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

[whatistrue]

One assertion at a time:

The act of creation requires knowledge

Blind physical processes create things all the time. Example: diamonds. Secondary example: How much knowledge do worms have? Worms create other worms with regularity. Fails.

Knowledge is structured

Not inherently, and not proven. Fails

Therefore, any created thing is structured

Basis statements not proven. Fails

Free agent is not structured

No foundation; gratuitous. Fails

Therefore, free agent cannot be created

Nope.

 

[whatistrue]

Does that make sense now?

I now understand what you are trying to say, but it is still not correct. Not all parts of a complex entity are capable of decision making.

 

[STT]

I can still have knowledge of an irreducible thing (that is, in this case, the will of the free agent ).

What do you mean?

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.

That argument is for any free agent.

 

[STT]

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?

If you cannot be created then you simply have existed since the beginning of time.

 

[LeonardDeNoblac]

What do you mean?

Knowledge isn’t necessarily structured. There’s nothing that makes it necessary.

 

[LeonardDeNoblac]

If you cannot be created then you simply have existed since the beginning of time.

So I’ve always existed?

 

[STT]

Blind physical processes create things all the time. Example: diamonds. Secondary example: How much knowledge do worms have? Worms create other worms with regularity. Fails.

Did God create everything without having any knowledge of things?

Not inherently, and not proven. Fails

Knowledge is about the relation between things and what things are. Therefore, knowledge is structured.

Basis statements not proven. Fails

So, you think that we are absolutly simple? Can a absolutly simple thing be created?

No foundation; gratuitous. Fails

This we are already discussing it in another posts.

Nope.

Why?

 

[STT]

I now understand what you are trying to say, but it is still not correct.

It is correct. A thing is either structured or is not structured, in another word it is irreducible.

Not all parts of a complex entity are capable of decision making.

How do you know? How you could possibly point to the part which makes the decision if the subject of discussion is complex, like the brain?

 

[whatistrue]

Did God create everything without having any knowledge of things?

Not relevant to the argument. You stated that knowledge was required for creation, but God is not the only entity which can create. He is the only one who can create from nothing, but that is not the only way to create.

Knowledge is about

Just because something is about something else does not mean it is structured. And I am not sure that you actually defined “structured” adequately.

So, you think that we are absolutly simple? Can a absolutly simple thing be created?

No, and Yes.

This we are already discussing

So it is still not proven.

Why?

Because every single statement in the argument failed for one problem or another.

 

[whatistrue]

A thing is either structured or is not structured

What does that have to do with the claim you made?

How do you know?

Because I am a complex entity, and my kidneys are not capable of making decisions. For example.

 

[STT]

Knowledge isn’t necessarily structured. There’s nothing that makes it necessary.

So what we are exchanging, knowledge, doesn’t have structure? How could you possibly know the distinction between things you know if they do not have form/are structured?

 

[STT]

So I’ve always existed?

Since the beginning of time.

 

[STT]

Not relevant to the argument. You stated that knowledge was required for creation, but God is not the only entity which can create. He is the only one who can create from nothing, but that is not the only way to create.

It is very relevant. We are talking about the creation of free agent.

Just because something is about something else does not mean it is structured. And I am not sure that you actually defined “structured” adequately.

By, structured I mean it is made of parts and parts are meaningully related.

No, and Yes.

What do you mean? Could you please elaborate?

So it is still not proven.

We will see.

Because every single statement in the argument failed for one problem or another.

How about now?

 

[whatistrue]

creation of free agent

You say you are talking about that. But you have yet to define it.

By, structured I mean

Okay. Not sure it is really complete, but at least a starting point.

What do you mean?

You asked 2 questions. The answer to the first is “no”, to the second is “yes”. Clear now?

How about now?

Still nope.

 

[STT]

What does that have to do with the claim you made?

It is very related. I am arguing that only one part in a structured thing can make a decision. Two parts cannot make the same decision always since there would be a conflict of interest.

Because I am a complex entity, and my kidneys are not capable of making decisions. For example.

Which part in your brain make the decision? An electron, a quark?

 

[whatistrue]

Which part in your brain make the decision? An electron, a quark?

The brain as a whole. Decision making in humans is a process, not something that can be done by a single neuron, or molecule, or atom, or particle.

 

[STT]

You say you are talking about that. But you have yet to define it.

The act of creation in here means bringing something out of nothing.

Okay. Not sure it is really complete, but at least a starting point.

It is complete and brief.

You asked 2 questions. The answer to the first is “no”, to the second is “yes”. Clear now?

So, in regard to the first question, you are complex, made of parts?

Still nope.

How about now?

 

[whatistrue]

The act of creation in here means bringing something out of nothing

I was referencing “free agent”, not creation ex nihilo, which as far as I am aware only one entity can do or ever did.

It is complete and brief.

Not to my mind.

So, in regard to the first question, you are complex, made of parts?

The question was whether we are absolutely simple. The answer is no.

How about now?

Are we there yet? No.

 

[STT]

The brain as a whole.

So the whole is a thing with ability to decide? How a blind process can lead to something which has essence, is conscious (hard problem of consciousness), and even can decide?

Decision making in humans is a process, not something that can be done by a single neuron, or molecule, or atom, or particle.

How do you know?

 

[STT]

I was referencing “free agent”, not creation ex nihilo, which as far as I am aware only one entity can do or ever did.

So you know what I meant now? I am talking about the act of creation of an free agent.

Not to my mind.

What is your defintion of knowledge?

The question was whether we are absolutely simple. The answer is no.

So you are complex, made of parts?

Are we there yet? No.

Yet?