The Big Bang theory posits a temporal beginning to the universe, and doesn't explain why the Big Bang happened, or why the universe exists at all. Why is there a universe, as opposed to none? Couldn't it just as easily have been the case that nothing existed? Previous theories, like the Steady State or the Oscillating Universe theory, claimed that the universe has always existed. But these theories have been rejected. With the Big Bang, this is not the case. There was a beginning. So, even if you reject the Bible from the fourth word (In the beginning God), you have to say that the first three words are OK and in accordance with science.
If something begins to exist, and nothing caused it to exist, isn't that a strange thing to say? If we are eating lunch, and a bunny rabbit begins to exist and munches on your salad, would it make any sense to say "Oh, that rabbit just popped into existence out of nothing. It didn't have a cause."
259 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 259 of 259@cautiouslycurious:
"He makes the same complaints to modern philosophers as well. Are you going to say that modern philosophers also don’t have said special competence?"
And he gives arguments for it. As far as the competence of modern philosophers, yes, many of them are either ignorant of ill-informed; which once again is not a surprise for a number of reasons, starting with the hyper-specialization in philosophy.
"Surprise, surprise, you’re dismissing criticism out of hand. If you’re going to put forth the effort to respond, you should at least put in some substance along with it."
What criticism? That reading Thomistic philosophy looks like pseudo-science? What sort of criticism is that? That scientists are not bound to pay much attention to Thomism? So what? That the majority of the modern philosophers do not accept Thomism? Am I supposed to be impressed by the majority opinion, especially when in many cases it is either ignorant or simply ill-informed? Or by criticism you mean *your* pseudo-science-y talk ("as if stipulating that a thing is immaterial (i.e. doesn’t have parts) automatically zeros out its Kolmogorov complexity."?? And by the way, being immaterial is not the same as having no parts, although it entails it, for a suitable sense of "parts") and demonstrable ignorance?
Yup, I am dismissing it alright, although not out of hand as I have explained why. Which is much, much more than you ever did.
Not to mention Stephen Mumford.
And the irony that two promising naturalistic theories of meaning/intentionality, biosemantics and Dretske's crude causal theory, depend on Aristotelian concepts.
@ozero91:
"Not to mention Stephen Mumford."
And outside of the broadly Thomistic camp, "new essentialists" like the late George Molnar or Brian Ellis or the mathematician, philosopher and historian of ideas James Franklin, etc. and etc. Depending on how you want to widen the field of search you can add many more names (e.g. if you want to include ethics, then Philippa Foot, an atheist by the way).
But this counting of names in the "us" camp is, quite frankly, a rather futile enterprise and antithetic to the true spirit of Philosophy.
Grodrigues,
Please address my objection. My objection had nothing to do with majority opinion of scientists or philosophers so stop bringing up that red herring. If you'd like to actually address the content of my objection, you're welcome to try again after that horrendous strikeout.
Well you could start by expanding on your claim. It's no enough to simply state "Materialist explanations of intentionality seem to beg the question. Please answer my objection."
Ozero,
"Well you could start by expanding on your claim. It's no enough to simply state "Materialist explanations of intentionality seem to beg the question. Please answer my objection.""
??? Who mentioned materialism or intentionality ???
Paps wrote:
“The Kalam is a superb example of the looseness of propositional logic. Can you recall the totality of WLC's argument in support of the Kalam is? Here it is:
"William Lane Craig argues that the first premise is strongly supported by intuition and experience. He asserts that it is "intuitively obvious", based on the "metaphysical intuition that something cannot come into being from nothing" Wiki
-
It is untrue that those few words copied from Wikipedia constitute the totality of Craig’s argument for the first premise of the Kalam. Sometimes, we find a fuller discussion of people’s ideas in their own books, and a summarised version in an encyclopedia. To name one example, there is a discussion of arguments for and against the first premise on pages 111-116 of Craig’s book Reasonable Faith.
-
Paps again:
“... the concept of Aquinas's First Way of positing an argument from motion is equally flawed. It cannot distinguish whether premise A or B are indeed false. They are assumed to be true, as WLC says of the Kalam, by dint of intuition and personal revelation [experience] only.
The elephant in the room in Aquinas's proposition is, An infinite regress of movers is impossible. Says who? Evidence is required [and a little more than intuition, or personal revelation or on undisciplined reliance on propositional logic itself [which you must remember, is a process incapable of distinguishing false or true statements and can facultatively proceed to a supposedly reasoned but ultimately false conclusion] Thereby, in making this unfounded and unsubstantiated proposition, Aquinas tenuously posits that the christian god is the only logical conclusion.”
-
Aquinas didn’t assume that an infinite regress of movers is impossible. He gave arguments. You may have read otherwise in The God Delusion. I recommend that you consider the possibility that you have been misinformed and read Edward Feser’s treatment of Dawkins in “The Last Superstition”.
grodrigues
"Feser is using "science" in the same sense Aristotle used the term, not in the modern sense."
Yes. Feser dislikes all things modern, even the contemporary understanding of 'science', of which he seems to be abjectly judgmental and condemnatory. But that is par for dyed-in-the-wool woomeisters.
He wears modernity like an ill-fitting suit, a misfit that is clearly uncomfortable in today's society, plaintively pining for the 'good old' days of Aquinean scholasticism and the hegemonic authority of the Catholic Church.
You will note how mischievously Cale BT misconstrues my words and puts other words more fitting to his argument into my mouth and then goes on to knock down a strawman.
PapaL: "Thereby, in making this unfounded and unsubstantiated proposition, Aquinas tenuously posits that the christian god is the only logical conclusion.”
Cale BT: "Aquinas didn’t assume that an infinite regress of movers is impossible. He gave arguments."
Nowhere did I note Aquinas assumed the impossibility of infinite regress of movers. My argument clearly identified how Aquinas used an apparent line of propositional logic that lead him to assert that an infinite regress of movers is impossible. But given that religion was the only game in town at the time, Aquinas simply is ignorant of the assumptive nature of propositional logic and believes he has made a truly revealing discovery that an infinite regress of movers is impossible. As an example of the flaw of propositional logic:
"Dad: Jerry, I have some good news and some bad news. Which would you like to hear first?
Jerry: The bad news. [I'm Jewish.]
Dad: The bad news is that there isn’t any good news.
Jerry: Well, then, what’s the good news?
Dad: The good news is that that’s the only bad news there is."
{I borrowed this little scenario from WEIT used in another context. But the relevance is clear]
All perfectly logical. Follows all the rules of propositional logic but fails to deliver any meaningful message.
But more egregiously, see how easily woomeisters can promulgate a 'lie for Jesus' without even a blink of the eye and then proceed to the strawman argument. Unbeknown to Cale BT, there are innumerable refutations and rebuttals of Aquinas's purported arguments in relation to the "infinite regress of movers is impossible" idiocy. Indeed I have cited one such in an earlier comment on this OP. But like most superstitionists he refuses to read or even acknowledge that this idea has been debunked.
