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

[whatistrue]

So you know what I meant now?

I knew what you meant before, I simply disagreed because it was insufficiently defined/proven.

What is your defintion of knowledge?

We are not speaking of my personal definitions, I use (or try to use) the commonly understood definitions.

So you are complex, made of parts?

Is that not the alternative to absolutely simple?

 

[whatistrue]

So the whole is a thing with ability to decide?

How do you think it works?

How do you know?

Because I understand biology at least to that extent.

I am going to take a break here - lots of other stuff to do and the system is complaining that I seem to be a bit too active on this thread.

 

[STT]

I knew what you meant before, I simply disagreed because it was insufficiently defined/proven.

So, which part do you have problem to?

We are not speaking of my personal definitions, I use (or try to use) the commonly understood definitions.

I need to know your definition of knowledge in order to understand if it is more complete than mine.

Is that not the alternative to absolutely simple?

Sure it is.

 

[STT]

How do you think it works?

Mind to me is the essence of any being/thing with the ability to experience, decide and cause. Miond is simple. Minds interact with each other through physical.

Because I understand biology at least to that extent.

But underlying reality can be described by physics. The whole is simply sum of the parts. Parts however interact with each other and move based on laws of physics. Thats all.

I am going to take a break here - lots of other stuff to do and the system is complaining that I seem to be a bit too active on this thread.

Ok.

 

[Wesrock]

Wesrock:

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 It’s a bit outdated itself, but take Newton’s First Law: " An object at rest stays at rest and an object in motion stays in motion with the same speed and in the same direction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.

Except that Newton had the incorrect idea of “absolute” space and time, which was superseded by Einstein’s relativity. Simply, there is no such thing as “absolute” rest. Einstein’s special relativity says that between two non-accelerating coordinate systems either one can be considered stationary.

So, change and motion are inherent attributes of the STEM (space-time-energy-matter) and do not “need” some external causative agent to exist. As such Feser’s “proof” rests of incorrect metaphysical foundation, and therefore it is useless.

As I noted, Newton’s physics are an approximation. The notion of absolute rest is irrelevant. Even under Einstein, the same principle holds for any changes to an inertial reference frame.

People become too hung up on given illustrative examples they can’t see the forest for the trees.

 

[Wesrock]

Speaking of missing the forest for the trees, the physics isn’t even Aquinas’ point. The point in the stone-stick-hand example is that, in the given system, the stone only continues to move if the stick continues to move, and the stick only continues to move if the hand continues to move.

People get hung up on friction and miss the point that this series is still a true example regardless for the system. In a frictionless system we can instead look at acceleration/changing inertial reference frames.

 

[Wesrock]

Wesrock:

As I noted, Newton’s physics are an approximation.

As actual physics, it is. But we are talking about metaphysics. The whole Aristotelian / Newtonian metaphysics, or “absolute” space and time is incorrect. We know that motion and change do not require an external causative agent. Just look at the Brownian motion or the changes in the atomic scale. The electrons do not need a “pusher” to “move” around the nucleus. (Which is just an illustration, of course.)

There are some errors and possibly some unconsidered oversights here. You state that Aristotlean notion of spacetime is incorrect. For one, relativity poses no difficulty for first principles such as act and potency, contingency, a distinction between essence and existence, hylemorphic dualism, etc . . . You also seem to go beyond merely epistemic statements to the metaphysical in saying that there is no objective reference point. You’re following a principle called verificationism here, and as noted, your application goes beyond an epistemic principle. Brownian motion describes motion of particles by collision. Electrons become excited when acted upon by energy. We know too little about the forces at work in an atom to say what “drives” them around the nucleus, though you yourself make in error in speaking of them as merely particles to be moved rather than acknowledging their particle-wave duality. A more common objection people put forth is radioactive decay, but Aristotleans account for that by other principles.

Speaking of missing the forest for the trees, the physics isn’t even Aquinas’ point.

Of course the whole metaphysics is nothing but speculation. If that speculation can be mathematically formalized, and used in actual measurements, the "meta"physics will evolve into actual physics. Otherwise it stays empty speculation.

And here’s where we get to the heart of the issue where you think that metaphysics is some alternate theory to physics rather than as the study of the principles which any science of physics or mathematics operate on. Like the notion that what you learn about samples can apply to other things of the same type, or that you can make predictions about behavior later based on what you learn about behavior now, or that physics has a basis for being descriptive at all. Any justification for any of these principles is philosophical and metaphysical.

