Source
r/DebateReligion•
hammiesink

To All: Detailed pickings of Aquinas' First Way #1: Parmenides

NOTE: THIS IS LESS OF A DEBATE THREAD AND MORE OF AN EXPLANATORY THREAD, FOR EASY LATER REFERENCE. THE AIM OF THIS THREAD IS TO GIVE READERS PROPER UNDERSTANDING OF THE ARGUMENT, NOT NECESSARILY TO DEBATE ITS TRUTH VALUE.

I've created an infographic on Aquinas' First Way of Proving the Existence of God, but it ends up causing more confusion than understanding. So I'm gonna take it nice and slow, in multiple parts. Hopefully each part will be brief with little cause for confusion. There are several prerequisites required before a proper understanding of the argument can be grasped.

We start at the beginning, in pre-Socratic Greek philosophy.

How to Account for Change

Things around us seem to change: rivers flow, trees grow, animals move, the sun burns. But despite this, other things seem to stay the same: the person's matter changes completely every few years but they remain the same person, the Acheron flows but it remains in place, and so on.

Parmenides had a solution to this:

Parmenides

Everything is permanent, and nothing changes. Any apparent change is just an illusion, much like it is an illusion that the sun goes around the Earth.

He divided the world into two: being and non-being. Things either exist, or they don't. For being to change, it must be changed by something else, but the only thing other than being is non-being, and non-being cannot do anything. Therefore, despite appearances, nothing is changing.

This Concludes #1

The important point is that Parmenides divided the world into being and non-being, and that as a result, nothing can change. But surely our common sense intuition is not THAT bad, is it? Surely things like the natural sciences presuppose that things change, don't they?

Aristotle agreed that things do change, and his solution to Parmenides will be seen in #2, where he accepts the division of being and non-being, but further divides being into two pieces of its own.

Continue to Part 2 >>>>>

Posted Jan 12, 2012, 7:19 PM UTC · edited

12135
GoodDamonIgnostic atheist|Physicalist|Blueberry muffin•

If you don't mind, I'd like to offer some countering analysis that should put Aquinas to rest if this is what he is basing his arguments on.

Things around us seem to change: rivers flow, trees grow, animals move, the sun burns.

Analysis: This is basically correct. At the most basic level, all of these describe energy changing form, although Parmenides could not have known that.

But despite this, other things seem to stay the same: the person's matter changes completely every few years but they remain the same person, the Acheron flows but it remains in place, and so on.

Analysis: This, however, doesn't work with modern physics. Even a stone that seems to have sat unchanged for a thousand years is actually undergoing change, albeit slowly. The phraseology is interesting, by the way. "...other things seem to stay the same..." To our perceptions, yes, but not in actuality. I am fearful that some equivocation from things that seem to stay the same to things that actually stay the same will occur here.

Everything is permanent, and nothing changes. Any apparent change is just an illusion, much like it is an illusion that the sun goes around the Earth.

Because of his (completely understandable) lack of knowledge regarding energy and matter, Parmenides has this exactly backwards. It is stasis that is an illusion.

He divided the world into two: being and non-being. Things either exist, or they don't. For being to change, it must be changed by something else, but the only thing other than being is non-being, and non-being cannot do anything. Therefore, despite appearances, nothing is changing.

Analysis: This works only if two assumptions are allowed:

  1. Parmenides is correct, and change is actually illusory.
  2. Non-being is a coherent idea. That is, nothingness is logically possible.

If Parmenides' idea of "non-being" is accepted, then arguments that build on it are acceptable as well, even if he got change wrong. But that's a very big "if."

We shall see what is built upon it in #2.

11
hammiesinkOP•

Even a stone that seems to have sat unchanged for a thousand years is actually undergoing change, albeit slowly.

I didn't bring up Heraclitus because I wanted to keep it brief and simple. But he said that EVERYTHING changes, and nothing is permanent. "You can't step into the same river twice", is the famous quote from him.

2
khafratheological non-cognitivist|bayesian|RDT•

As long as we're bringing up extra pre-Socratic philosophers, I think Democritus' name should be somewhere in the comments of your reference post:

By convention [nomos] sweet is sweet, bitter is bitter, hot is hot, cold is cold, color is color; but in truth there are only atoms and the void.

He was dismissed by Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle; but it turns out he was less wrong than anyone following their unfortunately dominant school of thought; less wrong than anyone else for thousands of years.

4
hammiesinkOP•

But that isn't directly relevant to the First Way. I'm not trying to provide a history of Western philosophy, here.

1
khafratheological non-cognitivist|bayesian|RDT•

It doesn't offer commentary on the First Way. But it does show how Western philosophy took a regrettable wrong turn, early on. If Democritus' ontology had dominated, we probably would've had chemistry and such much earlier, and the Aquinas might have been a physicist or followed some other productive pursuit, instead of writing the Ways.

