Feser’s Case for God – Part 8: Actualization of a Potential
FESER’S ANALYSIS OF CHANGE A key idea in Chunk #1 of Feser’s Aristotelian argument is his analysis or understanding of change: A. The occurrence of any change C presupposes the actualization of a potential of some thing or substance S which changes. There are three phrases that constitute the key components of Feser’s analysis of change: the actualization of… …a … Feser’s Case for God – Part 8: Actualization of a Potential
2017 in the Rearview Mirror
I had hoped to answer the question “Does God exist?” in 2017, at least to my own satisfaction. No such luck. That was a bit too aggressive of a goal. However, I did make some good progress. I learned that Norman Geisler’s case for God (in When Skeptics Ask) is a steaming pile of dog … 2017 in the Rearview Mirror
Feser’s Case for God – Part 7: Feser’s Concept of Change
FOCUS ON CHUNK #1 We are examining the first few premises of Edward Feser’s lengthy (i.e. containing fifty statements) Aristotelian argument for the existence of God, in Chapter 1 of Five Proofs of the Existence of God (hereafter: FPEG). What I call Chunk #1 of this argument consists of the following premises and inferences: (FPEG, Location 477-493, p.35-36) Let’s … Feser’s Case for God – Part 7: Feser’s Concept of Change
Feser’s Case for God – Part 6: Ambiguity and Unclarity
LACK OF SPECIFICATION IN PREMISE (2) The more I examine Chunk #1 of Feser’s Aristotelian argument for God, in Chapter 1 of Five Proofs of the Existence of God (hereafter: FPEG), the more ambiguous and unclear this part of the argument seems to be. The problems begin with premise (2): 2. But change is the … Feser’s Case for God – Part 6: Ambiguity and Unclarity
Feser’s Case for God – Part 5: Potential Attributes vs. Contingent Attributes
POTENTIAL ATTRIBUTES VS. CONTINGENT ATTRIBUTES I think (i.e. strongly suspect) it is important to understand the relationship between Edward Feser’s concept of the potential attributes of X and logical possibility. Feser does not provide clarification on this point, at least not in Chapter 1 of his book Five Proofs of the Existence of God (hereafter: … Feser’s Case for God – Part 5: Potential Attributes vs. Contingent Attributes
Feser’s Case for God – Part 4: Coffee with Parmenides
THE ARGUMENT FOR PREMISE (3) In his book Five Proofs of the Existence of God (hereafter: FPEG), Edward Feser presents an Aristotelian argument for God in Chapter 1. In Part 2 of this series I divided that argument into seven chunks. Chunk #1 consists of premises (1) through (14). The first sub-argument in Chunk #1 … Feser’s Case for God – Part 4: Coffee with Parmenides
Feser’s Case for God – Part 3: Actualization of Potential
FESER TAKES OWNERSHIP OF THE FIVE ARGUMENTS In Five Proofs of the Existence of God (hereafter: FPEG), Edward Feser presents five “proofs” or arguments, each of which was inspired by an historical philosopher (or two). However, Feser takes full ownership of these five arguments, so that none of these arguments is put forward as merely … Feser’s Case for God – Part 3: Actualization of Potential
Feser’s Case for God – Part 2: Chunking Up the Aristotelian Argument
THE IMPORTANCE OF THE ARISTOTELIAN ARGUMENT In Chapter 1 of Five Proofs of the Existence of God (hereafter: FPEG), Edward Feser presents his Aristotelian argument for the existence of God. This is the most important argument in the book, because the other four arguments presented by Feser in later chapters all have a significant dependency … Feser’s Case for God – Part 2: Chunking Up the Aristotelian Argument
Feser’s Case for God – Part 1: What Feser Gets Right
In his book Five Proofs of the Existence of God (hereafter: FPEG), Edward Feser lays out what he takes to be the five best arguments for the claim that “God exists”. Based on a quick glance through this book, it seems to me that Feser does a much more reasonable job of making a case … Feser’s Case for God – Part 1: What Feser Gets Right
Kreeft’s Case for God – Part 8: Are Believers in God DELUSIONAL?
WHERE WE ARE AT I am in the process of evaluating Argument #19 (the Argument from Common Consent) from Peter Kreeft’s case for the existence of God (in Chapter 3 of Handbook of Christian Apologetics, hereafter: HCA): 1. Almost all people of every era have believed in God. A. Either God DOES exist or God does NOT exist. THEREFORE: 2. … Kreeft’s Case for God – Part 8: Are Believers in God DELUSIONAL?