trulyenlightened wrote:Byblos wrote:The underlined is exactly what I was attempting to do when I initially suggested to you to discuss the PSR. By its nature It is a metaphysical type of discussion but again, you dismissed it out of hand as, how did you put it?, mumbo-jumbo. Truth is, at the very foundation of philosophy in general and metaphysics in particular, is logic and reason. Dismissing it will completely undermine science. It will be akin to denying the very tree while cutting the branch you are sitting on.
So if you will indulge me one more time, the mistake you keep making with Aquinas is a mistake practically everyone else makes, including some of the well known philosophers of our time, and yes, many are Christian. The likes of Alvin Plantinga and William Lane Craig, to name just 2.
I stated this in many other posts but I will repeat it again, just for clarity. Aquinas' first argument from motion has absolutely nothing to do with time going back to infinity, the big bang, the age of the universe or how it came about. So much so that Aquinas made it an emphatic point to stipulate that it CANNOT be shown through reason alone that the universe had a beginning or time does not stretch back to infinity. So unless you want to claim Aquinas didn't even know his own argument, I would suggest the confusion is on your part, not his.
On the personal side, I have no issue whatsoever with the theory of evolution, be it biological or cosmological. It's another reason why I had no contribution to all your posts, there's just not much I disagree with, save for the silly notion that enough time will just make magic happen (talk about god of the gaps ).
So that's where we are. You want to continue with this fruitless pursuit of posting scientific theories and data well known to us all, please go right ahead, no skin off my back. But if you're ready to have a serious discussion on metaphysics, if for no other reason than to understand better our point of view, let me know.
Thank you for your invitation. I do agree that logic and reason had to come from somewhere. But why philosophy and the metaphysical? Couldn't logic and reason be only the evolved results of our physical experiences in our early struggle for survival?
You have it backwards. Logic and reason did not come from philosophy and metaphysics, it is the other way around. First the principles of non-contradiction, causality, and sufficient reason. From there we deduce attributes about our reality.
trulyenlightened wrote:I'm sure that the natives surviving in the jungles of old Borneo, are not pondering over existential reality, or the true meaning of life, purpose and essence. In fact it is only when the mind not distracted, or totally engaged, that we can self-reflect at all.
Is there a point to this?
trulyenlightened wrote:Although I am certainly willing to engage in any topic that require no evidence, no proofs, no right or wrong, and no practical applications, I feel that my expertise in this area is only limited to common sense and intuition.
And there you go again, making clearly false assumptions in topics you have repeatedly demonstrated total lack of knowledge in. Metaphysics is not in the business of offering evidence, that's the domain of science. Metaphysics has a much higher burden of proof since it is in the very business of offering proofs, not merely evidence. So you are simply factually wrong here as metaphysics is most certainly based on common sense (logic and reason come first), and does offer proofs and practical applications.
trulyenlightened wrote: Although I am confused that you claim to agree with most of my perspective, and then claim the metaphysical as a serious discussion?
I do. I also believe your incredulity seems to be stemming from never having given the subject matter any serious thought and simply dismissing it as some 13th century monk's mumbo-jumbo. I don't blame you, most modern day scientists as well as new-age philosophers think the same way so you're in the majority here. Except you're all wrong.
trulyenlightened wrote:Also, I'm confused over your not understanding the significance of how time allows for small changes to become more pronounced changes. Or why time is necessary to allow for trial and error, genetic variation, speciation, etc. Given enough time almost anything is possible. Although time is relative, it is still a dimensional property of our Universe, not a gap-filler.
Do you really think we haven't thought this through?
Do you understand the difference between an accidentally order causal series that does not preclude an infinite regress as a possibility, and an essentially ordered causal series that necessitates a first cause, thereby precluding an infinite regress as a possibility? For goodness' sake man, either engage in the topic or quit building straw men, the field is full of them.
trulyenlightened wrote: The mistake that you make is that Aquinas did not have the scientific tools that we have today. He could not use the CMB radiation, or the hubble telescope to verify that the Universe had a beginning and is expanding. He did not have quantum physics to verify a quantum gravity and a quantum vacuum, to hypothesize how the Universe may have started. His premises are based entirely on inductive reasoning. We are seriously talking about apples and oranges. Maybe you can give me a preview, or an example of how any metaphysical argument on any topic would end? Don
You keep perpetuating your error, looking at our universe. What I am telling you is that Aquinas' arguments apply not only to our universe, but across all reality and to all times and any universe with any laws of physics, including a multi-verse with infinite universes and across any quantum fields your heart desires.
And metaphysical arguments can end like any other logical argument. They are presented as a set of premises with a necessary conclusion that follows from the premises. You want to end the argument all you have to do is show that one or more of the premises is not true or that the conclusion does not follow from the premises. It really is that simple, logical.