(1) It is a conceptual truth (or, so to speak, true by definition) that God is a being than which none greater can be imagined (that is, the greatest possible being that can be imagined). (2) God exists as an idea in the mind. (3) A being that exists as an idea in the mind and in reality is, other things being equal, greater than a being that exists only as an idea in the mind. (4) Thus, if God exists only as an idea in the mind, then we can imagine something that is greater than God (that is, a greatest possible being that does exist). (5) But we cannot imagine something that is greater than God (for it is a contradiction to suppose that we can imagine a being greater than the greatest possible being that can be imagined.) (6) Therefore, God exists. (5*) Therefore, if that-than-which-a-greater-cannot-be-thought is solely in the understanding, then that thing itself than which a greater cannot be thought is [something] than which a greater can be thought. From that contradictory consequent he infers – not (6) – but: (6*) Therefore, there exists, beyond doubt, something-than-which-a-greater-cannotbe-thought, both in the understanding and in reality. (7) It is necessary that something-than-which-a-greater-cannot-be-thought exists. It is demonstrable that (7) entails what Anselm writes next: (8) For it can be thought to be something which could not be thought not to exist. (9) Something-than-which-a-greater-cannot-be-thought could not be thought not to exist. (10) Something-than-which-a-greater-cannot-be-thought so truly exists that it could not be thought not to exist. (11) To think of You as the Creator of all other things is to think of something than which nothing better could be thought:5 (12) It can be thought that You are the Creator of all other things. Turning now to [R2], all his premise needs to assert is: (13) Whatever is other than You can be thought not to exist. Now, it is demonstrable that (13) is entailed by: (14) You are the Creator of all other things. (15) Something-than-which-a-greater-cannot-be-thought is other than You. It follows from (13) and (15) that: (16) If whatever is other than You can be thought not to exist, something-than-which-agreater-cannot-be-thought can be thought not to exist. (17) It is necessary that something-than-which-a-greater-cannot-be-thought is none other than You. (18) It is necessary that You alone so truly exist that You could not be thought not to exist.
So, I tried to cut out the diversionary chatter, still doubt the above listing is the argument. If somebody can figure out what Campbell is claiming the argument is, fine.
It doesn't much matter, because ontological arguments for the existence of god conflate a logical possibility for an ontological possibility.
A logical possibility is any described state of affairs that does not violate an axiom of logic.
An ontological possibility in the present tense is any state of affairs that is factually the case in the real cosmos at this time.
Let X be "intelligent space aliens live in the Andromeda galaxy"
X is a logical possibility. ~X is a logical possibility.
X and ~X is logically impossible.
Only X or ~X are ontologically possible.
Therefore, a logical possibility does not entail its ontological possibility.
In plain English, wishing does not make it so. Just because you can dream it up does not mean it has to be real, even if your dream is logically possible. I mean, duh, are you a grown adult or what? Do you really need somebody to point that obvious fact out to you?
An ontological argument for god is just wishful thinking dressed up with a lot of convoluted faux sophisticated terminology.
Campbell's paper aside, the traditional way of interpreting Anselm's ontological argument has nothing to do with "conflating logical and ontological possibilities." The argument is simply that the atheist's position that "God is only in your head" contains a contradiction when the terms are understood.
The term "God" reduces to: "a being of which none greater can be conceived"
And the term "only imaginary" (or "only in the understanding") reduces to: "a thing of which something greater can be conceived," because a thing that exists both in the imagination/understanding and in reality is greater than something that exists only in the imagination/understanding, since the first one has everything the second one has + more.
So the phrase "God is only in your head" reduces to "A being of which none greater can be conceived is a being of which something greater can be conceived." Which is a contradiction. So the phrase is false.
It's like thinking "The célibataire is married" is a perfectly sensible phrase until you realize that "célibataire" means "bachelor" and that "bachelor" means "ummarried."
Martin, ""God is only in your head" contains a contradiction when the terms are understood." Only in your incomplete understanding that continues to conflate a logical possibility for an ontological possibility.
There is no god in your head being asserted by the phrase "god is only in your head".
If that seems self contradictory then you are the one who does not understand the terms.
"God is only in your head" means more fully that no real god exists at all, in your head or anyplace else in any sense, all that is real is your brain processes, that is, your imagination of a god.
