tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8766213929139682844.post8973556862938789405..comments2023-10-15T08:36:48.841-07:00Comments on A Counter Apologist Blog: From Fundamentalist to Atheist - My Deconversion StoryA Counter Apologisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15173218521712325250noreply@blogger.comBlogger37125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8766213929139682844.post-70241223945411164072014-11-30T01:59:37.490-08:002014-11-30T01:59:37.490-08:00electronic cigarette reviews, electronic cigarette...electronic cigarette reviews, <a href="http://top5ecigarettesreviews.com" rel="nofollow">electronic cigarettes</a>, <a href="http://topelectroniccigarettesreviews.com" rel="nofollow">electronic cigarettes</a>, <a href="http://topecigarettesreviewed.com" rel="nofollow">smokeless cigarettes</a>, <a href="http://top5ecigarettesreviewed.com" rel="nofollow">buy electronic cigarette</a>, <a href="http://electroniccigarettesreviewed.org" rel="nofollow">smokeless cigarettes</a>Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8766213929139682844.post-635326981791063442014-05-27T12:54:56.175-07:002014-05-27T12:54:56.175-07:00Thanks for your blog and for sharing your experien...Thanks for your blog and for sharing your experiences. I am a 28 year old white male, work with statistics and analytics, spent many years as a preacher and youth pastor. I have recently realized the absurdity of Christianity and fallacious lies that are spread by most apologists.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8766213929139682844.post-59663425179170540672013-06-03T05:42:25.072-07:002013-06-03T05:42:25.072-07:00Heya Anon,
Just FYI, Martin and I have moved this...Heya Anon,<br /><br />Just FYI, Martin and I have moved this discussion over to an email exchange. That said as a result of your post I think we will be posting respective sections of our exchange in a future blog post on our respective blogs.<br /><br />It's rather nice when you can find people from the other side to have a good exchange with, so hopefully the back and forth will be a good read. A Counter Apologisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15173218521712325250noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8766213929139682844.post-23194486283716318602013-05-31T14:51:56.635-07:002013-05-31T14:51:56.635-07:00Please don't. It was very interesting debate a...Please don't. It was very interesting debate and I, as a silent watcher, really enjoy it. I'm sure other people too.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8766213929139682844.post-51137768277597438102013-05-22T07:49:40.606-07:002013-05-22T07:49:40.606-07:00T'would be nice to discuss this stuff with you...T'would be nice to discuss this stuff with you outside the comment box, if you would like: martinkulp at gee! mail.Martinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06038086497147379685noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8766213929139682844.post-12033316941340566892013-05-22T05:40:24.035-07:002013-05-22T05:40:24.035-07:00I am perennially late in my reply to you as usual,...I am perennially late in my reply to you as usual, hope you don't mind. <br /><br />The main issue I have is that to state that seeing red is some form of qualia is to ignore what we know about colors, light, our eyes, and all the rest. We know that certain wavelengths of light represent a specific color. <br /><br />That in and of itself isn't quite enough to completely rule out what you're saying (if it could ever be falsified at all). However, things like color blindness is something that does definitely exist and we can identify people that can't distinguish between it and other colors they can see.<br /><br />This seems to strongly favor the materialist view of the mind. A Counter Apologisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15173218521712325250noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8766213929139682844.post-74929297456791197372013-05-13T14:52:43.565-07:002013-05-13T14:52:43.565-07:00>Finally, the appeal to consciousness is anothe...>Finally, the appeal to consciousness is another "appeal to the unknown" as to something that's not yet explained, therefore there must be something immaterial at play here.<br /><br />Well, to be fair, the arguments in question do not appeal to consciousness as something unknown, and that therefore there must be a soul. The Thomistic argument is that the Cartesian rejection of Aristotelianism is exactly what caused dualism in the first place. <br /><br />For example, it is often said by post-Cartesian philosophers and scientists that colors as we experience them do not really exist "out there" in the world of matter. John Locke called them secondary properties. Descartes and buddies wanted to keep the world of physical science down to just what was mathematically describable, such as matter and motion, and all the rest needs to be gotten rid of somehow. Since a red apple might look green to someone else, these subjective properties are not part of the external world but are only a product of our minds. <br /><br />But that's where the problem comes in. If consciousness consists of such secondary properties (seeing a red apple), and matter is devoid of such properties, then it follows that there will be no material explanation of consciousness. One may be tempted to say that matter when so arranged can give rise to such properties, and that it is a fallacy of composition to claim that just because matter has no such properties, mind cannot have it either.