tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post8813586187993067754..comments2024-03-19T02:00:34.750-07:00Comments on Edward Feser: Can a Thomist reason to God a priori?Edward Feserhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13643921537838616224noreply@blogger.comBlogger154125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-87850372892901250402021-02-26T02:01:17.795-08:002021-02-26T02:01:17.795-08:00Ok, fair enough. But I was mainly getting the seri...Ok, fair enough. But I was mainly getting the series that is drawn after that:<br /><br />"the existence of the water, which in tern exists only because a certain potential of the atoms is being actualised, where these atoms themselves exist only because a certain potential of the subatomic particles is being actualised."<br /><br />Neither the atoms or the subatomic particles can count as actualising causes, since they exist virtually/potentially, no? If not, then this series cannot be viewed as a per se existence actualising series.<br />BenGnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-43630023349107499212021-02-25T17:59:01.574-08:002021-02-25T17:59:01.574-08:00Well, given that the coffee in a cup of coffee is ...Well, given that the coffee in a cup of coffee is probably only a mixture, rather than a specific substance, I suspect that the water exists actually in it rather than virtually. You can have stronger or weaker coffee, and weaker still,... until eventually it is rather coffee-like water or something. There doesn't seem to be a substantial form making it to be a distinct substance at just one concentration level. Tonyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07159134209092031897noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-57570122642616887012021-02-25T02:52:03.490-08:002021-02-25T02:52:03.490-08:00On this topic, I have a quick question about the A...On this topic, I have a quick question about the Aristotelian proof. On p. 26 of five proofs, Feser writes:<br /><br />"The potential of the coffee to exist here and now is actualized, in part, by the existence of the water"<br /><br />Does this not conflict with the principle of causality, since the water exists only virtually or potentially in the coffee, and therefore can't actualises the coffee (only what is actual can actualises anything). Am I missing something here?<br /><br />Ben.BenGnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-89456072447210064252021-02-25T00:22:18.331-08:002021-02-25T00:22:18.331-08:00@wrf3 "The Christian tradition says that man ...@wrf3 "The Christian tradition says that man cannot find God through reason (1 Cor 1:21)."<br /><br />Total misinterpretation. Paul plainly says that idolaters originally knew God through reason before rejecting him, in<br /><br />Romans 1:21 (NIV) "For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened."<br /><br />Now your verse is saying something different, i.e. 1 Cor 1:21 (NIV) "For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe." In other words, God in his wisdom allowed people to throw away knowledge of him so that he could through Jesus restore it.John Smittynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-22330500934264674082021-02-24T20:00:07.472-08:002021-02-24T20:00:07.472-08:00I see, while i think that the premises in some ver...I see, while i think that the premises in some versions of the OA(like, St. Anselm original version), are all sound, the arguments do have some pretty polemical premises and pressupositions, so i get the reservations one could have with they. <br /><br />About natural knowledge of God, yea, i agree that the way we usually detect agency behind this world is more intuitive that a conclusion based on silogisms.Talmidhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04267925670235640337noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-13974138167943402732021-02-24T06:57:40.380-08:002021-02-24T06:57:40.380-08:00Talmid: is that the fallen human intellect can arr...<b>Talmid</b>: <i>is that the fallen human intellect can arrive at a pretty limited knowledge of God</i><br /><br />That's not under contention, at least, not with me. The argument is over the "how".<br /><br /><i> so the idea that reason can point to God is not a thomistic invention</i><br /><br />Sure. The Church imported Greek philosophy wholesale. <br /><br />See my respose to grodrigues <a href="https://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2021/02/can-thomist-reason-to-god-priori.html?showComment=1613596898509#c314497596976989087" rel="nofollow">here</a>.<br />wrf3https://www.blogger.com/profile/04657932934353372526noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-62915732155091409292021-02-24T06:53:00.588-08:002021-02-24T06:53:00.588-08:00Talmid: You can defend that the arguments fail...
