79: Edward Feser Explodes Richard Dawkins' "refutation" of Aquinas' 5 ways

See show notes at PintsWithAquinas.com 
Q&A Music from www.bensound.com

[@vernonknapp7165]

Set your Fesers on fun!

[@paulandreigillesania5359]

Dawkins just watched 2 episodes of Crash Course Philosophy before writing his book. U can't change my mind.

[@nathansamuel7837]

Loll... True tho.. in terms of philosophy in his book, the quality wouldn't even be of par with a bachelor's degree student's..

[@jackdarby2168]

Yes, if we were to not adress Dawkins but the force behind the thoughts, it seems like a mechanical world understanding, very shallow, superficial and crude.

[@RafaelGarcia-ue6uc]

🤣🤣🤣 Crash Course Philosophy...

[@jackdarby2168]

Not just Dawkins but there's an entire world of people who are as dumb as him if not worse..like the kind of people who give ted talks. I just watched Vsause "is ypur red my red"..I remember thinking..."wow this is so Dumb".

[@mathewjose4753]

@@jackdarby2168 I wouldn't say they are dumb though. Richard Dawkins is a pretty good Scientists but yeah, one of the worst wannabe Philosopher and Theologian.

[@JoshMcSwain]

When it comes to philosophy and Dawkins, all I will ever think of is Michael Ruse saying, "The God Delusion wouldn't pass an intro to philosophy course. He makes me embarrassed to call myself an atheist."

[@matswessling6600]

michel ruse make me embarrassed to be atheist. philisophers are so misguided.

[@NG-we8uu]

Who else wishes to see a Feser vs Dawkins debate?

[@shankz8854]

Me!

[@shankz8854]

Qwerty I would be interested to hear Dawkins response to Fesers criticisms

[@davidlara993]

Everyone apart from Dawkins and his followers.

[@shankz8854]

David Lara99 I am a great admirer of Dawkins. Feser, on the other hand, does nothing for me. He seems to be a modern day philosopher who thinks like a medieval theologian. Science and our understanding of the universe has evolved enormously since then in ways that I believe are detrimental to the notion that it (the universe) is all for us. Humans are a minuscule speck in an unimaginably large, inhospitable and mysterious cosmos. Evolution explains a large part of how we came to be and I’ve never heard a good argument as to “why we came to be”. Most humans have lived and died in poverty and ignorance in a cruel and brutal world with no sign whatsoever of divine justice. Most humans never even got the chance to learn about Christianity, let alone understand it. If you already know the answer to the questions you ask, then you already know. But if you look at the universe as objectively as possible I don’t see how one could conclude that deism is true, let alone theism and even more ridiculous than that would be one of the abrahamic religions, which each have their own problems. I, like many atheists I’m sure, find Aquinas’ arguments unconvincing (yes, even Fesers presentation of the arguments). And of course even if we were to accept them, that would only get us to deism or theism (arguably monotheism). Linking that then to Christianity seems way beyond the bounds of reason. Part of the problem (only part) is the glaring bias involved. Imagine a Pfizer researcher setting out to find the cure for disease X, and ends up proclaiming that turns out to be drug Y, which Pfizer has a never-ending patent on. Wow that was quite a rant...what was I talking about? Oh yeah, I would like to see Dawkins debate Feser and I’m sure lots of other Dawkins fans would too.

[@davidlara993]

@@shankz8854 Well, I don´t think so, as Dawkings usually refuses to debate philosophers (which is consistent with the fact he is not a philosopher and he has received so many bad reviews from the academical world for trying to explain points he isn´t gifted at). From the other point of view, the fine tuning (despite evolution, which has nothing to do in macrocosmos as Darwinians try to explain) has shown that, of course, the developement of science has offered as much more parameters and theories that justify our privilege position in the universe. It doesn´t mean theism is right, but it raises many questions that one century ago you could not even postulate. So, yes, as positivism and new philosophy of science had to face evidence, the current progress has shown very much that we are important in the universe (despite you consider tiny the planet, which is not about fine tuning aspect).

[@Angel-wk3vl]

I used to be atheist, not anymore though lol

[@nvsbeatbox3949]

What changed your mind?

[@dazedmaestro1223]

@@nvsbeatbox3949, reason and evidence; that's for sure.

[@nvsbeatbox3949]

@@dazedmaestro1223 Shame that many atheists misunderstand St Thomas's arguments.

