Read on Twitter
1/
Knowledge & Certainty & Ontologese
Realism & Antirealism & Platonism
Necessary Being & Brute Fact
Knowledge & Certainty & Ontologese
Realism & Antirealism & Platonism
Necessary Being & Brute Fact
2/
A thread of sorts stemming from @DennyRun replies regarding various topics as discussed by W.L. Craig ((not by E. Feser and others, though that was asked for comments on but none were forthcoming)).
A thread of sorts stemming from @DennyRun replies regarding various topics as discussed by W.L. Craig ((not by E. Feser and others, though that was asked for comments on but none were forthcoming)).
3/
The basic background starts from the following from @DennyRun
https://twitter.com/DennyRun/status/1253034366738919424?s=20
https://twitter.com/DennyRun/status/1253033367748014082?s=20
https://twitter.com/DennyRun/status/1253032890427793408?s=20
https://twitter.com/DennyRun/status/1252747454346170368?s=20
The basic background starts from the following from @DennyRun
https://twitter.com/DennyRun/status/1253034366738919424?s=20
https://twitter.com/DennyRun/status/1253033367748014082?s=20
https://twitter.com/DennyRun/status/1253032890427793408?s=20
https://twitter.com/DennyRun/status/1252747454346170368?s=20
4/
Replies to those are in the thread below, but, first, let’s point out that those ((and far more from @DennyRun)) were ((in general)) in reply to several threads between us akin to ((in general)) the following:
Replies to those are in the thread below, but, first, let’s point out that those ((and far more from @DennyRun)) were ((in general)) in reply to several threads between us akin to ((in general)) the following:
5/
[1 of 4] https://twitter.com/M_Christianity/status/1252785890893725698?s=20
…through…
[4 of 4] https://twitter.com/M_Christianity/status/1252786643918041091?s=20
And also:
https://twitter.com/M_Christianity/status/1252881951339380740?s=20
https://twitter.com/M_Christianity/status/1252883391826952198?s=20
https://twitter.com/M_Christianity/status/1252883589160669184?s=20
And also:
[1 of 12] https://twitter.com/M_Christianity/status/1252895582483632128?s=20
…through…
[12 of 12] https://twitter.com/M_Christianity/status/1252914823626661889?s=20
[1 of 4] https://twitter.com/M_Christianity/status/1252785890893725698?s=20
…through…
[4 of 4] https://twitter.com/M_Christianity/status/1252786643918041091?s=20
And also:
https://twitter.com/M_Christianity/status/1252881951339380740?s=20
https://twitter.com/M_Christianity/status/1252883391826952198?s=20
https://twitter.com/M_Christianity/status/1252883589160669184?s=20
And also:
[1 of 12] https://twitter.com/M_Christianity/status/1252895582483632128?s=20
…through…
[12 of 12] https://twitter.com/M_Christianity/status/1252914823626661889?s=20
6/
And also:
https://twitter.com/M_Christianity/status/1252999494578421762?s=20
https://twitter.com/M_Christianity/status/1252999661234933761?s=20
https://twitter.com/M_Christianity/status/1253000313604358145?s=20
https://twitter.com/M_Christianity/status/1253000573210763268?s=20
And also:
https://twitter.com/M_Christianity/status/1252999494578421762?s=20
https://twitter.com/M_Christianity/status/1252999661234933761?s=20
https://twitter.com/M_Christianity/status/1253000313604358145?s=20
https://twitter.com/M_Christianity/status/1253000573210763268?s=20
7/
So, that said, the remaining is a general reply to @DennyRun as he made the following four replies:
https://twitter.com/DennyRun/status/1253034366738919424?s=20
https://twitter.com/DennyRun/status/1253033367748014082?s=20
https://twitter.com/DennyRun/status/1253032890427793408?s=20
https://twitter.com/DennyRun/status/1252747454346170368?s=20
My General Reply is as follows:
So, that said, the remaining is a general reply to @DennyRun as he made the following four replies:
https://twitter.com/DennyRun/status/1253034366738919424?s=20
https://twitter.com/DennyRun/status/1253033367748014082?s=20
https://twitter.com/DennyRun/status/1253032890427793408?s=20
https://twitter.com/DennyRun/status/1252747454346170368?s=20
My General Reply is as follows:
8/
**Me: Are you actually unaware that the phrase “Necessary Beings” ((plural)) is incoherent?
**You: We've been through that already. Plenty of Analytic Philosophers and Mathematicians accept abstract objects as real (Necessary Beings). You're just being obtuse.
**Reply
**Me: Are you actually unaware that the phrase “Necessary Beings” ((plural)) is incoherent?
**You: We've been through that already. Plenty of Analytic Philosophers and Mathematicians accept abstract objects as real (Necessary Beings). You're just being obtuse.