In the matter of the totality of WLC's arguments[?], for what they're worth, they are aptly summarized in the Wiki report. Why go to read his nonsense at the source of nonsense? Cale BT, if you subscribe to WLC's arguments on Pp 111-116, I have some oceanview real estate in Colorado you might be interested in.
Please stay tuned papalinton, I'll respond tomorrow.
Paps is just upset because he was kicked off of Feser's blog for being a jerk also dguller the Atheist poster at Feser's blog I mentioned earlier told Paps off as well for embarrassing Atheists with his ignorant blather.
The Atheism of cc, Paps and tragically at this point DL is low brow, anti-intellectual, anti-philosophy & neo-positivist fundie nonsense.
It's not a Courier's reply it a brute fact these sad sacks know as much about philosophy as regular readers of Creationist literature with a fifth grader's understanding of biology know about Evolution.
It's sad.
Feser's response to Edwards/Hennessy:
http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2010/08/edwards-on-infinite-causal-series.html
Hennessy unlike the Gnus here(especially DL who has just been embarrassing not to mention whiny) at least understood the First Way did not involve arguing the Universe had a formal beginning when he ventured his critique of it.
Again would it kill you people to learn just a little philosophy.
ozero91
I read Feser's post. His view is distinctly unscientific, and bears little resemblance to the real world. His non-temporal characterization of causality may provide a convenient escape from some of the objections to the First Way, but not from reality. It's no wonder most people, and especially scientists, in the modern age reject his Thomist worldview.
It's not a convenient or ad hoc escape, it's how the argument was original formulated. And remember, the act potency distinction is an explanation for why change is possible. Your physics based objections are kind of vague. As mentioned, causal networks don't exclude the act potency distinction. "Movers" don't have to be spatially external to the "moved," the only requirement is that the changer is actual. The water volume's potential to freeze is dependent on a net loss of internal energy. Having a potential to freeze is not enough to actually freeze.
Specifically, what parts of the response are problematic, and why?
Let me correct my grammer and speking....
@im-skeptical
>I read Feser's post. His view is distinctly unscientific,
Feser is a philosopher so why would he be making a scientific argument when he is making a philosophical one?
I'm starting to believe you never read a word he said.
I'm pretty sure I’ve linked to articles in the past where Feser gives a good fisking to Scientism/Positivism & a defense of the necessity of philosophy in order to know natural truth.
http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2010/03/1174/
http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2010/03/1184/
That is the constant consistent theme threw out his work that the Science Alone view is false or at best trivially true even if we admit a godless universe.
Care to tell us why he is wrong and solve the logical inconsistencies of positivism instead of assuming it as your uncritical default position?
im-skeptical I recall you claimed to have read Feser's writings. I don't see it! Yours is an ignorant response worthy of CC or DL.
>and bears little resemblance to the real world.
The concept of a "real world" and the meaning of said world is a philosophical one not a scientific one. Unless “real world” is just code for a world modeled on Positivism?
Your statement is ambiguous.
>His non-temporal characterization of causality may provide a convenient escape from some of the objections to the First Way,
You are unless & you are killing me! Even in Physics a Singularity exists outside of the temporal sphere so your ad hoc claim here causality requires time is an unproven philosophical and unscientific assumption.
As to the first way the point is DL and CC & other Gnus' objections are non-starters since the First Way has never involved presupposing a beginning of the universe.
>It's no wonder most people, and especially scientists, in the modern age reject his Thomist worldview.
All philosophically illiterate scientists are by definition incompetent to make any meaningful judgment on Thomism. It’s like having a biologist examine the genes of a photon. Absurd!
Only an Atheist Philosopher (or any philosopher) would at minimum be competent & then he would have to understand the underlying metaphysics and resist the impulse to attack a straw man as DL, CC and you have done here.
I'm very disappointed in you im-Skeptical. I thought you did the reading. Clearly that is not the case.
In terms of the radiation thing, there's also this:
"In such cases the nature acts on its own; but mover is in such a case the cause that either generates the thing with the nature (causes it to be this sort of thing with this sort of nature) or else (depending on what precisely we are looking at) what removes impediments to the action of the nature.
So Aquinas has no problem with natural motion; in fact, his own view of the universe is filled to the brim with it. But natural motion, of itself, is not a threat to the principle that 'what is moved is moved by another'; it just is a special case of it."
http://branemrys.blogspot.com/2004/12/further-thought-on-aquinass-first-way.html
im-skeptical writes:
>His non-temporal characterization of causality may provide a convenient escape from some of the objections to the First Way, but not from reality.
ozero91 writes:
>It's not a convenient or ad hoc escape, it's how the argument was original formulated.
A Further reason to believe Im-skeptical didn't read Feser or at bwest didn't read him carefully. Is he really trying to tell us the First Ways was some dominican version of the Kalam the presuposed a beginning to the Universe and that Feser is some later day reformulator trying to salvage it? Good grief!
Here is some advice people in addition to the Kalam St Boniventure formulates a Cosmological Argument that presupposes an actual beginning and argues against the possibility of an infinite past. Learn the freakin difference and go bother him with your strawman nonsense.
Leave the First Way to people who have actually learned the actual argument.
geez!
grodrigues:
"Since metaphysical explanations (or more properly speaking, philosophy of nature) do not aim at explaining "natural phenomena" but at explaining the most general features of beings that make the empirical sciences possible in the first place"
Do you really think that the practice of science requires your level of metaphysical commitments? It doesn't.
I do not need or want to disagree with your metaphysical assertions, but they are beside the point of what I was saying about the intuitions of the non-philosopher in the past 100 years lacking similarity to A-T's trained intuitions, which I was asserting probably more closely resemble the intuitions of the non-philosopher of a bygone era (ancient Greece, to be exact).
If you want to address my concerns, I prefer you use history and sociology, not metaphysics. Perhaps you cannot.
Replying to empirical concerns with assertions of the truth of your metaphysics lacks proper relevance. Even if we assume the truth of the metaphysics, can you address the varying intuitions themselves?
BenYachov,
You accuse me of things that are plainly not true. I gave an example of a universe with no time dimension, so how can my argument rely on a beginning in time?
Quit being a douchebag. You're more interested in being condescending and arrogant than in engaging with the argument. Alas, being an arrogant douchebag seems to be rampant among classical theists who comment on apologetics blogs.
Here's the argument again. Sometimes, facts may be explained by causal sequences, but the origin of causal sequences (or of their rules) cannot be explained by the sequence itself. I think we both agree on this.
Your assumptions are that every kind of causal sequence must be phrased in terms of act-potency, and that unless otherwise specified, every fact is contingent. This assumption leads you to posit that there is a pure act that precedes any causal chain that begins with a contingent state of affairs.
