Comment by throw0101a

throw0101a Jul 24, 2023 parent

> All arguments of this kind rely on some kind of shaky or dubious foundation.

No, they do not. Aristotle's Argument from 'Motion':

    1. Some things in the world are changing. (Observation)

    2. Whatever is changing is being changed by another.[1] (Lemma 1)

    3. There cannot be an infinite regress of instrumental changers.[2] (Lemma 2)

    4. Therefore, there must be a changer that is not itself being changed by another.

* https://tofspot.blogspot.com/2014/11/first-way-part-iv-casca...

WindyLakeReturn Jul 24, 2023

A changer that initiates a single change is themselves changing, from a state of not implementing change to a state of implementing change. This also assume a foundation of before and after, that there is a sense of time.

This is like looking at the big bang and asking why caused it. If something caused it, why did it cause it when it did and not before or after? Is there even a before or after when discussing the cause of the big bang?

The answer is that is we don't know. We have no knowledge on what is before then, why did time start when it did, and if logic even applies to given the lack of time or the possibility of other dimensions of time that is harder for us than seeing in 4 spatial dimensions is.

There is also an issue with Lemma 2. Why can't there be an infinite tower going forever? Even if something caused the start of time, something had to exist before that. Suggesting a first event might be akin to suggesting a starting number.

At most, even if we ignore all these problems, you just proven a starting point exists. Nothing about the starting point, nothing to claim it is a deity, much less the Abrahamic one. The beginning could also just be the big bang, a starting point with no before.

vacuity Jul 24, 2023

Even if this does point to some higher being or reality, it isn't necessarily any conception of God. Also, true randomness in fluctuations in quantum fields could refute 2, no? Also, trying to extend the notion of time to some point at infinity in the past, as if this is a proof by induction, is absurd. Mathematics are free for us to make statements about because we can start with whichever axioms we like. However, our realities (plural) are necessarily constrained by what we think and observe. There is no way to be certain of the nature of one's reality without somehow transcending it.

throw0101a OP Jul 24, 2023

For quantum-ness, see perhaps "Causality and radioactive decay":

* https://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2014/12/causality-and-radio...

The book Aristotle's Revenge has "§5.2 Aristotle and quantum mechanics" as well per the table of contents (been a few years since I read it):

* https://www.editiones-scholasticae.de/artikel/aristotles-rev...

* https://www.goodreads.com/en/book/show/43277412

vacuity Jul 24, 2023

While that's an impressive article, it seems to only prove, if it indeed proves anything, that science can't disprove the existence of God. It must be said that nothing can prove or disprove the existence of God, so the fact that the article doesn't seem to try either way is adequate. There are various things in the Bible that could theoretically be proved or disproved, but God is necessarily beyond our capabilities to truly know. Only in maths are there proofs. We're glorified frogs in wells.

Whether or not God exists, religious people see fit to mesh their moral axioms with their understanding of God's teachings. Atheists suppose no such being to base their moral axioms on. To each their own, but those who find others intolerable will be hostile. We are humans living in a world we have created for ourselves.

ndsipa_pomu Jul 24, 2023

I'm not clear on the meaning of 2 and how would it apply to something such as atomic decay? Who would be the "another" that causes an atom to decay?

throw0101a OP Jul 24, 2023

See perhaps "Causality and radioactive decay":

* https://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2014/12/causality-and-radio...

ndsipa_pomu Jul 24, 2023

Is it my imagination, or does Fesser always leap into an accusation of the poor reading skills of people who disagree with him?

Anyhow, I can't really find a decent answer in that blog - my understanding is that he hand-waves it away by declaring that it is beyond physics and thus can't be confirmed or denied by such. Not a satisfying answer to my mind and I consider that tower of logic to be on shaky ground.

throw0101a OP Jul 24, 2023

> Is it my imagination, or does Fesser always leap into an accusation of the poor reading skills of people who disagree with him?

He's been publicly writing (online) since 2008:

* https://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2008/

At some point attacks on straw men gets tiring I guess.

kergonath Jul 24, 2023

> Anyhow, I can't really find a decent answer in that blog - my understanding is that he hand-waves it away by declaring that it is beyond physics and thus can't be confirmed or denied by such.

Which is right, in a sense. The fallacy is to use that as a proof of his proposition even though it’s a non sequitur.

kergonath Jul 24, 2023

Aristotle had a poor understanding of quantum mechanics, didn’t he?

yadingus Jul 25, 2023

point 3 seems just made up to me? Like. Why?

Here's another take:

Everything is changing and being changed. There is no "first" because the universe is not linear. And ultimately there is no actual division between "changed" and "changer". There is just "change".

This item has no comments currently.

Preferences

Keyboard Shortcuts

Story Lists

Navigation

Miscellaneous