny.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

The trouble with Aristotelian 'proofs' is this: Aristotle maintained that men had more teeth than women. He was married twice, and it never occurred to him to have either wife open her mouth, so he could check.

Boru

[Alex K]

Oh I'm not watching this now. Can anyone summarize in a few sentences.

Also, based on aristotelian physics? Seriously? I raise you one proof that there is *no* god based on miasmas.

[Dolorian]

There is also a lot of equivocation going on along with a host of other logical fallacies every step of the way. All in all, his reasoning sounds all profound and insightful but wouldn't stand up to any serious scrutiny.

Would you mind elaborating a a bit on this, perhaps give an example or two of his fallacies?

Not saying I disagree with you, just would like to hear your perspective.

Feser ends up accepting God as a "brute fact". But why can't the universe itself be that brute fact? Feser in this case appeals to the principle of sufficient reason, asserting that the universe, unlike God, can't be it's own reason for it's existence.

[genkaus]

A lot to pick from.

For example, he defines "change" as the process of potentiality becoming actuality - like coffee going from hot to cold. Then in his coffee being held up example, he says that the potentiality of the coffee to be 3 ft up the ground is becoming actual in that snapshot of time - which is why it staying up is a change. That is simply untrue - the potentiality is already actual. If, in that snapshot of the moment, you remove the table, the coffee still stays 3 ft above. It'll be 2.99999 ft in the next snapshot. The idea here being he wants to consider two independent modes of causality - linear and hierarchical - but doesn't acknowledge their relation.

In the coffee on the table example, he is addressing one specific attribute - being held up. He goes on to say that everything is, in the end, deriving that attribute from something that itself doesn't need to held up by anything else. Then he applies the same logic to the generic concept of "existence". He doesn't define the term - he doesn't explain what it means to exist - he simply concludes that there must be a singular first cause encompassing all forms of existence.

[LastPoet]

Special pleading. The universe needs a reason to exist, except for god. Now, give me all your money