tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5743370102334877264.post1029237850222872383..comments2023-04-05T09:07:08.419-07:00Comments on Fides et Ratio: The Argument from MathematicsAnonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07034462951274070391noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5743370102334877264.post-56987518796116223432014-02-04T22:15:42.094-08:002014-02-04T22:15:42.094-08:00Hi Jonathan,
You can find one of Lennox's tre...Hi Jonathan,<br /><br />You can find one of Lennox's treatments of the argument here: http://www.asenseofawe.net/2011/09/27/lennox/Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07034462951274070391noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5743370102334877264.post-44467891581764616482014-01-31T13:37:33.564-08:002014-01-31T13:37:33.564-08:00I've only seen William Lane Craig defend this ...I've only seen William Lane Craig defend this argument, is there a place where I can read/watch John Lennox's formulation of the argument?Jonathan Thompsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16269041767906276121noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5743370102334877264.post-6852463914842587732013-09-12T19:04:54.475-07:002013-09-12T19:04:54.475-07:00Thanks for the link, Crude. If I understand Feser...Thanks for the link, Crude. If I understand Feser correctly, he's critical of the notion that God created a mechanistic universe which is capable of running on its own. The argument from mathematics doesn't do that, as far as I can tell. After all, God, as the first cause in the order of sustaining causes, must continue to sustain the laws of nature in order for them to have any mathematical correlation. Final causality, and efficient causality, as a result, aren't damaged by the argument from mathematics, even though Feser suggests that Paley's argument and the contemporary Intelligent Design arguments do.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07034462951274070391noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5743370102334877264.post-56515682951436237762013-09-12T14:51:44.525-07:002013-09-12T14:51:44.525-07:00Sorry, it wasn't until just now that I saw you...Sorry, it wasn't until just now that I saw your reply.<br /><br />Feser typically has a problem with arguments that regard God as a designer/creator imposing His will directly on matter, as if according to a blueprint or the like. I -think- it may be related to Divine Simplicity, but all I know is it's at the heart of his issues with Intelligent Design.<br /><br /><a href="http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2009/11/trouble-with-william-paley.html" rel="nofollow">This link</a> probably encapsulates his thoughts on it the best.Crudehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04178390947423928444noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5743370102334877264.post-77349082657286930222013-08-31T08:54:14.084-07:002013-08-31T08:54:14.084-07:00I'm not sure about Feser's objection/reser...I'm not sure about Feser's objection/reservation. I haven't come across it yet. I think there are ways of reconciling the argument with classical theism even if Feser's reservation turns out to be correct. The God of classical theism creates the universe as well as angels. The angels are drawn to God's Logos - the locus of all rationality and goodness - and as a result, cause within the physical universe a mathematical structure in order to emulate God's rationality.<br /><br />Now, I don't think that's what really happened. However, in the above scenario, God alone is the creator, and he is ultimately responsible for the design, given that he created the angels in such a way that they would design the universe with a mathematical structure.<br /><br />Nevertheless, I don't see why God himself could not be directly responsible for both the creation and the design. As far as you know, does Feser think this conflicts with divine simplicity? Or, is it something else?Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07034462951274070391noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5743370102334877264.post-90193902419799001032013-08-30T22:51:43.407-07:002013-08-30T22:51:43.407-07:00Fascinating argument. However, a question.
Doesn&...Fascinating argument. However, a question.<br /><br />Doesn't this get one into the realm of what Edward Feser would regard as 'naturalistic' gods? A personal, quite possibly limited being or beings, who themselves may be created?<br /><br />Not that I think it's a bad argument even then - I think the naturalist/atheist has to contend with far more Gods/gods than the God of classical theism and all.Crudehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04178390947423928444noreply@blogger.com