...<b>Talmid</b>: <i>You can defend that the arguments fail...</i><br /><br />That's kinda the point. The only way to defeat logic is to a) deny a premise or b) find a mistake in one of the steps in the argument.<br /><br />The problem with these "arguments" is that they entail steps based on coin-flips in the middle of the argument. The only place where coin-flips are allowed in logic is in the selection of the premises. So if there's a coin-flip in the middle of an argument, it's because a premise hasn't been made explicit. And premises have to be made explicit. For example, one Scholastic premise is "common sense is a reliable way to form explanations." But, given Relativity and Quantum Mechanics, we know this isn't true.<br /><br />How many coin flips are in the ontological argument? I can see at least four, and I'm not really trying. If these coin flips are independent of each other, that gives the ontological argument no better than a 1 in 16 chance of being right.<br /><br />Euclid's brilliance what that he made his premises explicit. If only Scholasticism would do the same. <br /><br />wrf3https://www.blogger.com/profile/04657932934353372526noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-47231555887732131562021-02-23T19:47:47.800-08:002021-02-23T19:47:47.800-08:00Alright, lets play....
@wrf3
"But that'...Alright, lets play....<br /><br />@wrf3<br /><br />"But that's no different than taking the parts of various animals and combining them into, say, a unicorn. The only way you'll then show that a unicorn exists is by finding one."<br /><br />Lol. That is because a unicorn is a contingent being, it can be or not be. The OA, the most famous "a priori" argument for God, entire point is that God is not like that, either He exists necessarily or He can't exist at all. <br /><br />You can defend that the arguments fail, but failing in a mistake like that does puts your understanding of the arguments into doubt. <br /> <br />"'can man find God or does God find man?'"<br /><br />It depends. Do you mean "find" in the sense of knowing Christ as Lord and Savior and being adopted by Our Lord? The salvific path that He opened for us by the cross? Of course not.<br /><br /> But no one is saying that. What the christian tradition aways afirmed since at least St. Paul( Romans 1:<br />18-23) is that the fallen human intellect can arrive at a pretty limited knowledge of God, not even close to what revelation and the Holy Spirit give, sure, but it is something, at least enough to know He is there. Do you remember any Church Father that would disagree? <br /><br />There where monotheistic tribes(like the Guarani and the Yoruba, citing the ones i remember the name) and there where monotheistic philosophers(like Madhva), so the idea that reason can point to God is not a thomistic invention. In fact, fideism is probably the actual modern view...Talmidhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04267925670235640337noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-68645069718336316052021-02-23T05:02:51.052-08:002021-02-23T05:02:51.052-08:00I know what "a priori" and "a poste...I know what "a priori" and "a posteriori" mean. And that's why the answer to Dr. Feser's question is a resounding "no!". The best you can do sitting in an armchair is to observe, by self-reflection: self-awareness, endlessness, truth, and goodness (even if those aren't yet rigorously defined). Then you can then suppose that those parts combine into an actual being with those properties. But that's no different than taking the parts of various animals and combining them into, say, a unicorn. The only way you'll then show that a unicorn exists is by finding one. One might walk by your armchair, but that does no good to everyone else in their La-Z-Boy's.<br /><br />And if you're going to try to take the route of speculating about the existence of God through the existence of things, then you'll fall into the trap that Nature confounds our intuitions. That we have to use negative probabilities to describe Nature is bizarre. After all, what's a -30% chance of rain? But that's exactly what we are forced to do. But that's not something that armchair scientists would choose. They'd stick with the much more comfortable notion of probability being strictly positive.<br /><br />Finally, while sitting in your chair and trying to reason to God, you also have to answer the related question: "can man find God or does God find man?"<br /><br />The Christian tradition says that man cannot find God through reason (1 Cor 1:21). It also says that man cannot find God through experience (John 3:3).<br /><br />If you succeed in either of these ways then we'll have to abandon Christianity or, at least, our current understanding of it.wrf3https://www.blogger.com/profile/04657932934353372526noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-87563967207036042562021-02-22T19:18:25.542-08:002021-02-22T19:18:25.542-08:00Dude, no one is talking about metaphysics, is more...Dude, no one is talking about metaphysics, is more of a method thing. I don't think i ever saw a philosophy reader fail in understand the distinction before. Even philosophers that agree with your positions would have no problem with the distinction. <br /><br /> Picture "a priori" as someone in a armchair thinking and "a posteriori" as someone outside observing stuff and making experiments, it probably would make things easier to understand. This is not a rigorous definition, btw. Talmidhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04267925670235640337noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-52730840280246310492021-02-22T04:04:58.889-08:002021-02-22T04:04:58.889-08:00First, the "go look things up in the real wor...First, the "go look things up in the real world" imposes what is clearly a false dichotomy. Your brain is just as much a part of the "real world" as anything external to you. From Nature's viewpoint, there is no "external". It's all just interacting quantum fields.