4
GoodDamonIgnostic atheist|Physicalist|Blueberry muffin•

Yup, I'm familiar with it. I just want to be sure there won't be any equivocation or incoherence associated with the word "change."

3
hammiesinkOP•

I'm not sure if I should bring up Aristotle's form and matter solution as well. That's part of his solution: the matter changes, but the form stays the same (or at least holds for a period of time). It's important, but not directly to germane to the First Way.

Decisions...

1
GoodDamonIgnostic atheist|Physicalist|Blueberry muffin•

Eschew unnecessary complications. I see no reason to go into Aristotle if it's not germane to the argument.

2
dVntagnostic atheist | theological noncognitivist | anti-theist•

This depends entirely on the semantics of the word "river". You make no point effectively because you can both never step into the same river twice as well as easily step into the same river twice. If one wants to use the specific meaning of the word river that would make Heraclitus' quote true, then articulate it as such.

IMO, there are two reasons you don't do this:

  • tedium of an infinitely expanding degree (as is always the case with conceits and lies)
  • it will be obvious how absurdly couched and specific (read: full of presupposition) these arguments are. i.e. they only make sense when you limit yourself to the knowledge of these times

I think even you will catch on to this some day.

2
tannatwe're here•

Things around us seem to change: rivers flow, trees grow, animals move, the sun burns. Analysis: This is basically correct. At the most basic level, all of these describe energy changing form, although Parmenides could not have known that.

Is it really correct? We are talking about "things" consisting of atoms. The atoms do not change but move, they change velocity and position. All of this from energy changing form, trickling down the energy landscape and moving between states and locations, as you correctly point out.

This is however an continuous process with no distinctive end and start points, unless we freeze time and movement. Correct again.

Addition to remember At the same time the building blocks, the atoms don't change, unless in extreme environments.

Seems seems to be the key word here.

2
GoodDamonIgnostic atheist|Physicalist|Blueberry muffin•

Wouldn't you say "movement" and "change" are analogous at that level? Go small enough, it's all just energy.

3
tannatwe're here•

Wouldn't you say "movement" and "change" are analogous at that level? Go small enough, it's all just energy.

True but then I don't think we are saying that "things change".

Movement do not change "things", as atoms. It's just energy, passing by.

Water do not change in "essence" by freezing to ice. It's just at a temporary position at higher temperature (movement). Water seem to change in "essence" by freezing to ice but this is from our viewpoint.The water atoms are the same, the water have changed configuration but has not changed in essence.

So, things do not change on atomic level.

Neither do movement. Change is only movement passing by but movement in essence do not change (energy conservation), only the distribution of movement change over time.

I hope this made sense, I'm thinking as I write.

1
ghjmdissenting atheist•

To be fair, he's reporting on what pre-Socratics thought, not proposing it as an idea we should adopt. It is indeed true that there was a large school of pre-Socratic philosophers who thought change was an illusion. This was centuries before even the first primitive atomic theory, and millennia before the modern one.

1
tannatwe're here•

Absolutely agreed, it's an interesting thought construction in itself and in comparison with current knowledge.

Parmenides tries to understand the role of change and energy in the universe. it would be rude to him to not appreciate his efforts and put it in context.

1
GreyDeathatheist•

Except that even the atoms change. Take water for instance. At any one point a small percentage of water molecules turn into acid and base counterparts, forming hydroxide ions and protons (which being unstable rapidly join another water molecule to become hydronium ions). The properties of these ions are very different than those of water, but their number is small, and the change is reversible, back and forth between these two forms. This process involves electrons shifting back and forth, which means the atoms themselves change as electrons are doneated and accepted.

1
tannatwe're here•

Precisely! Yes, I admit, I kept it simple, deliberately. and stopped at atomic level. But we can as well take it down to proton, electron, electron level and say that these do not change. in themselves.

But your (very good) point is important due to the nature of change we are talking about here. The concept of thermodynamic equilibrium:

Change is continuous, back and forth, admitting no continued displacement from the systems chemical potential. Electrons are interchanged between molecules, without the essence of the atoms being changed, There is no hysteresis, change is not retained. The ambiguous properties of the hydrogen atom, being both ion and H2 is an essential property of hydrogen. It's current state do not change that property.

Conclusion: 1. The essential properties of the hydrogen atom do not change with energy passing by (within non-nuclear energy interactions) 2. Apparent change do not stop or start, it moves back and forth, while not altering essential properties of the building blocks of the universe. 3. Energy changes location. Essence of energy (net movement) never change though.

I actually don't know if all this is important for the Thomistic first way. We have to wait and see.

1
wjbcmainline protestant, panentheist not supernatural theist.•

I gather you want us to hold our questions until the end, but let me just thank you for doing this. I shall read with interest.