[@chosenskeptic5319]

NVS Beatbox 🤔 Aquila’s arguments are assertions not evidence. logic is flawed, you can logic anything into existence, logic is not proof, that’s why it’s called an argument and not fact. Aquinas argument is nothing more than the god of the gaps fallacy. I see motion, god. I see design, god. I see purpose potential, god. The problem, chemical elements have no potential ability. Only living things and machines have potential to change. Everything else is a reaction. No necessary being required. I’ll logic Aquinas necessary being out of existence. 🤔 Nothingness has no potential, no infinite regress, no design, no beginning, therefore no necessary being is required.

[@eldermillennial8330]

Chosen Skeptic Causality has no beginning? 😏The only people who take that seriously are anti-theists and Mormons. The difference between those two is that Mormon metaphysics holds to an infinite number of little ‘gods’. You’re ultimate reasoning, which you’re obfuscating here to stay pithy, is an infinite Multiverse. (I think we can all agree on the evidence that our immediate universe is finite), Ignoring the LDS for now, There is NO hard evidence except some mathematical oddities in quantum mechanics for an infinite multiverse. But here’s the further logical fallacy with multiverse philosophy: Even if you could find hard evidence for it, it would only prove that a god wasn’t absolutely necessary for ANY ONE universe’s existence. But you fail to account for the fact that in an infinite multiverse ABSOLUTELY everything and anything is possible and inevitable, INCLUDING gods and a God of gods. Once a universe can be demonstrated to be artificial, regardless of how the being who made it came about, (or had always been) that being qualifies for “godhead” by any metaphysical measure. Disputing that is just a Symantec game of trying to say “well, that’s not WHAT I WOULD call a ‘god’!” It strikes me as a bigoted elitist sneer at the natural psychology of 99.9% of all other humans of all time and our relationship with the universe. “I’m above calling ANYTHING a ‘god’!”, is astonishingly arrogant. Agnosticism is vastly more logical because humility is logical. Humility is a logical path to the constructive. Arrogant pride is the illogical path to the self destructive. Frankly, if you were all truly logical and humble, the multiverse should have you all at least being semi-agnostic Deists.

[@mattnd20]

Excellent discussion

[@patricpeters7911]

Beautiful logo. As a graphic designer interested in all things Catholic, I have to say that’s an awesome type logo. Catholic ministries underestimate the power of graphic design!

[@tomgreene2282]

???

[@michaelptak5274]

@@tomgreene2282 ????

[@sarararah18]

Big fan. Thanks guys.

[@dynamic9016]

Thanks much for this video.

[@jackdarby2168]

Dawkins understanding of the world is crude. He is so simple. But his pride is too high, he needs to be more humble

[@martam4142]

He's a slave of his own genes. By his own admission! :)

[@Autobotmatt428]

@@martam4142 More like As Scruton put it "to 19th century view of science"

[@matswessling6600]

not at all. Dawkins worldview is way more complex and the oversimplified fairy tale wordld of Aquinas et al.

[@jackdarby2168]

@@matswessling6600 Confused and contracted worldview and complex worldview are different things( complex is something that is a whole and is composed of parts that are smaller, for e.g. building is a complex made of stones and wood by the builder)

[@matswessling6600]

@@jackdarby2168 no. that is not what complex as an adjective means.

[@southpawhammer8644]

Watching in 2022, love the buffer music

[@puggrad96]

Do you sell Pints with Aquinas pint glasses? I would buy some.

[@jeremysmith7176]

He has them to patrons.

[@williammcenaney9393]

I would ask St. Thomas to explain his argument for divine simplicity.

[@eldenlean5221]

As I understand it, it means that simplicity is greater than the complex. As complex things are contingent on multiple parts, that's what makes them complex. While the all simple is sufficient by itself. Thus God must be all simple.

[@doctorstrangiato3218]

On the simplicity point: Dawkins is essentially correct. God, if he is omniscient, he knows everything. This means that he possesses discrete items of information about all past, present, and future states of the universe, down to the microscopic level of reality (by the definition of omniscience). To possess this vast amount of discrete information, his mind must be composite and extremely complex, and hence cannot be simple.

[@michaelscofield1970]

@@doctorstrangiato3218 He is reality, therefore he knows reality. He must be absolute (without parts), otherwise he would not be pure actuality, as that would mean that he has some potentiality that he could have fulfilled.