<br /><br />But to agree that material processes can give rise to non-material properties is to concede the argument, because such a view is property dualism.<br /><br />The Thomist would respond that dualism is an evil created out of the very materialist conception of matter, by removing such properties from the world and saying that they are "just in the mind." That putting them back out there is the only way to solve the dualist/materialist problem, both of which are too extreme in either direction.<br /><br />Martinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06038086497147379685noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8766213929139682844.post-24535865073656325532013-05-10T13:18:13.332-07:002013-05-10T13:18:13.332-07:00Actually, a refutation is a rejection of premises,...Actually, a refutation is a rejection of premises, so it actually was refuted.<br /><br />Next up, there's the idea that even if we had the other causes, then we still have reasons to reject "existence as essence" for the reasons that Hume, Kant, etc gave us.<br /><br />Finally, the appeal to consciousness is another "appeal to the unknown" as to something that's not yet explained, therefore there must be something immaterial at play here.<br /><br />You can say an eliminative view of the mind moves towards being self defeating or absurd, but that doesn't mean that suddenly we're into the old metaphysics again. The dualistic view is incredibly more ridiculous, since we know that physical changes in the brain cause changes, including drastic changes in "mind", and we also know enough about particle physics where there isn't anything that would be strong enough or operates at a small enough range that it couldn't effect the material in the brain.<br /><br />This points largely to the fact that the "qualia" or whatever you want to call it that dualistic people tend to favor to try and argue against materialism could very well be "brute facts" about the mind, and that they're just the subjective effects of the operation of our minds and nervous systems. <br /><br />>I find this all incredibly interesting, far from clearly true or false, and considerably better than evangelical modern stuff.<br /><br />The main issue here is that metaphysics generally doesn't tell us anything that we can know to be true or false. <br /><br />I have to say that our exchange has been both quite pleasant and illuminating. I had your posts (and blog posts) along with some work by Ed Feser thrown at me on Twitter that on reading has helped clarify some ideas on answering this type of thing. A Counter Apologisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15173218521712325250noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8766213929139682844.post-11585140569644628562013-05-10T12:17:29.712-07:002013-05-10T12:17:29.712-07:00>Because it doesn't need a refutation since...>Because it doesn't need a refutation since it starts from faulty premises, we've rejected the premises.<br /><br />Perhaps. I think this is where it gets the most interesting, though. It could be argued that the mind cannot be accounted for in mechanistic terms, because the mind thinks about things and "points towards" goals and ends. And if so, then there is final causality in nature, and hence some form of Aristotelianism is true.<br /><br />It could be argued that mechanistic theories of mind always collapse into eliminativism, which ends up being incoherent. Thus, one cannot have a theory of mind without presuppose final causality.<br /><br />It also could be argued that the mechanistic metaphysics was developed in order to get more precise explanations of things, which can best be accomplished by focusing only on the quantifiable aspects of nature: that is, matter and motion. Material and efficient causes.<br /><br />But from this, it would be a non-sequitor to infer that formal and final causes do not exist. If one has a tool that is good at measuring one particular aspect of the world, it does not follow that no other aspects of the world exist. Even if that tool has succeeded spectacularly at measuring what it is focusing on.<br /><br />I find this all incredibly interesting, far from clearly true or false, and considerably better than evangelical modern stuff.Martinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06038086497147379685noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8766213929139682844.post-33088279274992477852013-05-10T12:06:35.048-07:002013-05-10T12:06:35.048-07:00>For the most part, it's been rejected not ...