Ed Feser on the Cosmological Argument

[PaulSacramento]

Now, is it your contention that science provides proof that the physical laws and the mass / energy that they govern "came into existence"? And were caused by the immotile one?

Since science only comments on what can be observed I say this:
Yes, science can and does prove that what comes into existence has a cause.

Since science is NOT in the business of proving what it can NOT observe, no it does NOT comment on anything other than what it observes.
To go beyond that, you need metaphysics and reasoning.

[Audie]

Now, is it your contention that science provides proof that the physical laws and the mass / energy that they govern "came into existence"? And were caused by the immotile one?

Since science only comments on what can be observed I say this:
Yes, science can and does prove that what comes into existence has a cause.

Since science is NOT in the business of proving what it can NOT observe, no it does NOT comment on anything other than what it observes.
To go beyond that, you need metaphysics and reasoning.

So you are proposing the part in bold as a general statement, a sort of scientific law?

[PaulSacramento]

What ?

[Audie]

What ?

You said that science proves that things that come into existence have a cause.

That is a general statement, meaning, I think, that "All things that come into existence have a cause" and, that would constitute a scientific law, something to depend on.

Is that how you see it, a proven law?

[PaulSacramento]

What ?

You said that science proves that things that come into existence have a cause.

That is a general statement, meaning, I think, that "All things that come into existence have a cause" and, that would constitute a scientific law, something to depend on.

Is that how you see it, a proven law?

Well, since science tends to be a bit specific on it's Laws, I think you may be confusing a general principle that science adheres to with a specific statement that science makes.
I am saying that science adheres to the general principle.
IF there is a specific scientific statement that science makes about this, I would assume it is specific to something ( like biology for example).

[Audie]

What ?

You said that science proves that things that come into existence have a cause.

That is a general statement, meaning, I think, that "All things that come into existence have a cause" and, that would constitute a scientific law, something to depend on.

Is that how you see it, a proven law?

Well, since science tends to be a bit specific on it's Laws, I think you may be confusing a general principle that science adheres to with a specific statement that science makes.
I am saying that science adheres to the general principle.
IF there is a specific scientific statement that science makes about this, I would assume it is specific to something ( like biology for example).

Im still not satisfied with this "that come into existence". I need clarification of terms here.

Are you defining everything but god as something that came into existence?

Its my contention that you cannot prove that math, physical laws, nor masss /energy "came into existence".

Lets say, that those and anything else we can think of can be shown to have had a cause, to have come into existence.

The "uncaused cause" is evidently beyond any means of detection, so it cannot be considered to have any existence, from the pov of science.

How about this for a law: Anything that can be detected has a cause.

[PaulSacramento]

Its my contention that you cannot prove that math, physical laws, nor masss /energy "came into existence".

See, this shows that you don't understand the argument.
It doesn't matter IF THOSE things have always existed ( whether or not they have), it matters that SOME things come into existence and THOSE things have a cause.
Although a philosophical argument can be made that those things have come into existence, that is NOT the point of THIS thread.

[Audie]

Its my contention that you cannot prove that math, physical laws, nor masss /energy "came into existence".

See, this shows that you don't understand the argument.
It doesn't matter IF THOSE things have always existed ( whether or not they have), it matters that SOME things come into existence and THOSE things have a cause.
Although a philosophical argument can be made that those things have come into existence, that is NOT the point of THIS thread.

i guess it matters if news of the tautological is news, or matters.

[jlay]

What ?

You said that science proves that things that come into existence have a cause.

That is a general statement, meaning, I think, that "All things that come into existence have a cause" and, that would constitute a scientific law, something to depend on.

Is that how you see it, a proven law?

I would say that this is an presupposition one must hold to engage in the scientific process.
Science, after all, is a search for causes.

[Proinsias]

I agree with Audie in that the blog post comes across as a bit of rant, but a blog is a good place for ranting.

I'm slowly reading through his Aquinas, so this ties in nicely.

I, along with most others according to Feser, fall at the first hurdle. It strikes me hardly surprising that if we simplify phenomena to linear chains of cause & effect then drive a conceptual wedge between cause & effect that we are a hop, skip and a jump away from entertaining notions of a simple uncaused cause at the end of the line.

[Audie]

What ?

You said that science proves that things that come into existence have a cause.

That is a general statement, meaning, I think, that "All things that come into existence have a cause" and, that would constitute a scientific law, something to depend on.

Is that how you see it, a proven law?

I would say that this is an presupposition one must hold to engage in the scientific process.
Science, after all, is a search for causes.

That is all true, I think. However we seem to keep talking past eachother, lets give it a break.