>>7280075Also, you can also make a case against the main argument itself if you would like. This is my interpretation of it.
1. Causation exists.( Empirical Premise)
2. Act and Potency are terms that we can use to explain causation: When something is in Potency it has the capacity to become something something else, but is not it yet. A fertilized egg has the potency to turn into a chick, an unfertilized egg does not. When a potency is realized, it is actual. To actualize a potency is to take property that something had in potency and make it actually inhere in the thing.
3. When we find an instance of causation in the world we find some potency being actualized.
4. Something that is only in potency cannot actualize anything.
5. For some potency to be actualized something actual must actualize it.
6. If A is actualized by B, then B must first be actual.
7. Either something must have actualized B from being in potency to be in actuality. Or B is either necessarily actual, having never been in potency before. ( A v B)
8. If the left disjunct “A” is true then premise 7 applies to C.
9. If disjunct “B” is true there is a “first” uncaused cause that is pure actuality.
10. If disjunct “B” is never the case then there is an infinite series of actualizations. With every being having its actuality derived from another being.
11. If “10” is the case then there can be no actualization, as every being in the series has its actuality derived from another being, but there is no being with actuality on it's own to derive the actuality from.
12. If “10” is the case there is no causation
13. There is causation ( from premise 1)
14. Premise “10” is not the case.
15. If premise 10 is not the case, then at some point in the series “9” is the case.
16. There is a first cause, which is a being of pure actuality.
With this you have 6 arguments you have to refute in order to continue. They have all been given or highlighted in these last 3 posts of mine.
1. The argument against self change
2. That Physics is not ontologically complete due to it abstracting quantity from experience and ignoring quality.
3. That Physics cannot be ontologically complete because of the irreducibility of supervenience levels.
4. That physics is subordinate to metaphysics because physical being presupposes being simpliciter.
5. The impossibility of not having a causal series and how this leads to physics, by your own admission, not being able to give a complete picture of reality. With the lemma of
6. Aquinas cosmological argument, being included in my argument. Which I have given my version of above.
>>7280079Yeah, and Newton only claimed that that is what objects seem to do, he never explained why they do or how they do. An infinite being would have the infinite power to ensure that this happened ( such a being operating on the world at every moment is just what Newton thought was happening actually).
