Stats for nerds
1recommend
7mentions
6people
2018–2023years
14% recommend71% neutral14% critical
Mentions per year
What Hacker News says
- My own personal introduction to philosophy came from Edwards and Pap's now rather dated 1965 textbook A Modern Introduction to Philosophy–my father did an introduction to philosophy course at university in the late 1960s, and that was the main textbook they used, and teenage me was rather excited to discover it on his bookshelf. I myself did 1st year philosophy at university in 2000, but only one unit (logic) actually had a textbook, the others I did (epistemology, philosophy of mind, metaphysics, political philosophy) just used photocopied books of readings (I remember we had readings from Plato, Aristotle, Aquinas, Descartes, Locke, Hobbes, Hume, Berkeley, Kant–and some more recent authors whose names escape me now). I found a site with a whole set of free university-level philosophy textbooks – https://open.umn.edu/opentextbooks/subjects/philosophy – although I can't vouch for them since I haven't read any of them myself
Some philosophers whose works I've read and enjoyed: Robert Nozick's Anarchy, State and Utopia; Derek Parfit's Reasons and Persons; Peter Singer's Practical Ethics; Graham Priest's In Contradiction; Graham Oppy's Arguing about Gods; Edward Feser's Five Proofs of the Existence of God – that's a rather eclectic and idiosyncratic list, including books by authors which radically disagree with each other (e.g. Feser's book tries to prove God exists, Oppy's book argues all known proofs of God's existence fail) - but you definitely won't find any of that "critical theory" cant in any of them
- From Five Proofs of the Existence of God, Edward Feser (2017), Chapter 6 (§Omniscience), pp. 212f:
> Recall that I emphasized that God can hardly be mistaken about the cat being on the mat, insofar as he is the cause of the cat's being on the mat in thefirst place. I compared this to an author's knowledge of the characters and events of the story he has come up with. Now, the way an author knows these characters and events is not by observering them. It is not a kind of perceptual knowledge. Rather, the ahtor knows them by virtue of knowing himself, by virtue of knowing his own thoughts and intentions as author. And that is precisely the way in which God knows the world. His knowledge is not the result of a kind of observation of that happens as history unfolds. God is not, after all, in time, and thus he does not need to wait until something happens in order to know that it happens. Nor does he have a perceptual organs by which he comes to know things, since he is incorporeal. Nordoes he learn anything in any other way, since learning is a kind of change and God is immutable. As I said above, it is in a single, timeless act that God causes to exist everything that has been and will be. And it is in knowing himself as so acting that God knows everything that is, has been, and will be. His knowledge of the world is a consequence of his self-knowledge.[48]
> [48] See Katherin A. Rogers, Anselm on Freedom (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008), pp. 158f.
Following pages go into free will and such.
If you think you've come up with some clever objection(s), that have not been considered over the centuries by folks that are probably smarter than both of us put together, you're probably wrong. :)
I'd recommend this book for steelman coverage of the topic:
* * https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/35592365-five-proofs-of-...
- I would not turn to Carrier if you wish to counter-argue Feser:
> In an article at his blog, pop atheist writer Richard Carrier grandly claims to have “debunked!” (exclamation point in the original) Five Proofs of the Existence of God. It’s a bizarrely incompetent performance. To say that Carrier attacks straw men would be an insult to straw men, which usually bear at least a crude resemblance to the argument under consideration. They are also usually at least intelligible. By contrast, consider this paragraph from the beginning of Carrier’s discussion of the Aristotelian proof:
[…]
> As near as I can tell after reading and rereading those mind-numbingly obscure passages, what Carrier is criticizing is an argument that tries to show that God is the cause of the universe arising from nothing. And as near as I can tell, his objection is something to the effect that if we think carefully about what a “nothing-state” would be, we will see that that theistic conclusion isn’t warranted. Other scenarios, such as a multiverse scenario, are no less likely or even more likely. Of course, this has, again, absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with what the Aristotelian proof actually says, and so Carrier’s objection would be completely irrelevant even if it were at all clear what that objection is. Carrier’s readers will learn as much about what my Aristotelian argument actually says as they would if they’d read an automotive repair manual instead. Only that would have been more lucid and interesting reading.
