- 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
