Therefore no need to stigmatize branches of philosophy such as metaphysics.
Modernism was. Pomo is still up for grabs.
For a compare/contrast of mysticism/science see this thread: Philosophy: Mysticism is for those who can’t do the math
Exactly.
Whether there is a first cause or not, explain why an uncaused cause is not rational; and then explain why an infinite casual regression of finite things in to past, is a rational conclusion to arrive at, or is as rational as an uncaused cause. God or infinite regression; these are the only options available; one of them is rational and one of them is not; and I think you and I know why that is the case.
Thats was not an explanation; that was a ridicule.
Hi Mirdath. These philosophy threads can sometimes be quite removed from what many people know. And therefore it is always a problem to decide whether to give a simple definition or example or a more detailed definition or example.
It doesn’t have to be him who asks. The thread is a discussion where more than two folks are discussing. If one person makes a claim, then that claim is up for grabs by anyone reading the thread.
The explanation was not understood. Therefore clarification was requested. Requests for clarification are not challenges to anyone’s point of views – though sometimes they appear more robust than necessary for the purposes of discussion (as is frequent on other Apologetics threads).
Good examples of this are on this thread: The Big Bang TheoryI still think you’re looking at the wrong part of that post, but okay, here goes
A well-constructed metaphysical argument must hold to logic; otherwise, what’s the point at all? In the case of the supernatural specifically, however, it must also postulate the existence of something that cannot be properly perceived or reasoned from a human/natural perspective.
They are both problems.
When they appear; in the case of arguments for the existence of the supernatural, the latter is the greater and more common.
I’ve already addressed ‘supernatural.’ See post #19 above.
Again, this is not an accurate definition of metaphysics. It is the study of being as being. It is true that it’s concerned with what can be abstracted from material substances, and so is primarily concerned with the immaterial such as form, substances, and accidents. But these things are all part of the natural order according to metaphysics. The supernatural refers to an effect (caused by God directly) other than that due to creation.
You are correct that God cannot be sensed, unless he specially revealed himself somehow. I understand that you don’t believe the cosmological argument is valid and that you question its premises. But that hardly makes metaphysics a faith based discipline; at least not any more than any other philosophy. The foundation of metaphysics is not the cosmological argument. It’s the other way around. And as you know, the cosmological argument is not trying to define any attributes of God - at least not initially - but is only attempting to establish that there must be a first mover.
This is in response to my assertion that you believe things on faith as well. The validity of the laws of logic and their universality for starters.
Not a bad end from my perspective. Of course the question always becomes what is the good, and whether it really must include society or not. This is where I commonly see ethical systems break down.
There must be an uncaused cause, because it is logically impossible for an actual infinite to exist. Not just practically impossible, logically impossible. So it is you who is taking the logical leap by positing that there could be such a thing as an endless series of causes. This is one of the refinements that the Kalam Cosmological Argument makes to Aquinas’ traditional argument.
True enough. I believe in those because otherwise I’d quite obviously be in deep trouble.
I would not say logically impossible but rather logically incomprehensible – such a thing is a limitation of the human mind, not necessarily of the universe. We break down on the infinite. Even so, an infinite chain is not necessary – a finite loop will serve just as well.
Me too! My point here is that faith isn’t something that is the domain of metaphysics to the exclusion of other philosophical systems.
Once you start down the path of incomprehensible, it starts to look very much like logically impossible. Just like it is incomprehensible that two different objects could occupy the same space at the same time in the same sense. The law of non-contradiction applies and tells us that it is not logically possible. If I were motivated I believe I could construct a syllogism with premises you’d accept that would demonstrate an actual infinite cannot logically exist. But I’m not that motivated
Let me see if I can find where someone has done the work for me.This is one of the objections to the KCA. But I disagree that a series of events without beginning can be defined as a potential infinite. If a series of events or causes has no beginning, then how is it that the events and causes we see in the series actually exist? Yet clearly they do since we witness them happening every day. I think to say that an actual series of events has no beginning is to say that an actual infinite exists. Do you see an alternative explanation?
this is what aquinas said:
but it is completed: an actually infinite number of moments must have elapsed prior to this moment if there was no first moment of time…
i hate to nitpick here, but there’s a lot of misinformation about philosophy being bruited around in this thread…
John, are you scientist?
not really - i have degrees in philosophy and an intense interest in science…haven’t done an actual experiment since high-school, though.
How about this:
Combination of Plantinga and Norman Malcom.
my favorite prof in university once told me that plantinga has the most revved-up 16-wheeler of a mind of anyone he’s ever met…