>For the most part, it's been rejected not because of any problem with the argument itself, but rather because of the rejection of Aristotelian metaphysics and its replacement with mechanistic (i.e. devoid of formal and final causes) metaphysics. As someone put it, Thomism was never given the courtesy of a refutation; it was simply set aside.<br /><br />Because it doesn't need a refutation since it starts from faulty premises, we've rejected the premises.<br /><br />>If we say "object X has a specific structure, and has effect Y", then we are speaking of formal and final causes without actually labeling them so.<br /><br />Well we don't really regard things as having "structures" anymore. And as you said the metaphysics has changed so the "laws of nature" are just properties of material, but that is different than how Aristotle viewed causes.<br /><br />>However, the reason why the quantum energy cannot be the explanation for its own existence is that it does not contain "existence" as part of its very "essence". An essence is simply the list of properties that make something what it fundamentally is, and without which it would lose its identity. <br /><br />And this is again where "existence" as a property is rejected, for good reasons. <br /><br />A Counter Apologisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15173218521712325250noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8766213929139682844.post-46462002840555188432013-05-10T11:46:58.082-07:002013-05-10T11:46:58.082-07:00>I really don't think this is a good argume...>I really don't think this is a good argument and it's largely been disregarded by the vast majority of modern philosophers - and I don't think it's because they don't properly understand the argument. <br /><br />For the most part, it's been rejected not because of any problem with the argument itself, but rather because of the rejection of Aristotelian metaphysics and its replacement with mechanistic (i.e. devoid of formal and final causes) metaphysics. As someone put it, Thomism was never given the courtesy of a refutation; it was simply set aside.<br /><br />>I see no reason to grant that there are formal and final causes<br /><br />If we say "object X has a specific structure, and has effect Y", then we are speaking of formal and final causes without actually labeling them so.<br /><br />>What says this quantum energy/vacuum is only potential and not necessary?<br /><br />Strictly speaking, there is no "necessary" and "contingent" in this argument. However, the reason why the quantum energy cannot be the explanation for its own existence is that it does not contain "existence" as part of its very "essence". An essence is simply the list of properties that make something what it fundamentally is, and without which it would lose its identity. The essence of a triangle is to have three sides, but what color it is is not part of a triangle's essence.<br /><br />This principle is appealed to all the time by atheists when they reject the ontological argument (which Aquinas rejected as well), when they say that you cannot define something into existence. That is, you cannot know <i>what</i> something is, and from that know <i>that</i> it exists. One must go out into the world and see if it does or not.<br /><br />So in most objects, essence and existence are separate in this way. That is, objects are not their own source of existence. This includes the quantum vacuum. Someone could know the properties of the quantum vacuum but not know if such a thing actually exists or not.<br /><br />So if they are not the source of their own existence, then the source must come externally and again trace to a giver: something whose essence <i>is</i> identical to its existence. That is, existence itself, or pure actuality.Martinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06038086497147379685noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8766213929139682844.post-2971205413192797792013-05-10T11:33:05.979-07:002013-05-10T11:33:05.979-07:00>I know. Believe you me....
I think you mistoo...>I know. Believe you me....<br /><br />I think you mistook what I was saying, not sure if it was intentional. <br /><br />>There is a reason that Aquinas is on the short list of top philosophers of all time.<br /><br />I care not what lists he's on or what he's considered, I really don't think this is a good argument and it's largely been disregarded by the vast majority of modern philosophers - and I don't think it's because they don't properly understand the argument. <br /><br />This isn't to discredit Aquinas, the man was clearly brilliant, but genius's still believe crazy shit. Newton derived Calculus before he was 26, but he majority of his works was on things like Alchemy. <br /><br />>That is to say, the quantum energy has a formal and final cause. Which is at the foundation of Aristotelian and Thomistic philosophy and hence the First Way.<br /><br />I see no reason to grant that there are formal and final causes, things can be explained with only efficient and material causes, and there's a case to be made that it could be done with only material causes.