Scott wrote:

I prefer one of Ed's other illustrations: a musician playing a song on an instrument.

Looks like borrowed/modified from Plato's Phaedo.

There's another analogy that I have found handy, similar to Feser's more-quoted one: The hand and the candle. Whenever the hand moves, the candle moves - in this sense they seem perfectly correlated and simultaneous, but the hand is moved by the will of the person who moves the hand, so there's no question about the insurmountable primacy of the hand compared to the candle.

The hand imparts movement to the candle, never the other way round. Similarly, God imparts everything and creation participates in it.

AKG wrote:

Any thoughts on this?

The same one as always: unless the "singularity" is self-existent (which isn't the case unless its essence is its existence, which also isn't the case), it can't be the First Cause.

Beyond that, Alexander already has it covered.

I was discussing with someone on reddit who claimed the Five ways of Aquinas are invalid. He stated:
"If you want to use the argument as anything other than a thought excercise with no repercussion for reality, then yes, you need to establish that the presumptions are in fact in line with the observable physical laws of the universe. Apologists often try to shift away from that, but at the same time, want the argument to have implications for observable reality. You simply can't have both. Unless you don't actually claim that the Aquinas argument is in any form evidence, let alone proof, for any god, and is only useful as a thought excercise, in which case, okay, I agree with you."
"And once again I have to question if you actually read what I wrote. Because I explained just that. That you can't have it both ways. Either you have something which allows deduction about observable reality, in which case you also have to support evidence that all the presumptions and subclaims conform to observable reality. OR, you decide that your argument exists in a logical vaccuum, independant from natural laws, in which case you don't need to support anything, but you also can't use it to make deductions about natural reality. You can't have both! You can't have an argument to which natural laws and observations (i.e. empiricism) are irrelevant, but which at the same time can make deductions which hold valid in the natural world. I have had this exact discussion several times now, because people who claim their religion is supported by anything resembling evidence want to have the benefits of empiricism, while at the same time enjoy the liberty of not having to prove your every claim that purely hypothetical philosophizing offers. And that doesn't work, you gotta pick one. If you want a method to which the natural laws of reality are irrelevant, you'll get an answer which is is irrelevant to reality. Which is fine, and might still be worth doing, but in this case it's a thought exercise, not a statement about reality"
"The problem here is that people want the benefits of scientific empiricism (Which is why Feser keeps coming back to empiricism in your quote), but without the pesky standards of proof of science, and instead the rather subjective approach of philosophy (Which is why Faser keeps backpaddeling on making sure everyone know he's not actually calling this an area of science.)"
Does anyone know how to respond to his claims?

AKG wrote:

I was discussing with someone on reddit who claimed the Five ways of Aquinas are invalid.

He stated:
"If [1] you want to use the argument as anything other than a thought excercise [2] with no repercussion for reality, then yes, you need to establish that [3] the presumptions are in fact in line with the observable physical laws of the universe. [4] Apologists often try to shift away from that, but at the same time, want the argument to have implications for observable reality. [5] You simply can't have both. Unless [6] you don't actually claim that the Aquinas argument is in any form evidence, let alone proof, for any god, and [7] is only useful as a thought excercise, [8] in which case, okay, I agree with you."
"And once again [9] I have to question if you actually read what I wrote. Because I explained just that. That you can't have it both ways. Either [10] you have something which allows deduction about observable reality, in which case you also have to support evidence that [11] all the presumptions and subclaims conform to observable reality. OR, you decide that [12] your argument exists in a logical vaccuum, independant from natural laws, in which case [13] you don't need to support anything, but you also [14] can't use it to make deductions about natural reality. [15] You can't have both! [16] You can't have an argument to which natural laws and observations (i.e. empiricism) are irrelevant, but which at the same time [17] can make deductions which hold valid in the natural world. I have had this exact discussion several times now, because [18] people who claim their religion is supported by anything resembling evidence [19] want to have the benefits of empiricism, while at the same time [20] enjoy the liberty of not having to prove your every claim [21] that purely hypothetical philosophizing offers. And [22] that doesn't work, you gotta pick one. If [23] you want a method to which the natural laws of reality are irrelevant, [24] you'll get an answer which is is irrelevant to reality. Which is fine, and might still be worth doing, but [25] in this case it's a thought exercise, [26] not a statement about reality"
"The problem here is that [27] people want the benefits of scientific empiricism (Which is why Feser keeps coming back to empiricism in your quote), but [28] without the pesky standards of proof of science, and instead [29] [want] the rather subjective approach of philosophy ([30] Which is why Faser keeps backpaddeling on making sure everyone know he's not actually calling this an area of science.)"
Does anyone know how to respond to his claims?

After picking out the component sentences from the connectives (roughly as I did above with the numbers in square brackets), do you still feel a strong need to? Almost every pair of statements are connected in either a very doubtful or simply false way. Most of the component statements themselves have severe problems, sometimes several. When someone shovels crap like that, it really doesn't matter even if they have a point; it's worthless to sort him out step by step, no matter how many times he might claim you have the burden of proof. 

Try this:

(A) If he really said 'invalid', point out that the argument *is* valid: IF its premises are true, the conclusion must be true.

(B) Ignore what he wrote - unless you are an expert and devastating fisker. You will likely only be writing for the amusement of the other readers, not the poor writer.

(C) Instead, say something a little soothing like 'that's a lot to absorb, and naturally in your anger at such arguments, you seem to have repeated yourself. May I just ask a very simple-minded question?' [Or however you hide the knife.]

(D) 'Take Aquinas' Nth Way [pick your or his favorite]. Now which premise are you claiming is *false*? That's all I want to know. Then I'll have a better handle on how to reply to you [or whatever you say while sharpening your knife]. Because, you know [if you like a little aw-shucks-ma'am language], if a statement is true, it might be useful, whether it's empirically or logically true; if it's false, it won't matter if it's empirically or logically false.' [Bat your eyelids innocently. This was Socrates' secret to winning in court, btw. Oh, wait.]

(E) Rinse and repeat. With the kind of logorrhea suggested by that quote above, he will likely write up another cloud of knowing [I invented this phrase, and my name is Chris Kirk Speaks]. 

Chris Kirk Speaks

Last edited by Shade Tree Philosopher (11/06/2015 4:07 pm)

To me it sounds as if McCabe is emphasising his preference for a robust cosmological argument than one from intelligent design and such.

We can't say "look how wonderous this apple is, God must have made it" as much as we can say "well, the universe exists and as such has an underlying Necessity.