<br /><br />Second, the dichotomy is continued by not understanding what calculations are. All calculations are based on repeated physical combination/selection operations through a complicated network. Numbers are nothing more than labels for collections of physical objects. "Non-physicality" comes in when we manipulate labels for things we can't physically do. If addition is "add a rock to a bucket" then subtraction is "remove a rock from a bucket". We can't remove a rock from an empty bucket, <i>but we pretend we can</i>. And so on for complex numbers, etc...<br /><br />The "problem" is that we have to "pretend" to describe reality. -(e^i��) = 1. And one can argue that descriptions of reality are real. <br />wrf3https://www.blogger.com/profile/04657932934353372526noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-44375020154993622282021-02-21T20:08:33.232-08:002021-02-21T20:08:33.232-08:00I think that what Dr. Feser is saying is that you ...I think that what Dr. Feser is saying is that you are not using observations or anything that needs you to go look things up in the real world.<br /><br />Think of mathematics. When you are doing a big calculation you will not know the answer by doing experiments or something, you will calculate, your work is with the numbers, with the ideal. <br /><br />Now, could you do that if you had no experience or had no brain at all? Nope, but not even Leibniz would disagree and the dude was as rationalistic(in the epistemical sense) as possible. The important part is that you are looking to the ideal and not to the world of experience, no one meant more than that when using the term "a priori".Talmidhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04267925670235640337noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-33329327584993995432021-02-21T19:56:28.778-08:002021-02-21T19:56:28.778-08:00Aways good to have more options, i guess :)
It is...Aways good to have more options, i guess :)<br /><br />It is true that one would hardly need the argument if the essencialist metaphysics where already accepted, but the argument could still be useful. Say if one agree with most of the metaphysics but rejects the PSR or had another doubt that prevented him of accepting a cosmological argument. <br /><br />Not to mention, it is useful in trying to help the other understand how diferent God is from the things we know. Perfect Being Theology and all that. Just helping the atheist understand that God existence is either 8 or 80 is very important, for most atheists probably would not be prepared to say that it is impossible that the Monotheistic God exist.<br /><br />But yea, at the end of the day OA are too abstract to be useful in changing most minds, that i agree. But they, at least to me, are very interesting and seems to work, so we should not give up in them just because they are not much useful. Talmidhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04267925670235640337noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-34786187047332264632021-02-21T16:44:22.771-08:002021-02-21T16:44:22.771-08:00Tony wrote: YOU DON'T SENSE "neurons firi...<b>Tony</b> wrote: <i>YOU DON'T SENSE "neurons firing...</i><br /><br />You also don't sense photons impacting the rods and cones in your eyes, or the signals from the retina to the brain. That is, you don't sense the activity of your vision system, yet we call vision a sense.<br /><br /><i>You don't actually advert to the wiring in forming the conclusion or the judgment that it is true.</i><br />You also don't inspect the wiring in your visual cortex to understand whether what you're seeing is real or not, unless you have reason to consult a specialist.<br /><br />So I don't see how your reply helps you.<br />wrf3https://www.blogger.com/profile/04657932934353372526noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-87698880297361180512021-02-21T14:43:45.666-08:002021-02-21T14:43:45.666-08:00That assumes that aren't sensing the activity ...<i>That assumes that aren't sensing the activity of your brain, which is a strange position to take.</i> <br /><br />Not at all. Even if your thoughts are reducible to nothing more than neurons firing, or electric signals causing biochemical reactions, YOU DON'T SENSE "neurons firing" or the biochemical reactions as such. Instead, you experience "the proposition..." Nothing about that experience explicitly is perceived in terms of "there's another neuron firing..." <br /><br /><i>You are, in fact, relying on the way your brain is wired to know that this proposition is true.</i> <br /><br />True, but you are not INSPECTING the wiring in your brain to evaluate it and then decide "this sort of wiring properly deals with the input in order to render a true and valid conclusion." You don't actually advert to <i>the wiring</i> in forming the conclusion or the judgment that it is true. Tonyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07159134209092031897noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-68184225184655119432021-02-21T14:07:21.893-08:002021-02-21T14:07:21.893-08:00Simon Adams: There is no way anyone has ever propo...