6
hammiesinkOP•

No no! Questions are welcome! It is debate that I'm trying to avoid for the most part, because my intent is to allow others to use this thread more as a reference for later debates.

Basically, I'm tired of the distortions of this version of the cosmological argument, and at least on Reddit, I'm going to end them once and for all.

2
wjbcmainline protestant, panentheist not supernatural theist.•

Okay, question: aren't you skipping over Plato?

2
hammiesinkOP•

I'm trying to keep things simple right now. Parmenides is pre-Socratic, and hence pre-Plato, and utlimately Aristotle provided (what some consider to be) the solution.

2
wjbcmainline protestant, panentheist not supernatural theist.•

Okay. It's just that our knowledge of Parmenides is quite scanty, while our knowledge of Plato is much more extensive. But I'll wait to see what Aristotle says.

1
dVntagnostic atheist | theological noncognitivist | anti-theist•

No no! Questions are welcome! It is debate that I'm trying to avoid for the most part...

Just like Church. Atta-boy Hammie, wear it on your sleeve!

1
Daekingnostic atheist•
  1. God created the universe (hypothesis).
  2. If God created the universe, then he had (sufficient) reason for performing this action.
  3. A reason for action is a combination of beliefs and desires – for one to have a reason to act requires that one have beliefs about how reality is, to believe that a particular action would be efficacious in transforming that reality, and to have desires that reality be changed in accordance with that action.
  4. So God created the universe because of the beliefs and desires that he had when he chose to create the universe.
  5. God is essentially omniscient – that is, in any possible world where God exists, he knows all the truths of that world, and of all possible worlds. He believes all and only those truths.
  6. God is essentially omnibenevolent – that is, in any possible world where God exists, he desires the good and only the good.
  7. So, for any two possible worlds W1 and W2, if they both contain God, then God has the same beliefs and desires in W1 and W2.
  8. God is a necessary being – that is, he exists in all possible worlds.
  9. So in every possible world, God has the same beliefs and desires.
  10. So in every possible world, God has the same reasons for action.
  11. Then in every possible world, God creates the universe
  12. So the universe is a necessary object.
  13. But the universe is a contingent object.
  14. Therefore, contrary to 1, God did not create the universe.

The problem with Aquinas is you can take some of his own premises (Contingency) and apply them to disprove his own Proof from Logic. It's fundamentally flawed in the way that it is used.

People use it as a proof. Something that is logical is not proof of anything, as i've shown with my contingency argument above.

You can logic God in, or out of existence. You're essentially using a word game to try to prove a deity of some sort, instead of using anything from Science.

(I know this is only about the first Way, but meh. Might as well address it all if you're going to post any of it)

3
hammiesinkOP•

I thought my disclaimer at the very top would work....

This thread is about Parmenides and his division of the world into being and non-being.

1
Daekingnostic atheist•

I figured "Why spend time examining a piece of an argument that can be falsified and then partly reformatted to prove the non-existence of a God?"

It was to simply show that the first premise is meaningless because other premises falsify the entirety, so why bother in the first place?

It was to point out a logic puzzle does not provide evidence, or proof of anything. It just feels good to you because it's hard to falsify because of how convoluted it is to try and reason a God into existence.

Since you can't falsify it properly, it holds weight as it seems highly logical, and nearly impossible to see as wrong.

That it's purpose. To distort the question so far, that in order to falsify it at all you need to be a damn philosophy scholar, and anyone who is below that level is easily persuaded.

(I am sorry for turning it in to a debate, I also apologize if you had rather I didn't say anything, I just have a desire to point out fallacies I see. I'll leave this here for you to mull over, if you'd like, I'll create a thread for this argument and we can open a debate based on it. I havn't presented this to much scrutiny, so I don't know how it will hold up against people better versed in these arguments. It seems rather airtight to me though.)

Anyways, enjoy your discussion. I again apologize for butting in, in retrospect it was rather rude of me to just throw this up in here.

2
GoodDamonIgnostic atheist|Physicalist|Blueberry muffin•

I think you might be running into Aquinas fatigue. Most atheists regard Aquinas as little more than the emperor's courtier using pretty language to do damage control after the kid points out that he's not wearing clothes.

1
hammiesinkOP•

But whether the emperor is wearing clothes or not is precisely the question at issue. If the argument works, then he is. If not, then he isn't.

The atheist philosopher Erik Wielenberg , in his paper that examines Dawkin's argument, has this to say about the Courtier's Reply:

In general, in order to argue effectively against a given hypothesis, one needs to know enough to characterize that hypothesis accurately. Furthermore, if one intends to disprove God’s existence, it is hardly reasonable to dismiss criticisms of one’s putative disproof on the grounds that God doesn’t exist anyway.

