Any thoughts on Graham Oppy’s critique of Edward Feser’s five proofs of the existence of God?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Bobb11t
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
This is an almost two hour video. Perhaps, if you’d like to discuss it, you could summarize it or pick one area you found interesting and start with your thoughts! Just a little suggestion…
 
I’ve started to watch it, but I’ll have to finish it later. However, as far as I’ve reached, I’ve just heard arguments from personal incredulity: they don’t accept principles like causation (everything that is reduced from potentiality to act is reduced by something else that is already in act ), divine conservation (every contingent being that exists continues to do so only if God - the only necessary being - sustains its existence ) and the distinction between essence and existence just because they don’t believe it and think all of these are just metaphysical assumption they have no commitment to. I think there’s some superficiality on their part - for example, if existence was intrinsic to everything that exists, then everything that exists would be absolutely necessary, but that’s absurd and evidently false. Later I’ll discover if I’m wrong.
 
Last edited:
Give at least one critique. I’m not watching the video, i’m sorry.
 
Last edited:
Evidences for God’s Existence Exist

PROOFS? No…

God Asks for FAITH which is never based upon any notion of Proof.
 
Last edited:
God Asks for FAITH which is never based upon any notion of Proof.
IWantGod said:
That depends on what you mean by proofs.
Click to expand...
What does the OP mean by Proofs?
What do you mean by Proofs?
Evidences exist
 
Last edited:
IWantGod said:
But the Catholic faith is not fideist in nature.

Reason is not to be ignored. Faith and reason.
Click to expand...
Catholicism indeed embraces FAITH
as per what Jesus refers to as Faith…

I’m never ignoring Reason…

Via Reason one can come to FAITH
 
Last edited:
By the way, I reached to the part that he discusses the string theory. Where are you now? Do you like to discuss something?
 
Yea what are your thoughts on his comments on Feser’s first proof (the Aristotelian proof)? What are your thoughts on his idea, that with the example of moving a stone with a stick, the series ends with the persons intention and that no inward analysis of how the arm moves is necessary.
 
Last edited:
Too many ad hominems as well as superficial statements attacking Feser’s points like, “But isn’t it a little cruel to irrevocably expose one’s own children to the possible danger of ending up in hell by procreating?”
 
Bobb11t said:
Yea what are your thoughts on his comments on Feser’s first proof (the Aristotelian proof)? What are your thoughts on his idea, that with the example of moving a stone with a stick, the series ends with the persons intention and that no inward analysis of how the arm moves is necessary.
Click to expand...
I totaly agree with him. Any free agent is able to stop or start a chain of causality by a free decision. By free decision I mean that the decision should not be influenced by any factor (if the decision is influenced by any factor then it is caused by something else therefore it is not free). Therefore, any free agent is uncaused cause.
 
MarkRome said:
Too many ad hominems as well as superficial statements attacking Feser’s points like, “But isn’t it a little cruel to irrevocably expose one’s own children to the possible danger of ending up in hell by procreating?”
Click to expand...
I also won’t procreate if I know that just minority make it to Heaven. Eternal Hell is a serious thing (Matthew 7:13-14).
 
Last edited:
EndTimes said:
Evidences for God’s Existence Exist

PROOFS? No…

God Asks for FAITH which is never based upon any notion of Proof.
Click to expand...
They can indeed be called proofs. In the philosophical sense, a proof is simply a logical argument to provide evidence for a certain truth.

In philosophy, proofs does not necessarily equal certainty. I think much of the modern confusion about medieval philosophy stems from the fact that terms are often used differently than the modern understanding is used to.

A philosophical argument claiming to come to logical certainty about something is called a “demonstration.”
 
Last edited:
STT said:
Therefore, any free agent is uncaused cause.
Click to expand...
No human free agent has always existed. At some point, every human being began to exist. Beginning to exist is a passage from potency (the possibility of existing ) to act (the act of existing ). So it requires a cause - something already in act that reduces it from potency to act.
 
Last edited:
LeonardDeNoblac said:
No human free agent has always existed. At some point, every human being began to exist. Beginning to exist is a passage from potency (the possibility of existing ) to act (the act of existing ). So it requires a cause - something already in act that reduces it from potency to act.
Click to expand...
That is another issue but I think that we as mind have existed since the beginning of time. Regardless, whether we have a beginning at the first point in time or some point later, do you agree that you are uncaused cause now?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top