Please don't confuse "blunt" with "snarky." I just feel that no matter how many times opponents are corrected on this matter, it doesn't do any good. So here it goes:
1. The kalam cosmological argument (KCA) rejects the possibility of an infinite past.
2. The Aristotelian and Leibnizian cosmological arguments (ACA and LCA, respectively) do not necessitate a finite past.
3. When the ACA rejects the possibility of an infinite regress, it's not with respect to a temporal regress of causes. Rather, when the proponent of the ACA denies an infinite regress, it is with respect to a regress of sustaining causes. It's one thing to ask why something began to exist, and quite another to ask why it continues to exist.
I'm amazed at how few atheistic opponents seem to grasp these distinctions, no matter how many times we explain them to them. Take the argument from motion (change in general), for example:
1. Evident to the senses is motion. (Premise)
2. Everything in motion has its motion sustained by another. (Premise)
3. Either an Unmoved Mover exists, or else these exists an infinite regress of sustaining movers. (Implied by 2)
4. There cannot be an infinite regress of sustaining movers. (Premise)
5. Therefore, an Unmoved Mover exists. (From 3 and 4)
I've already addressed the most common objections to the argument from motion, and to this day, I find them exceedingly weak. I've also written extensively about how the divine attributes can be inferred from the Unmoved Mover's existence. My conclusion is that atheists should abandon their atheism in favor of deism or some form of theism.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Before you make blunt statements like "atheists should abandon their atheism in favor of deism or some form of theism", you should first prove your premise (2). Good luck with that.
ReplyDeleteSince I've already written extensively on why (2) is rationally compelling, I don't see much need to rehash my defense of it to such a great extent. (2) is equivalent to the notion that no potentiality can actualize itself, and that's because a potentiality isn't even a thing. Rather, it's an inclination toward possibly becoming something else. Unless you want to believe something worse than magic - something coming from nothing - then (2) is your only rational alternative.
ReplyDeleteAs for my blunt statement, this is an outline of an argument. I can hardly be expected to write lengthy defenses of each premise and explain why the conclusion has theistic implications. The whole point of the post is that not every cosmological argument is the same, which is something many (not all) atheists don't seem to understand.
(2) May be rationally compelling within the confinement of A T concepts, but there is no proof watsoever that the notions of actuality and potentiality have any basis in reality. Moreover "an inclination towards possibly becoming something else" presupposes that something exists that has an inclination toward possibly becoming something else. Once there is something with a certain inclination, this something can become something else by virtue of its inclination.
ReplyDeleteSo, what you are in fact claiming is that "nothing" has an inclination towards possibly becoming something else, which means there is no such thing as real "nothing".
For your information: I do not believe in something worse than magic and that's why I don't believe that an immutable being can make something pop into existence from absolutely nothing.
As for blunt statements: once you make them, you can be expected to write lengthy defenses, othebwise you are just asserting things. And what's worse, your blunt assertion is patronizing and even insulting to the intelligence of countless atheists.
AT concepts, such as potentiality and actuality, are just commonsense. An oak tree is merely an oak tree in actuality, but in potentiality it is something else, like an oak tree. You don't agree that's obvious? And no, inclinations, e.g. potentialities, don't actualize themselves. An acorn doesn't become an oak tree apart from actualities, such as water, sunlight, and soil. Without these, the acorn will remain an acorn.
ReplyDeleteWalter: "So, what you are in fact claiming is that "nothing" has an inclination towards possibly becoming something else, which means there is no such thing as real 'nothing'."
This "nothing" (a potentiality) is exhibited in and through an actuality. An acorn lacks the properties of an oak tree, but its inclination toward becoming an oak tree means it exhibits potentiality.
"For your information: I do not believe in something worse than magic and that's why I don't believe that an immutable being can make something pop into existence from absolutely nothing."
You're once again confusing cosmological arguments. The argument from motion has nothing whatsoever to do with creation. Matter and energy could be eternal as far as Aristotle was concerned. Besides, at least an immutable being is something.
My assertion is neither patronizing nor insulting. I never said "atheists are dumb" or the like. You're being way too oversensitive. I speak from experience when I say that few atheists understand the differences between the various cosmological arguments. I've had exchanges with atheists where I'd have to explain ad nauseum that the argument from motion doesn't require a universe with a beginning, and nothing seems to register.