Your assumptions are faulty. You reify act and potency, when it's actually states of affairs that are more fundamental. Even if you were to say that states of affairs may not be fundamental, that would be mere speculation on your part. Your philosophical conclusion breaks down if a conceivable world doesn't fit your allegedly necessary assumptions.
And who is to say what is contingent? Our universe is quirky. We can imagine it being otherwise, but that doesn't mean that it was contingent in the fashion you need to make your argument work.
If states of affairs are fundamental, then there need be no act preceding an initial state of affairs (temporal or otherwise). Instead, "act" is simply another way of stating that a state of affairs is an origin of a causal chain (not a midpoint or endpoint).
Intelligibility is irrelevant to the argument because (1) eventually, any system is going to come up against inexplicable facts (in your case, the mind of God), and (2) if a few things are left unexplained, the world remains largely intelligible.
You can't explain the universe (temporally or otherwise) by invoking God because God has no less "bruteness" (and no more simplicity) than the universe itself.
The logic of causality is simply this: states of affairs that are not caused by something else are caused by nothing at all. Such states, manifestly existing, are brute facts and are inexplicable. This is all that the logic of causality (temporal or otherwise) can give us.
So, admit that you are wrong, that your argument is based on (biased) speculation, and that any argument for God based on causality is bunk. Speculation cannot be the basis for a philosophical argument unless either (1) you can show that speculation on both sides of a dichotomy both result in the same conclusion, or (2) that the speculation finds an example that defeats an argument from impossibility (which is what I am doing).
Are you really sure you've studied philosophy?
DL wrote:
>You accuse me of things that are plainly not true. I gave an example of a universe with no time dimension, so how can my argument rely on a beginning in time?
In the Beginning March 09, 2013 7:03 AM DL wrote earlier:
>In the same way, causality is a feature of spacetime. And it's quite easy to conceive of an edge or beginning to spacetime, e.g., a first event at the Big Bang.
If this is the case, then the history of the universe is a giant 4-dimensional object which just is. It needs no creation because creation is something that happens in spacetimes, and there's no external space that needs to exist to contain our spacetime.
So, any mythical argument for the necessity of an external "first mover" is simply bunk. The history of the universe taken as a whole is a timeless entity. Time merely describes its internal structure.END QUOTE
DL what's with the contradicting yourself & backpeddling again? You clearly taken at face value(which is a problem since you never say what you mean or mean what you say) argued against the first way by arguing against a true beginning of the universe. Either by postulating the Universe with no formal beginning or Hawking's model. You then preceeded to argue your polemics against causality on those ground(a standard Humean view).
grodriguez gave you a good fisking March 09, 2013 9:58 AM & corrected you along the same lines as moi(your mistaken belief the First Way requires the Universe have a formal beginning).
Just admit it you don't understand the argument or Thomism.
Now after pulling teeth you finally let go of your intuition the First Way is just the Dominican Kalam.
What kind of douchebag wants to waste his time arguing with someone who can't make up his mind?
PS I'm not the only one here who has accused you of not knowing what you are talking about.
Ben,
"Only an Atheist Philosopher (or any philosopher) would at minimum be competent & then he would have to understand the underlying metaphysics and resist the impulse to attack a straw man as DL, CC and you have done here."
Only a starry-eyed believer in fantasy would make the claim that modern physicists don't understand how the world works as well as philosophers of medieval metaphysics. Let's face it. Aquinas didn't know a great many things that we now take for granted. Modern Thomists have to re-interpret his writings to fit with our current understanding if they want to have any hope of making it seem relevant. But to say "The concept of a "real world" and the meaning of said world is a philosophical one not a scientific one" shows how narrow your field of view is.
"A Further reason to believe Im-skeptical didn't read Feser or at bwest didn't read him carefully. Is he really trying to tell us the First Ways was some dominican version of the Kalam the presuposed a beginning to the Universe and that Feser is some later day reformulator trying to salvage it? Good grief!"
No, that's not what I was saying at all. You and ozero91 don't read what I write carefully enough, and then you criticize me for things that I didn't say. Geez!
>Only a starry-eyed believer in fantasy would make the claim that modern physicists don't understand how the world works as well as philosophers of medieval metaphysics.
Positivism on crack especially in equating physics with metaphysics.
I was right you didn't read a word of Feser. All this time.....
http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2010/03/1174/
http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2010/03/1184/
>Modern Thomists have to re-interpret his writings to fit with our current understanding if they want to have any hope of making it seem relevant.
Prove they have re-interpreted him.
Put up or shut up Gnu!
>No, that's not what I was saying at all. You and ozero91 don't read what I write carefully enough, and then you criticize me for things that I didn't say. Geez!
Then nobody knows what you are saying truth be told since you refuse to speak plainly.
So what you have to say is either ambiguous or trivial.
Me: “Aquinas didn’t assume that an infinite regress of movers is impossible. He gave arguments.”
Papalinton wrote: “Nowhere did I note Aquinas assumed the impossibility of infinite regress of movers.”
Papalinton again:
“But the concept of Aquinas's First Way of positing an argument from motion is equally flawed. It cannot distinguish whether premise A or B are indeed false. They are assumed to be true, as WLC says of the Kalam, by dint of intuition and personal revelation [experience] only.“
“Unbeknown to Cale BT, there are innumerable refutations and rebuttals of Aquinas's purported arguments in relation to the "infinite regress of movers is impossible" idiocy. Indeed I have cited one such in an earlier comment on this OP. But like most superstitionists he refuses to read or even acknowledge that this idea has been debunked.”
"Another important point to make is that Aquinas says that nothing can be infinite, and then goes on to say that God is infinite. He says that nothing is the cause of itself, then says that God is the cause of Himself. Admittedly, he does say that God is outside the universe. Perhaps this means he is not bound by the limitations which apply within it. Even so, this involves conceding that something can be infinite or indendent, undermining Aquinas' basis for arguing that the universe must have a cause. And we can question whether it makes sense to speak of something outside the universe. If not, the response I have offered to Aquinas is an appeal to mystery, or - less charitably - a dodge."
Need I go further?”
Yes papalinton, you should go a lot further. If you read the page, Ash’s criticism rests on his assertion that Aquinas’ form of the cosmological argument relied on mathematical arguments against actual infinities, which is incorrect. The above objection reveals Ash’s ignorance concerning the nature of the argument, and the fact that you put it forward as one of “innumerable refutations and rebuttals of Aquinas’s purported arguments” is telling.
Let’s dig deeper into the article:
“One problem which affects the first (temporal) formulation of the cosmological argument specifically is that a cause of the universe requires that there must have been a period of time before the universe began. But the universe is meant to encompass all time and space. This is also a problem for the Protestant view of God as the eternal rather than timeless creator of the universe - if God were in time, how could he have created all time and space? It is, however, avoided by the more theologically sophisticated Catholic view of God as timeless, and by the second formulation, which depends on the presumed contingency of the universe.”
