| Theoretical Philosophy » Moved a few questions » 7/10/2015 7:31 pm |
- AKG
- Replies: 58
-
Would that render the argumenr from contingency false?
| Theoretical Philosophy » Moved a few questions » 7/10/2015 6:11 pm |
- AKG
- Replies: 58
-
Oh ok, so even if the laws were necessary they would derive their necesitty from God. But would'nt some argue if these mathematical laws of physics are necessary we don't need to further explain them in God?
| Theoretical Philosophy » Moved a few questions » 7/10/2015 5:29 pm |
- AKG
- Replies: 58
-
I know Ed is a Thomist, but is'nt platonism itself relevant to classical theism
| Theoretical Philosophy » Moved a few questions » 7/10/2015 4:20 pm |
- AKG
- Replies: 58
-
Another questions in regards to the laws of physics and contingency:
Could it be said that under a Platonic view where the laws actually have independent existence , the laws due to being composed of mathematics are necessary as mathematical things such as 2 plus 2 equals 4 are regarded as necessary and self explanatory/existant and since the laws themselves are mathematic equations would this make them metaphysically necessary? If not how come?
| Theoretical Philosophy » Moved a few questions » 7/09/2015 10:30 pm |
- AKG
- Replies: 58
-
So if a skeptic says something along the line that if God's existence is identical to his essence, should'nt that entail he exist by simply knowing and since they don't believe in him, this is false, they have'nt understood what Aquinas and others meant at all? What exactly do they mean if this is not the case?
P.S do you reccomend any books or media that explains classical theism, and the arguments in more depth.
| Theoretical Philosophy » Moved a few questions » 7/09/2015 10:03 pm |
- AKG
- Replies: 58
-
Taking Scott's advice I've decided to move the questions I have to the philosophy forum:
1. With regards to the argument from contingency even if we say that by needing to emperically verify the laws of physics entail that they are treated as possibly obtaining rather then necessarily obtaining, and thus would be contingent, could a skeptic =13pxsay in response to the fact that we have to go out and see if the laws of physics work to determine their existence as not knowing them is enough, shouldn't we do the same for something that is Being itself as for them knowing it wouldn't entail that it exist to them and they may see it as creating an exception for God, and not work.Furthermore could they say that God cannot be necessary because denying his existence is conceivable and thus logically possible.=13px I know the great thinkers of such as Aquinas and Avicenna would not come up with something like this, but it is a little hard to see it.
| Introductions » Introduction and a few questions » 7/09/2015 9:13 am |
- AKG
- Replies: 6
-
I have basic understanding of why the laws themselves are contingent, but I think a skeptic might say in response to the fact that we have to go out and see if the laws of physics work to determine their existence as not knowing them is enough, should'nt we do the same for something that is Being itself as for them knowing it would'nt entail that it exist to them and they may see it as creating an exception for God, and not work. I know the great thinkers of such as Aquinas and Avicenna would not come up with something like this, but it is a little hard to see it.
| Introductions » Introduction and a few questions » 7/08/2015 9:17 pm |
- AKG
- Replies: 6
-
So, Scott are you essentialy saying that because the laws of physics need to be emperically tested, this entails that just because we know about them does not entail that they exist, which would make their essence, different from their existence, and thus they would be contingent rather than necessary? If so could'nt some one argue the same thing about a necessary being as just because we know about it does not entail that it exist?
| Introductions » Introduction and a few questions » 7/08/2015 6:24 pm |
- AKG
- Replies: 6
-
Hello, I'm new here, and I've read a couple of post on Dr. Feser's blog. I'm really interested in classical theism as I think it offers a good rebuttal to the Gnu Atheist movement, and all those internet atheist online. I have question regarding something Dr. Feser said in his post fifty shades of nothing. I also posted this question to his blog, but I then noticed this forum, and thought I might also post it here.
He said that the reason the laws of physics cannot be necessary is because they need to be verified empirically, and this allows them to in principle be falsified. Does he mean that before we know if a law is valid or not we have to test it, and before that there is a logical possibility that it could either be true or false, which would make it contingent as it could be different in possible worlds. If so, then would this claim still be valid after a law is established and proven to be true after the test, as if it is proven true after the test, wouldn't that mean it is no longer logically possible for it to be different in all possible worlds, and instead would be the same in all of them, which would take away their contingency if the above is valid. Thank you in advance for the responses.