- AKG
- Banned
Offline - Registered: 7/08/2015
- Posts: 375
Re: Moved a few questions
Hello again.
1. In regards to the claim whatever is changed is changed by another I've heard atheist claim that gravity refutes this.
2. Would humans and animals also refute this claim as when I get up to walk I don't think something that is already walking makes me walk.
3. I've also heard some atheist say that a quantum vacuum actualizes itself in the same way that humans in the example I states above and it does not need something outside of it to actualize itself.
Sorry if these are really basic questions, but I'm having a pretty hard time understanding this notion.
PS is Ben Yachov on this forum because I would like to ask him if he ever considered calling the Atheist Experience as they are really ignorant of the philosophy behind the existence of God, evil, and other issues yet they keep talking about these issues and the arguments for God as if their experts on it and always make the unicorn comparision. I would love to see Ben school them, and put them in their place.
- Scott
- Moderator
Offline
- From: Ohio, USA
- Registered: 6/26/2015
- Posts: 357
Re: Moved a few questions
AKG wrote:
1. In regards to the claim whatever is changed is changed by another I've heard atheist claim that gravity refutes this.
Well, it doesn't. 
Seriously, in order to say any more than that, we'll need an actual argument, or at least a summary of one.
If it's that two objects interacting gravitationally (orbiting one another, say) are supposed to be a counterexample, then the second most important problem with it is that each object does exert a force on, and impart motion to, the other. The most important problem is that the entire system still needs a Prime Mover to set it in motion in the first place.
2. Would humans and animals also refute this claim as when I get up to walk I don't think something that is already walking makes me walk.
Right; parts of you that are already in motion impart that motion to other parts of you. So no.
3. I've also heard some atheist say that a quantum vacuum actualizes itself in the same way that humans in the example I states above and it does not need something outside of it to actualize itself.
Here again, we'll need to know more about what the argument is in order to identify where it goes wrong. But if it's much like the previous example, then the problem will be that it really involves parts moving other parts.
- AKG
- Banned
Offline
- Registered: 7/08/2015
- Posts: 375
Re: Moved a few questions
So in beings such as ourselves that are composed of parts other parts move each other so were not really self actualized. Does that mean the first part that moves when I get up to walk is my legs which moves everything else. If so does my leg also need something to move it if it was the first part that moved all my other parts? What could it be?
In regards to the gravity objection and others here is a link to them. I'm not sure if these objections are good as they are made by those clowns on The Atheist experience. wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=Unmoved_mover
- •
Thread Starter- AKG
- Banned
Offline
- Registered: 7/08/2015
- Posts: 375
Re: Moved a few questions
Hello again,
I would like to ask another question. Some atheist claim that if there exist an eternal quantum vacuum which produced a fluctuation which created our universe,then the first way is less powerful as they claim that since vacuum fluctuations occur without any outside effect on them and instead only depend on the vacuum, and the vacuum is eternal they claim there is no need for something actual outside of the vacuum it when it fluctuates as it can do so without outside interference internally. If this is the case how cpuld a theist respond to this argument and show it does not invalidate the first way.
- •
Thread Starter- Scott
- Moderator
Offline
- From: Ohio, USA
- Registered: 6/26/2015
- Posts: 357
Re: Moved a few questions
If an eternal quantum vacuum can fluctuate, then it can change and it must therefore have parts or components of some kind (at least the part that changes vs. the part that doesn't, and possibly the part that changes vs. the part that causes the change). Further explanation is therefore required in order to account for the togetherness of its parts.
More generally, though, it isn't necessary to go through all of these proposed counterexamples case by case. Aquinas's basic argument is that for anything the essence or nature of which is distinct from its existence, further explanation is needed to account for its existence, since its essence stands in potency to its existence. The essence of the ultimate reality must therefore just be existence/being itself. The burden is now on the atheist to show that his proposed candidate (whether a quantum vacuum or anything else) satisfies this condition. And if it does, it's God anyway.
Last edited by Scott (7/28/2015 3:06 pm)
- AKG
- Banned
Offline
- Registered: 7/08/2015
- Posts: 375
Re: Moved a few questions
Thanks Scott
- •
Thread Starter- AKG
- Banned
Offline
- Registered: 7/08/2015
- Posts: 375
Re: Moved a few questions
In regards to the explanation for the parts could'nt the explanation be in the parts themselves rather than an outside force and it is simply the parts nature to go together.
- •
Thread Starter- Scott
- Moderator
Offline
- From: Ohio, USA
- Registered: 6/26/2015
- Posts: 357
Re: Moved a few questions
In regards to the explanation for the parts could'nt the explanation be in the parts themselves rather than an outside force and it is simply the parts nature to go together.
No. In that case the parts themselves would be more metaphysically/ontologically fundamental than the composite entity and the composite entity therefore wouldn't be the ultimate reality.
- AKG
- Banned
Offline
- Registered: 7/08/2015
- Posts: 375
Re: Moved a few questions
Okay but could'nt it be said that the parts themselves are the ultimate reality instead?
- •
Thread Starter- Scott
- Moderator
Offline
- From: Ohio, USA
- Registered: 6/26/2015
- Posts: 357
Re: Moved a few questions
Okay but could'nt it be said that the parts themselves are the ultimate reality instead?
Thereby acknowledging the original claim as wrong?
At any rate, this response leaves the basic issue unaddressed. Again, unless the essence of the "part" is identical with its existence, the part's not ultimate. Unless the argument for that claim is refuted (and, being about act and potency, it's very much a part of the full First Way even though Aquinas doesn't spell it out explicitly in his short summary in the ST), there's no purpose in sorting through specific proposed counterexamples and considering piecemeal replies on this or that side issue.
Last edited by Scott (7/28/2015 4:49 pm)