Ash admits that divine timelessness, held by Aristotle and most Christian and Muslim theologians, avoids his own objection. Craig’s view (Ash is aware that he is a defender of the Kalam) is that God is timeless prior to the moment of creation and in time afterward (see “Time and Eternity” for his presentation of this view), so Ash’s objection also utterly fails here. So, to whom is the objection adressed? Ash also betrays his ignorance in referring to God being in time as being “the Protestant view of God”. Off the top of my head, I can think of E.L. Mascall, Paul Helm and Norman Geisler who defend(ed) divine timelessness and I’m pretty sure that none other than John Calvin himself believed in divine timelessness as well. Much like you, papalinton, Ash lacks knowledge.
Let’s take another of Ash’s criticisms. He says “If parsimony is a consideration, it is simpler to posit a simple, axiomatic principle as that cause, instead of the complex entity that is God. In no way whatsoever must it be the God of the Bible and traditional religion. The most honest answer to give to the question of why the universe is here is: "I don't know." The truth is, religions have never known, either - merely claimed they do.”
As I recall, Occam’s Razor says that we ought not to multiply entities unnecessarily, and Craig and other defenders of the Kalam attempt to argue that the personal nature of the cause is implied necessarily (e.g. pages 152-156 of Reasonable Faith). Doesn’t Thomistic metaphysics also lead deductively to the conclusion that the First Cause is not an “axiomatic principle”? Ash also brings up the objection that the Kalam itself alone doesn’t necessarily commit us to Christianity or Judaism. This is irrelevant: who claimed that it did?
Now, I’m not claiming that anyone has somehow “had the last word” on these arguments, and I’m happy to email you a fuller response to Ash’s page if you want, but, papalinton, if you are going to ask me to read supposed rebuttals to the cosmological argument whilst claiming that it is “debunked”, well, then my advice is try to cite something that isn’t uninformed Internet Atheist trash. But how might you discern trash from treasure when you haven’t actually read the arguments?
You wrote: “In the matter of the totality of WLC's arguments[?], for what they're worth, they are aptly summarized in the Wiki report. Why go to read his nonsense at the source of nonsense? Cale BT, if you subscribe to WLC's arguments on Pp 111-116, I have some oceanview real estate in Colorado you might be interested in.”
To summarise,
1. You haven’t actually read the arguments, but you *just know* that they are nonsense.
2. You haven’t actually read the arguments but you *just know* that two sentences from Wikipedia aptly summarises them.
3.You haven’t actually read the arguments, but you don’t think you should even bother because of 1.
You’re not exactly scaling the peaks of intellectual endeavour here.
You accused me thusly: “But more egregiously, see how easily woomeisters can promulgate a 'lie for Jesus' without even a blink of the eye and then proceed to the strawman argument.”
Having shown that your current attempt to cast me as a “liar for Jesus” is erroneous, let me now remind you of your own bizarre antics (to which BenYachov alluded) on the last occasion you made the same accusation:
Location: The thread “Cardinal Virtues and Counterfeit Virtues” on Edward Feser’s Blog
First you made the claim that the statement “...a rightly ordered society will value the traditional cardinal virtues over open-mindedness, empathy, tolerance, and fairness, whereas a society which celebrates the latter over the former is disordered." is an endorsement of Roman Catholic theocracy.
Do you still maintain that this is the case? Or do you now recognise just how silly that claim made you look?
After this comment was picked to pieces by others, I mentioned that it’s not just Christians who criticise you for being intellectually inept. I used the example of dguller (an atheist who posts on Feser’s blog) who called you incompetent in this thread: http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com.au/2012/09/the-divine-intellect.html
You then tried to brush this off as dguller being territorial and said, “Please show me where he told me I was "incompetent" Another lie for jesus, no?”
Dguller said that you were attacking popular misconceptions and fantasies of the relevant issues, and needed to study them in greater detail. Do you still maintain that I was “lying for Jesus” rather than accurately summarising here?
Perhaps the very nadir of your commentary in that thread was when you wrote:
"Supernaturalism is a product of medieval thought conjured in a time when there simply were no natural explanations."
You then later clarified that we were supposed to interpret this statement as:
"there was no Latin for 'supernatural' until the Middle Ages."
Right.
And, to cap it off, after having blindly accused Feser of supporting theocracy and me of “lying for Jesus”, you then went on to accuse Feser of plagiarising.
After it was pointed out to you in another thread (“Nagel and his critics, Part IV”) that this accusation was utterly illegitimate you wrote:
“Dr Feser and plagiarism. Not correct.
Egg all over my face.”
You really showed us “woomeisters” that day, papalinton. Are you simply going to continue on and on like this, madly bellowing that myself and other people tell lies for Jesus, and are theocrats, and that you somehow *just know* that we can’t have researched these issues in greater depth than yourself, or even worse, that you *just know* that certain arguments are nonsense without even having read them?
Reflect.
Ben,
"Then nobody knows what you are saying truth be told since you refuse to speak plainly."
I was hoping you would put my statements in the context of what I had said earlier. But here's something I got from Feser's post: He seems to be defining causality as the sustainment of movement in any given instant of time by the the first mover. Forgive me if I'm wrong, but that just seems antithetical to any kind of scientific view. You don't have to invoke Kalam, but I think there certainly is a temporal aspect to causality, since things are very much dependent on the way they were in the previous moment. To deny that is unscientific in my view.
@im-skeptical
I am very disapointed in you.
>I was hoping you would put my statements in the context of what I had said earlier.
If you are not going to speak plainly I am not under any obligation to sit around trying to find out what you really mean.
It just tells me you are not serious & I am still skeptical at this point that you have read any of Feser's work.
>But here's something I got from Feser's post: He seems to be defining causality as the sustainment of movement in any given instant of time by the the first mover. Forgive me if I'm wrong, but that just seems antithetical to any kind of scientific view.
Yeh so at this point you still don't understand the basic difference between a metaphysical or philosophical discription vs a scientific one.
You are still expecting a philosopher to give a scientific argument instead of a philosophical one & you implicitly believe in the discredited philosophy of Positivism that Flew at the height of his Atheism abandoned in the 50's as hopelessly incoherent.
If you are not going to do the reading or the learning what good are you?
>You don't have to invoke Kalam, but I think there certainly is a temporal aspect to causality, since things are very much dependent on the way they were in the previous moment. To deny that is unscientific in my view.
Your selective use of realism is noted but this passive agressive nonsense is geting tedious.
There is no science that can show an exception to causality & there is no coherent way one can argue philosophuically against ex nihlo nihlo fit. Thus there is no reason to believe ultimate causality requires time to work especially in light of the concept of simultaneous causality and the like.