<br /><br />>"That object potentially exists (I see no logical contradiction in the idea), but actually does not. In our universe, however, we have something called the quantum vacuum which reliably produces virtual particles. So this object actually exists, rather than just potentially (like my Santa Claus example). And that is how that would be properly analyzed in terms of the Thomistic arguments."<br /><br />What says this quantum energy/vacuum is only potential and not necessary? This really is what gets at the heart of the matter. You have absolutely no reason to rule out that this energy is what's necessary rather than your god (this is the main problem with metaphysics, in my view).<br /><br />The more I read on this the more it is starting to smell like the ontological argument in disguise. Where god just gets defined as "necessary" so therefore it's logically impossible for him to not exist, therefore he exists.A Counter Apologisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15173218521712325250noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8766213929139682844.post-37014336110863291132013-05-10T10:27:09.017-07:002013-05-10T10:27:09.017-07:00>I'm not sure what more I can say
I know. ...>I'm not sure what more I can say<br /><br />I know. Believe you me. I felt the same way. There is a reason that Aquinas is on the short list of top philosophers of all time. You don't get on that list by being an idiot. And that includes formulating your arguments around science which may be shown false in the future. That's another reason Aquinas rejected Kalam. It hinges on contingent facts that may be falsified in the future. He wasn't interested in such weak tea. <br /><br />The atheist community has failed spectacularly in this regard, by reading evangelical lunacy back into classical philosophers.<br /><br />So energy in the quantum vacuum has a certain structure and properties that leads to it birthing virtual particles and perhaps spacetime. So we could say that "object X has a structure which leads to it doing Y."<br /><br />That is to say, the quantum energy has a formal and final cause. Which is at the foundation of Aristotelian and Thomistic philosophy and hence the First Way.<br /><br />For example, let's talk about a quantum field that reliably produces Santa Clauses. That object potentially exists (I see no logical contradiction in the idea), but actually does not. In our universe, however, we have something called the quantum vacuum which reliably produces virtual particles. So this object actually exists, rather than just potentially (like my Santa Claus example). And that is how that would be properly analyzed in terms of the Thomistic arguments. And since the quantum vacuum cannot make itself actual (because then it would have to not exist, being potential, and also exist in order to make itself actual, which is logically contradictory), it must be made actual by something else.<br /><br />You think theism is probably false? I say, a proper adjudication of classical theism will make you considerably less certain of that.<br /><br />Martinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06038086497147379685noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8766213929139682844.post-34654530029107579802013-05-10T10:05:50.862-07:002013-05-10T10:05:50.862-07:00I'm not sure what more I can say other than th...I'm not sure what more I can say other than the fact that science has shown that matter/energy doesn't follow those distinctions.<br /><br />Quantum tunneling/nucleation, the idea of virtual particles in the quantum vacuum, etc. The energy existing in itself follows a set of laws (it's properties) that have things change and be created constantly, and it's been shown to be possible to have spacetimes come out of this kind of material. <br /><br />A Counter Apologisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15173218521712325250noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8766213929139682844.post-83944356820102180982013-05-10T08:46:28.274-07:002013-05-10T08:46:28.274-07:00The argument from motion, as I explain it, subsume...The argument from motion, as I explain it, subsumes the existential argument as well. It isn't speaking of Newtonian motion, but rather the actualization of potentials. Think of a frozen lake. The lake is actually frozen rather than just potentially. This might have been the case from all eternity. Nonetheless, the lake is actually frozen because of the cold air, the air is actually cold because of the unequal warming of the Earth's crust, the unequal warming is made actual by the sun, the sun is actually burning because of nuclear reactions, the nuclear reactions because of gravity, gravity because of Higgs (or gravitons), and so on. Each item receiving it's actuality from a further member down the chain. Since they are receivers, they necessitate a giver, and hence something that can give actuality without having to get actuality from anything further.<br /><br />As I emphasized, this argument is not about physics. It's much more fundamental than that. Think of Parmenides dividing the world into being and non-being. What exists is the domain of science, but that things exist or don't is a much more fundamental and abstract consideration.