AKG wrote:

@iwpoe, I don't mean that he rejects quarks, but that he rejects atomism or modern interpretations lf it as he said in this post: http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2014/04/welcome-to-machine.html
My question is why even though science shows there is a good chance fundamental particles exist.

The existence of quarks wouldn't ammount to a demonstration of metaphysical atomism, since, in short, it wouldn't show that quarks have no substantial form (nor would it show that the things composed of, at the lowest level available to us, quarks have no substantial form over and above that of the quarks, but this is an aditional seperate dispute).

I can try to give a better presentation of that when I get back from the mechanic, if you'd like.