"If you are not going to speak plainly I am not under any obligation to sit around trying to find out what you really mean"
I did go on to explain what I understood from reading Feser, even if my understanding may not be correct.
"you still don't understand the basic difference between a metaphysical or philosophical discription vs a scientific one."
To some degree, you may be correct about that. I don't see a clear dividing line between the two. perhaps you could help by spelling out where science ends and metaphysics/philosophy begins. In any case, if I hear a philosopher say something that is in contradiction to what is known empirically, then I must conclude that that bit of philosophical thinking is unscientific. I would certainly not say that of all philosophy.
"There is no science that can show an exception to causality ..."
Now you are being unclear. Let me just ask, do you think my statement of the way Feser defines causality is substantially correct?
>I did go on to explain what I understood from reading Feser, even if my understanding may not be correct.
????????????????????
No you accused ozero, grod and myself of "not understanding" what you are talking about & you stated Feser reinterpreted Aquinas.
Stop playing games I expect this crap from Paps.
You haven't done the reading & you are playing games. That's cc mojo.
So good day. Do your homework then come back.
One parting correction since I am so beneficent.
>if I hear a philosopher say something that is in contradiction to what is known empirically, then I must conclude that that bit of philosophical thinking is unscientific.
How does empiricism tell you non-temperal causes are a contradiction? Where you frozen in Time and experienced that causality stopped working?
What are you Dr. Who?
You are equivocating between what is not know to you vs what is logically possible vs what is impossible.
A so called hypothetical effect without a cause (aka Hume) is in the realm of experience no different then an effect from an unknown cause.
Logic and philosophy show from nothing nothing comes. An infinite series of causes per accident is possible but an infinite series of causes per se is not.
Our empirical senses tell us change is real & that any potency that is reduced to act must be done so by something else in act.
Thus we must conclude a first cause that is pure act which men take to be God.
It's not hard.
"How does empiricism tell you non-temperal causes are a contradiction?"
Empirical observation tells me that there is a temporal aspect to causation. At any given moment, the state of things is a direct function of the state in the previous moment. In fact it doesn't seem to make sense to speak of causation without considering the temporal aspect.
"Logic and philosophy show from nothing nothing comes. An infinite series of causes per accident is possible but an infinite series of causes per se is not."
I don't see how logic shows that there can be an infinite series of causes per accidens. Would you care to expand on that?
"Our empirical senses tell us change is real & that any potency that is reduced to act must be done so by something else in act."
I would agree with the first part, but I think it is intuition rather than observation that tells you that movement is caused by act. For my own part, when I look at things, I don't see them in terms of act and potency.
But please do tell me if you think I have correctly understood the way Feser described causation, as the sustainment of movement in any given instant of time by the the first mover.
>I don't see how logic shows that there can be an infinite series of causes per accidens. Would you care to expand on that?
It's in both the TLS and Aquinas.
Till you do the reading and stop faking it get lost.
"Till you do the reading and stop faking it get lost."
Why the hostility? I admit I haven't read everything there is to read, and I don't know everything there is to know. From what I have read, I see that Thomas agrees with Aristotle that there can be no infinite causal chains. If so, how can there be infinite causes per accidens? I'm just asking a simple question.
just before:
>Why the hostility?
Earlier:
>Only a starry-eyed believer in fantasy would make the claim that modern physicists don't understand how the world works as well as philosophers of medieval metaphysics.
>Modern Thomists have to re-interpret his writings to fit with our current understanding if they want to have any hope of making it seem relevant.
(BTW I asked several times you know this how? No answer.)
Enough of your passive aggressive nonsense.
Go read or go home.
Ok, Ben. Please take it easy. I made the comment about "a starry-eyed believer" because you give the impression that there is no way to know anything at all except by Thomist philosophy. That's simply not true.
Do modern Thomists reinterpret what he wrote? Of course they do, in light of knowledge that wasn't available in his day. Let me ask you, what is your conception of celestial spheres? Do you think it is the same as what he had in mind? I seriously doubt it.
Cale BT
"Ash’s criticism rests on his assertion that Aquinas’ form of the cosmological argument relied on mathematical arguments against actual infinities, which is incorrect."
No. You saw the word 'mathematicians' in his article and you assumed it was a mathematical argument. Unfortunately, in the interests of ensuring no more of your 'God Logic' pops up, here is the full transcript of that which you claim is the purported 'mathematical argument' used by Ash:
"Clearly, these arguments at first look very powerful. But, when closely examined, are they really successful? And do they 'prove God'?
Perhaps the most obvious criticism you can make is to ask just why Aquinas is so confident there cannot be infinite regress. To be sure, we find it very hard to comprehend the notion of actual infinity, and it is possible to come up with all sorts of paradoxes which make infinity look like an 'impossible number.' The Islamic 'Kalam' version of the cosmological argument - developed by Al-Kindi and Al-Ghazali before Aquinas was even alive - does just this. Ed Miller's modern version points out that you cannot add a new day onto what is already an actual infinity of days, and that the present would never have been reached if an infinite number of days had had to be completed before it. Similarly, William Craig claims that as any event would happen an infinite number of times in an infinite stretch of time, the tortoise would have won the race as many times as it was run but also as many times as the hare won (this is my example, not Craig's!) The implication is that infinity is somehow paradoxical.
The idea seems to be to show that you cannot 'fit' the concept of indivisible infinity into our universe of finite things, so it is not a valid concept inside our universe. But all the argument shows is that we have intuitive difficulties imagining infinity, which is, after all, to be expected of such an advanced concept. Mathematicians can cope quite well with an infinite sequence of integers; appealing to the incomprehensibility of infinity is what Richard Dawkins in The Selfish Gene calls an "argument to personal incredulity."
The word 'personal' exposes the key flaw in this line of reasoning - our limited human imaginations are a poor guide as to what properties the universe can have. It's just arrogant to say "I have difficulty imagining or explaining this thing, therefore no one ever could." But that is what the Kalam argument effectively does.
Besides, the universe as a whole is not an ordinary finite 'object', it is what finite objects constitute parts of; this means we have no reason to assume that the same principles apply. This can be said of both contingency of everyday material objects and their obeying ofthe laws of cause and effect. As Kant pointed out, we have only ever witnessed these properties within the universe. It would be going far beyond what we know to conclude that the universe itself has a cause or is contingent."
Yes, a 'liar for Jesus' is a justified conclusion for the deliberate misconstruction and conflation in this instance.
I could add the rest of your misrepresentations, and outstandingly bad attempt to deceive readers, in this combox but it is sufficient that the very first of your nonsense claims is highlighted. In your prosecution of this case I was reminded of the somewhat extraordinary lengths the religiose will go to snuff out, by foul means or foul, the light of reason. Denis Diderot, French philosopher, author and encyclopedist, remarked:
"I have only a small flickering light to guide me in the darkness of the thick forest. Up comes a theologian and blows it out."