Act and potency aren’t mysterious physical alternatives. It’s shorthand for expressing notions that what’s present now is real and that it is real that these things have a possibility for being other than they are now, and that things can persist through time while not being the same thing as before. The main competing notions are (A) that there is no causal relationship or relationship at all between any object then and now or as there is only change (B) that everything is absolutely static.

 

[LeonardDeNoblac]

By the way, it happened that many metaphysical assumptions turned out to be incorrect when applied to the sub-atomic world.

Quantum mechanics has disproved only the deterministic interpretation of causality, not causality in itself. Scholastic/Thomistic philosophy could actually account for indeterminism with the notion of “contingent causation”, wich applies, for example, to free will. Basically, some effects may follow their causes contingently and not necessarily, while remaining caused.

 

[EndTimes]

They can indeed be called proofs.

Call it whatever one wills to .
However FAITH is a Virtue…
And has naught to do with philosophical proofs.

And Forgivenes is far more important than being in 100% physical condition…

Jesus evidenced His power to Forgive when He cured a paralytic AFTER being Blamed of Blasphemy

Some might deem that to be a decent presentation of Proof… But alas, FAITH comes from the Heart.

__________________

9 Jesus stepped into a boat, crossed over and came to his own town. 2 Some men brought to him a paralyzed man, lying on a mat. When Jesus saw their faith, he said to the man, “Take heart, son; your sins are forgiven.”

3 At this, some of the teachers of the law said to themselves, “This fellow is blaspheming!”

4 Knowing their thoughts, Jesus said, “Why do you entertain evil thoughts in your hearts?

5 Which is easier: to say, ‘Your sins are forgiven,’ or to say, ‘Get up and walk’? 6 But I want you to know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins.” So he said to the paralyzed man, “Get up, take your mat and go home.” 7 Then the man got up and went home.

8 When the crowd saw this, they were filled with awe; and they praised God, who had given such authority to man.

 

[LeonardDeNoblac]

Anything that cannot be placed into a mathematical background is speculation.

The principle of causality can be deduced from logic. Is logic speculation?

 

[Wesrock]

LeonardDeNoblac:

The principle of causality can be deduced from logic. Is logic speculation?

No, it cannot be. Logic is an axiomatic system.

Look at this metaphysical “speculation” right here.

More seriously, you’re professing nominalist metaphysics.

 

[Wesrock]

The principle of “nihil est in intellectu, quod non prius fuerit is sensu” is so thoroughly established, that it would need for extraordinary event to accept it.

I would hope so. It’s be around nearly 2,400 years since Aristotle came up with it, it became part of the school of thinkers he established, and was endorsed by St. Thomas Aquinas. So I’m all on board with this statement.

 

[Wesrock]

Wesrock:

And here’s where we get to the heart of the issue where you think that metaphysics is some alternate theory to physics rather than as the study of the principles which any science of physics or mathematics operate on.

In other words, speculation. It may evolve into an actual theorem, or may not.

You could say that believing there’s an external world around you is “speculation”, except you can make a fair case for justifying that it actually exists, the same way you can make a case for certain other philosophical positions other than nominalism, which I should add you’re presenting as ontic and not epistemic, so you’re making metaphysical claims here.

Of course the principle of conservation of matter / energy / momentum / etc… did not come from some empty navel-gazing contemplation. They are the result of millions of observations.

Yes, same thing with the notion that effects follow causes. Unless you want to claim that you have personally observed every existent thing ever to follow the “laws of conservation”, you are taking empirical observations and deducing general principles from them.

Mathematics is a different ballgame altogether. It is not based on observation, rather on arbitrarily selected axioms.

Not everyone agrees on that, and I don’t just mean Platonists, Aristotleans, and Thomists.

The whole Aristotelian / Newtonian concept of reality is based upon the concept of unchanging, absolute space and time. Since we now know that this worldview is incorrect, every structure built upon it is “suspect” and cannot be accepted without further experimentation.

The more you write the more I’m convinced you don’t understand Aristotlean metaphysics as understood by contemporary Aristotleans. Relativity and even a worldblock is consistent with Aristotlean principles, though most Aristotleans hold that some form of presentism is more justified than a worldblock.

