Is it not just a mere assertion to say the universe is contingent? How can we prove the statement "the universe could have been otherwise?" We've never seen it be otherwise, and just because we can imagine it having different laws, constants etc. does not mean that it could, in actuality, been any different.

Really, so you think the rationalist proof is stronger than the Aristotelian proof? What, would you say, are the advantages of that argument?

So after I finish Five Proofs (I have still a few more questions I'd like to post here), what would you all recommend for more advanced writings on classical theism? I hear people mention David Oderberg and Brian Davies. Anyone else that is worth reading, given that I am still relatively new to this area of study?

Here I depart from Feser and agree with Hart in thinking that universalism is true. Nevermind the biblical verses in support/against it, I don't see any way around the problem of hell other than universalism. 

To be born in the wrong place, influenced by the wrong thinkers (Dawkins/Harris, never reading Feser), or having brain damage that doesn't allow one to consider God, or just being a gullible person who buys into atheism--none of this seems to warrant eternal damnation. At best, you could say that a person who, with full awareness of everything, chose to reject God over a 100 year life span would deserve to spend 100 years apart from God, gradually being refined to enter his presence.

Otherwise the math doesn't add up: infinite punishment for (at most) 100 years of a rebellious or ignorant life. 

Hey everyone. So I am still pretty new here and certainly a lay man, so I wanted to get some thoughts on a review that makes a number of criticisms, I am wondering if they are legitimate objections, are based on misreadings of the book, are strawmen etc.

Edit: I've decided to keep all of my questions about five proofs contained to this thread, so please scroll down to later posts if you'd like to help clarify further questions/objections I have or have seen.

https://jonathandavidgarner.wordpress.com/2017/12/03/five-proofs-of-the-existence-of-god-feser-book-review/

Here are some specific criticisms from the review followed by comment/question for you all:

1. Feser avoided the strongest arguments against theism that are "really important" such as:

- "certain conceptual proofs." Not sure what these are.
- "arguments of the “evidential” variety like atheistic teleological arguments, atheistic moral arguments, atheistic cosmological argument" Has Ed addressed these elsewhere in print? Do they have any force?

2. Feser arbitrarily defines change following Aristotle, when there are, in fact, other ways

"I never get the sense that he actually argues this his account of change is the correct one. Why think change is the actualization of a potential? Why can’t we subscribe to another account, besides Aristotle’s account?"

I assume Ed defends this in a earlier book like "Scholastic Metaphysics" or "Aquinas." If so, the reviewer would have to engage with these other books, and argue for the merits of some alternative account

3. "if naturalism is true, there is nothing to cause a hierarchical series to pass out of existence. If theism is true, God can easily stop sustaining any such series at any moment (and why can’t God create a series that is self-sustaining? By Feser’s logic, this is somehow logically impossible. How?!). At the same time, I’m sure Feser will respond by saying that his argument is deductive, but is he