<br /><br />The First Way is operating on a similarly fundamental level just like Parmenides, with actuality lining up with Parmenides' "being". What actually IS actual is up to science, but THAT things are actual (or not) is more fundamental, and in the foyer before science even gets started. Things have to exist in order for science to work.<br /><br />The First Way is not so easily defeated. Any objection you can think of in two seconds has almost certainly already been dealt with. Trust me. I've been knee deep into it for three years, coming from an atheist perspective. My eyes are blackened, and my shirt is ripped. It beat me up pretty good. And it's a major reason why I've come halfway back to towards theism. Martinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06038086497147379685noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8766213929139682844.post-19094542628365445202013-05-10T07:57:55.776-07:002013-05-10T07:57:55.776-07:00Yes, but the issue here is that the change in term...Yes, but the issue here is that the change in terms of recombination can be explained in terms of purely materialistic methods. <br /><br />We both can agree that "something" must exist necessarily, but I've never seen any argument that tells me why this necessary "something" can't be some form of material reality, especially when we know that matter is really just energy in a specific form in a spacetime. Further, the argument from motion doesn't really work since we know matter existing entails motion in itself, and if a spacetime can be created out of an eternally existing quantum vacuum - then once energy takes the form of matter in the spacetime, then gravity provides the motion we need.<br /><br />I certainly have more respect for a generic theist/deist than I do for an adherent of a specific religion, and I don't claim to be able to "prove you wrong". This is where the "agnostic" part of "agnostic atheist" comes into play. What do think is that your case isn't really established, and I simply don't believe that this deity exists.<br /><br />In this case of discussing things with a generic theist/deist, I like this quote that gets mis-attributed to Marcus Aurelius:<br /><br />"Live a good life. If there are gods and they are just, then they will not care how devout you have been, but will welcome you based on the virtues you have lived by. If there are gods, but unjust, then you should not want to worship them. If there are no gods, then you will be gone, but will have lived a noble life that will live on in the memories of your loved ones."A Counter Apologisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15173218521712325250noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8766213929139682844.post-76116692760424508222013-05-10T06:53:59.268-07:002013-05-10T06:53:59.268-07:00Thanks for your reply, Mr Apologist (Ha! Sucks to ...Thanks for your reply, Mr Apologist (Ha! Sucks to have that as your last name, huh?). :)<br /><br />But even if that were a description of change, it doesn't alter the fact that change, in fact, does occur. And that is all the argument requires to get going.<br /><br />More pertinent to your original post, I am in the process of writing my deconversion and <i>reconversion (almost)</i> story. I've come three quarters of a circle. A lot of that has to do with my discovery of classical theism and the difference between it and evangelicals. There really is no comparison. My studies of the older arguments has made evangelicals look even <i>more</i> ridiculous. These older arguments are not based in empirical science like the evangelicals like to do ("Science is showing more and more that God exists!!1!"), but rather in much more fundamental axioms. Parmenides argument is that "being is, and non-being is not". That is, things either exist, or they don't. Something cannot kind of exist. But <i>what</i> actually exists is the domain of empirical science. Note how this consideration is much more fundamental and abstract than the natural sciences.<br /><br />The First Way of Aquinas is based in such abstract and fundamental assumptions like that. I've been sinking my teeth into it for years, and it still looks pretty shiny to me. An atheist on reddit told me that it is pretty convincing properly understood ("properly" being the key word here). Another atheist became a Catholic! I accidentally converted him to a Catholic via my explanations of the First Way!<br /><br />I highly recommend you take a look at it. Take a quick gander at <a href="http://rocketphilosophy.blogspot.com/2013/05/5-common-misconceptions-of-aquinas.html" rel="nofollow">my newest article.