1
GoodDamonIgnostic atheist|Physicalist|Blueberry muffin•

When did I mention Dawkins? Anyway, here's the problem with that. The "god hypothesis" is a fundamentally simple one: 1 or more gods exist. That's it. That's the core of the hypothesis. Dress it up, put some lipstick on it, do whatever you want to it, that's still the hypothesis. 1 or more gods exist.

All discussion of the attributes of a god necessarily start with the assumption the hypothesis is true. But for a non-theologian -- and Dawkins has never claimed to be one -- why waste time and effort getting into the intricate details of those attributes when the underlying hypothesis has not been dealt with?

Dawkins says this: "Most of us happily disavow fairies, astrology, and the Flying Spaghetti Monster without first immersing ourselves in books of Pastafarian theology."

The only difference is that there is a cottage industry in trying to argue gods into existence. No such industry exists for fairies, but if there was, would you demand that people read up on fairy philosophy before dismissing them based on the failed nature of the "1 or more fairies exist" hypothesis?

This is why theists move "1 or more gods exist" into the realm of axioms. Because when treated as a hypothesis, it fails. And the entire field of theistic philosophy is dedicated to helping, by trying to argue gods out of the realm of hypothesis.

As for Erik Wielenberg, he reminds me of someone who has read so much fairy philosophy, some of it has rubbed off on him, even though he still rejects the existence of fairies. He likes to talk about them, he likes discussing their attributes and whether a given fairy is logically internally consistent, and frankly, Dawkins just coming in and saying "there's no evidence of fairies" not only ruins his fun, but also threatens his source of income.

1
ghjmdissenting atheist•

I find this interesting and would like to see more discussion of it, but this thread isn't the appropriate place. Why don't you reformat it as its own post?

1
SharmaKatheist•

The confusion here is that the term 'change' is misapplied. In the sense of the 'river', that doesn't change because it is a land form but the water within that land form does change, because it is moving. The word 'Acheron' is applied to the land form and not the water.

In the sense of a 'person', it is the container of the brain and associated animal functions. So it doesn't matter that individual parts might be replaced so long as the brain is intact, we treat that entity as the same person.

So changes are happening in fact and are not an illusion. Do I have this right?

2
hammiesinkOP•

Well, you're kinda jumping the gun into Aristotle's common sense solution, but basically that's right. All I want to illustrate here is that Parmenides divided the world into two: being and non-being. Non-being cannot cause being because it isn't anything, and therefore change does not occur, despite what our senses tell us.

That's it for this part.

1
SharmaKatheist•

Non-being cannot cause being because it isn't anything, and therefore change does not occur, despite what our senses tell us.

That's not true either. Ideas are non-being and they cause us to do stuff all the time. In fact, I would argue that it is mainly ideas (other than natural instinct) that makes us do things.

Looking forward to the rest of the argument. I missed out on your infographic.

1
hammiesinkOP•

But in that case an idea is being. It exists as a specific configuration of electrons/synapses, say. Non-being means not anything.

Don't look at the infographic. It just causes confusion.

1
GoodDamonIgnostic atheist|Physicalist|Blueberry muffin•

On this particular fine detail, I actually side with you somewhat, hammiesink. The idea exists in a sense, albeit as a many-layered abstraction from the synapses firing, not as a thing.

Actually, I just thought of a good analogy that uses real objects. Look at a desk, and at one level of abstraction, you see a desk. At another, you see bits of wood, metal, and other building materials used in its construction. At another, you're actually seeing conglomerations of molecules defining the wood grain, the solidity of the screws and bolts holding it together, and so on. At still another, you're actually seeing atoms of various elements held together in electrically neutral groups by covalent chemical bonds. In a sense, "desk" is a useful way to summarize all of that implicitly. It's an abstraction of all the things that went into making the object.

I regard ideas as similar abstractions from their physical base, except the layers of abstraction are logical and conceptual, rather than physical.

1
SharmaKatheist•

Not really - the synapse configuration are going to be different in each brain. The idea is still a separate entity that doesn't physically exist but none-the-less affects human brains. Aquinas wouldn't have known this so I would venture that his argument is likely based on a flawed understanding of reality.

1
tripleatheisthelp not wanted for atheist downvote brigade•

NOTE: THIS IS LESS OF A DEBATE THREAD AND MORE OF AN EXPLANATORY THREAD

Quite the sense of humor! Oh wait, you're serious? Good luck with that...

I suspect you'll be criticized for careless use of the word "change." Perhaps you'd like to provide a clear definition of the term?

2
hammiesinkOP•

Uhhhh...how's this?

"to make the form, nature, content, future course, etc., of (something) different from what it is or from what it would be if left alone"

5
tripleatheisthelp not wanted for atheist downvote brigade•

If it fits with the trajectory of your argument. Arguably, none of the examples you've provided show a thing changing, but I'll leave that fight to other posters. (As always, I suspect you'll run into problems when you try to equivocate mundane physical causality with unique metaphysical causality.)