Now, I'll give you this. Not all atheists are like this. In fact, it's possible that most are not. However, there are still way too many atheists who either don't understand the arguments or refuse to acknowledge the differences. I give them the benefit of the doubt and say they don't understand. Would you rather I accuse them of dishonesty?
AT concepts are not common sense in any sort of way. AT concepts presuppsoe teleology, and whether there is any sort of basic teleology in the universe is still very much an open question. Mind, I am not claiming there is no teleology, but taking it for granted, as you do, is begging the question.
DeleteYou say "the argument from motion has nothing whatsoever to do with creation", then how does your claim that "(2) is equivalent to the notion that no potentiality can actualize itself" make any sense at all. You seem to be the one confusing (or conflating) "actualizing", with "sustaining". Presmis (2) does not say that potentialities cannot actualize themselves, irt says that entities composed of potentiality and actuality need a sustaining cause, which is something quite different. If you want to defend that premise, then please do not start defending a premise that has nothing to do with it.
So, in fact it's you who is confusing cosmological arguments.
It's true that you have never said that atheists are dumb, but you did say that "atheists should abandon their atheism in favor of deism or some form of theism." You said "atheists", not "those kind of atheists that do not understand CA's".
Now, it is obvious that lots of atheists do not understand the diffrences, but the same holds for most theists. You have actually just demonstrated your own confusion in your defense of premise (2) You would be surprsied how many theists claim that the fact that the universe is contingent means it had a beginning. Even WL Craig, most certainly not "dumb", does this, so am I to conclude that he is dishonest or that he doesn't understand his own argument?
I am not being senstive here, but if I made the same overgeneralization you did, you would be all over the place.
Walter: "AT concepts are not common sense in any sort of way. AT concepts presuppsoe teleology, and whether there is any sort of basic teleology in the universe is still very much an open question. Mind, I am not claiming there is no teleology, but taking it for granted, as you do, is begging the question."
DeletePotentiality and actuality, properly speaking, are not teleological terms. They certainly can be, but not in the context of the argument we're talking about. So answer this simple question: does an acorn exhibit the potentiality of becoming an oak tree?
"You say "the argument from motion has nothing whatsoever to do with creation", then how does your claim that "(2) is equivalent to the notion that no potentiality can actualize itself" make any sense at all."
It's not creation. It's an actualization of some already existing thing's potentiality.
"You seem to be the one confusing (or conflating) "actualizing", with "sustaining". Presmis (2) does not say that potentialities cannot actualize themselves, irt says that entities composed of potentiality and actuality need a sustaining cause, which is something quite different. . . ."
Once one understands what it means to be "in motion," especially in the context of AT metaphysics, it most certainly refers to actuality and potentiality. Why else would I constantly provide these examples in support of (2)? If at any point the water, sunlight and soil are removed, then the acorn will cease becoming an oak tree. The acorn needs its actualization sustained. Walter, I've studied these arguments for years. I'm not the one confusing them.
"It's true that you have never said that atheists are dumb, but you did say that 'atheists should abandon their atheism in favor of deism or some form of theism.' You said 'atheists', not 'those kind of atheists that do not understand CA's'."
And I think they should abandon their atheism. What else do you expect me to say? I believe God's existence is known by everyone, even atheists who suppress that knowledge, however unintentional that suppression may be.
"Now, it is obvious that lots of atheists do not understand the diffrences, but the same holds for most theists."
Certainly, but in my experience, theists are willing to be corrected on this matter. Some atheists are too, of course. It's not like I've taken a poll on this or anything.
"Even WL Craig, most certainly not "dumb", does this, so am I to conclude that he is dishonest or that he doesn't understand his own argument?"
I think you need to read more of his work, because he definitely doesn't make this mistake. In his defense of the Leibnizian cosmological argument, he writes, "My version of the Leibnizian cosmological argument . . . is patterned on the formulation by the noted philosopher Stephen T. Davis. One of the features of Davis’ formulation that I found (and find) attractive is that it just avoids any need to argue about an infinite regress of explanations. It is so formulated that the question doesn’t even arise."
"I am not being senstive here, but if I made the same overgeneralization you did, you would be all over the place."
Nonsense. I made a complaint when you questioned Thomas Aquinas's intelligence, which by extension, questioned my own.
