# Dr. Feser: Aristotelian proof of God

136 posts / 0 new

Again; why does something subjective like motion require a legitimate explanation?

It depends on what you mean by motion. If you take in an Aristotelian sense then God does not even move himself but only others. If you take it in a platonic sense then God does move himself. If God moved himself in an Aristotelian point of few then he would have potencies and parts and therefore wouldn't actually be God.

Jon
How can something that doesn't move, move itself?

@Chimp

If it's possible a necessary being exists -and it's indeed possible, it's even necessary- then it's impossible to be more than one necessary being.

"it's even necessary"

Not if the universe is in and of itself based on an infinite regression, such as the idea that the Big Bang was in fact the result of a Big Crunch: A moment in which a previous instance of the universe was compacted further and further until it could compact no longer, and forcefully expanded: A Big Bang.

Some, like myself, think the universe we observe may simply be the most recent in line, and that the same thing will happen to ours.

you look like someone who does not respond to arguments with "nonsense" or "word salad" which is so weird for an atheist. Anyway, we say that an infinite regress of causes is impossible. let us assume that the big bang=Y & the big crunch = Z.

For every Z there must be a 'Y' prior to it. so in order for Z to occur Y must occur first, but if Y is preceded by another Z ,let us call it Z1, then Y cannot occur before Z1. but since there cannot be any Z if there hadn't been a Y, then Z1 must be preceded by Y1. so in order for Z1 to occur Y1 must occur first. until that point we do not have any Y or Z, and if we proceed further to infinity we would end up having an infinite series of non-occurred events, just mere nothingness. but since there is a Y then there must be a starting point or a beginning for the whole thing.

But that is how human propagation works:

Y being the parental unit and Z being the child produced.

Y leads to Z, Z becomes Y1, which produces Z1, which becomes Y2, ad infinitum.

Thence it could still be argued that the universe could be operating in the same way.

Though, that would still leave room in the past for there to have been an original Y.

But that's assuming standard scientific laws and rules of logic still apply in such extreme scenarios as Big Bangs/Crunches.

Quantum physics has shown us that in certain situations, the standard scientific laws and rules of logic that the universe normally abides by cease to apply any longer.

Since our knowledge base on quantum physics is incomplete - we certainly do not know everything there is to know - one cannot rule out the possibility of a special scenario which would allow for an infinite regression of past universes - and by extension, big bangs and big crunches.

I'm not saying for certain that is the case. I'm just saying our knowledge base is too incomplete to completely rule out the possibility.

@ Discere

That's essentially like saying an infinitely long chain of train cars might explain why they all move.

It's called a Self Perpetuating Closed Circle/Loop.

But what is its foundation for existing?

Dumb Ox
Have you every seen a train move the boxcars? Have you every seen a boxcar move by itself?

P
What proof do you have there is only one necessary being? What proof do you have that there is not more than one necessary being?

Peripatetic: Why?

Wow. That is a boring lecture. A real insomnia cure. Feser on stun.

Here's an idea. Instead of posting interminable recordings by another person, why not put your ideas in your own words. That's called discussion.

If Uncle Fester or whatever his name is wants to put his oar in here, he should front up in person.

Philosophers like Feser do not discuss Intellectually advanced topics with mentally retarded kids like you.

@P "mentally retarded kids like you."

LOL. I'll take that as a compliment. I haven't been called a kid for over 50 years.

But the point stands. Who are you or Dumb Ox to set homework for people here? We all participate directly in the discussion in our own words. Dumb Ox evidently finds that too challenging, so he purloins another person's work wholesale and expects everyone here to devote a slice of their day to listening to it.

It's so sad that one has to spend over 50 years of his life being mentally retarded.

Peripathetic: "It's so sad that one has to spend over 50 years of his life being mentally retarded."

You are not a philosopher. You are a pathetic little schoolyard bully with delusions of intellect.

Hitchens made a great point. Even Aquinas could not go from Point A - First Mover- to Point B - that the First Mover- was a personal god that cared about what you ate and what position you had sex in.

Does he mean he didn't attempt or attempted and failed?

He meant that it can't be done.

Don't forget this "god" also cares about how much foreskin you have on your male genitalia when you are just a few days old. (Depending on which ever version of god story the person believes in.)

I think this point isn’t even in contention. The arguments of Aquinas are there to prove (or in your view, attempt to prove) the existence of God. What he would want us to do or eat or think about isn’t even the point of his arguments.

Aquinas isn't trying to prove "God", he's trying to prove Jehovah. I don't he would used these arguments to prove Ra or Odin or Zeus or Lolth or...

Actually, he is trying to prove God with a capital G. I agree he's not trying to prove god with a lower case g.

His 5 ways actually start off pretty similarly but from each argument, we can then deduce something about this thing we call God based on his arguments. In the argument from motion, we can deduce that God is the beginning and would have no beginning. From the teleological argument, we can deduce that God would have to be intelligent, and so on and so forth.

With the pagan gods, they do have beginnings so we can safely assume them to be false gods (with a lower case g)

@Jon the Catholic: "Actually, he is trying to prove God with a capital G."

Why are believers so focused on the teleological, ontological and other arguments put forward by people like Anselm and Aquinas? I thought believers were supposed to rely on faith rather than casuistry and sophistry.

We have faith because it’s reasonable. Would I have faith that a flying spaghetti monster was looking at everything I was doing because it’s not reasonable. From the arguments of Aquinas, we can deduce that God exists and that He is eternal, immaterial, infinitely intelligent (all knowing) and can know everything I do.

Great! So now we can pull out the fact that the idea of an Omnipotent, Omniesent being is self contradictory.

@Discere

No it's not

## Pages

Donating = Loving

Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.