3
lordzorkI get high on the man upstairs•

There is no such thing as physical causality, whether mundane or exciting. Causality itself is a metaphysical concept.

2
tripleatheisthelp not wanted for atheist downvote brigade•

There is no such thing as physical causality...

Okay? Maybe your statement wouldn't seem as absurd if you defined your terms, as well. It's pretty clear that physical objects interact with each other and enter into what we colloquially understand to be causal relationships.

2
hammiesinkOP•

This settles it. I'm gonna have to give a rundown of form/matter and the four causes, even though they are not directly germane to the argument, because they are going to keep coming up tangentially.

2
tripleatheisthelp not wanted for atheist downvote brigade•

Agreed. Despite several runs through Feser, I don't grok final causes. The idea makes perfect sense when we consider causal relationships that we take part in, but the universal application of the idea seems to beg the question for God.

1
tripleatheisthelp not wanted for atheist downvote brigade•

Also, an idea for a motto, should you ever choose to adopt one:

Death, taxes, and metaphysics.

1
hammiesinkOP•

Quite the sense of humor! Oh wait, you're serious? Good luck with that...

Nooooooooooooooooooooooooooo kidding.

1
[deleted]•

Imagine a very large cube. The inside of the cube, and everything within it, is painted red, but the outside is blue. From the perspective of everything inside, all things are red, therefore they conclude that their cubeverse must be red. Are they right?

2
hammiesinkOP•

NOTE: THIS IS LESS OF A DEBATE THREAD AND MORE OF AN EXPLANATORY THREAD, FOR EASY LATER REFERENCE. THE AIM OF THIS THREAD IS TO GIVE READERS PROPER UNDERSTANDING OF THE ARGUMENT, NOT NECESSARILY TO DEBATE ITS TRUTH VALUE.

1
[deleted]•

This is a debate sub. If you want to post about easily broken nonsense take it somewhere else. I'm tired of you pretending the first way is a legitimate argument. You need to show why the universe must have the same properties as its contents before you can go any further with it.

2
dVntagnostic atheist | theological noncognitivist | anti-theist•

How dare you ask questions in the Church of Hammiesink?!

1
simat6•

I'm going to split the world into two: things that can be observed and things that cannot be observed. In order for something to be observed, it needs to be observed by something else. But the only thing other than 'observed things' is 'non-observed things'. Therefore anything that can observe things cannot itself be observed. Therefore you can't see eyes.

Spot the mistake in mine, then decode the analogy and you'll have the mistake in Aquinas' argument.

1
hammiesinkOP•

It's not Aquinas, it's Parmenides. I'm not debating, I'm explaining. And you are jumping the gun because Aristotle provided an answer to Parmenides which will be seen in part 2.

2
simat6•

Ok, false start. Resume starting positions.

2
pconwellphysicalist | humanist•

I think there is a 5 yard penalty or something.

1
jkeiser•

He divided the world into two: being and non-being. Things either exist, or they don't. For being to change, it must be changed by something else, but the only thing other than being is non-being, and non-being cannot do anything. Therefore, despite appearances, nothing is changing.

For being to change, it must be changed by another being, he's saying, yes? There's more than one being in the world (quite a lot more) in the sense he's using (i.e. that I am the same person I was three years ago), so it seems his conditions are fulfilled. Conclusion does not follow: things can change, under those conditions.

Or is he saying "package up everything that exists and call it Being"? If this is true, it implies that a collection of beings is a being, which changes the rules. The statement "For a being to change, it must be changed by something else" becomes incomplete: it must be amended to include a being which changes itself. If one being can change another being, then that means a collection of beings can change itself (because all it takes is for one of the beings in it to change another being in it). Therefore a being can change itself.

Things around us seem to change: rivers flow, trees grow, animals move, the sun burns. But despite this, other things seem to stay the same: the person's matter changes completely every few years but they remain the same person, the Acheron flows but it remains in place, and so on.

Parmenides had a solution to this: Everything is permanent, and nothing changes. Any apparent change is just an illusion, much like it is an illusion that the sun goes around the Earth.

EDIT: I moved this bit to the end, because I no longer think it's relevant to where you're going.

Funny, your examples suggested to me the exact opposite solution: that the permanence of a labeled "thing" is an illusion. When we place a label on a collection of things (including a collection of instants in spacetime representing a "person") it's just that, a convenient label. You really are not the same person you were three years ago, in the sense of literally the same thing. You were certainly affected by that creature, probably very strongly, but you are not that creature in the sense of sharing existence with it.

Just as it would be wrong to say "these are both Blade Runner DVDs, therefore they are the same Blade Runner DVD," it would be wrong to say "these are both jkeiser, therefore they are the same jkeiser (have not changed)."