</a> Even if you don't accept it, it's very rewarding to learn about and I would say quite on the up-and-up. Noble philosophy instead of bad science like the evangelicals engage in.Martinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06038086497147379685noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8766213929139682844.post-8533891351261472322013-05-09T17:19:22.981-07:002013-05-09T17:19:22.981-07:00It was more of the fact that you come across like ...It was more of the fact that you come across like a nice enough guy and what you've posted is of a quality worth replying to. <br /><br />This will be a bit quick and dirty, but the idea is that "change" can be described in the rearrangement of material, but it's perfectly consistent to think that the underlying parts of material reality actually doesn't change.<br /><br />In terms of identity, I lean towards the combination of matter in systematic ways. Science just needs that matter behave consistently, at high enough scales/strengths we can observe things consistently in a deterministic way to make predictions. So what we would ascribe as an "identity" is merely our own conventions based on an arrangement of material. Identity would be more of a classification we ascribe to certain systems that are similar enough in composition (or identical depending on how low on the material chain we go).<br /><br />We do have issues with extrapolation, we can make general predictions, but ala Hume's problem of induction.A Counter Apologisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15173218521712325250noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8766213929139682844.post-32487984207447497742013-05-09T13:45:56.095-07:002013-05-09T13:45:56.095-07:00Thanks for your reply. There is no obligation to r...Thanks for your reply. There is no obligation to reply to blog comments. It's kind of a shitty place for a discussion forum, anyway. :)<br /><br />Actual and potential are concepts Aristotle used to respond to Parmenides, who claimed that change did not occur. If we reject potentiality, then we are in essence going back to Parmenides and saying that nothing ever happens. But clearly, things do happen. You are actually reading this comment right now, and potentially replying to it.<br /><br />The universals mentioned are not necessarily Platonic ones. Aristotle was an empiricist, and did not think Platonic Forms were tenable. So he said forms were in the objects themselves, rather than floating in an immaterial third world. <br /><br />All I'm saying there is that there could not be science in the first place if every individual were its own thing. You could study Individual1, but then have no knowledge of Individual2. But if individuals are part of a species or class, then we can abstract from the individuals and have knowledge of the class to which it belongs. And knowledge of the class is scientific knowledge. If this were not the case, science would not be possible, because every single thing you studied would be its own class.<br /><br />>ou’ve retreated beyond anything that’s possibly testable<br /><br />If by testable you mean physically testable, then clearly not. But it is testable in the sense that if it were false, science would be impossible. You would study individual1, but since it is entirely a different object from individual2 then you could never have knowledge of "one" over "many." Articles like <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elephant" rel="nofollow">this</a> would be impossible. But clearly they are possible, and clearly the article in question is not about a particular elephant located somewhere but rather about the class "elephants", in general, over and above any individual elephant.Martinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06038086497147379685noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8766213929139682844.post-8189031584473972432013-05-09T13:23:11.284-07:002013-05-09T13:23:11.284-07:00Martin,
I’m actually sorry to have not responded,...Martin,<br /><br />I’m actually sorry to have not responded, I did read your blog series and I intended to write something up and due to other conversations/life I forgot to get back to you. I will completely disagree, but I hate to have you comment here in sincerity and then be ignored for almost a month.<br /><br />The short version of it is that like so much of metaphysics, I see no reason to accept many of those premises. I think the main parts that start to fall apart with potential and actual (or at least the rules you use to govern them), and then with structure. I see no reason to assume that there must be some kind of platonistic form, things can equally (or be better) explained in terms of material existing (which we can know exist) so that the “forms” aren’t needed.<br />Like so much of metaphysics, if it’s not testable, we have no way to know if the premise is true other than logical impossibility, and it’s certainly logically possible for the forms to not exist. <br /> <br />So sure, while our current science can’t contradict your metaphysics, that’s only because you’ve retreated beyond anything that’s possibly testable, but we’ve no reason to accept your distinctions either. The key thing being that we can explain things without accepting your metaphysics, so why accept them?