[@Remy4489]

I'm not saying that Dawkins correctly understands St Thomas Aquinas arguments, however, it does seem logical to me that even if we assume Dawkins understanding (which may not be what Aquinas meant) than simply because an infinitive regress is logically impossible, this actually does require an uncaused cause; ie God.

[@thegreatcornholio7255]

Of course it does.

[@thegreatcornholio7255]

Over the past ten years or so, I went from thinking that people like Richard Dawkins and the new atheists were extremely intelligent, to realizing they literally don't even understand the subject at all... Why would somebody write a book on something they don't even understand? It seems really strange.

[@understone]

Lol..the bible wouldnt exist

[@paulnolan1941]

Because they can get away with it. But Why can they?

[@hegestratos2387]

Good stuff fam

[@elcidcampeador9629]

Aquinas was the greatest mind that ever lived

[@billcharly3174]

I personally belive that the greatest's minds that have ever existed were Leonardo da Vinci, Sócrates, Michael Faraday and Issac Newton, but Aquinas was also an inteligent men.

[@elcidcampeador9629]

@@billcharly3174 Intelligent men to be sure.

[@SK-ik9mc]

Ugh

[@SK-ik9mc]

Aquinas did make some good work but

[@SK-ik9mc]

His work on original sin is just yuck, he borrows way too much from Augustine of Hippo

[@nittaya3576]

I believe I would be inclined to attend/observe an Orthodox Mass but decline accepting Communion for reasons listed. It just seems to be more correct to be present for a valid sacrifice of the Sacrament then not going to service at all (there being absolutely no Eastern Rite option available). Would this be right? Or would one just be firing blanks or worse?

[@jamesshaw6455]

Definitely go :)

[@Questypants]

I haven't started the episode yet but when I was a young atheist I thought Feser was an absolute idiot. I can't wait to see him prove young me wrong!

[@AP-bo1if]

I'm sure you've thought it through with your north of the equator atheist IQ.

[@PaperPlateClorox]

“Explodes?” Ooooh. Let’s see. 👀

[@sonofode902]

My note, 18:33 Linear causation series and ordered causation series. Gin,

[@tomgreene2282]

I'm no Dawkins fan but he is not a philosopher so expectations have to be trimmed accordingly.

[@gixxerfixxer4159]

I agree that he's no philosopher. But then he shouldn't claim to "debunk" prominent philosophers.

[@tomgreene2282]

@@gixxerfixxer4159 Indeed!

[@thegreatcornholio7255]

Well, he should probably quit writing books about it then and commenting as an authority on subjects he really doesn't understand.

[@Strive1974]

Truth Hammer

[@misterfosterdulles]

I read the five ways and listen to several talks good.. And even though I am a devout Catholic... I'm interested to ask how can one be sure that in any of the conclusions of the 5-way... That the inherent conclusive uncertainties st thomas refers to is said to be "God".... is truly just a force of some sort that is unknown? And does not the devil possess many of the same mimicked "false powers" the true God of the five ways is being proposed?

[@misterfosterdulles]

@@xaviervelascosuarez thank you much for this very respectfully investigating response. Truly, this was very helpful in my trying to substantiate my own faith growth. I wish i could integrate the fullness of first cause...and then bridge that into the efficacy of my prayer life. I actually have a meeting next week with a dr. John Rshia , a theology professor ar benedictine college, a catholic University. I meeting him on that conversation point that in consideration of nichomacean ethics...why is it necessary to have a God to supporr virtues? Is it not ethical in its own self-interest , no "God", to justify seeing the virtues for themselves and the good they bring to life in the quality that one selfishly may want have to live a flourishing life according to one's own chosen values and goals... and the fact that being in service to God is simply a Casper the Friendly Ghost placebo effect mythological euphemism to attach value that is unnecessary, but so chosen if desired, like pascal's wager as icing in the cake

[@namapalsu2364]

It's like this. The five ways point to something. Whatever that something is, throught the five ways, we know that it has certain characteristics. Now, these characteristics, as we commonly understood them, is the characteristic of God. Not the demon (since one of its characteristic is goodness, immutable, timeless and could create ex nihilo). Not an alien (for one, an alien would be a material thing and the five ways point to immateriality as its characteristic). Not any other things we know, but one particular thing that we call God. Now, the five ways does not point to a Christian God (or a muslim God for that matter). It points to a general characteristics of a God.