To subscribe to the ancient thought patterns of Aquinean medievalism has about as much explanatory power as believing Douglas Adams's answer to the meaning of life and the universe is #42.
CONT.
CONT.
Wait! I am also reminded of some of the peachy comments that William Jennings Bryan, the prosecutor in the Scopes Monkey Trial, made. [In which science teacher John Scopes was, as Clarence Darrow his lawyer remarked, was on trial "for the crime of teaching the truth"]. He said things like:
"If the bible had said that Jonah swallowed a whale, I would believe it."
"If we have to give up either religion or education, we should give up education."
"All the ills from which America suffers can be traced to the teaching of evolution."
Cale BT: "If Aquinas says that an infinite regress of unmoved movers is impossible, then I believe it."
Cale BT: "If we have to give up either A-T philosophy or mathematics, we should give up mathematics."
Cale BT: "All the ills from which America [and Australia] can be traced back to the fall of Feserite scholasticism."
@im-skeptical
You are frekin killing me! Killing me I say! Killing me!
>you give the impression that there is no way to know anything at all except by Thomist philosophy. That's simply not true.
No, you cannot have mere natural knowledge of God & or know the existence of God without philosophy.
Nor can you have complete mere natural knowledge about the world without both science and philosophy.
>Do modern Thomists reinterpret what he wrote? Of course they do, in light of knowledge that wasn't available in his day.
Still with the scientism/Positivism! Oy Vey!
>Let me ask you, what is your conception of celestial spheres?
Democritus the Greek philosopher who was a materialist Atheist believed the world was flat(unlike the majority of his theistic buddies who knew it was round)!
Big f-ing deal! His faulty science had nothing to do with his metaphysics & philosophy which was materialism!!!!!
You still don't get that do you?
>Do you think it is the same as what he had in mind? I seriously doubt it.
Now I know how poor Richard Dawkins feels when he talks to YEC with a 5th grader's understanding of biology who say such brilliant things like "How can a monkey give birth to a man?".
Act & Potency are metaphysical concepts. ACCEPT IT!!! Just like Reductionist Materialism is a metaphysical/philosophical concept! ACCEPT IT!!!
Neither can be confirmed or denied by science. They can only be analyzed by philosophy.
ACCEPT IT!!!
Oh & go read.
Here are some biblical translations on Cale BT's opus:
"The above objection reveals Ash’s ignorance concerning the nature of the argument, ...."
= Ash is an atheist philosopher.
"Ash also betrays his ignorance in referring to God being in time as being “the Protestant view of God”."
= Ash is an atheist philosopher.
" ... then my advice is try to cite something that isn’t uninformed Internet Atheist trash."
= Ash is an atheist philosopher.
"You accused me thusly: “But more egregiously, see how easily woomeisters can promulgate a 'lie for Jesus' without even a blink of the eye and then proceed to the strawman argument.”"
= “But more egregiously, see how easily woomeisters can promulgate a 'lie for Jesus' without even a blink of the eye and then proceed to the strawman argument.” Correct.
"Having shown that your current attempt to cast me as a “liar for Jesus” is erroneous, let me now remind you of your own bizarre antics (to which BenYachov alluded) on the last occasion you made the same accusation: .."
= Boy! Did I tell him off.
'“Dr Feser and plagiarism. Not correct. Egg all over my face.”
= “Dr Feser and plagiarism. Not correct. Egg all over my face.” Yes, I agreed and apologized.
"Are you simply going to continue on and on like this, madly bellowing that myself and other people tell lies for Jesus ..."
= "Are you simply going to continue on and on like this, madly bellowing that myself and other people tell lies for Jesus ..."
Yes. Absolutely. One must contest vigorously all manner of imbecilic certitude of christian woo wherever it may raise it's unwarranted and undeserving noggin. Spirit channeling across an imaginary natural/supernatural event horizon through ritual and chant simply doesn't cut it anymore as a viable, reasoned and pragmatic communication strategy or outlook for the 21stC. It is fundamental to deal with things sensibly and realistically in a way that is based on practical and evidence-based deliberations rather than ethereal shamanic considerations.
Yeah, I get it. Act and potency are metaphysical concepts. I asked you where physics ends and metaphysics begins, because it's still not clear to me. Evidently Aristotle thought these things were in the realm of physics, since he discusses them in Physics. And it would make sense, because he's talking about how things work.
im-skeptical:
We agree about this. I believe the Aristoltle and Aquinas both believe that the principles inherent in physics gave rise to principles inherent in Being.
I suspect you agree with that idea, but you begin with different physics axioms.
What has happened in the past 400 years is that A-T metaphysics has isolated itself from its empirical roots.
This does not, of course, mean that the A-T metaphysics is not true. Just that it is no longer empirically verifiable by current physics.
Of course, empirical physics theories and their axioms will change in the next 400 years, too. There lies an important difference between empiricism and epistemology. The naive realist naturalist often ignores that difference.
@William & um-skeptical
The blind leading the blind.
>Evidently Aristotle thought these things were in the realm of physics, since he discusses them in Physics.
They are discussed in metaphysics, ethics too and threw out all his works. William's goofy claim they are only discussed in Physics is just plain wrong.
Even in modern times since when do physics books not make metaphysical statements? Materialism? Methodological Naturalism? Claiming Quantum events are "uncaused"?
Seriously?
>I asked you where physics ends and metaphysics begins,
How Carthusian of you.
http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2010/03/1174
http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2010/03/1184
Would it cause your head to explode to read the above links? Would it?
Then there is William...
>This does not, of course, mean that the A-T metaphysics is not true. Just that it is no longer empirically verifiable by current physics.
So current physics does not show that things change? Oh and moderate realism is invalidated by modern physics?
SERIOUSLY! You can NOT make that goofy claim with a straight face?
>Of course, empirical physics theories and their axioms will change in the next 400 years, too.
What does this have to do with the validity of teh concept of potency and act?
Change is Change. Aristotle and his contemporaries
who disagreed with his metaphysics (Parmedidies, Heraclides, Plato etc) all agreed with the anachronistic false folk physics of the day. Such as the belief an object in motion only moved as long as something actively moved it then it would return to it's natural state of stasis. Newton blew that up.
But Newtonian Inertial Motion still involves change of state and the act/potency distinction.
>There lies an important difference between empiricism and epistemology. The naive realist naturalist often ignores that difference.
Yet you equate the Act/Potency distinction exclusively with physics? Aristotle's false folk physics are only related to his metaphysics in so much as it was a species of change.
Science overthrew what was falsely believed to be the mechanism of how physical objects behaved...Newtonian Inertial motion vs Anachronistic Physics.
That is all.
Too many Modern Scientists no matter what their level of education really suck at philosophy.
I'm not impressed.
Ben:
" Aristotle's false folk physics are only related to his metaphysics in so much as it was a species of change. "
We disagree here. I think his metaphysics was enough of an extension of his physics that the Five Ways suffer from the false physics, but you don't agree.