Not saying he's necessarily wrong--he just leapt somewhere I wouldn't have leapt, and I don't yet know who's right. I also don't yet know if this is at all important to your argument.

1
hammiesinkOP•

Things either exist, or they don't. For being to change, it must be changed by something else, but the only thing other than being is non-being, and non-being cannot do anything. Therefore, despite appearances, nothing is changing.

Well this kind of hints at Aristotle's solution, which will be shown in part 2. Don't jump the gun! I'm not debating, I'm explaining!

When we place a label on a collection of things (including a collection of instants in spacetime representing a "person") it's just that, a convenient label.

And this gets to Aristotle's theory of hylomorphism. A person or a rock consists of two things: form and matter. You can reject form if you want (which is what modern materialism/naturalism does), but that doesn't change the explanations that I'm doing here. I'll have to do a post on form/matter as well.

2
jkeiser•

OK :) I just figured you'd want us to raise a flag if we thought something in here was wrong. I eagerly await Aristotle's correction of Parmenides' error. Do I understand correctly, though? When he says being, is a person a being, a rock a being, and is the universe also a being?

And I would be absolutely thrilled if this argument does not require the existence of form. Discussions surrounding that get really obtuse.

1
hammiesinkOP•

Anything that exists is a "being". Being just means "existence", and non-being means "non existence." It doesn't necessarily mean "sentient being" in the way we use the term.

And I would be absolutely thrilled if this argument does not require the existence of form. Discussions surrounding that get really obtuse.

The First Way doesn't specifically get into it, but it might be necessary to explain it as a side bar because it is going to keep coming up.

1
jkeiser•

Anything that exists is a "being". Being just means "existence", and non-being means "non existence." It doesn't necessarily mean "sentient being" in the way we use the term.

Gotcha. As long as he's defining it such that my living room, my house, my city and the universe are beings, then I understand.

The First Way doesn't specifically get into it, but it might be necessary to explain it as a side bar because it is going to keep coming up.

If you believe this is true, it would settle the discussion: "even if form doesn't exist, even if the universe consists entirely of quarks and physical laws, this argument still holds." I would personally avoid the subject as much as possible for the purposes of this proof, and stick with as many points from a naturalist worldview as you can, in order to hold your audience.

1
simat6•

OK, if we're going to go step by step slowly, I want complete details on everything. You never defined what 'being' and 'non-being' is. You never gave a reasonable argument as to why something that's 'being' cannot be changed by something else that is 'being'.

1
hammiesinkOP•

It might become clearer as you see Aristotle's answer to Parmenides. Parmenides will look clearer in retrospect.

Being just means existence, and non-being means non-existent. If you want specific definitions of existence, then you get into Kripke and all that and I'm afraid I'm not qualified to answer.

For Plato, existence consists of matter, mind, and Platonic Forms in the Third Realm. For Aristotle, existence consists of matter and mind, but no indepedently existing Forms.

1
simat6•

He divided the world into two: being and non-being. Things either exist, or they don't.

I propose that you can't divide something that 'exists' into the two categories: 'things that exist' and 'things that don't exist'. See below for the issues that are caused. If you can't follow it, I'll try and explain better.

  1. Split 'the world' into 2 sets: A = everything in the world that exists B = everything in the world that doesn't exist
  2. Nothing in A is also in B and nothing in B is also in A (i.e. nothing can both exist and not exist).
  3. 'The world' exists.
  4. Therefore 'the world' is in A.
  5. B is in 'the world' (as it is everything in 'the world' that doesn't exist).
  6. therefore B is in 'the world' which is in A
  7. Therefore B is in A
  8. Therefore B exists.

Contradiction. B by definition doesn't exist and so Parmenides 'division' of the world makes no sense.

Also, can you answer my other question: Why can't something that is 'being' be changed by something else that is 'being'?

2
hammiesinkOP•

Yes, you can argue that "nothing" cannot exist. But that just underscores the point even more, because if it can't exist at all then it really can't cause anything or do anything. What he is arguing is that things either exist, or they don't. He fails to make a crucial distinction that Aristotle pointed out.

Also, can you answer my other question: Why can't something that is 'being' be changed by something else that is 'being'?

It will be clear when we get to Aristotle, in hindsight. To answer this here is to jump the gun and put the next post in this comment instead of as a separate submission. I hope you understand.

1
simat6•

Ok, I'll wait til the next one for my second point, but i don't believe you've responded to my first point. You're saying that he split the world into 'things that exist' and 'things that don't', but I've just shown that everything would fall into the first section.

You seem to be talking about 'nothing' as if its a thing, which its not. It's the opposite. Once you start talking about the properties of 'nothing' it becomes a thing, and is no longer 'nothing'. You can only assign properties to 'things'.