[@brucefetter]

Re the question on Eastern Orthodox and Romans, there is an interesting Thomas tie in If i may be remembering this incorrectly. As I recall he was on his way to a council to discuss reunion with the EO when he died. Just an interesting note.

[@NG-we8uu]

Here you can download some of Feser’s books for free: isidore.co/calibre/#book_id=7401&library_id=CalibreLibrary&panel=book_list&search=Edward%20feser&sort=sort.asc

[@ob4161]

This is brilliant. Thank you.

[@martam4142]

He deserves to be paid for his work.

[@williamreymond2669]

21:30 Ed] "Let's say Al begets Bob begets who begets Chuck who begets Dave...." Fine, but Al begetting Bob does not preclude Al continuing to beget further children after Bob begets Chuck. So, what I'm suggesting is that even within linear timelines you can have overlapping timelines - if that makes any sense.

[@Shane7492]

While I believe that the most convincing way to know God is via direct experience, i.e. meditation, self-enquiry, psychedelic experiences, NDEs, etc., Edward Feser lays out the best logical arguments of anyone I've ever heard if you simply want to believe it conceptually. However, we shouldn't settle for that as a substitute for direct experience, because the latter will have a much greater impact on your life.

[@charlescarter2072]

Well said

[@sovietsandvich8443]

The world must have had a beginning. If there is an infinite past, an infinite amount of time would have already had to pass in order to get to this current point in time. If you say there is an infinite past, then you are saying a never-ending amount of time has already ended before this current point in time. It would be like counting to 0 from the smallest negative number on a number line, it can’t be done.

[@LostArchivist]

Unless time is a continuum and not an endless series of discretes.

[@oliverrodriguez7470]

The Archivist That is not an argument Aquinas or Aristotle actually make.

[@quakers200]

Be careful with infinity ie. There are an infinite number of points in an inch since it will always take some time to go from one point to the next nothing can ever travel that whole distance because there will always be one more point to cross between where you are and the end.

[@sovietsandvich8443]

@@quakers200 yes but we know that’s not true because things can travel through space. It would follow that space is discrete, not continuous. Planck length sort of indicates that space is divided into discrete measurements already

[@sovietsandvich8443]

@@LostArchivist I think space is probably discrete, which would mean time is also discrete. What reasons do you have to think space or time is a continuum when you have issues like zenos paradoxes?

[@MrYaktownclown]

Would it be a fair characterization that he didn’t think arguments from presuppositions were legitimate arguments?

[@evidencebasedfaith6658]

I'm a huge fan of Edward Feser. He seems to have a lot of good information and I like his book 5 proofs of the existence of God. But can anyone tell me why Catholics practice so many things that are simply unbiblical?

[@namapalsu2364]

Evidence Based Faith Because they are actually biblical but some don't know which verses support it.

[@mattnd20]

What is unbiblical you are referring to ?

[@gemmeliusgrammaticus2509]

Because Catholic tradition preceded the Codification of the bible. In other words, first century Christians for instance did not have a “bible” as we have or would think of it. The bible was codified according to Catholic tradition and not the other way round. The is one of, if not THE main fallacies at the heart of protestant doctrine and historiography.

[@evidencebasedfaith6658]

@@mattnd20 Well let's start with just one. Catholics believe in praying to saints right? That's clearly not biblical.

[@evidencebasedfaith6658]

@@gemmeliusgrammaticus2509 Well the issue with what you're talking about is that Catholics claim that the catholic tradition started with Jesus. Obviously I would dispute that.

[@johncollins8304]

Dawkins once said, 'Turnips are my cousins'. He only said it once. (Poetic licence there. The actual words of this golden - tongued loudhailer of atheism were: "We are ... distant cousins of bananas and turnips." Maybe he's a not so distant descendent of Baldrick (UK joke; search Baldrick turnip).

[@emiblux98]

Love Baldrick and his turnips!

[@spiritualpolitics8205]

His critique of Dawkins re his mis-construal of Aquinas may be well-informed and correct, but at a deeper level QM may provide the explanation of everything here. It would be interesting to see what Feser does with the so-called "quantum foam".

[@llamahguy7229]

I know that he had written a book called Aristotle's Revenge, where he argues against the idea that modern science disproves the five ways, but I haven't read it myself so I can't say for sure he addresses "quantum foam".