**Reply
9/
**Reply: I referred to the Christian meaning of “The Necessary Being” as in “Being Itself” / “Existence Itself”. No one claims there is more than a singularity there because it’s incoherent to say otherwise (("Existence Itself X 10" etc.)).
**Reply: I referred to the Christian meaning of “The Necessary Being” as in “Being Itself” / “Existence Itself”. No one claims there is more than a singularity there because it’s incoherent to say otherwise (("Existence Itself X 10" etc.)).
10/
Platonism does not claim “The Necessary Being” but rather Brute-Facts as per Abstract Objects. You’re obviously not aware that Platonism does not even address “The Necessary Being” as per the Self-Explanatory-In-Itself in the sense of “Being Itself”.
Platonism does not claim “The Necessary Being” but rather Brute-Facts as per Abstract Objects. You’re obviously not aware that Platonism does not even address “The Necessary Being” as per the Self-Explanatory-In-Itself in the sense of “Being Itself”.
11/
Instead it foists its Abstract Objects which exist as Brute Fact rather than as Necessary in the aforementioned sense. That is WHY NO ONE states there is or can be “in principle” more than ONE “Self-Explanatory-Ultimate-Reality” or “Being Itself” or “Existence Itself”.
Instead it foists its Abstract Objects which exist as Brute Fact rather than as Necessary in the aforementioned sense. That is WHY NO ONE states there is or can be “in principle” more than ONE “Self-Explanatory-Ultimate-Reality” or “Being Itself” or “Existence Itself”.
12/
When you say Necessary Beings ((Plural)) you mean to say Brute Facts ((Plural)).
When you say Necessary Beings ((Plural)) you mean to say Brute Facts ((Plural)).
13/
The fact that you EQUATE the Analytic Philosophers & Mathematicians notions of “Necessity” & “Brute” is one more line of DEMONSTRATION that you’re confusing and mixing terms that are in different categories. You’re basically equating, say, Trees to, say, Laptops, so to speak.
The fact that you EQUATE the Analytic Philosophers & Mathematicians notions of “Necessity” & “Brute” is one more line of DEMONSTRATION that you’re confusing and mixing terms that are in different categories. You’re basically equating, say, Trees to, say, Laptops, so to speak.
14/
**Me: Do you claim that ontological No-Thing || Non-Being is the source of All Being?
**You: No. I don't know what that word salad is even supposed to mean. There's NOTHING incoherent about the concept of the Universe being a Necessary Being.
**Reply
**Me: Do you claim that ontological No-Thing || Non-Being is the source of All Being?
**You: No. I don't know what that word salad is even supposed to mean. There's NOTHING incoherent about the concept of the Universe being a Necessary Being.
**Reply
15/
**Reply: The No-Thing popping Every-Thing into existence was put in just to get it off the table and clear up any possible category errors. Regarding the rest: Here AGAIN you confuse the logic of Necessity with a DIFFERENT category.
**Reply: The No-Thing popping Every-Thing into existence was put in just to get it off the table and clear up any possible category errors. Regarding the rest: Here AGAIN you confuse the logic of Necessity with a DIFFERENT category.
16/
Hawking and pretty much every physicist concurs that there are different possible universes and Craig agrees https://www.reasonablefaith.org/writings/question-answer/could-the-universe-not-god-be-the-necessary-being/
Hawking and pretty much every physicist concurs that there are different possible universes and Craig agrees https://www.reasonablefaith.org/writings/question-answer/could-the-universe-not-god-be-the-necessary-being/
17/
You need to argue ((and no one does because it’s clearly false)) that “This Elementary Particle” reduces to "Self-Explanatory In It’s Own Nature” and then go to EVERY particle and show the SAME, and then ALSO argue that ALL OTHER MODELS are metaphysical impossibilities.
You need to argue ((and no one does because it’s clearly false)) that “This Elementary Particle” reduces to "Self-Explanatory In It’s Own Nature” and then go to EVERY particle and show the SAME, and then ALSO argue that ALL OTHER MODELS are metaphysical impossibilities.
18/
Quote: “….because a different collection of fundamental particles could have existed instead of the ones that do exist, a different universe could have existed instead of this one.
Quote: “….because a different collection of fundamental particles could have existed instead of the ones that do exist, a different universe could have existed instead of this one.
19/
"The atheist who tries to avoid L.'s conclusion by holding that the universe is metaphysically necessary is thus thrust into the position that every sub-atomic particle that exists is metaphysically necessary, which seems highly implausible, to say the least…” End quote.
"The atheist who tries to avoid L.'s conclusion by holding that the universe is metaphysically necessary is thus thrust into the position that every sub-atomic particle that exists is metaphysically necessary, which seems highly implausible, to say the least…” End quote.