 

[Wesrock]

Possible. Maybe even likely. But I am not really interested in speculations, I prefer epistemology. Metaphysics without accompanying epistemology is empty speculation, or simply a hypothesis. If there is an epistemological underpinning, then it can grow into a good explanation of the world. Always tentative, of course!

Epistemology is important, but there are implicit metaphysical suppositions in any epistemology. The question everyone should be asking themselves is whether those are justified.

I am not a solipsist, and I don’t seriously entertain “brain in the vat” speculation. That said, how we answer the questions of whether we can have knowledge, what it means for us to know things, and then how we can have knowledge are all important, and that analysis comes before the scientific method, before assuming verificationism or falsificationism. They’re the very questions that look into whether we’re capable of demonstrations, proof, and the scientific method to begin with. And we might find in that critical analysis that nominalism is not as well justified as realism. At least in my view, and the view of any Aristotlean. I’m getting off track here, I already mentioned that the latin you quoted was actually a principle Aristotle put forward. The knowledge we gain is gained through the senses. Aristotle and St. Thomas Aquinas would agree and based their their entire natural philosophy on it. St. Thomas and Aristotle were realists when it came to what knowledge is, though, not nominalists. But again, I digress.

My worldview is quite simple, or maybe even simplistic. The reality is what we perceive via our senses and their extensions.

Aristotle and St. Thomas would agree.

It is knowable by the empirical method of hypothesis forming, experimentation and verification / falsification. That is all. The rest is irrelevant. If there is some aspect of reality which is unreachable by the senses (and their extensions) they are irrelevant. I am always open to new ideas, but only as long as they can affect our being.

Be careful about taking verification and falsification beyond epistemic to ontic unless you’re into making metaphysical claims yourself. Still, you’re basically saying “we can’t claim that there is any such thing as cause and effect” while at the same time subjecting any and all truth claims to methods that only work if there is cause and effect. Similarly with principles that what you learn about particular samples applies to all like types under the same conditions, and that what we learn is applicable to future tests under the same conditions. Verification and falsifiability depend on those. Yet you seem to be saying we can’t claim these principles are true… and at the same time the epistemic bar you say all truth claims must meet implicitly assumes them. These principles can’t themselves be subjected to the same standards you use for other truth claims, but they’re implicit to those standards. Just keep that in mind.

 

[CTBcin]

Call it whatever one wills to .

Properly defining terms is important.

However FAITH is a Virtue…

Indeed. But what does that have to do with the present discussion?

And has naught to do with philosophical proofs.

Sure it does. Faith and reason go hand in hand. Faith is more than some sort of blind trust. While philosophy cannot replace faith, it can certainly can inform and explain it. Besides, you do realize that this is the philosophy section of the forum, don’t you?

Jesus evidenced His power to Forgive when He cured a paralytic AFTER being Blamed of Blasphemy

Some might deem that to be a decent presentation of Proof… But alas, FAITH comes from the Heart.

Again, you seem to be getting hung up on the term “proof.” I already explained how the term “proof” is used philosophically. And it’s different from how you are interpreting it.

 

[LeonardDeNoblac]

No, it cannot be. Logic is an axiomatic system.

It (logic ) cannot be (speculation ) or it (the principle of causality ) cannot be (deduced from logic )? Because I perfectly agree that logic is not and can’t be speculation.

 

[EndTimes]

Properly defining terms is important.

Sure… Define “FAITH”

_

 

[EndTimes]

Knowledge is an internal “picture” or “model” of the external reality.

Just in case, let us not forget that Knowledge is one of God’s Attributes.

A Gift of and from God’s Holy Spirit - aka an Actual Spiritual Quality.

And as we now Know, we were never Created to Know all Knowledge; e.g, that of Evil.

 

[CTBcin]

Sure… Define “FAITH”

From the CCC:
1814 Faith is the theological virtue by which we believe in God and believe all that he has said and revealed to us, and that Holy Church proposes for our belief, because he is truth itself. By faith "man freely commits his entire self to God."78 For this reason the believer seeks to know and do God’s will. “The righteous shall live by faith.” Living faith "work through charity."79

But again, what does this have to do with the present discussion?

 

[EndTimes]

But again, what does this have to do with the present discussion?

Since Proof was introduced?

Everything.

The New Way sits upon FAITH… … In Jesus - His Teachings … His Actions. .