[@spiritualpolitics8205]

@@llamahguy7229 I don't want to take him out of context, but on my earlier skimming of his book, he appears to crystallize his thinking in this paragraph: ""Now, since causation involves the actualization of potential, any description which leaves out one or the other is going to leave out causation. In the case of the four-dimensional block universe, what is left out is any potential needing to be actualized; in the case of quantum theory, what is left out is anything to actualize the potential. In both cases what is missing is missing, not because it is absent from reality, but because it is bound to be absent from a consistently mathematicized description of reality."" IMHO this begs the question in the case of quantum theory he mentions, because it is then only the definition "potential needing to be actualized" that assumes these couldn't be emergent from said foam. Meaning, the quantum foam is the First Mover in the ontological sense, because it can both be potential and the original actualizer.

[@novakingood3788]

13:26 Why should Dawkins have read what others have said about Aquinas? Surely one should go to the source rather than being influenced by the interpretations of others.

[@antonyabishek6596]

Have you read Aquinas… you cannot read Aquinas just like that .. we go to some commentators because the volume of Aquinas work is large.:. Reading a commentary gives perspective about Aquinas thinking and background … Aquinas is very hard to read … feser questions whether dawkins did the homework …

[@elcidcampeador9629]

I think I would disagree with Aquinas that it cannot be shown philosophically that the universe had a beginning. I believe it can be. Or, if not philosophically, than naturally. We know from modern science that matter is slowly being ground out of existence through transformation into heat. This is known as "heat death of the universe." What this essentially means is that, as time passes, less and less energy in the universe exists in the form of matter. If the universe had existed forever, that means that, as one goes further and further back into the past, there would be more and more matter present in the universe. If the universe had existed forever, that means that we could go infinitely far back and find an infinite presence of matter in the universe. However, science tells us that eventually all the matter in the universe will be ground out into heat. This means that we would be going from an infinite amount of matter in the past to a finite amount at the end of the universe, which is impossible. Unless someone finds a way that the universe naturally recycles heat energy back into matter, it is impossible for the universe not to have had a beginning.

[@evidencebasedfaith6658]

So how would you respond to someone who is arguing for the Oscillating universe model? Which basically says that for all of eternity the universe just keeps crunching and then re-expanding.

[@LogosTheos]

Science can't prove anything. It is only probabilistic. Atheists always deny a beginning by appealing to the possibility of the Universe not having a beginning or that one day physics may show the Universe is eternal. The Kalam is not an airtight argument. That is why I abandoned it once I learned about Aquinas.

[@evidencebasedfaith6658]

@@LogosTheos Yea I just recently started reading edward feser's book. The motion argument seems airtight.

[@shankz8854]

Evidence Based Faith it’s as airtight as you want it to be. It’s untestable and therefore unfalsifiable.

[@elcidcampeador9629]

@@evidencebasedfaith6658 I would simply say there is no evidence for it and use the argument I used above.

[@friendlybanjoatheist5464]

If you’re interested in this video, it doesn’t really start till six minutes. C’mon Matt. Make it easy for us. We don’t need a promotional bullshit or the chitchat. Sic Feser on Dawkins within 30 seconds max. Thanks.

[@jean-baptistedupont5967]

Let's approach that with a bit of Aristotelian logic: 1. Fact: the world doesn't owe you sh*t. 2. Fact: Matt Fradd is part of the world. 3. Leads us to following conclusion: Matt Fradd doesn't owe you sh*t.

[@friendlybanjoatheist5464]

@@jean-baptistedupont5967 is that directed at me? If so 1. Composition fallacy. Google it 2. I like Matt, I am interested in Thomism. I am in rolled at the Dominican school of philosophy and theology. I want Matt’s show to succeed. I’m just saying “dude, come out swinging.” Sorry if it came across badly.

[@jean-baptistedupont5967]

@@friendlybanjoatheist5464 1. You are mistaken. The composition fallacy would apply if I had infered the nature of the whole thing by the nature of one of its parts ("part" to "whole.") But if one goes into the opposite direction ("whole" to "part"), the fallacy does not apply. Example: All humans have a head > Thomas is a human > therefore Thomas has to have a head. Composition fallacy: Thomas has blue eyes > Thomas is a human > therefore all humans have blue eyes. (I might now also add the snarky "Google it"-remark, but I won't.) 2. Thanks for the apology (I mean it.) Your comments do indeed come across badly, and you might work on that sneeringly arrogant tone a bit (especially considering your being enrolled at a school of philosophy and theology, as you claim.)