<br />A Counter Apologisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15173218521712325250noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8766213929139682844.post-72317030468774661302013-04-12T10:03:59.625-07:002013-04-12T10:03:59.625-07:00I also have a series of articles on my blog defend...I also have a series of articles on my blog defending the classical theist point of view, although it is more neo-Platonic than Thomistic: http://rocketphilosophy.blogspot.com/2012/10/a-defense-of-classical-theism-1.htmlMartinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06038086497147379685noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8766213929139682844.post-38502390193627942152013-04-12T08:16:28.833-07:002013-04-12T08:16:28.833-07:00It's fundamentally different from Kalam and ot...It's fundamentally different from Kalam and other modern arguments, in that it does not make use of scientific arguments, but is rather metaphysical, more abstract, and would in principle apply to ANY universe that could be scientifically examined. So it doesn't interfere with the normal workings of science, like modern evangelicals are always trying to do.<br /><br />It rests on the metaphysics of Aristotle. Contra Parmenides, change does occur, and to unpack what it means to change means that something is actually one way now, but potentially a different way in the future. So that is the actual/potential distinction.<br /><br />Then there are the famous four causes. Something causes a thing to be, that thing is composed of stuff, the thing has a certain structure that distinguishes it from other things, and, if it does something, then it has a specific effect it produces. These are the efficient, material, formal, and final causes. <br /><br />These are the basics of the metaphysics that the argument rests upon. The early modern thinkers essentially rejected formal and final causes as being able to do any explanatory work. They wanted to focus on what could be precisely measured, and so they focused on matter and motion instead. Which would roughly be equivalent to Aristotle's efficient and material causes. <br /><br />The thing is, science does it's thing on the side without having an opinion one way or the other about Aristotle's metaphysics. I think a plausible case can be made, though, for it.Martinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06038086497147379685noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8766213929139682844.post-78041905682015459962013-04-12T04:55:43.164-07:002013-04-12T04:55:43.164-07:00I guess I'd need more explaining on it then, s...I guess I'd need more explaining on it then, since my first view of it is that it's just assuming some metaphysical rules that appear to be counteracted by our modern understanding of how things actually work.<br /><br />My first inclination is that the first mover idea is wrong because it seems likely to me that the "necessary something" is material, which is governed by some set of physical laws, and those laws plus the interaction of these things would be sufficient to cause change. Sort of like things being in a "meta-stable state" that will eventually break down.<br /><br />That's probably a way too simplistic way of describing it, but I'm trying to not write a book here. :P<br /><br />My assumptions here could be wrong, so if you had something you could point me to for more information I would take a look at it. A Counter Apologisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15173218521712325250noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8766213929139682844.post-24566658714300728992013-04-11T20:21:33.631-07:002013-04-11T20:21:33.631-07:00The First Way concerns the unmoved mover. Nothing ...The First Way concerns the unmoved mover. Nothing in the argument requires matter to be static, nor does it involve assumptions that have been proven false. The background assumptions are Aristotle's four causes, form/matter distinction, and the actual/potential distinction. None of these are clearly false. I have made somewhat of a career out of explaining this argument to people, and I've had several atheists admit to me that it is compelling, properly understood. One actually became a Catholic! I don't know about all that, but I think the argument is strong enough that it cannot be easily dismissed.Martinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06038086497147379685noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8766213929139682844.post-68017924077703174182013-04-11T19:33:52.314-07:002013-04-11T19:33:52.314-07:00"First Way" is the First Cause argument ..."First Way" is the First Cause argument if I'm not mistaken? I'd imagine you wouldn't be speaking about his actual original argument in terms of the "unmoved mover?" since that sort of argument got undercut ages ago with the notion that matter is not static (ie. atoms) and fundamental forces.<br /><br />His original arguments were based on ancient Greek assumptions that are largely undercut, which is why First Cause arguments have been amended often since his time has passed.A Counter Apologisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15173218521712325250noreply@blogger.com