<b>Simon Adams</b>: <i>There is no way anyone has ever proposed for mind to appear from matter.</i><br /><br />Von Neumann (The Computer and the Brain), Hofstadter (Gödel, Escher, Bach), Armstrong (A Materialist Theory of the Mind)...<br /><br /><i>... but they all involve literal magic happening at some point</i><br /><br />As everyone knows, advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. But actually, neither is needed. After all, a Saturn V might have appeared to be magical to Sir Isaac Newton, but it still got man to the moon and back using the theory he developed.<br /><br />Easy answers are often wrong answers. It's the hard problems that lead to important insights. Just because a philosophical answer makes a problem go away doesn't make the philosophical answer right.<br /><br />The Inspiring Philosophy video on QM contains numerous problems. The author doesn't understand QM. (Here's a hint: the future ☞ does not exist ☜ until it is encountered (i.e. measured). The future only exists as probabilities until you, the individual, meet it, and that's when the probabilities go away). So QM doesn't debunk materialism. It debunks a "local real" version of materialism, but not "local unreal". (You could opt for "non-local real" but Relativity rules that out).<br /><br />Furthermore, subatomic particles are not "continuous waves of energy". First, energy is quantized. Second, they exist as "continuous waves of ☞ probability amplitudes ☜" until they are measured, at which point you get a "lump" (as Feynman puts it) of energy.<br /><br />"electron decided to act differently"<br /><br />Electrons don't "decide" anything. They always act quantumly. You just don't know anything specific about them as long as they are in your future. And they are in your future until you measure them.<br /><br />"caused the wavefunction to collapse".<br />This is not a physical wave, like an electromagnetic wave. It's a wave of probability amplitudes. It's just a description of expected behavior.<br /><br />"The results in for was that matter didn't exist independent of observation or measurement, flipping materialism up on its head."<br />Well, no. The observation/measurement is also based on materialism. The universe is self-describing.<br /><br />I could go on, but this should be enough.<br /> <br />I'll look at some the irreducible mind stuff, but I suspect it commits the same kinds of basic errors.<br /><br />wrf3https://www.blogger.com/profile/04657932934353372526noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-8518370495758509912021-02-21T07:51:20.766-08:002021-02-21T07:51:20.766-08:00johannes, I don't expect to revisit that threa...johannes, I don't expect to revisit that thread to make comments. The details of the arguments have gotten sufficiently misty to me that I would have to repeat all the prior thought-process to pick up where we left off. Tonyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07159134209092031897noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-88726811791723932102021-02-21T07:47:08.633-08:002021-02-21T07:47:08.633-08:00Except that i can give arguments showing that a fo...<i>Except that i can give arguments showing that a fornast cat, or the other examples, is not possible, so you can conceive of it in the same sense you can "conceive" of a square-circle: </i> <br /><br />I will admit (though an atheist most likely would not) that you probably can. What I wonder is whether you can do so <i>without</i> first establishing all those grounds that constitute the basis on which the NON-ontological arguments for the existence of God rest. That is, in doing so you will have effectively done all the heavy lifting necessary to prove God exists anyway. Which is no mean feat, but proving God exists through OA after proving he is the necessary being is a bit of overkill. Tonyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07159134209092031897noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-2760023255326412182021-02-21T05:03:11.010-08:002021-02-21T05:03:11.010-08:00Dr. Feser makes the claim: Notice that you are not...Dr. Feser makes the claim: <i>Notice that you are not relying on any evidence from the senses in judging that this proposition is true.</i><br /><br />That assumes that aren't sensing the activity of your brain, which is a strange position to take.<br /><br />You are, in fact, relying on the way your brain is wired to know that this proposition is true.<br />wrf3https://www.blogger.com/profile/04657932934353372526noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-52881626985297303982021-02-21T00:37:23.084-08:002021-02-21T00:37:23.084-08:00There is no way anyone has ever proposed for mind ...There is no way anyone has ever proposed for mind to appear from matter. You get arguments that it’s an emergent property, but they all involve literal magic happening at some point. Fundamental problems like the “hard problem” of consciousness, or the measurement problem of quantum physics, essentially vanish when your foundation is in the ideas of Plato and Augustine. There is a real sense in which the artificial division between the soul (theology) and an objective physical world (science) created by the likes of Galileo has run it’s course such that it’s now a barrier to advancing our holistic understanding.<br /><br />The German idealists like Hegel, Kant, Schopenhauer etc understood this, but as they more and more rejected god, that caused a separate problem that was recognised by Nietzsche.