Doug
Delete"So answer this simple question: does an acorn exhibit the potentiality of becoming an oak tree?"
Technically, no. The acorn, combined with sunlight and water etc. is what, under certain circumstances, results in an oak tree. But that's not what we are talking about. To borrow from your analogy, we are talking about an acorn, in the absense of any sort influence, becoming a non-acorn of some sort. That's what you are claiming, and that is not so common sense at all.
Or, we are atlling about an elementary particles that, without any sort of influence, change.
What you do not seem to understand is tha an existing thing going out of existence is a motion, which according to other claims by Thomists, must be instigated by an unmoved mover.So, it follows that once the unmoved mover has set X 'in motion', only another act by this unmoved mover can 'stop' the motion. IOW if it is true that motion needs an unmoved mover to get started, it cannot be true that it will stop all by itself.
Doug
"Why else would I constantly provide these examples in support of (2)?"
You also constantly refer to atheists believing in "worse than magic popping into existence from nothing" if they don't accept that motion needs a sustaining cause. So, why wdo you provide these examples that have nothing to do with the real issue? I do not know, but my guess is that you are confused in this respect.
"Certainly, but in my experience, theists are willing to be corrected on this matter. Some atheists are too, of course. It's not like I've taken a poll on this or anything."
Maybe you should take a poll or read some statistics before you make blunt statements and before you start generalizing.
As for WL Craig, I have read quite a bit of his work and I am not interested here in how he defends the LCA, I am talking about his defense of the KCA, and in that context he has made that very mistake. I shall try to find an exact quote.
"Nonsense. I made a complaint when you questioned Thomas Aquinas's intelligence, which by extension, questioned my own."
OK, I'll give it a go, then.
My conclusion is that theists and especially Thomists should abandon their theism in favour of atheism or at least some form of deism because most of them are confusing sustaining causes with originating causes.
Walter: "Technically, no. The acorn, combined with sunlight and water etc. is what, under certain circumstances, results in an oak tree. But that's not what we are talking about. To borrow from your analogy, we are talking about an acorn, in the absense of any sort influence, becoming a non-acorn of some sort. That's what you are claiming, and that is not so common sense at all."
ReplyDeleteNo, I said that the acorn has the potentiality to become an oak tree, but only with the presence of external causes. Are you even reading what I've said?
"Or, we are atlling about an elementary particles that, without any sort of influence, change."
That's also not true. If the quantum energy is removed, then then elementary particles will neither change nor exist.
"What you do not seem to understand is tha an existing thing going out of existence is a motion, which according to other claims by Thomists, must be instigated by an unmoved mover.So, it follows that once the unmoved mover has set X 'in motion', only another act by this unmoved mover can 'stop' the motion. IOW if it is true that motion needs an unmoved mover to get started, it cannot be true that it will stop all by itself."
Again, no. You're digging yourself a hole. Without the Unmoved Mover, nothing will continue to be in motion. There's no need to introduce an additional entity that "stops" its motion.
"You also constantly refer to atheists believing in 'worse than magic popping into existence from nothing' if they don't accept that motion needs a sustaining cause. So, why wdo you provide these examples that have nothing to do with the real issue? I do not know, but my guess is that you are confused in this respect."
This is just getting ridiculous. I've already explained why my examples are relevant, but you're being obstinate. I can't say I'm surprised. When many atheists are backed into a corner, they're willing to say anything to avoid conclusions they don't like.
"Maybe you should take a poll or read some statistics before you make blunt statements and before you start generalizing."
I'm basing it on my own experience. What else do you want? Sheesh.
"As for WL Craig, I have read quite a bit of his work and I am not interested here in how he defends the LCA, I am talking about his defense of the KCA, and in that context he has made that very mistake. I shall try to find an exact quote."
But we're not talking about the KCA. Walter, you really need to rethink your objections. Your arguments aren't coming across well, and I'm not the only one who thinks so. You're a smart guy, so apply yourself.
"OK, I'll give it a go, then.
My conclusion is that theists and especially Thomists should abandon their theism in favour of atheism or at least some form of deism because most of them are confusing sustaining causes with originating causes."