[@friendlybanjoatheist5464]

@@jean-baptistedupont5967 Thank you. I do apologize and I know I need to work on the snarky stuff. I really appreciate your pointing that out. OK, I see what you are saying about the direction of the composition fallacy. But what fallacy is this? This is the one I think you are making. The set of all tea cups cannot hold tea. My favorite tea cup is a member of that set. Therefore my favorite tea cup cannot hold tea.

[@jean-baptistedupont5967]

@@friendlybanjoatheist5464 All good, much appreciated! And I apologise if I came across as belligerent 👍Now, your example is quite a good one! Made me think for a while... I'm not quite sure if I understand it correctly: so, the example with the cups contains the fallacy, or it doesn't? And what do you mean by "the set of all tea cups"? And why can it not hold tea? I think that would have to be specified more precisely. (I don't want to infringe on your time and patience, but I do appreciate your taking the time to clarify!) The scenario I mean would be in this case: you have a set of tea cups, and none of the cups can hold tea because all of the cups have a hole in the bottom. So if your favourite cup is part of that set, then follows: your favourite cup has a hole too, and therefore cannot hold tea either. (Again, going from the whole set to one of its parts - I wouldn't see any fallacy here.) Or, to go back to the original example: if the world (i.e. the entity of all persons in it AS WELL AS every single individual in that entity) does not owe you anything, and Matt is one of the persons in that entity, then Matt does not owe you anything.

[@noldo3837]

I do not understand if Big Bang theory was wrong or unproved, how does it prove existence of God? If we do not know how it was, it does not make you know it. We at least know we do not know everything, we only know what we can prove, and there is not much of it. But your pride of being sure is based on faith. Faith is not a proof. Faith is faith, ergo needs no proofs.

[@resvero8342]

The existence of God needs nothing more then intellect to be proven

[@noldo3837]

@@resvero8342 So why it was not proven? You have just made God an imaginary friend. There is a difference faith, which is internal, and proven fact-based universal science and logic, where your proves, which you would have to lay down on a table, would have to be found irrefutable even by others.

[@resvero8342]

@@noldo3837 Why are you so delusional? #StrawMenAren'tPeople

[@noldo3837]

@@resvero8342 Lol, when you have mentioned delusion - religion is a delusion by definition. en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_delusion

[@resvero8342]

@@noldo3837 Nope, atheist don't even believe in existence. Atheist are that dumb.

[@williamreymond2669]

19:15 Matt] "Nobody wields the English Language like the English..." Except Richard Dawkins. Richard Dawkins, his prose, I remain as an American unbamboozled - if you are full of s#*$, you are full of s#*$.

[@ParadoxapocalypSatan]

What if we don't call it "God"? I'm just gonna call it "It".

[@namapalsu2364]

ParadoxapocalypSatan An "it" doesn't have attributes of God (such as immateriality, timeless, omnipotent etc)

[@namapalsu2364]

Ľuboš Rybanský Pixie, as far as folklore goes, is not timeless. They are created. They also many (not just one, which is the characteristic of that God) and, as you suggest, not extremely powerful.

[@ignacio4067]

@@TheRybka30 It wouldnt be simple

[@shankz8854]

Nama Palsu I think they are making the point that - like pixies - God has many other attributes (according to folklore/religion) so calling the unmoved mover or unactualised pure actuality “God” is just as valid as calling it a pixie or a special singularity.

[@shankz8854]

@Qwerty No it's not because blueberry muffins exist.

[@quakers200]

I guess I must be dense as well to miss the giant causal distinction between a father, son, grandson etc. And a stick poking a leaf poking a rock and how those destinations are related to the existence of God. The rest of the arguments against Dawkens is little more than name calling.

[@derdonutkritiker2926]

One is chronological and one is hierarchical according to the thomist like Aquinas and Ed the first one can be infinite while the latter has to have a first member which according to the thomistic view has would one might refer to as divine attributes such as Infinite Eternal Pure actuality Intellect Necessity Omnipotence Omniscience Incorporeal All good Will Absolutely simple

[@setrak4578]

As Greta said ... “how dare you “ speak against such a man who is an intellectual, academician and a biologist, this man is full of knowledge, hahah!! He is a fool full of knowledge but no wisdom, therefore his foolish statements, cheers ...