1
Airazzpastafarian•

Wait...

Some things seem to change, while others seem to not.

Parmenides:
Everything is permanent, and nothing changes.

Why such conclusion? Why can't some things change and others be stationary? World is not just black and white, there also are a billion different shades of grey.

1
hammiesinkOP•

Uhhhh....

What? I'm explaining how Parmenides said that nothing changes. Aristotle provided the answer, which will be seen in part 2.

1
ghjmdissenting atheist•

Just as a neat little addendum: The pre-Socratic idea that change is an illusion was the motivation for the formulation of Zeno's Paradox.

1
Adamski42Taoist Master•

but the only thing other than being is non-being, and non-being cannot do anything.

False. Not-being exists in direct correlation with being. When not-being recedes, being expands. Through the inaction of yin, the actions of yang are allowed to occur. Physics agrees, we have only begun to examine the merest spectrum of anti-matter; and without the mysterious dark matter, the universe would not be expanding.

It's sort of generally like nothing even resembling that.

1
hammiesinkOP•

That's nice.

Parmenides said that change does not occur. Aristotle provided an answer, which will be seen in part 2.

1
lordzorkI get high on the man upstairs•

You should just write these up and put them on an external website.

It seems that people quickly scan these posts to see if they agree or disagree with their own preconceptions, and if they get a sense of disagreement, they comment with a vaguely topical attempt at a rebuttal.

1
hammiesinkOP•

I do have a blog with some stuff on it, but I like to interact too and thought it would be nice to have some Reddit submissions to refer back to from other debates.

1
blazingtruthpreacher's kid | mystic •

I'm afraid to say that I was kind of disappointed by this, hammiesink.

The important point is that Parmenides divided the world into being and non-being, and that as a result, nothing can change from non-being to being.

FTFY. That said, Paramenides saw existence as eternal, and not created from nothing. Ex nihilo, nihilo fit.

But surely our common sense intuition is not THAT bad, is it? Surely things like the natural sciences presuppose that things change, don't they?

While Paramenides himself wasn't talking about the Law of Conservation of Energy, his ideas are what gave way to their development. Matter can neither be created nor destroyed. He is speaking about change in a very specific form: from non-being (non-matter) to being (matter). He was not describing a change in state like solid to liquid to gas. This, he thought to be an illusion because it is not true change, as it is only existence --> existence.

And the tone of this was just unfortunate and misleading on the whole. Moreover, even Aristotle didn't make such a sharp divide between potentiality and actuality.

Taken literally, Aristotle defines motion as the actuality (entelecheia) of a "potentiality as such".[18] What Aristotle meant however is the subject of several different interpretations. A major difficulty comes from the fact that the terms actuality and potentiality, linked in this definition, are normally understood within Aristotle as opposed to each other. On the other hand the "as such" is important and is explained at length by Aristotle, giving examples of "potentiality as such".

They are but two sides of the same coin. I'm sorry to say that I expected a little better from you, my dear friend.

1
hammiesinkOP•

Uhhh... I'm not sure exactly what you think I did wrong. That is the traditional interpretation of Parmenides. Allow that interpretation to be wrong. It doesn't change the core of what we are getting at: that the solution to change is Aristotle's distinction between potency and act.

1
blazingtruthcatholic•

Right, I'm using that interpretation. What we're dealing with here is an equivocation of the word 'change'.

Paramenides thought the word 'change' to mean a shift from non-being to being. That said, everything we perceive in the world is a shift from being to other being. Thus, things are not changing, and we have an illusory view of the world, whose existence is eternal and unchanging.

1
hammiesinkOP•

Ok, but the whole point is still to underscore the act/potency distinction, and that potency serves as a middle ground between being and non-being. That is crucial to understanding the argument.

Edit: as you and I both found out via Feser emails and stuff.

1
blazingtruthpreacher's kid | mystic •

Here's one of his replies to me:

One objection I would have to what you say here is that the Aristotelian-Thomist view is not that potencies are non-existent, but that they are non-actual.

What is meant by non-existent? Clearly, the A-T scholar would say "having full potential but no act". But what does this mean or imply? A being of pure potential can not do anything, such as actualize itself. This much you would agree with, as per the critical segment of Aquinas' argument:

  1. If potentialities could actualize themselves, then they already would have done so and nothing would not be changing
  1. Things are changing
  2. Therefore, potentialities cannot actualize themselves
  3. Therefore, there exists a First Cause

I argue that there is no difference between non-existent and non-actual. Actuality, by definition, is existing in fact. Aquinas equivocates on the word "change", just as you have misunderstood Paramenides' bifurcation. I reject (2), in that things are not changing -- at least not from non-being to being.