Rather, they're mistaken in confusing the two. That in no way implies they should abandon theism. The atheists I have in mind present some of the weakest objections against the argument from motion. If they were willing to be corrected, then they would surely accept its conclusion. This isn't a reversible claim.
And, please don't change the subject. You were insulting the intelligence of Thomas Aquinas, and myself by implication. I did no such thing concerning atheists.
Doug
ReplyDelete"That's also not true. If the quantum energy is removed, then then elementary particles will neither change nor exist."
That is simply wrong. The quantum energy cannot be removed, that's why is is called a vacuum. You should study some real physics instead of apologetic's versions of it.
"Again, no. You're digging yourself a hole. Without the Unmoved Mover, nothing will continue to be in motion. There's no need to introduce an additional entity that "stops" its motion."
I would expect that the Unmoved mover also in some way is the cause of the motion, and we know from high school physics that things in motion continue their motion, so how can something in motion stop moving without applying a force to it?
Which serious scientist believes things can completely go out of existence?
"But we're not talking about the KCA. Walter, you really need to rethink your objections. Your arguments aren't coming across well, and I'm not the only one who thinks so. You're a smart guy, so apply yourself."
We were talking about confusing different CA's. In his defense of the KCA, Craig confuses different CA's. So, I do not need to rethink this objection at all. You should read what I actually say before replying.
As for my arguments not coming across well, I am sure that my arguments do not come across well with all the theists that follow this blog. People do not like it when their beliefs are questioned, and refuse to even consider that they could be wrong. So, I am not that impressed by some other anonymous people who "think so".
"Rather, they're mistaken in confusing the two. That in no way implies they should abandon theism. The atheists I have in mind present some of the weakest objections against the argument from motion. If they were willing to be corrected, then they would surely accept its conclusion. This isn't a reversible claim."
Of course they are mistaken in confusing the two, but your only argylment for premise (2) also confuses the two, so premise (2) is undefended.
So if the athiests are willing to be corrected in their weak objections, they would only accept the conclsuion if teher were no serious objections. But there are serious objections, so you are wrong on this.
As for changing the subject: you were the one telling me I was oversensitive. I am not actually, because I do not really mind your retorics. You, on the other hand, did react oversensitively to what you call my insulting Aquinas' intelligence when I did not such thing. But that was probably also just rethorics, so I do not really mind.
Walter: "That is simply wrong. The quantum energy cannot be removed, that's why is is called a vacuum. You should study some real physics instead of apologetic's versions of it."
ReplyDeleteHow about Stephen Hawking, or Brian Greene? Or are they just apologists too? Quit talking down to people. Even if a quantum vacuum could not be removed, that's entirely irrelevant. The point is that the energy contained within the vacuum sustains the elementary particles.
"I would expect that the Unmoved mover also in some way is the cause of the motion, and we know from high school physics that things in motion continue their motion, so how can something in motion stop moving without applying a force to it?"
If you pay closer attention to Newtonian physics, you'll learn things only continue their motion without an external cause if they move in a straight line and move in an absolutely empty vacuum. An acorn becoming an oak tree neither moves in a straight line nor moves in an absolutely empty vacuum. In fact, such a vacuum doesn't even exist. It's just an idealization.
"Which serious scientist believes things can completely go out of existence?"
Who cares? We're talking about motion.
"We were talking about confusing different CA's. In his defense of the KCA, Craig confuses different CA's. So, I do not need to rethink this objection at all. You should read what I actually say before replying."
Give me a single example where he confuses different cosmological arguments. He goes at great lengths to explain the differences, as my quote clearly illustrated.
"As for my arguments not coming across well, I am sure that my arguments do not come across well with all the theists that follow this blog. People do not like it when their beliefs are questioned, and refuse to even consider that they could be wrong. So, I am not that impressed by some other anonymous people who 'think so'."
They don't come across well because they don't make any sense. Citing Newtonian physics as if they undermine the argument from motion? That only illustrates a complete lack of understanding of both the argument and Newton's physics. And, that's just one example.
"Of course they are mistaken in confusing the two, but your only argylment for premise (2) also confuses the two, so premise (2) is undefended."
My defense of premise (2) confuses nothing. It doesn't rely upon any other cosmological argument. It's based solely on AT metaphysics.
"So if the athiests are willing to be corrected in their weak objections, they would only accept the conclsuion if teher were no serious objections. But there are serious objections, so you are wrong on this."