"because a thing that exists both in the imagination/understanding and in reality is greater than something that exists only in the imagination/understanding, since the first one has everything the second one has + more." Just because you imagine it does not mean it must make sense or that it must exist. People have irrational dreams and fantasies about all sorts of things that do not exist.
"a thing that exists both in the imagination/understanding and in reality is greater than something that exists only in the imagination/understanding," That does not mean that merely because you imagine a thing really existing that it does really exist.
All ontological arguments for the existence of god on offer fail for the reasons I have provided, as well as others. Your simplistic strawman interpretation of a hypothetical atheistic assertion notwithstanding.
But, by all means, can you figure out what the OP is even trying to say? I mean exactly, not in general. Can you extract from the linked paper a detailed ontological argument properly attributable to Anselm? I found Campbell's writing hopelessly disjointed, but perhaps you can decipher it.
>There is no god in your head being asserted by the phrase "god is only in your head".
Of course there isn't, and no such thing is being asserted or implied by Anselm.
>all that is real is your brain processes, that is, your imagination of a god.
Yes, that's exactly Anselm's point.
>Just because you imagine it does not mean it must make sense or that it must exist.
Correct, and no such thing is being asserted or implied by Anselm.
>That does not mean that merely because you imagine a thing really existing that it does really exist.
Sure doesn't, and in no way does Anselm make or imply such a ridiculous premise.
Your hatred of fundamentalist Christianity has completely robbed you of your ability to rationally engage on this topic in any sense, leading you to generate arguments that only exist in your fevered imagination, and were never made by anyone.
>But, by all means, can you figure out what the OP is even trying to say?
Martin, "As for Campbell's article, I haven't read it yet." Good luck with that. Just close the pop ups and solicitations to sign in or sign up, then you will get to the article.
He starts with (1) through (6) above. Note (2) "(2) God exists as an idea in the mind" No, god does not exist as an idea in the mind. Ideas in the mind are not god in any sense.
But, Campbell asserts that (1) through (6) are a mischaracterization of Anselm, so I suppose Campbell is asserting that (7) through (18) is the real argument? I guess one would subtract 6 from each of these index numbers to begin at 1.
(7) It is necessary that something-than-which-a-greater-cannot-be-thought exists. (8) For it can be thought to be something which could not be thought not to exist. (9) Something-than-which-a-greater-cannot-be-thought could not be thought not to exist. (10) Something-than-which-a-greater-cannot-be-thought so truly exists that it could not be thought not to exist. (11) To think of You as the Creator of all other things is to think of something than which nothing better could be thought. (12) It can be thought that You are the Creator of all other things. (13) Whatever is other than You can be thought not to exist. (14) You are the Creator of all other things. (15) Something-than-which-a-greater-cannot-be-thought is other than You. (16) If whatever is other than You can be thought not to exist, something-than-which-agreater-cannot-be-thought can be thought not to exist. (17) It is necessary that something-than-which-a-greater-cannot-be-thought is none other than You. (18) It is necessary that You alone so truly exist that You could not be thought not to exist.
Right away, Campbell's Anselm conflates a logical possibility with an ontological possibility. (7) It is necessary that something-than-which-a-greater-cannot-be-thought exists. (8) For it can be thought to be something which could not be thought not to exist. I can imagine X as the greatest logically possible being. I can imagine Xr as this greatest logically possible being as I think it really exists.
That does not entail that Xr really does exist! Isn't that immediately obvious?
Yes, I can imagine that an Xr is greater than an X, so what? I am still just imagining things. I have bad news for Campbell and Anselm, the universe does not make real what I or they imagine to be real.
So, the argument fails immediately, since Campbell and Anselm are hopelessly confused between their imaginations and extramental reality.
"(18) It is necessary that You alone so truly exist that You could not be thought not to exist." Sounds like a little kid wishing super hard for a Christmas present. Bad news Anselm, I can think of god as not existing.
I can imagine a god so great that the god exists. I can then imagine that same god as merely a figment of my imagination, that I only imagined the god as so great as to really exist but that turned out to just be me imagining about imagining.
Anselm proved god does not exist, but he lacked the insight to realize his own discovery, like a miner who does not recognize a diamond in the rough he holds in his hand.
