- Supernaturalism is only meaningful in that it is a negation of material causes.
- Negation of material causes would only be possible if one had no limit of knowledge.
- A transcendent knowledge base is necessary because we have limits of knowledge.
- Supernaturalism is impossible. (from 1, 2 and 3)
- Naturalism is an absolute. (from 4)
Critique:
- Supernaturalism is only meaningful in that it is a negation of material causes.
Begs the question how he came to exclude all other causes than material! As a conclusion from this? Then his argument is circular. Or because his knowledge is without limits? Look on his next premisses:
- Negation of material causes would only be possible if one had no limit of knowledge.
All that is needed is knowledge of what natural causes are. If a medicine is not given, if a cure is too sudden to depend on the immunity system, if something has been destroyed which the processes of the body have no possibility to restore and is then suddenly restored - there is no natural explanation.
- A transcendent knowledge base is necessary because we have limits of knowledge.
Even if granted, this would be acceptably identified by miracles. Like when St Luke knew that the boy who had fallen broke his neck and died (he was a doctor) and then saw St Paul restore him to life (and good functioning of complete neck).
This means that the steps four and five fall to the ground.
He then goes on to give a dilemma:
This means that the steps four and five fall to the ground.
He then goes on to give a dilemma:
- Naturalism is an absolute.
- The concept “god” either implies supernaturalism, or it doesn’t.
- If the concept “god” implies supernaturalism, then it is an impossibility. (from 1)
- If the concept “god” does not imply supernaturalism, then it is unfalsifiable and meaningless.
- The concept “god” is either impossible or meaningless. (from 2a and 2b)
Since 1. depends on a false reasoning, 2a. and 3 are not proven.
In the main though, Tremblay depends on "nothing comes from nothing" and identifies creation or the voice of God speaking to Moses as "something comes from nothing" and therefore a violationof that principle. We know well that we can produce some effects wilfully using our body, i e "something comes from our will and material cause connected to it"; we do not know (as that identification would need to repose on) that there be no entity that can produce somthing by its will alone. Indeed, if the historic evidence for miracles is good enough, or the philosophic for a need for creation, then we know there is such a being. Getting to know Him is however quite another adventure. There I can only advice prayer and reading of Church Fathers (including hagiography) and Gospels. That however includes plenty of miracles to read about.
Hans Lundahl
17 juillet (N. C.) 2008
Avignon
In the main though, Tremblay depends on "nothing comes from nothing" and identifies creation or the voice of God speaking to Moses as "something comes from nothing" and therefore a violationof that principle. We know well that we can produce some effects wilfully using our body, i e "something comes from our will and material cause connected to it"; we do not know (as that identification would need to repose on) that there be no entity that can produce somthing by its will alone. Indeed, if the historic evidence for miracles is good enough, or the philosophic for a need for creation, then we know there is such a being. Getting to know Him is however quite another adventure. There I can only advice prayer and reading of Church Fathers (including hagiography) and Gospels. That however includes plenty of miracles to read about.
Hans Lundahl
17 juillet (N. C.) 2008
Avignon
6 commentaires:
Francois' response
François is repeating his lack of understanding for the fact that some things are understood as universals, even by men who are not omniscient.
When I claim that every triangle past present and future has the sum of angles equal to a circle half around, I am not claiming to have examined each and everyone singly (which would amount to omniscience and be silly) I am claiming to know what a triangle is.
François answer, if logically analysed, amounts to an admission that he cannot know that miracles have not occurred, he is only loth to call miracles miracles. Alas, I do not think he is as logical as that.
Ever try drawing a triangle on the surface of a sphere?
You two are talking past eachother. Both of you claim that the other one doesnt understand the argument at all.
Francois' response
Is Mr Tremblay unable to comment here himself?
Anyway: what I mean about not being omniscient and yet knowing this and that can have no natural cause is that I know what a natural cause is. By definition of natural.
Just as I know what triangles are. The figure drawn on a sphere is not a triangle, since flatness is included in the definition of any two dimensional figure. Non-Euclidian triangles do exist, but they are no triangles. Claiming to know the one or the other for every case past present or future has nothing to do with claiming omniscience.
"If you claim that God could act by physical means, you are implicitly claiming that the expression "divine intervention" has no meaning."
Wrong. God nearly always acts in this world by physical means. Divine interventions are not restricted to miracles, but anything where the result is better than mere nature would have "promised". And the definition of miracle adds to that, something which is not had by merely physical means, ever: like restauration in one moment of body tissue lacking by wound or by traumatism of sickness. Or winds blowing a walkable passage through a Sea.
Diskussionstråd på orsakverkan.
Enregistrer un commentaire