I doubt we will come to an agreement, but I liked the discussing. Thank you both (im-skeptical included).
Ben
These sites:
http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2010/03/1174
http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2010/03/1184
are just more Feser fetishist propaganda, being as they were, written by him.
Somewhat a bit of philosophical tunnel visioning seems to be in play here.
@William
>We disagree here. I think his metaphysics was enough of an extension of his physics that the Five Ways suffer from the false physics, but you don't agree.
Rather I know you are 100% wrong & would still know so even if I stopped believing in God tomorrow or OTOH became a convinced Scotist instead of a Thomist.
You are entitled too your own opinions but not your own facts. The brute fact remains Aristotle's anachronistic view of natural physics are only related to his metaphysics in that they where examples of change. We understand the mechanisms better with advances in Science but the change remains & so does the common sense view of Aristotle regarding Act and Potency.
>I doubt we will come to an agreement, but I liked the discussing. Thank you both (im-skeptical included).
Well I have read the arguments & find them convincing. You have offered no rebuttal so I conclude there is none & im-skeptical refuses to do the reading & offer a proper challenge.
It's that simple.
Ben,
I'm disappointed. I'm trying to explore issues with Aquinas' First Way, and rather than discuss those things on their own merit, you keep ranting about how "philosophically illiterate scientists are by definition incompetent to make any meaningful judgment on Thomism". I ask a few questions on the topic, and you keep going on about how this is metaphysics, not physics, and link to some crap by Feser about the horror of scientism.
So what should I conclude from the things you say? That I have no business discussing these issues because I'm not a Thomist, and I shouldn't even try. And as much as I learn about the philosophy of Aristotle and Aquinas, it doesn't matter, because anyone who doesn't profess to be a Thomist is a philosophically illiterate scientismist.
Or perhaps it is the case that you just don't know how to address questions of this sort if you can't find something about it in Feser's posts.
@im-skeptical
>I'm disappointed. I'm trying to explore issues with Aquinas' First Way,
Bullshit! No you are not trying too explore the issues you are pulling with me the same passive/aggressive crap I've seen you pull recently with grodrigues.
You make these outrageous ignorant statements, you REFUSE to do any of the suggested background reading and you feign ignorance of any topic linked too that explain the issues.
It's getting old.
>I ask a few questions on the topic, and you keep going on about how this is metaphysics, not physics, and link to some crap by Feser about the horror of scientism.
So you are not doing any of the background reading and you expect me to bust my ass trying to explain the basic concepts to you that you don't want to learn in the first place? Feser's second essay gives the justification for philosophy in general to provide natural knowledge in addition to science. You would have known that if you bothered to read it rather then skim it see the world scientism & retreat to your tower of self-imposed ignorance.
>So what should I conclude from the things you say? That I have no business discussing these issues because I'm not a Thomist, and I shouldn't even try.
Common sense and basic reason tell us we should not talk about things we know nothing about least we risk looking like idiots. How is it such a level of common sense your average ten year old can grasp escapes you?
>And as much as I learn about the philosophy of Aristotle and Aquinas, it doesn't matter, because anyone who doesn't profess to be a Thomist is a philosophically illiterate scientismist.
Stop bullshiting im-skeptical you have learned nothing about Aristotle and Aquinas you have been faking it all this time. You didn't even read the two essays I linked too you skimmed it saw the word "scientism" and shut down.
>Or perhaps it is the case that you just don't know how to address questions of this sort if you can't find something about it in Feser's posts.
Rather I don't care to deal with trolls who willfully resist learning. I've seen your discussions with grod, he has a professional understanding of science and math and he has a good grasp of Philosophy. Thomism, Philosophy of science etc…
I've seen him bust his hump trying to explain basic concepts too you but you keep feigning ignorance. In the beginning you tried to come across as ernest and open minded but watching your performance I must conclude you are no better then Paps but not as openly flippent.
From now on till you change your ways I think you should be treated as just another Paps.
Ben,
I'm very sorry you feel that way.
I thought this was a place for discussion, not just a hangout for dittoheads. Was I wrong about that?
Well, this is interesting. After being called a troll, I reviewed all of Ben's contributions on this thread. What I see is that there was a good discussion going for a while, but Ben's part consisted of very little on-topic interaction and lots of accusations, insults, misstatements of what people believe, putting words in their mouths, and an almost maniacal obsession with the lack of philosophical perspective of anyone who doesn't share his views. So who's the troll here?
I have to say that I'm very uncomfortable with Ben's behaviour here. Doctor Logic and im sceptical have offered criticisms of A-T metaphysics and rather than simply point out how misguided these criticisms are Ben seems determined to indulge in insults and personal attacks as well. That's not very conducive to a productive discussion and makes you look bad. I say this as someone who isn't particularly opposed to the occasional polemic. There are certain situation where I think ridicule is appropriate (for example, where the other party also uses ridicule or is, say, massively incompetent, dogmatic and a liar). I happen to agree that the criticisms of A-T offered in this thread are misguided but there is a clear difference in tone between the critics (like DL and im sceptical) and some commentators here (particularly Ben). This kind of unpleasantness is hardly Christian and is reminiscent of the kind appalling invective one finds at Myers' place.
@hyperentity
What can I say? You are wrong IMHO.
>i have to say that I'm very uncomfortable with Ben's behaviour here. Doctor Logic and im sceptical have offered criticisms of A-T metaphysics
No they equated metaphysics with empirical science & I pointed out that is illegitimate. I even provided links that explained why and others here have as well like ozero & even grod has chimed in & pointed out DL's many errors which he never addressed but for some reason choose only to engage me.. Why me BTW? grod is the mathematician who has forgotten way more science then I have ever learned? Why go after a c-lister like moi?
Neither DL or Im-skeptical made a single argument against AT metaphysics outside of "this is not scientific. Or Aquinas' science was wrong". Well duh it's philosophy. DL contradicted himself & backpedalled like he has done before & I pointed it out. to him.
> and rather than simply point out how misguided these criticisms are Ben seems determined to indulge in insults and personal attacks as well.
That is evidence you have not read the thread very carefully. As explained above I did point out what was wrong as did others & after being given the run around I lost my patience because at this point I think and feel neither DL or IM have argued in good faith.
>That's not very conducive to a productive discussion and makes you look bad.
I say this as someone who isn't particularly opposed to the occasional polemic. There are certain situation where I think ridicule is appropriate (for example, where the other party also uses ridicule or is, say, massively incompetent, dogmatic and a liar).
Then forgive me but in my prudent judgement that is what is going on here. It's as plain as a Bulgarian pinup.
> I happen to agree that the criticisms of A-T offered in this thread are misguided but there is a clear difference in tone between the critics (like DL and im sceptical) and some commentators here (particularly Ben).