1) God can be thought to be something which could not be thought not to exist. 2) Something-than-which-a-greater-cannot-be-thought could not be thought not to exist. 3) The greatest possible being could not be thought to not exist in the real world, for not being able to be thought to not exist in the real world is greater than not being able to be thought to not exist in the imagination. 4) Therefore, if the greatest being exists in the real world it is a being that cannot be thought to not exist in the real world. 5) I can think that all gods do not exist in the real world. 6) Because I can think that all gods do not exist in the real world, therefore a god that cannot be thought to not exist in the real world does not exist. 7) Therefore, god does not exist.
Many thanks for the clarification of Anselm by Campbell that proves incontrovertibly that god does not exist.
Oh, and speaking of a diamond in the rough not recognized by the miner, and proving god does not exist, here is one for all the Aristotelians in the house.
Aristotle disproved the first mover argument, that is, the necessity of a first mover as an explanation for observed motion in the present moment, AKA the First Way of Aquinas
Aristotle had Newtonian inertial motion in the palm of his hand, as it were. He described it in book 4 of his Physics. But like Anselm later, he failed to realize the great gem he had discovered, and instead turned his attention to worthless nuggets of nonsense.
Aristotle realized that lacking an impeding medium motion continues ad infinitum.
Aristotle did not realize that space is for motion the functional equivalent of the void, a medium that provides zero impeding action on a moving object.
Thus, there is no call for any movers at all, much less an infinite regress of movers, to account for observed motion. That makes the First Way a failed argument.
The First Way fails, among other reasons, because it argues for NECESSITY of a first mover to account for observed motion in the present moment. Aristotle proved that no mover at all is NECESSARY to account for observed motion, because motion proceeds ad infinitum in a medium that does not impede motion.
All motion is in space. You are in space. Therefore no mover at all, much less a regress to a first mover, is NECESSARY.
So there you have it folks
Anselm proved god does not exist because I can think that all gods do not exist, whereas god would have to be the greatest conceivable being, and the greatest conceivable being would be so great that it would be impossible to even think for a moment that it did not exist.
Aristotle proved the First Way is a failed argument because in book 4 of his Physics he proved motion continues ad infinitum lacking an impeding medium, and space is just such a medium, and all motion is in space.
CLARENDON ARISTOTLE SERIES General Editors J. L. ACKRILL and LINDSAY JUDSON
IV. 8 TRANSLATION 214 b
(4) Again, no one could say why some¬ thing moved will come to rest somewhere; why should it do so here rather than there? Hence it will either remain at rest or must move 20 on to infinity unless something stronger hinders it.
214 b PHYSICS IV.8
(4) ( a 19—22). The second objection to persistence of motion in a given direction. Aristotle points out, rightly, that the only reason¬ able version of this theory is that in a void a particle will travel to infinity, in accordance with Newton’s First Law, unless interfered with. For Aristotle this is a reductio ad absurdum, since he holds linear motion ad infinitum to be impossible on other grounds: Physics VI.10, 241^9—12 claims that every motion must be com¬ putable. Once again Aristotle’s finitism blights the development of physics.
SteveK, Indeed, I mean, look at how smart people like Aristotle, Anselm, and Aquinas were. Yet, they thought they could reason their way to an invisible being, somehow out there, just by looking at things moving, or in Anselm's case, just by imagining things.
Ironic, that Aristotle had Newtonian inertial motion in his conceptual grasp, and with it the disproof of the necessity of a first mover, yet, despite his brilliance, Aristotle failed to make use of his key insight of an object moving ad infinitum.
Anselm too, for however exceptional it was for a person of his era to write so much, yet he failed to grasp that the form of argument he employed actually proves that god does not exist.
Well, those were ancient men, I doubt I would have done any better. I can see far only because I have stood on the shoulders of giants.
Yet, we have, in this very day, very smart people like Craig, Pruss, Feser, and Reppert, still repeating those same old mistakes of those ancient men. That is the perplexing part. Why do these modern men refuse to climb onto the shoulders of giants? They could see far, far past the mistakes of the ancients, yet these modern men choose to remain at the feet of the giants, staring at the ground, refusing to put their mental capacities to expansive use, only repeating those same ancient errors again and again and again.
The Aristotelian "first mover" arguments do not use local motion as part of their premises. You would know this if you had bothered to study them, but you have not.
Your hatred of fundamentalist Christianity makes it impossible for you to rationally engage on this topic. Find a new hobby.
If Stardusty had an honest and fair criticism then I'd be happy to discuss it with him. The website linked below thinks the 1st Way has problems. See "Assessment of the First Way" section. I'd be happy to engage with that person. Dusty is not that kind of person.