[@barthe7ruth]

This was embarrassing to listen to. Mr. Feser claims literally dozens of times that Dawkins doesn't understand the arguments of Aquinas, but when he actually tries to correct the so-called errors, the same objections apply just as well to his corrected versions of Aquinas' arguments. Regardless of how many Aristotelian terms he name-drops, he needs to actually address these problems: 1. All 3 arguments still contain the premise that infinite regress is impossible. You don't get to assume that. You must show that it is the case. 2. In all 3 arguments, the conclusion is still in direct contradiction with one of the premises. If you claim that everything that exists must be moved / caused / contingent, then you don't get to also assume that a thing exists which breaks those rules. That's special pleading. The distinctions made in this conversation, such as between linear and hierarchical causal series, don't get anywhere near either of these problems, and frankly seem like dishonest attempts to muddle the issue with jargon.

[@IWasOnceAFetus]

Lol no. You're the one misunderstanding Feser and repeating Dawkins' embarrassingly bad non-arguments. First off, Feser never just asserts infinite regress out of the blue. He literally always explains how one level of actualization is caused by another level of actualization, and so and so forth. That's the demonstration. That obviously gives us 3 options to choose from: self-causation (which is absurd), causation by another (which leads to an infinite regress; also absurd) or an uncaused cause (the only logical conclusion). Second, the idea of an infinite regress isn't even something that theists came up with. This is something atheists in the past first argued for, so as to demonstrate that the law of causality is wrong. Only when theists actually dealt with that criticism, atheists began to act as if an infinite regress is actually possible.

[@IWasOnceAFetus]

Thirdly, the conclusion is not in "direct contradiction" with the premise concerning causality. The law of causality has never in history been stated as akin to "everything must have a cause." Instead, here are some ways it has been stated: whatever is moved is moved by another, whatever is actualized is actualized by another, every effect must have a cause, everything that begins to exist must have a cause. An umoved mover isn't moved by another. An Unactualized Actualizer isn't actualized by another. An uncaused cause isn't an effect. An Uncaused Cause did not begin to exist. There is no contradiction or special pleading at all. Most atheists have just been debunking a strawman that they've made up. It's been decades that theists have been correcting atheists about this simple fact and yet almost all of you seem to be stuck in an echo chamber. fourthly, of course the distinction between hierarchical and linear series is significant. According to Aquinas, even if you couldn't prove without a doubt that linear causal series couldn't regress into infinity, you could prove that the hierarchical series must necessarily terminate in a Prime Mover.

[@thegreatcornholio7255]

Uhh yeah... that's the whole point. That IS how it works. People who believe in Darwinian evolution today, for example, have developed the idea far beyond what Darwin did. Darwin believed in incredibly stupid things like Lamarckism. However, for a modern day opponent of evolution to sit there and shoot down the arguments Darwin gave at the time, as though they're arguing against Darwinism (as understood today), is pretty much as lame of an argument as could be imagined. Aquinas's ideas have been studied all over the world and developed for centuries. Good try though... And in your further analysis of the arguments it is *clear* you do not understand them, just as Dawkins does not understand them. Forget about being open minded and having any pretense of not having cognitive bias and not already haven made up your mind, why don't you people actually understand the arguments first, and then argue against them?

[@picklechinahboi4515]

Not special pleading because God (non-contingent, unchanging, purely actual) is obviously distinct from material, contingent, and changing things with potentiality

[@shankz8854]

Really find it difficult to respect Feser. He criticises Dawkins for clumping the first three ways together, as MANY people do, but does almost NOTHING to argue against doing this. Noting that things change, things go from existence to non existence and all things appear to have a cause are all very much addressing the same issue of infinite regress - what started it all? Just because you can describe this problem in three different ways coming at it from distinct directions does NOT mean the core issues are distinct. They are all proposing the SAME solution to the SAME problem. How can you not see that?!

[@shankz8854]

@Qwerty "This is a pretty low IQ comment" is not an argument. How ironic that you should reply with such a meaningless statement. I've only ever heard this retort a couple of times before - both were from flat-earthers.

[@shankz8854]

@Qwerty yes I suspect you are not even capable of arguing against my point, lest you show your ineptitude at making good arguments. I've seen your comments on other threads that tend much more towards insults and smugness rather than making actual arguments or rebuttals. Here's an example of an argument: 1. IQ is a score derived from standard tests to quantify human intelligence. 2. IQ has no bearing on quantifying or otherwise describing arguments or comments 3. IQ therefore cannot be used as a description of a comment or argument. 4. The phrase "This is a pretty low IQ comment" does not make sense.