Like the Newtonian physics objection? I don't think so. That seems to be the best atheists have to offer, so my confidence remains unshaken.
"As for changing the subject: you were the one telling me I was oversensitive."
That wasn't me changing the subject. You were offended by something entirely harmless, so I said you were being oversensitive. My comment was a response to yours. I'd like nothing more than to stay on topic, but that's rarely the case when people don't have any substantial objections to theistic arguments.
"You, on the other hand, did react oversensitively to what you call my insulting Aquinas' intelligence when I did not such thing."
You mean when you said Thomas wasn't so smart, that wasn't insulting his intelligence? Here are your exact words from my Feb. 16 post, "A Piece of Autobiography": "If [Thomas Aquinas] really thought that his 'cosmology' was compatible with a beginning universe, then maybe he was not so smart after all."
Walter, you've been suspended for a week. My suggestion is that you take this suspension seriously and not post for another week. Otherwise, I won't publish your comments. It's nothing personal, but I have to remain stedfast.
ReplyDeleteI've received your latest comment, Walter, and I sympathize with it. You'll have your opportunity to respond once your suspension is lifted. Until then, just let my replies stand and let them sink in so you can come up with a well thought out answer.
ReplyDeleteExplanations must come to an end somewhere, but why do I feel that when we get to the point where our reasons reach the unmoved mover, the explanation no longer applies to my original concern?
ReplyDeleteHi Dan,
ReplyDeleteWhat's your original concern? The argument from motion doesn't state that everything has its motion sustained by another, but that everything in motion has its motion sustained by another. The Unmoved Mover is immutable, so the causal principle is inapplicable to it.
Doug, correct me if I'm wrong:
ReplyDeleteAct and potency aren't supposed to be explanations as to HOW things change, but rather an explanation as to WHY change is even possible. It's a metaphysical principle, rather than a scientific principle.
Also, Walter, have your read Feser's paper on Inertial Motion?
http://faculty.fordham.edu/klima/SMLM/PSMLM10/PSMLM10.pdf
Hi, ozero
DeleteI hope you are still reading this. I could not reply any sooner, but yes, I have read Feser's paper and Feser argues that the law of inertia does not disprove that everything nees a sustaining cause, and I agree with that. But, more importantly, neither does Feser himself prove that everythiong does need a sustaining cause.
ozero, you're correct to say that the actuality/potentiality distinction is metaphysical. What I've been arguing is that this is a principle consistent with science.
ReplyDeleteI appreciate your blog, and over time as these A-T arguments have sunk I have come to realize that they are very strong (see some of my journey on my blog), contra what most atheists seem to think about them.
ReplyDeleteSo I cautiously agree with you when you say:
"My conclusion is that atheists should abandon their atheism in favor of deism or some form of theism."
But that last step just isn't gelling for me. I've been plateaued for years now. It's missing that last "umph". The arguments tell me there is something there, but I just can't seem to see or feel or be aware of it outside the cold logic of the argument itself.
Not sure where to go from here...
Hi Martin,
ReplyDeleteYou might look into the argument from desire. Peter Kreeft discusses it here: http://www.peterkreeft.com/topics/desire.htm
The argument gives us much more than some distant God who is unconcerned with our welfare. In addition, there is the historicity of Jesus's resurrection. Anything by William Lane Craig or Gary Habermas is an excellent start. Here's one of Craig's articles: http://www.reasonablefaith.org/the-resurrection-of-jesus
I hope these help you on your journey! God bless. :)
Martin, you also might try praying if you haven't already. Sometimes it feels that God is distant from us, even when He's not. Faith is a necessary addition to our knowledge that God exists. We also have to believe that God keeps His promises.
ReplyDelete>you also might try praying if you haven't already
ReplyDeleteYeah, I've tried that quite a few times. To me, it feels like talking to a brick wall. I'm not sure what kind of answer I'm looking for, because it sure does seem quiet...
You're not alone, my friend. Job didn't feel God's presence for a time, either, but God was there all along. Sometimes the feeling of distance may be likened to a test. Can you imagine if God made His presence obviously felt every time we prayed? He'd be more of a slave than a deity.
ReplyDeleteThanks Doug. I suppose I'll just keep trying, then. :)
ReplyDelete