Stardusty gave up a long time ago trying to come up with actual objections.
I think he realized that since he can't understand physics or philosophical argumentation his best bet is to just spend his time telling people they're wrong. They're wrong because they agree with someone in the past he considers coming to conclusions that are distasteful to him. Those in the past who have positions that are agreeable to him, are therefore right, no matter how crazy those particular positions or positions entailing those positions. The same with those at present who have positions that are agreeable to him no matter how crazy. Thus he tells us we are all hallucinating and if you believe differently you are hallucinating.
How do you actually engage with someone who says his beliefs, when properly understood, have no flaws, none whatsoever, and that disagreement with his beliefs is the first sign that you have reasoned poorly somewhere? Who just makes up definitions on the fly? It's like an over-the-top Simpsons caricature of a New Atheist combined with a Chuck Norris meme "If Chuck Norris uses a word at odds with the dictionary then the dictionary is wrong".
Shame that the most prolific poster has nothing to offer but comedy. I no longer read his posts, but the responses to them are equally entertaining.
"How do you actually engage with someone who says his beliefs, when properly understood, have no flaws," Dunno, I did not say that, your words, not mine.
But, that goes to my ongoing point. If you are not willing to be very careful in defining your terms you will not be able to understand, well, much of anything.
"Who just makes up definitions on the fly?" For you it might seem "on the fly". I suppose relative to common language usage that is how defining terms seems to you.
"If Chuck Norris uses a word at odds with the dictionary then the dictionary is wrong". There is no god of English. Chuck Norris can use words any way he wants, as we all can.
"I no longer read his posts" That would explain why you don't understand the terms or the arguments.
16 comments:
Does the link answer the question?
All I could make out was a convoluted listing of quotes, denials, commentary, and cross references.
What exactly is the argument of Anselm, according to Campbell?
(1) It is a conceptual truth (or, so to speak, true by definition) that God is a being
than which none greater can be imagined (that is, the greatest possible being that
can be imagined).
(2) God exists as an idea in the mind.
(3) A being that exists as an idea in the mind and in reality is, other things being
equal, greater than a being that exists only as an idea in the mind.
(4) Thus, if God exists only as an idea in the mind, then we can imagine something
that is greater than God (that is, a greatest possible being that does exist).
(5) But we cannot imagine something that is greater than God (for it is a contradiction to suppose that we can imagine a being greater than the greatest possible
being that can be imagined.)
(6) Therefore, God exists.
(5*) Therefore, if that-than-which-a-greater-cannot-be-thought is solely in the
understanding, then that thing itself than which a greater cannot be thought is
[something] than which a greater can be thought.
From that contradictory consequent he infers – not (6) – but:
(6*) Therefore, there exists, beyond doubt, something-than-which-a-greater-cannotbe-thought, both in the understanding and in reality.
(7) It is necessary that something-than-which-a-greater-cannot-be-thought exists.
It is demonstrable that (7) entails what Anselm writes next:
(8) For it can be thought to be something which could not be thought not to exist.
(9) Something-than-which-a-greater-cannot-be-thought could not be thought not
to exist.
(10) Something-than-which-a-greater-cannot-be-thought so truly exists that it could
not be thought not to exist.
(11) To think of You as the Creator of all other things is to think of something
than which nothing better could be thought:5
(12) It can be thought that You are the Creator of all other things.
Turning now to [R2], all his premise needs to assert is:
(13) Whatever is other than You can be thought not to exist.
Now, it is demonstrable that (13) is entailed by:
(14) You are the Creator of all other things.
(15) Something-than-which-a-greater-cannot-be-thought is other than You.
It follows from (13) and (15) that:
(16) If whatever is other than You can be thought not to exist, something-than-which-agreater-cannot-be-thought can be thought not to exist.
(17) It is necessary that something-than-which-a-greater-cannot-be-thought is
none other than You.
(18) It is necessary that You alone so truly exist that You could not be thought
not to exist.
So, I tried to cut out the diversionary chatter, still doubt the above listing is the argument. If somebody can figure out what Campbell is claiming the argument is, fine.
It doesn't much matter, because ontological arguments for the existence of god conflate a logical possibility for an ontological possibility.
A logical possibility is any described state of affairs that does not violate an axiom of logic.
An ontological possibility in the present tense is any state of affairs that is factually the case in the real cosmos at this time.
