Friday, February 9, 2024

Apologia Naturalis Partly Fails For a Modernist

OK, Moral argument and Teleology are not totally bungled, Anselm is correctly seen as less of a proof than he first thought, or not the way he first thought, he both makes some ill considered admission that Atheists might be excusable, at 8:22, then makes at the beginning of the video a few bloopers on the Cosmological argument.

Is There Proof God Exists? Yes
Breaking In The Habit | 8 Febr. 2024

"In the absence of verifiable scientific evidence for God, theologians and philosophers have turned to logical arguments to prove God’s existence for centuries."

What is "absence of verifiable scientific evidence" supposed to mean in this context?

Prima Via, in the way St. Thomas Aquinas probably meant it and Riccioli certainly took it, means, we have daily sightings, not of God, but of his action.

A few years, perhaps even ten years ago, either in Summa Theologica or in Summa contra Gentes, I found ... wait, I do find it again in Contra Gentes:

Patet autem sensu aliquid moveri, * utputa solem. *

Quarum prima talis est: omne quod movetur, ab alio movetur. Patet autem sensu aliquid moveri, utputa solem. Ergo alio movente movetur. Aut ergo illud movens movetur, aut non. Si non movetur, ergo habemus propositum, quod necesse est ponere aliquod movens immobile. Et hoc dicimus Deum. Si autem movetur, ergo ab alio movente movetur. Aut ergo est procedere in infinitum: aut est devenire ad aliquod movens immobile. Sed non est procedere in infinitum. Ergo necesse est ponere aliquod primum movens immobile.

The Sun moves around Earth every single day 360°.

It's verifiable, since it is observed. Note, his intro is * Patet autem sensu * i e, you don't fiddle with sense perception, unless it is called for. If we see the Sun move and don't see the Earth turn, we better stick with it's the Sun that moves, unless we have very irrefutable proof, also from sense data, it's the earth that turns.

I suppose you'd need recorded, verified evidence of a physical event or action that could not possibly have a natural explanation. I don't know what that would be or look like, i'm just attempting to answer your question.

Hans Georg Lundahl
My criterium was not "could not possibly" @EspadaKing777, though human language in a non-eternal world would qualify.

My criterium was "could not as plausibly" or with as few non-apparent assumptions be so explained.

Assuming "God does not exist, therefore Geocentrism is impossible, therefore Heliocentrism is true even if Geocentrism is observed" seems more roundabout than "Geocentrism is observed, but would be impossible without God, therefore God exists" = the actual argument of St. Thomas.

@hglundahl I might have misunderstood, but I was more talking about the "we have daily sightings, not of God, but of his action".

To assume X is the action of God, you'd first have to show that X couldn't be explained with a non-God cause (application here of Occam's Razor), so suggesting we have daily sightings of God's actions seems question-begging to me.

As if to prove my point, of course St. Thomas was wrong and the Earth does move around the sun. His observations had another explanation that needed no God, and it turned out to be true.

If I were to rephrase it:

"1) Our observations are consistent with Geocentrism; 2) Geocentrism isn't possible without divine intervention 3)There are no non-Geocentrist models that would adequately explain our observations; C) There is a God."

So when Father Casey says "absence of verifiable scientific evidence", he's referring to data that strongly suggests the Divine to the exclusion of non-divine explanations.

Hans Georg Lundahl
@EspadaKing777 "To assume X is the action of God, you'd first have to show that X couldn't be explained with a non-God cause (application here of Occam's Razor),"

The Geocentric universe we actually observe is not explained with a non-God cause. There is a reason why Atheists are usually Heliocentrics.

"As if to prove my point, of course St. Thomas was wrong and the Earth does move around the sun."

You actually need to prove that, since that is not observed.

"His observations had another explanation that needed no God, and it turned out to be true."

It didn't — except according to Atheists and their run-alongs.

Part three of your rephrasing:

"There are no non-Geocentrist models that would adequately explain our observations"

I would say it's sufficient with "as adequately" ... which is true.

Heliocentrism takes an extra turn, which is contrary to the "razor" you just invoked.

@EspadaKing777 If you really want "adequately" period:

human language in a non-eternal world would qualify

2:16 When it stops is Adam was created by God.

Exactly where it stopped about Jesus ancestry in Luke 3.

The idea that "we evolved from the apes" (adressed on one of the slides) is not scientific, not proven, not proven possible, on at least one count I can mention, as amateur linguist, proven IMPOSSIBLE.

We have language. Apes have perhaps a total of 500 signals, and some of them involve sound, some don't. But the sounds are not phonemes, making up morphemes that can express concepts and metaconcepts, or morphemes making up phrases expressing eunciation on the relation of concepts. It's as impossible to get this from the 500 ape signals, as it is for literature to arise from smileys and traffic signals. In "ape" a given sound has a meaning in and of itself. Not a hieroglyphic meaning attached to the letter of the sound, but a meaning of complete message every time the sound is heard at all.

Imagine even one sound of English had a complete message meaning. Say, L.

Imagine even one sound of EngI-DON'T-LIKE-YOUish had a compI-DON'T-LIKE-YOUete message meaning. Say, I-DON'T-LIKE-YOU.

Imagine this were true for another sound as well, say N.


Or even I.


Now imagine every vocalisation possible from your experience already had a meaning.

That doesn't gradually evolve to language.

"It is not scientific"
— Would seeing peer reviewed science papers in support of it change your mind? I'm not saying that's proof it's true, but it's certainly proof it's science.

Hans Georg Lundahl
@HeyHeyHarmonicaLuke In 1973, a French publisher translated a book about Homo erectus under the title Les Premiers hommes (the first men).

Today, Tomasello has not come much further. IT's like all they can say is "we are looking at the problem" ... they've been doing that for 50 + years and come no closer to a solution.

I would not be the least impressed by a peer reviewed science paper that said "apes communicate like this, men communicate like this, that's the gap to bridge" that's been said 50 years ago.

As far as I know, to this day, not a single paper is giving suggestions on how to bridge the gap. Actually, fancyful suggestions 100 years ago were more productive in scenarios. The problem is, since then scientists have realised why the scenarios don't work.

8:22 The Church has never posited that reason alone is enough to * know * God.

The Church has posited that Reason and Sense Data are enough to know God exists (and St. Paul agrees in Romans 1).

That is Reason and Sense Data are sufficient of themselves, but may not actually suffice for a man bred in a toxic culture. Like all the oxygen in a room may not help an asthma patient from suffocating.

Theo Skeptomai
Are you willing to answer some straightforward questions concerning your comment?

Hans Georg Lundahl
@Theo_Skeptomai I might be in need of a coffee break soon, but if I don't answer today, I'll be back before the computer tomorrow.

No comments: