Has anyone here had exposure to the more philosophical arguments for a first mover. Thomas Aquinas 5 ways etc. I've been exposed to some but only at cursory glances.
http://web.mnstate.edu/gracyk/courses/web%20publishing/aquinasFiveWays_ArgumentAnalysis.htm
http://web.mnstate.edu/gracyk/courses/web%20publishing/aquinasFiveWays_ArgumentAnalysis.htm
By Fenderputty Go To PostHas anyone here had exposure to the more philosophical arguments for a first mover. Thomas Aquinas 5 ways etc. I've been exposed to some but only at cursory glances.
http://web.mnstate.edu/gracyk/courses/web%20publishing/aquinasFiveWays_ArgumentAnalysis.htm
Yea. They're pretty well know as the standard from the Christian scholarly perspective. Between these 5 and the famous "watch" argument, we have 6 of the most common arguments from their perspective.
a lot of religious arguments are based on premise that consciousness is separate from matter and energy. I was wondering what people's thoughts on that were
Part of the trouble of arguing religious philosophy is getting past language such as literal and figurative. There's a camp of people who defend the myths in the bible by claiming that they are strictly metaphor when a large part of the mythos is the storytelling itself. This gets lost in either a literal or figurative translation.
Western Philosophy in general was an offshoot of then poetic tradition which was generation after generation of oral offerings. Conversations between people in poetic form were a substantial part of religious experience.
If we are to simply form a reductive idea of religion as custom, faith, myth, etc we will lose this interpersonal quality of poetry and the whole thing falls apart. religion stands no chance against science in the reductive venue which drives modern discourse.
In other words, it is not enough to simply ask God to prove himself. From here we cannot even have a real discussion. It is insufficient to forgoe the mystery in favor of a means of measurement of our world however powerful and useful it may be.
Western Philosophy in general was an offshoot of then poetic tradition which was generation after generation of oral offerings. Conversations between people in poetic form were a substantial part of religious experience.
If we are to simply form a reductive idea of religion as custom, faith, myth, etc we will lose this interpersonal quality of poetry and the whole thing falls apart. religion stands no chance against science in the reductive venue which drives modern discourse.
In other words, it is not enough to simply ask God to prove himself. From here we cannot even have a real discussion. It is insufficient to forgoe the mystery in favor of a means of measurement of our world however powerful and useful it may be.
I almost spazzed in church an hour ago. Dude makes a direct correlation between a conference talk someone gave in 1973 to lambast America's culture and point towards its downfall. He suggested we align ourselves to correct side politically and used conservative charged statements such as permanent welfare state, Baltimore burning, handouts, and moral decline. Then dude comes on and says we shouldn't accept just anyone and need to tell it like it is.
12 years ago I'd have read ALL OF THEM. Today I'm a far more peaceful person.
12 years ago I'd have read ALL OF THEM. Today I'm a far more peaceful person.
By Fenderputty Go To PostHas anyone here had exposure to the more philosophical arguments for a first mover. Thomas Aquinas 5 ways etc. I've been exposed to some but only at cursory glances.No matter how many times or ways it's been presented, I've yet to hear/read one that doesn't boil down to special pleading. The person claims that everything needs a cause (or prior intelligence, or mover, or whatever). Then, for some unsupported reason, states that it must have started somewhere back down the line. That starting point then is used to define God into existence as the one thing that is defined as that starting point and is excluded from the previous premises that led to the conclusion.
http://web.mnstate.edu/gracyk/courses/web%20publishing/aquinasFiveWays_ArgumentAnalysis.htm
The same or similar arguments have been rephrased and redone for quite some time now. Craig and his version of the Kalam comes to mind as a popular reformation in modern day. It still falls as an argument in much the same way.
You can take some logical fallacy and apply it to practically every single argument in the history of man.
There isn't a single philosophy that doesn't have an opposing philosophy pointing out holes in premises or the logical process.
The field of philosophy is and always will be tortured by lapses in logic that latter individuals point out.
This isn't to say that the first mover argument is a particularly strong argument, just that "logical fallacy" accusations can, and are, thrown against every philosophical argument ever presented if any significance.
There isn't a single philosophy that doesn't have an opposing philosophy pointing out holes in premises or the logical process.
The field of philosophy is and always will be tortured by lapses in logic that latter individuals point out.
This isn't to say that the first mover argument is a particularly strong argument, just that "logical fallacy" accusations can, and are, thrown against every philosophical argument ever presented if any significance.
It may not be a strong argument, but it remains a semi-popular one today, especially with apologists. This, despite the fact that folks have been pointing out the flaws for a long time now and the counterarguments are readily accessible. Same with the "watchmaker" argument, and I hear that thrown around all the time too.
I'm not sure I see the point of your response, though. This isn't trying to find logical fallacies in a philosophy. This is logical fallacies found within presented syllogisms. If they don't follow the rules of logic, they should be thrown out. There are plenty of philosophies that aren't fallacious because they aren't trying to use syllogisms to support their claims or they aren't making claims about reality per se. Once you get into those realms, however, pointing out valid fallacies is entirely appropriate.
EDIT: I should clarify. These are philosophical arguments. The philosophies themselves may not be fallacious (or incorrect re: reality) even when the supporting arguments presented by some are. I'm merely responding to the arguments themselves.
I'm not sure I see the point of your response, though. This isn't trying to find logical fallacies in a philosophy. This is logical fallacies found within presented syllogisms. If they don't follow the rules of logic, they should be thrown out. There are plenty of philosophies that aren't fallacious because they aren't trying to use syllogisms to support their claims or they aren't making claims about reality per se. Once you get into those realms, however, pointing out valid fallacies is entirely appropriate.
EDIT: I should clarify. These are philosophical arguments. The philosophies themselves may not be fallacious (or incorrect re: reality) even when the supporting arguments presented by some are. I'm merely responding to the arguments themselves.
Well vaughn is right that good philosophical discourse is generally not aimed at a result but instead encourages further inquiry, but there are many many many systems of logic out there and logicians are constantly arguing with each other over their merits. A proof takes on an entirely different meaning in one system vs another.