20/
And again Quote:
“The quarks and strings in the universe don’t exist with metaphysical necessity. I suppose one thing you could appeal to would be modern scientific theories in which the universe is not made up of quarks. Say it is made up of strings instead.
And again Quote:
“The quarks and strings in the universe don’t exist with metaphysical necessity. I suppose one thing you could appeal to would be modern scientific theories in which the universe is not made up of quarks. Say it is made up of strings instead.
21/
"In other words, it is very easy to craft alternative physical models that are different. So the proponent of the view that the universe is metaphysically necessary would have to say that these **other **physical **models **are, in fact, **metaphysical **impossibilities.
"In other words, it is very easy to craft alternative physical models that are different. So the proponent of the view that the universe is metaphysically necessary would have to say that these **other **physical **models **are, in fact, **metaphysical **impossibilities.
22/
"[They're perfectly possible] not only metaphysically but physically. So...the person... taking this line is taking a ...radical line in thinking that all these fundamental particles exist with metaphysical necessity. That is probably why nobody adopts this view.” End quote.
"[They're perfectly possible] not only metaphysically but physically. So...the person... taking this line is taking a ...radical line in thinking that all these fundamental particles exist with metaphysical necessity. That is probably why nobody adopts this view.” End quote.
23/
Elsewhere I specifically pointed you to the bolded/titled sub-section “Can The Universe Be The Necessary Being” which is the last third-ish of https://metachristianity.com/platonism-and-be-ing-and-do-ing-and-pure-act-and-counterfactuals-and-moral-facts/ so that you could unpack some of the actual problems there in this very topic you’re muddying up.
Elsewhere I specifically pointed you to the bolded/titled sub-section “Can The Universe Be The Necessary Being” which is the last third-ish of https://metachristianity.com/platonism-and-be-ing-and-do-ing-and-pure-act-and-counterfactuals-and-moral-facts/ so that you could unpack some of the actual problems there in this very topic you’re muddying up.
24/
You’ve done none of that as you’ve not given actual arguments demonstrating that you’ve successfully met all of the above problems. You AGAIN do nothing more than mix-up and confuse conflicting categories/definitions.
You’ve done none of that as you’ve not given actual arguments demonstrating that you’ve successfully met all of the above problems. You AGAIN do nothing more than mix-up and confuse conflicting categories/definitions.
25/
**You: "You said, "Why do you claim the [Universe] ((Whatever THAT Is)) is Uncaused?" We've been over that already. You said, "That’s irrational & forces a Reductio Ad Absurdum." That's false. Not on an internal critique of the view."
**Me/My Reply:
**You: "You said, "Why do you claim the [Universe] ((Whatever THAT Is)) is Uncaused?" We've been over that already. You said, "That’s irrational & forces a Reductio Ad Absurdum." That's false. Not on an internal critique of the view."
**Me/My Reply:
26/
**Me/Reply: See the previous items in this thread on your failure to address "Necessary Quarks" and "All-Other-Models-Are-Metaphysical-Impossibilities". This is the SAME problem. Notice the use of the term Un-Caused. As in Necessary. That’s the key to that line of approach.
**Me/Reply: See the previous items in this thread on your failure to address "Necessary Quarks" and "All-Other-Models-Are-Metaphysical-Impossibilities". This is the SAME problem. Notice the use of the term Un-Caused. As in Necessary. That’s the key to that line of approach.
27/
You MEANT to talk about BRUTE FACT as in the Past-Eternal Universe. That is a different line of approach and does not force you into “Necessary Being” metaphysically heavy commitments.
You MEANT to talk about BRUTE FACT as in the Past-Eternal Universe. That is a different line of approach and does not force you into “Necessary Being” metaphysically heavy commitments.
28/
So, now, BRUTE FACT: well here’s the challenge: that forces you into a Reductio Ad Absurdum. You can either argue why that is false or you can simply disagree and give no argument. But WHATEVER you do you need to stop CONFUSING/MIXING-UP your terms/categories/etc.
So, now, BRUTE FACT: well here’s the challenge: that forces you into a Reductio Ad Absurdum. You can either argue why that is false or you can simply disagree and give no argument. But WHATEVER you do you need to stop CONFUSING/MIXING-UP your terms/categories/etc.
29/
**Me: "Anything to add?"
**You: I'm not in the same predicament people like you are. I don't take principles like Principle of Cause/Effect or Principle of Sufficient Reason or Aristotelian theories of Causation as axioms, which doesn't trap me into a quest for 'causes'.
**Me: "Anything to add?"
**You: I'm not in the same predicament people like you are. I don't take principles like Principle of Cause/Effect or Principle of Sufficient Reason or Aristotelian theories of Causation as axioms, which doesn't trap me into a quest for 'causes'.