Let X be "intelligent space aliens live in the Andromeda galaxy"
X is a logical possibility.
~X is a logical possibility.
X and ~X is logically impossible.
Only X or ~X are ontologically possible.
Therefore, a logical possibility does not entail its ontological possibility.
In plain English, wishing does not make it so. Just because you can dream it up does not mean it has to be real, even if your dream is logically possible. I mean, duh, are you a grown adult or what? Do you really need somebody to point that obvious fact out to you?
An ontological argument for god is just wishful thinking dressed up with a lot of convoluted faux sophisticated terminology.
StarDustyPsyche,
Campbell's paper aside, the traditional way of interpreting Anselm's ontological argument has nothing to do with "conflating logical and ontological possibilities." The argument is simply that the atheist's position that "God is only in your head" contains a contradiction when the terms are understood.
The term "God" reduces to: "a being of which none greater can be conceived"
And the term "only imaginary" (or "only in the understanding") reduces to: "a thing of which something greater can be conceived," because a thing that exists both in the imagination/understanding and in reality is greater than something that exists only in the imagination/understanding, since the first one has everything the second one has + more.
So the phrase "God is only in your head" reduces to "A being of which none greater can be conceived is a being of which something greater can be conceived." Which is a contradiction. So the phrase is false.
It's like thinking "The célibataire is married" is a perfectly sensible phrase until you realize that "célibataire" means "bachelor" and that "bachelor" means "ummarried."
Martin,
""God is only in your head" contains a contradiction when the terms are understood."
Only in your incomplete understanding that continues to conflate a logical possibility for an ontological possibility.
There is no god in your head being asserted by the phrase "god is only in your head".
If that seems self contradictory then you are the one who does not understand the terms.
"God is only in your head" means more fully that no real god exists at all, in your head or anyplace else in any sense, all that is real is your brain processes, that is, your imagination of a god.
"because a thing that exists both in the imagination/understanding and in reality is greater than something that exists only in the imagination/understanding, since the first one has everything the second one has + more."
Just because you imagine it does not mean it must make sense or that it must exist. People have irrational dreams and fantasies about all sorts of things that do not exist.
"a thing that exists both in the imagination/understanding and in reality is greater than something that exists only in the imagination/understanding,"
That does not mean that merely because you imagine a thing really existing that it does really exist.
All ontological arguments for the existence of god on offer fail for the reasons I have provided, as well as others. Your simplistic strawman interpretation of a hypothetical atheistic assertion notwithstanding.
But, by all means, can you figure out what the OP is even trying to say? I mean exactly, not in general. Can you extract from the linked paper a detailed ontological argument properly attributable to Anselm? I found Campbell's writing hopelessly disjointed, but perhaps you can decipher it.
StarDustyPsyche,
>There is no god in your head being asserted by the phrase "god is only in your head".
Of course there isn't, and no such thing is being asserted or implied by Anselm.
>all that is real is your brain processes, that is, your imagination of a god.
Yes, that's exactly Anselm's point.
>Just because you imagine it does not mean it must make sense or that it must exist.
Correct, and no such thing is being asserted or implied by Anselm.
>That does not mean that merely because you imagine a thing really existing that it does really exist.
Sure doesn't, and in no way does Anselm make or imply such a ridiculous premise.
Your hatred of fundamentalist Christianity has completely robbed you of your ability to rationally engage on this topic in any sense, leading you to generate arguments that only exist in your fevered imagination, and were never made by anyone.
>But, by all means, can you figure out what the OP is even trying to say?
As for Campbell's article, I haven't read it yet.
Martin,
"As for Campbell's article, I haven't read it yet."
Good luck with that. Just close the pop ups and solicitations to sign in or sign up, then you will get to the article.
He starts with (1) through (6) above. Note (2)
"(2) God exists as an idea in the mind"
No, god does not exist as an idea in the mind. Ideas in the mind are not god in any sense.
But, Campbell asserts that (1) through (6) are a mischaracterization of Anselm, so I suppose Campbell is asserting that (7) through (18) is the real argument? I guess one would subtract 6 from each of these index numbers to begin at 1.
(7) It is necessary that something-than-which-a-greater-cannot-be-thought exists.
(8) For it can be thought to be something which could not be thought not to exist.
(9) Something-than-which-a-greater-cannot-be-thought could not be thought not
to exist.
(10) Something-than-which-a-greater-cannot-be-thought so truly exists that it could
not be thought not to exist.