<br /><br />“Inspiring Philosophy” has some very basic videos that demonstrate some of this quite well, such as <br /><br />This on QM (from 7 years ago, but the case has only become stronger since recent “no go” experiments etc -> https://youtu.be/4C5pq7W5yRM<br /><br />This series of five videos on the irreducible mind -> https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PL1mr9ZTZb3TUjEbz4zD0i_rfGiyB4AGQaSimon Adamshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08967831833822936845noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-22397308377086783812021-02-21T00:11:48.386-08:002021-02-21T00:11:48.386-08:00 You are obviously content to remain in a tiny irr... You are obviously content to remain in a tiny irrelevant subculture , and no doubt enjoy the in-group, cult like exclusivity. How ridiculous that archaic, easily misunderstood and sometimes ( to moderns, who you presumably wish to engage with ) objectionable terminology, might act as a barrier to effective communication. Now, who would have thought that? Never mind though , it is all their silly, supercillious fault!<br /><br /> Get off your own silly, supercillious ( and frankly -as things stand - utterly irrelevant ) high horse.FreeThinkerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12542926199146156167noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-820092054693501652021-02-20T19:50:08.107-08:002021-02-20T19:50:08.107-08:00"And the reply is (as has been said before) m..."And the reply is (as has been said before) modal arguments about what is "possible" are notoriously not evident because we are constantly being surprised by finding out things that we thought were possible are not, or that things we thought were impossible actually are. Anselm relies on "possible" claims that are not manifestly true, they "feel" or "seem" to be true, or they "may be" true, which can be miscued as "it is possible that they are true, but that wraps us in two different senses of possible and can undermine a modal argument."<br /><br />I agree that the OA will have this problem in deriving metaphysical possibility(possible in reality) from epistemical probability(possible to us) but we do have so possible ways of having what we want. Stealing from one comment of mine from below:<br /><br />- one could pick created things and try to remove mentally their limitations until we arrive at a more apophatic knowledge of perfection. That was St. Anselm way, as seen in his reply to Gaunilo(that used your objection).<br /><br />- One could disagree with you and argue that we have enough a priori knowledge of the relevant facts, so epistemical possibility and metaphysisical possibility are way closer that we thought. That would be Descartes rationalist way.<br /><br />- One could use the traditional cosmological arguments as evidence that God creating a universe is at least possible(even if not actual to the atheist), so it is possible that God exists. I remember seeing William Lane Craig and Josh Rasmussem doing it.<br /><br />Sure that there is this gap between thought and reality, but we do have some ways around that. Can we be 100% sure we are right? No, but that is aways true no matter your method. <br />Talmidhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04267925670235640337noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-55342339863826310742021-02-20T19:40:12.723-08:002021-02-20T19:40:12.723-08:00@Tony
"Conceive of a "fornast cat"...@Tony<br /><br />"Conceive of a "fornast cat". What is that? It is defined as "a cat that has no beginning." You say "but it does not exist." I agree: but if it did exist, it would not have a beginning. Further, it cannot be conceived as having a beginning, for it is DEFINED not to have a beginning."<br /><br />Except that i can give arguments showing that a fornast cat, or the other examples, is not possible, so you can conceive of it in the same sense you can "conceive" of a square-circle: you can say a bunch of words that don't actually refer to anything at all and say it is a real thing. I remember St. Anselm making this point in the Proslogion when he tries to explain how there are atheists if God non-existence can't be conceived: they are conceiving only in words. <br /><br />If the atheist thinks he can show that God can't exist, he is welcome to try, they are trying for a long time. The thing is, we know that the atheist will fail, so we both know that your examples are not relevant to this subject. Talmidhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04267925670235640337noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-15794730667673464292021-02-20T12:56:59.093-08:002021-02-20T12:56:59.093-08:00Why are ideas more fundamental than matter? I know...Why are ideas more fundamental than matter? I know that one side wants to hold that ideas are fundamental and matter is emergent; another side wants to hold that matter is fundamental and ideas are emergent. Some hold to a dualism (which I think is untenable). I happen to think that the question is <a href="https://stablecross.com/files/undecidability_materialism.html" rel="nofollow">undecidable</a>. wrf3https://www.blogger.com/profile/04657932934353372526noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-55670749613517320302021-02-20T11:41:04.359-08:002021-02-20T11:41:04.359-08:00Talmid, thanks for clearing up your sense of secon...Talmid, thanks for clearing up your sense of secondary causality. We were saying much the same thing. Tonyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07159134209092031897noreply@blogger.com