Continuing with Feser's point:

The whole point is to reject Parmenides' bifurcation between complete being and sheer non-being -- a potency is neither complete or actual on the one hand, nor non-existent on the other, but something in between.

To be is to be something in particular. This is the essence of Aristotle's metaphysics. Even from his logic and Law of Non-Contradiction (everything is either A or not-A), it is clear that no middle ground can exist when talking about being or existence. A potential for existence is not existence, it is still non-being. Again, only actually existing things can do something, potentialities cannot do anything. Feser, of course, has already responded to this as follows:

Another problem is that precisely because they are non-actual, they can't do anything even though they are not non-existent. Only what is actual can do something. (E.g. precisely because it is potential and not yet actual, the "meltedness" of the solid rubber ball can't do anything.)

Oh sorry - this is in fact exactly what I just said!

1
pconwellphysicalist | humanist•

Everything is permanent, and nothing changes. Any apparent change is just an illusion, much like it is an illusion that the sun goes around the Earth.

He divided the world into two: being and non-being. Things either exist, or they don't. For being to change, it must be changed by something else, but the only thing other than being is non-being, and non-being cannot do anything. Therefore, despite appearances, nothing is changing.

I really can't wrap my head around this. It just sounds like a meaningless jumble of words to me. I don't know if it was just worded poorly, or I'm not smart enough to comprehend the higher meaning, but it sounds like spinning wheels to me.

I'm going to break it down so I can show where I'm confused:

Everything is permanent, and nothing changes.

How did we come to that conclusion? Am I missing a step? Clearly, everything is not permanent, and things do change.

Any apparent change is just an illusion, much like it is an illusion that the sun goes around the Earth.

Okay, I understand what he is saying, but I don't really understand the point. Yes, the sun appears to go around the earth if you didn't know any better - but what does that have to do with things being 'permanent' and/or 'unchanging'?

He divided the world into two: being and non-being. Things either exist, or they don't.

Okay, I'm with you... but I'm not seeing the point yet. We have gone from permanent and unchanging to existent and non-existent. I'm not sure I understand the logical leap from one concept to another.

For being to change, it must be changed by something else, but the only thing other than being is non-being, and non-being cannot do anything.

Ah... okay? So only things that actually exist can have an effect? I got that... but still not seeing the point.

Therefore, despite appearances, nothing is changing.

Completely lost me here. I feel like when you are talking to your friend and you suddenly realize you are talking about two totally different things. I have NO idea how we went from "things that actually exist are necessary for change" to "therefore, nothing is changing".

Edit: I guess I need to know more about what he means by "change". Does he mean change as in existence to non-existence? Or does he mean change as in ice to water, or I was standing here, now I'm over there?

Clearly, I am not impermanently stuck here, I am free to move about - and my movement is not an illusion (like the sun revolving around the earth) - so I am going to assume he means things cannot change from 'existence' to 'non-existence'. I can agree with this in principle (i.e. matter/energy is neither created nor destroyed, but converted) - BUT, what concept of existence are we talking about here?

If I have a hamburger and I eat it, do I still have a hamburger? Or did the hamburger cease to exist and now I have "food" in my stomach?

What about a piece of lumber? Is it still a tree? Or did the tree cease to exist and now 'lumber' has popped into existence? It's not that any individual atom is destroyed in the process, but the idea of a 'tree' and 'lumber' can go in and out of existence. But now we are mixing up all sorts of concepts.

1
hammiesinkOP•

Parmenides is not really that important, other than to highlight Aristotle's solution. See if this is worded any better, keeping in mind that "being" just means "existence", not "intelligent being":

Not having the notion of potency, Parmenides had argued that there are only two alternatives for anything, being and non-being. No new being can come from non-being since "nothing comes from nothing." Nor can new being come from being since what has being, already is and does not begin to be: "being cannot come from being since it is already."

Read about "potency" in part 2.

1
pconwellphysicalist | humanist•

Sorry, I edited my post right when you were responding. I understand that, ultimately, parmenides is not important, but to understand aristotle's solution, I need to understand the problem.

But, after reading your link, I think I understand - although I still don't see the supposed iron-clad logical proof that parmenides saw. To sum up parmenides' argument, he said:

"Everything that exists already exists because it exists, and everything that doesn't exist doesn't exists because it doesn't exist"?

I can understand that from a purely philosophical perspective, but it doesn't make any sense logically (to me). I guess I don't understand his concept of a "thing" (see my edit above) so it's hard to wrap my head around what he is actually arguing. My point: you can bring a hamburger from non-existence to existence, thus refuting his argument.

1
hammiesinkOP•

My point: you can bring a hamburger from non-existence to existence, thus refuting his argument.

The common sense answer from Aristotle, as seen in part 2.

1
pconwellphysicalist | humanist•

Okay, thanks for your reply. I was just trying to make sure I understood each step clearly before going on to the next.

1