(11) To think of You as the Creator of all other things is to think of something
than which nothing better could be thought.
(12) It can be thought that You are the Creator of all other things.
(13) Whatever is other than You can be thought not to exist.
(14) You are the Creator of all other things.
(15) Something-than-which-a-greater-cannot-be-thought is other than You.
(16) If whatever is other than You can be thought not to exist, something-than-which-agreater-cannot-be-thought can be thought not to exist.
(17) It is necessary that something-than-which-a-greater-cannot-be-thought is
none other than You.
(18) It is necessary that You alone so truly exist that You could not be thought
not to exist.
Right away, Campbell's Anselm conflates a logical possibility with an ontological possibility.
(7) It is necessary that something-than-which-a-greater-cannot-be-thought exists.
(8) For it can be thought to be something which could not be thought not to exist.
I can imagine X as the greatest logically possible being.
I can imagine Xr as this greatest logically possible being as I think it really exists.
That does not entail that Xr really does exist! Isn't that immediately obvious?
Yes, I can imagine that an Xr is greater than an X, so what? I am still just imagining things. I have bad news for Campbell and Anselm, the universe does not make real what I or they imagine to be real.
So, the argument fails immediately, since Campbell and Anselm are hopelessly confused between their imaginations and extramental reality.
"(18) It is necessary that You alone so truly exist that You could not be thought
not to exist."
Sounds like a little kid wishing super hard for a Christmas present.
Bad news Anselm, I can think of god as not existing.
I can imagine a god so great that the god exists.
I can then imagine that same god as merely a figment of my imagination, that I only imagined the god as so great as to really exist but that turned out to just be me imagining about imagining.
Which fantasy of mine is the correct one?
God does not exist and I can prove it.
Anselm proved god does not exist, but he lacked the insight to realize his own discovery, like a miner who does not recognize a diamond in the rough he holds in his hand.
1) God can be thought to be something which could not be thought not to exist.
2) Something-than-which-a-greater-cannot-be-thought could not be thought not
to exist.
3) The greatest possible being could not be thought to not exist in the real world, for not being able to be thought to not exist in the real world is greater than not being able to be thought to not exist in the imagination.
4) Therefore, if the greatest being exists in the real world it is a being that cannot be thought to not exist in the real world.
5) I can think that all gods do not exist in the real world.
6) Because I can think that all gods do not exist in the real world, therefore a god that cannot be thought to not exist in the real world does not exist.
7) Therefore, god does not exist.
Many thanks for the clarification of Anselm by Campbell that proves incontrovertibly that god does not exist.
Oh, and speaking of a diamond in the rough not recognized by the miner, and proving god does not exist, here is one for all the Aristotelians in the house.
Aristotle disproved the first mover argument, that is, the necessity of a first mover as an explanation for observed motion in the present moment, AKA the First Way of Aquinas
Aristotle had Newtonian inertial motion in the palm of his hand, as it were. He described it in book 4 of his Physics. But like Anselm later, he failed to realize the great gem he had discovered, and instead turned his attention to worthless nuggets of nonsense.
Aristotle realized that lacking an impeding medium motion continues ad infinitum.
Aristotle did not realize that space is for motion the functional equivalent of the void, a medium that provides zero impeding action on a moving object.
Thus, there is no call for any movers at all, much less an infinite regress of movers, to account for observed motion. That makes the First Way a failed argument.
The First Way fails, among other reasons, because it argues for NECESSITY of a first mover to account for observed motion in the present moment. Aristotle proved that no mover at all is NECESSARY to account for observed motion, because motion proceeds ad infinitum in a medium that does not impede motion.
All motion is in space. You are in space. Therefore no mover at all, much less a regress to a first mover, is NECESSARY.
So there you have it folks
Anselm proved god does not exist because I can think that all gods do not exist, whereas god would have to be the greatest conceivable being, and the greatest conceivable being would be so great that it would be impossible to even think for a moment that it did not exist.
