Nils wrote: ↑
Sun Aug 05, 2018 12:39 am
Byblos wrote: ↑
Fri Jul 27, 2018 11:13 am
As I said before, although I do not believe we're at a stalemate in any way, I really don't think I can contribute further to this topic as I see I'm beginning to repeat myself. From the beginning my goal was never to convince you of anything Nils, nor to win any cheap debates, as I am equally certain this was not your goal either.
My aim was always that you take just one thing from all of this, on more than one occasion you've made the claim that you've never been presented with an intellectual argument for the existence of God. I'm hoping I've at least managed to stir up some curiosity to the contrary.
I also want to thank you for a most civil discourse. It is rather refreshing.
Sorry, Byblos for late response but this matter isn’t simple. I still think that are more to be said on both sides but of course you decide to continue or not.
My initial intention was to find out why you and Faser were claiming that there are proofs of Gods existence, and, which I presumed, which hidden premises there were behind these proofs. It was interesting and a got a better understanding even if I’m not convinced. A second, later intention was making evident that the atheist/materialistic view on the cause of the world is as reasonable as the Christian view
(or perhaps as unreasonable as the Christian view). I know that many on this forum like Christianity and the idea of a God but to me it would be fair to admit that there are other views that aren’t implausible.
It was interesting to read Feser, and I appreciated discussing the arguments with you Byblos. If you prefer to stop here I also want to thank you for the discussion (even if I would prefer to continue for a while discussing my latest post).
Really, on that point in bold -- making evident that the atheist/materialistic view on the cause of the world is as reasonable as the Christian view
-- your fathoming of "first cause" only in terms of what ignited our the universe continues to show a lack of understanding of the depth of argument especially in relation to PSR and an adequate explantation.
Ignoring PSR for a moment to step into the cosmological argument, the Atheist hardly has a good explanation for what ignited the "Big Bang"/caused our world anyhow. On a logical philosophical level claiming there exist an infinite regress of cause and effect boggles the mind and is contradictory. There is no way to actually traverse points an infinite series, plus the numerous other logical arguments against an infinite regress of temporal events given we are here and now. So it seems we're logically being asked to believe in something logically unsound -- believing that our universe has an actual infinite causes and effects going back into the past.
As for the scientific explanations, they are no better. When leading secular scientists posit things like an infinite number of previous universes (despite the logical
impossibilies of such, not to mention physical
impossibilities given finite energy), such are really begging us to believe in their hoodwinking. Or, should we seriously believe the universe actually came from nothing, like with some zero energy universe -- despite in logical terms such really being "something" and not "nothing"? The reason why I think you and many Atheists keep applying Aquinas' arguments and PSR to a "first cause" comological argument, is perhaps because of the difficult position they are in trying to hold up their own cosmological story. They can't see past their pain point, which many think it better left at having faith that science will some day provide the answer rather than to concede the explanation is outside the boundaries of our physical world (and as such science)
Now, getting back onto PSR, some will say we just ought to accept the existence of anything as "brute fact", that physical laws themselves have just always existed. BUT, this ignores old-age arguments of Aristotle on motion. That is, in the here and now
, this very instant, there is act and potentiality. My hand moving the the air requires my hand be actual, my arm and whole body is actual, sustained by physical laws and a bunch of other actualities right in the present moment
in order to pass from potentiality into a new state of actuality. At some point we must have the the actual actualiser (aka pure act) which has no potentiality, otherwise nothing moves and becomes actualised. This argument has nothing to do with the cosmological argument, while it seems many who don't believe in God like to always apply it there.
So then, on the PSR, until one can resolve Aristotle's arguments on motion, act and potentiality, has an explanation to such, then they really don't have an explanation for why the world exists, nor its laws or anything else.