* https://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2018/02/carrier-on-five-pro...
- He has some good points. But this is also the guy who wrote "Five Proofs of the Existence of God".
- He also wrote Five Proofs of the Existence of God. His writings won’t convert any naturalist.
- A "quick" "summary" by Feser is:
1. The Principle of sufficient reason (PSR) holds that there is an explanation for the existence of anything that does exist and for its having the attributes it has.
2. If PSR were not true, then things and events without evident explanation or intelligibility would be extremely common.
3. But this is the opposite of what common sense and science alike find to be the case.
4. If PSR were not true, then we would be unable to trust our own cognitive faculties.
5. But in fact we are able trust those faculties.
6. Furthermore, there is no principled way to deny the truth of PSR while generally accepting that there are genuine explanations in science and philosophy.
7. But there are many genuine explanations to be found in science and philosophy.
8. So, PSR is true.
9. The explanation of the existence of anything is to be found either in some other thing which causes it, in which case it is contingent, or in its own nature, in which case it is necessary; PSR rules out any purported third alternative on which a thing's existence is explained by nothing.
10. There are contingent things.
11. Even if the existence of an individual contingent thing could be explained by reference to some previously existing contingent thing, which in turn could be explained by a previous member, and so on to infinity, that the infinite series as a whole exists at all would remain to be explained.
12. To explain the series by reference to some further contingent cause outside the series, and then explain this cause in terms of some yet further contingent thing, an so on to infinity, would merely yield another series whose existence would reman to be explained; and to posit yet another contingent thing outside this second series would merely generate the same problem yet again.
13. So, no contingent thing or series of contingent things can explain why there are any contingent things at all.
14. But that there are any contingent things at all must have som explanation, given PSR; and the only remanning explanation is in terms of a necessary being as cause.
15. Furthermore, that an individual contingent thing persists in existence at any moment requires an explanation; and since it is contingent, that explanation must lie in some simultaneous cause distinct from it.
16. If this cause is itself contingent, then even if it has yet another contingent thing as its own simultaneous cause, and that cause yet another contingent thing as its simultaneous cause, and so on to infinity, then once again we have an infinite series of contingent things the existence of which has yet to be explained.
17. So, no contingent thing or series of contingent things can explain why any particular contingent thing persists in existence at any moment; and the only remanning explanation is in terms of a necessary being as its simultaneous cause.
18. So, there must be at least one necessary being, to explain why any contingent things exist at all and how any particular contingent thing persists in existence at any moment.
19. A necessary being would have to be purely actual, absolutely simple or noncomposite, and something which just is subsistent existence itself.
20. But there can in principle be only one thing which is purely actual, absolutely simple or noncomposite, and something which is subsistent existence itself.
21. So, there is only necessary being.
22. So, it is this same on necessary being which is the explanation of why any contingent things exists at all and which is the cause of every particular contingent thing's existing at any moment.
23. So, this necessary being is the cause of everything other than itself.
24. Something which is purely actual, absolutely simple or noncomposite, and something which just is subsistent existence itself must also be immutable, eternal, immaterial, incorporeal, perfect, omnipotent, fully good, intelligent, and omniscient.
25. So, there is a necessary being which is one, purely actual, absolutely simple, subsistent existence itself, cause of everything other than itself, immutable, eternal, immaterial, incorporeal, perfect, omnipotent, fully good, intelligent, and omniscient.
26. But for there to be such a thing is for God to exist.
27. So, God exists.
For the details see the twenty pages of chapter five ("The Rationalist Proof") in his book Five Proofs of the Existence of God:
* https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/35592365-five-proofs-of-...
Also covered are: Aristotle, Neo-Platonic (Plotinus), Augustinian, and Thomistic.
(The above is the summary which I've transcribed. I think I've typed it out correctly, but there could be some typos.)
Related
Arguing about Gods
2 recommend · 2
Proofs from the book
28 recommend · 60
Scholastic Metaphysics
3 recommend · 5
How to prove it
78 recommend · 129
2012–2026
Book of Proof
54 recommend · 86
Proofs and refutations
34 recommend · 55
Gödel's proof
30 recommend · 45