Rather this nonsense is just a mindless repeat of arguments these two have made in the past & have never gotten beyond. I distinctly recall bagging on cc for his closed minded approach but praised I'm-skeptical for his open mindedness even if he didn't agree. In the past I recall IM saying he would read Feser and other Thomists. He has even said here he would read REAL ESSENTIALISM by Oderberg soon. Well do his criticisms look like something someone who has read either AQUINAS or TLS would make? It's like claiming you will read Scott Hahn then criticizing Scott Hahn's theology for not being based on the Bible Alone but ignoring his whole polemic against Sola Scruptura.
In a like manner they should either make a scientific or philosophical case for Postivism or give it a rest with the "Thomism isn't scientific crap". It's getting old.
>This kind of unpleasantness is hardly Christian and is reminiscent of the kind appalling invective one finds at Myers' place.
I have no problem with even Myers ripping up YEC's who attack Evolution with same tired old arguments he as answered for the umpteenth time(i.e. Second Law of Thermodynamics refuses evolution…plueez).
But what can I say even you have admitted there is a time for polemics when facing those who don't wish to learn or are dogmatic. In my prudent judgement this is one of those times.
The big trouble with Oderberg and Feser as philosophers, is they pretty much only inhabit the periphery, the marginal edge of the philosophical sphere in respect of influence and informed counsel in public policy and governance circles. They are marginal players at best acting as, if you will, some sort of lensing effect in the appearance of a single christian voice. But as we all know this is simply an illusion, when one is mindful of the 41,000 various sects of Christianity, most of which claim their particular brand as the 'one true belief'. [See HERE. See also HERE]
In part the second reference refers:
"Note:
This is not a complete list, but aims to provide a comprehensible overview of the diversity among denominations of Christianity. As there are reported to be approximately 41,000 Christian denominations,[2] many of which cannot be verified to be significant, only those denominations with Wikipedia articles will be listed in order to ensure that all entries on this list are notable and verifiable.
Between denominations, theologians, and comparative religionists there are considerable disagreements about which groups can be properly called Christian, disagreements arising primarily from doctrinal differences between groups. For the purpose of simplicity, this list is intended to reflect the self-understanding of each denomination. Explanations of different opinions concerning their status as Christian denominations can be found at their respective articles.
There is no official recognition in most parts of the world for religious bodies, and there is no official clearinghouse which could determine the status or respectability of religious bodies. Often there is considerable disagreement between various churches about whether other churches should be labeled with pejorative terms such as "cult", or about whether this or that group enjoys some measure of respectability. Such considerations often vary from place to place, where one religious group may enjoy majority status in one region, but be widely regarded as a "dangerous cult" in another part of the world. Inclusion on this list does not indicate any judgment about the size, importance, or character of a group or its members." [My bolding]
Therein lies the problematic mash of religion as a universal base of knowledge and understanding. It isn't. One religionists god that created the universe is another's dreamtime giant water snake that created the universe. It is as simple as that. The 'God and the Big Bang' imputation is just that, as it has ever been, a placemarker while the more informed and evidence-based explanation continues to build and becomes generally accepted as the norm. The process is largely following the same trajectory that evolution science took. One hundred and fifty years after it first splashed into the public square, the religiose are finally accepting the overwhelming evidence of evolution and are now scrambling to accommodate its reality within scripture. Check out BioLogos. Check out Francis Collins et al. There is little doubt that the origins of the universe will be explained through the understanding of natural causation.
CONT.
CONT.
Feser and Oderberg will drift into history known for their belief in communicating with 'live' entities conversing across the imagined natural/supernatural divide. Professor David Eller expresses that relationship astutely:
"As we have seen, religion is essentially social, in both senses of the word. It is an activity that humans do together; it is created, maintained and perpetuated by human group behaviour. It is also social in the sense it extends that sociality beyond the human world, to a [putative] realm of non-human agents who also interact with us socially." (p.218)
Sorry folks. Leave your god at the door if you wish to engage in the 'realpolitik' of productive philosophy. It must be philosophy, not sophistry.
Paps arguments & those of his fellow Gnus can be summed up this one sentence "Sorry folks. Leave your god at the door if you wish to engage in the 'realpolitik' of productive philosophy. It must be philosophy, not sophistry."
For him philosophy is just politics by another name & you must without rational argument presuppose atheism and Positivism or it's sophistry.
Oh because Paps like cc, DL, and or IM is too lazy to actually learn some philosophy he wants to change the subject to what?...some crap involving denominations?
Really people would it kill ya to learn actual philosophy and make real philosophical arguments against the existence of God(in the Classic Sense)? Even if you acquired no belief in God you could at least be more intellectually respectable Atheists?
But I guess it's safe and comfortable to be able to only argue with YEC's and Fundamentalist and not get ideas above one's station in life.
Typical.
Ash and infinity:
Papalinton wrote: “You saw the word 'mathematicians' in his article and you assumed it was a mathematical argument.”
Ash wrote: “Perhaps the most obvious criticism you can make is to ask just why Aquinas is so confident there cannot be infinite regress. To be sure, we find it very hard to comprehend the notion of actual infinity, and it is possible to come up with all sorts of paradoxes which make infinity look like an 'impossible number. ”
If that’s not a reference to the mathematical concept of actual infinity, then what is?
Regarding my attitude being like that of William Jennings Bryan:
Cale BT: "If Aquinas says that an infinite regress of unmoved movers is impossible, then I believe it."
Not at all.
Cale BT: "If we have to give up either A-T philosophy or mathematics, we should give up mathematics."
It’s ironic that you make this comment, because I’m not convinced of the truth of Aristotelian philosophy.
Cale BT: "All the ills from which America [and Australia] can be traced back to the fall of Feserite scholasticism."
I don’t hold to the view of American or Australian history which you ascribe to me. I recommended Feser to you because I think he shows just how shallow and misinformed Dawkins, Dennett, Harris, and Hitchens’ views concerning natural theology are.
“Here are some biblical translations on Cale BT's opus:
"The above objection reveals Ash’s ignorance concerning the nature of the argument, ...."
= Ash is an atheist philosopher.
My objection is not that Ash professes atheism; I gave a reason as to why Ash’s essay displays ignorance.
"Ash also betrays his ignorance in referring to God being in time as being “the Protestant view of God”."
= Ash is an atheist philosopher.
Again, my objection here is not that Ash professes atheism; I gave examples of several Protestant thinkers who have advocated divine timelessness (E.L. Mascall, Paul Helm, Norman Geisler and John Calvin) Do you dispute that they did hold this view?
" ... then my advice is try to cite something that isn’t uninformed Internet Atheist trash."
= Ash is an atheist philosopher.
It’s not that the essay is by an atheist; it’s that it fits into the genre of “uninformed atheist material posted on the Internet”. I gave several reasons why I think this to be the case.
Post a Comment