[@shankz8854]

@Qwerty that's great! You've proved my point nicely. You start with a premise, which you do not qualify or explain, then you make another baseless assertion that you do not explain or argue in any way. That's not an argument. Not even close... Remember this phrase: "Assertions made without evidence can be dismissed with evidence"

[@shankz8854]

@Qwerty FALL FOR IT? Hahahaha so you don't accept it? Not surprising - you clearly don't live by it. I think it's funny that you bang on about "low IQ", when you are clearly not the brightest penny in the fountain. You don't even understand how to construct a coherent argument ffs. That statement does NOT deny axioms you utter, utter moron. Axioms must, by definition, be universally accepted and therefore cannot be construed as an "argument". Note: it may be more correct to say "arguments without evidence can be dismissed without evidence". Having evidence to support arguments/assertions is BASIC.

[@shankz8854]

Qwerty to be honest I feel that the statement “arguments without evidence can be dismissed without evidence” is an axiom in itself. I’ve never come across someone who denies it until now. Perhaps I can walk you through this very simple premise slowly: person A says “Santa Claus exists and brings toys to all western children on Christmas”. Person B says “how do you know that?” Person A says “I just know”. That is, they have made an argument or assertion without providing any evidence as to why it is true. Person B would therefore be left with no choice but to either believe person A or dismiss their claim - no argument can be had without reference to the evidence supporting the claim. Since accepting person A’s claim would set a precedent for accepting ANY assertion/argument, person B MUST dismiss it.

[@noxiousdow]

Dawkins understands the philosophical background perfectly well. The reason he says the first 3 ways are basically the same thing is because science has demonstrated that they are. Feser doesn't understand basic science because he has theistic blinkers on. Sad.

[@rpboulan]

care to show how?

[@noxiousdow]

​@@rpboulan Okay. It's because change, cause-effect, and contingent existence are all basically the same thing, scientifically speaking, in that they are all explained by the kinetic energy of particles in a substance and transfers of energy to and from the particles of that substance, powered originally by the Big Bang. This fixation on hierarchical causation is unscientific. Because of mutual interaction between particles, the chain will inevitably switch to temporal at some point, and the chain will go from there back ultimately to the Big Bang, from where all matter and energy came. The terms "actualisation", "contingency", "accidental" and "essential" sound cool and make Feser look clever, like he's latched on to some amazing philosophical idea which must surely take years of reading to understand. But don't be fooled. Actually when you break down what exactly he's talking about, the ideas are pretty simple. Feser's stock reply to anyone who refutes him is to use a couple of these terms and claim his interlocutor has somehow misunderstood an important point. In Dawkins' case, it's not that he's misunderstood; it's just that he's disregarding unneeded terminology and concepts and cutting through the word salad to what's actually important. Do not mistake this for a lack of understanding. He is aiming for conciseness and absolute clarity - something good academics should strive for.

[@JustinHerchel]

@@noxiousdow of course Dawkins is right from a scientistic (not scientific) perspective, but that is a categorical mistake. The arguments are not scientific or physical, they are philosophical and metaphysical. One cannot deny that Dawkins is trash in philosophy and absolutely doesn't understand the arguments. If he did, he'd probably change his mind. Just like Feser ;)

[@noxiousdow]

@@JustinHerchel Yeah, you could probably say the same thing about Flat Earth. When science supersedes ancient philosophical attempts at explanations of the universe (by theologians), you can either accept the facts and get on with learning about the world as it is, or get caught up in self-indulgent wishful thinking, as Feser has done.

[@JustinHerchel]

@@noxiousdow no bro. Science is the best method we have on the natural world. However it serves only as a secondary source, if at all, for things that go beyond the physical realm, which belong to metaphysics.

[@dennisheffy3220]

Still waiting for evidence that a God exists.

[@bricksaccomplice3004]

still waiting for evidence that the big bang took place.

[@dennisheffy3220]

Red shift and cosmic background radiation.

[@bricksaccomplice3004]

the only way science could prove the big bang took place would be to recreate it and since it would involve tons of smart scientist, mechanical engineers and various other disciplines you would reach the same conclusion theist had all along which is it required intelligent design.

[@dennisheffy3220]

Please refer to previous comment.

[@dennisheffy3220]

Aquinas does not give evidence for God.