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.
STT said:
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?
Click to expand...
No. That phrase does not mean what you think it means.
 
The phrase is uncaused cause. What it means is something that was not caused to exist and causes other things and beings to exist (hint: there can be only one).
 
STT said:
do you agree that you are uncaused cause now?
Click to expand...
My existence isn’t uncaused, so nothing that depends on my existence (like my actions and my choices ) is uncaused. Either something is always caused or is always uncaused.
 
whatistrue said:
The phrase is uncaused cause. What it means is something that was not caused to exist and causes other things and beings to exist
Click to expand...
I have an argument that free agent cannot be caused:
  1. The act of creation requires knowledge
  2. Knowledge is structured
  3. Therefore, any created thing is structured
  4. Free agent is not structured
  5. Therefore, free agent cannot be created
whatistrue said:
(hint: there can be only one).
Click to expand...
I dont think so.
 
If you are going to speak Philosophy, you first have to learn the language, not try to make up your own definitions for the words.

#4 is a gratuitous assertion. I deny it.

ETA: In fact, this is just a list of assertions with no foundation.
 
Last edited:
STT said:
I dont think so.
Click to expand...
Something uncaused is, by definition, something that has no cause. One kind of cause is the material cause - that is, what something is made of. An uncaused cause has no material cause, so it isn’t made of anything - that is, it has no parts or components. Something that has no parts of components is absolutely simple. Therefore, something uncaused is absolutely simple. Absolute simplicity implies unity, so there can be only one uncaused cause.
 
Last edited:
Khedron said:
40.png
Bobb11t:
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...
It is based upon the incorrect idea of “motion” or “change”. Upon the incorrect idea of “motionless” or “static” or “stationary” existence, which needs an external causative agent to change it. These incorrect metaphysical ideas have long been discarded.
Click to expand...
Not by all, and they’re still implicitly taken for granted in the natural sciences today. We can just update the illustrative examples with modern notions. It’s a bit outdated itself, but take Newton’s First Law: " An object at rest stays at rest and an object in motion stays in motion with the same speed and in the same direction unless acted upon by an unbalanced force." Granted, act and potency goes beyond just examples of physical motion.
 
LeonardDeNoblac said:
My existence isn’t uncaused,
Click to expand...
How do you know?
LeonardDeNoblac said:
so nothing that depends on my existence (like my actions and my choices ) is uncaused.
Click to expand...
You need to prove that. If that really the case then you are not responsible for your decision since it is caused by something else.
LeonardDeNoblac said:
Either something is always caused or is always uncaused.
Click to expand...
That is not a correct statement. I would say that something either is caused or it is uncaused. I would ommite “always”.
 
STT said:
How do you know?
Click to expand...
My existence has a beginning in time, therefore my existence is caused.
STT said:
You need to prove that. If that really the case then you are not responsible for your decision since it is caused by something else.
Click to expand...
Every decision I make depends on my existence. I wouldn’t make decisions if I didn’t exist.
 
STT said:
How do you know?
Click to expand...
Because I have parents, one of whom is still living.
STT said:
You need to prove that
Click to expand...
It is part of the definition. If something depends on me for its existence, then I am causing it.
STT said:
I would say that something either is caused or it is uncaused. I would ommite “always”.
Click to expand...
Then you would be incorrect. If it is caused, it can never be uncaused; if it is uncaused, it can never be caused.
 
whatistrue said:
If you are going to speak Philosophy, you first have to learn the language, not try to make up your own definitions for the words.

#4 is a gratuitous assertion. I deny it.

ETA: In fact, this is just a list of assertions with no foundation.
Click to expand...
#4 is defenatly true. If something has structure and a decision is made then one of the constitudes makes the decision since otherwise there is a conflict of interest. If that constitude has structure then one of its consititues makes that decision. This leads to regress unless we accept that there exist an irrdecuble entity which cannot be divided any further and that is the only responsible for the decision.
 
STT said:
Knowledge is about the relation between things and what things are.
Click to expand...
I can still have knowledge of an irreducible thing (that is, in this case, the will of the free agent ). So your second point is not always true.
Also, the will is a part of a human free agent, so your argument, if true, would work only with an absolutely simple free agent - that is, God, who in fact can’t be created.
 
Last edited:
Whether you will procreate or not is irrelevant to it being a superficial statement, which it was.
 
whatistrue said:
What in the world is a constitude? I have tried and failed to make sense out of the paragraph. Could you rephrase it?
Click to expand...
I replaced constitude with parts: If something has structure and a decision is made then one of the parts makes the decision since otherwise there is a conflict of interest. If that part has structure then one of its parts makes that decision. This leads to regress unless we accept that there exist an irrdecuble entity which cannot be divided any further and that is the only responsible for the decision.

Does that make sense now?
 
STT said:
Are you a free agent? If yes then you need to find a problem in my argument, free agent cannot be created post #26.
Click to expand...
If I hadn’t been created, but I’ve begun to exist sometime in the past, why do I exist? Did I just popped out of nothing for no reason?
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top