Aristotle proved the First Way is a failed argument because in book 4 of his Physics he proved motion continues ad infinitum lacking an impeding medium, and space is just such a medium, and all motion is in space.
https://spestory.files.wordpress.com/2013/03/hussey-edward-aristotles-physics-books-iii-and-iv.pdf
https://archive.org/stream/aristotle-physics-book-III-and-IV-clarendon/aristotle-physics-book-III-and-IV-clarendon_djvu.txt
CLARENDON ARISTOTLE SERIES
General Editors
J. L. ACKRILL and LINDSAY JUDSON
IV. 8 TRANSLATION 214 b
(4) Again, no one could say why some¬
thing moved will come to rest somewhere; why should it do so here
rather than there? Hence it will either remain at rest or must move 20
on to infinity unless something stronger hinders it.
214 b PHYSICS IV.8
(4) ( a 19—22). The second objection to persistence of motion in
a given direction. Aristotle points out, rightly, that the only reason¬
able version of this theory is that in a void a particle will travel to
infinity, in accordance with Newton’s First Law, unless interfered
with. For Aristotle this is a reductio ad absurdum, since he holds
linear motion ad infinitum to be impossible on other grounds:
Physics VI.10, 241^9—12 claims that every motion must be com¬
putable. Once again Aristotle’s finitism blights the development of
physics.
The ignorance of some 'smart' people is amazing, but not to be outdone by their hubris
SteveK,
Indeed, I mean, look at how smart people like Aristotle, Anselm, and Aquinas were. Yet, they thought they could reason their way to an invisible being, somehow out there, just by looking at things moving, or in Anselm's case, just by imagining things.
Ironic, that Aristotle had Newtonian inertial motion in his conceptual grasp, and with it the disproof of the necessity of a first mover, yet, despite his brilliance, Aristotle failed to make use of his key insight of an object moving ad infinitum.
Anselm too, for however exceptional it was for a person of his era to write so much, yet he failed to grasp that the form of argument he employed actually proves that god does not exist.
Well, those were ancient men, I doubt I would have done any better. I can see far only because I have stood on the shoulders of giants.
Yet, we have, in this very day, very smart people like Craig, Pruss, Feser, and Reppert, still repeating those same old mistakes of those ancient men. That is the perplexing part. Why do these modern men refuse to climb onto the shoulders of giants? They could see far, far past the mistakes of the ancients, yet these modern men choose to remain at the feet of the giants, staring at the ground, refusing to put their mental capacities to expansive use, only repeating those same ancient errors again and again and again.
Why do you suppose that is, SteveK?
StarDustyPsyche,
The Aristotelian "first mover" arguments do not use local motion as part of their premises. You would know this if you had bothered to study them, but you have not.
Your hatred of fundamentalist Christianity makes it impossible for you to rationally engage on this topic. Find a new hobby.
If Stardusty had an honest and fair criticism then I'd be happy to discuss it with him. The website linked below thinks the 1st Way has problems. See "Assessment of the First Way" section. I'd be happy to engage with that person. Dusty is not that kind of person.
https://aquinasonline.com/first-way/
Stardusty gave up a long time ago trying to come up with actual objections.
I think he realized that since he can't understand physics or philosophical argumentation his best bet is to just spend his time telling people they're wrong. They're wrong because they agree with someone in the past he considers coming to conclusions that are distasteful to him. Those in the past who have positions that are agreeable to him, are therefore right, no matter how crazy those particular positions or positions entailing those positions. The same with those at present who have positions that are agreeable to him no matter how crazy. Thus he tells us we are all hallucinating and if you believe differently you are hallucinating.
It's pretty funny really.
How do you actually engage with someone who says his beliefs, when properly understood, have no flaws, none whatsoever, and that disagreement with his beliefs is the first sign that you have reasoned poorly somewhere? Who just makes up definitions on the fly? It's like an over-the-top Simpsons caricature of a New Atheist combined with a Chuck Norris meme "If Chuck Norris uses a word at odds with the dictionary then the dictionary is wrong".
Shame that the most prolific poster has nothing to offer but comedy. I no longer read his posts, but the responses to them are equally entertaining.
"How do you actually engage with someone who says his beliefs, when properly understood, have no flaws,"
Dunno, I did not say that, your words, not mine.
But, that goes to my ongoing point. If you are not willing to be very careful in defining your terms you will not be able to understand, well, much of anything.
"Who just makes up definitions on the fly?"
For you it might seem "on the fly". I suppose relative to common language usage that is how defining terms seems to you.
"If Chuck Norris uses a word at odds with the dictionary then the dictionary is wrong".
There is no god of English. Chuck Norris can use words any way he wants, as we all can.
"I no longer read his posts"
That would explain why you don't understand the terms or the arguments.
Post a Comment