Edward Feser

[firstfloor]

I found God when I assumed that He was not there. How does that fit into your incorrect theory?

You make my point. That’s exactly how He should be found, by meditation or prayer, not by metaphysics or mathematics.

[firstfloor]

I am reading Feser's Aquinas at the moment and would be happy to discuss it.

Thanks. What a horrible idea! To be quite honest, I am anti not pro Feser despite the opening post. Nobody thought it was in the least bit amusing except me.

[robertb]

Thanks. What a horrible idea! To be quite honest, I am anti not pro Feser despite the opening post. Nobody thought it was in the least bit amusing except me.

:)

[GioD]

No. I am suggesting that a convincing proof starts with a clean sheet of paper and all the terms used are well defined. In Aquinas, the statement “and this everyone understands to be God” is dropped in from nowhere.

Only because most contemporary Christians hold to a theistic personnalist, not Classical Theist, view of God does this seem counterintuitive.

It is an undefined term and there is no logical connection to the foregoing argument.

God is defined as a being who is pure actuality and whose essence is existence (among other traits), and this is exactly what St. Thomas proves.

You could however argue that this undefined object “God” is offered up as one of a range of possible solutions to the problem. That would leave the possibly that there might be a god, but it is not proof.

No, only one Being is a solution to the problem and Aquinas clearly explains what that Being is. If you don't want to call it "God" fine, but the being proved is clearly defined and has clear implications on metaphysics and religion.

And if sound logic compels belief in an everlasting entity, why should that entity not be The Universe itself?

Because the Universe is composite, complex, and exists as a mixture of potentiality and actuality rather than pure actuality. Also the proofs don't prove an "everlasting entity", they prove a timeless one.

We can at least see the Universe. You might even say that The Universe has “revealed” itself.

So? There's more ways to knowledge than our senses. Besides, we could be hallucinating or dreaming when we see the universe. Ever thought about that?

[GioD]

You make my point. That’s exactly how He should be found, by meditation or prayer, not by metaphysics or mathematics.

Why's that? Since in the past your view hasn't stood up to philosophical or historical scrutiny, I wonder if there's rationalization afoot...

[firstfloor]

Why's that? Since in the past your view hasn't stood up to philosophical or historical scrutiny, I wonder if there's rationalization afoot...

I hope I have been consistent in my opposition to proving God by metaphysics. It causes a great deal of obfuscation and I think it is ultimately futile. If your God is inconsistent with good scholarship and other reliable knowledge, yours is the wrong God. Only you can decide for yourself what is reliable knowledge. If you have a pile of forbidden books, yours is the wrong God. The truth is that there are bad books and good books but there should be no forbidden books. Learning to know the difference is called education.

[robertb]

So? There's more ways to knowledge than our senses.

There are?

[GioD]

I hope I have been consistent in my opposition to proving God by metaphysics. It causes a great deal of obfuscation and I think it is ultimately futile. If your God is inconsistent with good scholarship and other reliable knowledge, yours is the wrong God. Only you can decide for yourself what is reliable knowledge. If you have a pile of forbidden books, yours is the wrong God. The truth is that there are bad books and good books but there should be no forbidden books. Learning to know the difference is called education.

So far I've seen that "my God" is consistant with both good scholarship and other forms of knowledge. And I don't get my arguments from the Necronomicon, or any other "forbidden book" for that matter. How does this demonstrate that God can't be proved by metaphysics?

[firstfloor]

So far I've seen that "my God" is consistant with both good scholarship and other forms of knowledge. And I don't get my arguments from the Necronomicon, or any other "forbidden book" for that matter. How does this demonstrate that God can't be proved by metaphysics?

By “forbidden” I am really warning against acquiring knowledge only in a very narrow speciality. I have not demonstrated that God cannot be proved by metaphysics. But, I have not seen a proof that satisfies me. I cannot judge the matter for you and likewise you cannot for me. All we can do is exchange ideas.

[GioD]

By “forbidden” I am really warning against acquiring knowledge only in a very narrow speciality. I have not demonstrated that God cannot be proved by metaphysics. But, I have not seen a proof that satisfies me. I cannot judge the matter for you and likewise you cannot for me. All we can do is exchange ideas.

I'm guessing we're done here then. You're firmly convinced your ideas are "over my head" (they're not) and it's quite clear that for whatever reason you aren't interested in understanding Aquinas' arguments.

[firstfloor]

I'm guessing we're done here then. You're firmly convinced your ideas are "over my head" (they're not) and it's quite clear that for whatever reason you aren't interested in understanding Aquinas' arguments.

I don’t understand why you keep getting this wrong. I am interested in Aquinas’s arguments. I have looked at them and found them unconvincing. I also don’t stop at Aquinas. There are plenty of other philosophers with views in this area and I gave you McGinn as an example. It may well be that you cannot understand why someone would reach a different conclusion to you. But that could be because they approach the problem with a different set of basic assumptions about the world. We all have mental baggage of some sort.

[GioD]

I am interested in Aquinas’s arguments.

Then why do you repeatedly refuse to read his work as well as ad homenim attack anybody who defends him (i.e. Feser)?

I have looked at them and found them unconvincing.

I've said it before, I'll say it again: It doesn't matter if an argument convinces you, it matters if it is sound.

I also don’t stop at Aquinas.

Nobody here does or says you should.

It may well be that you cannot understand why someone would reach a different conclusion to you.

I can understand perfectly. Your arguments are simply bad!

But that could be because they approach the problem with a different set of basic assumptions about the world.

As I demonstrated above, those "different set of basic assumptions" are either arbitrary linguistic objections or pure question-begging.

[firstfloor]

I try to avoid making personal attacks. The arguments I gave against Aquinas were perfectly sound but not Christian. It is because they are not Christian arguments that you refuse to give them any credit.

[GioD]

I try to avoid making personal attacks.

...he said in a parody thread he made about those who cite Edward Feser as a source.

The arguments I gave against Aquinas were perfectly sound but not Christian.

No, they're neither sound nor Christian.

It is because they are not Christian arguments that you refuse to give them any credit.

More rationalizing, eh?

[firstfloor]

At least by now, you are sort of just beginning to slightly understand why I disagree with you. Or maybe not.