Feser doesn't use a 'strictly inductive method' even if he does start out with things of ordinary experience. Re: 'It is not possible that a strictly inductive method of reasoning will achieve this hence recourse to recursive Reasoning (hereditary principle) that of itself defeats the endeavour.'Ĭan you elaborate? This just seems wrong. What is going on here? I'm not following your analysis at all. Then you tell us they are not pointing to the same being. that are not.įirst you give us the reason they are pointing to the same being.

You say, 'And the simple reason why the proofs point to the same being is because all five proofs are based upon reasoning by recurrence.'Īnd then you say, The problem is however, that you are simply taking it for granted that the five proofs are pointing to the same being. Phillip, what are you saying? You're saying so much and yet so little. 'do these five proofs prove a single theistic concept or different theistic concepts?'Īll the 5 proofs get to an inherently necessary being and all explain why there can't be more than one inherently necessary being, so all the proofs have to be pointing to the same being. Also, like with the 4th way, some ideas are simply not taught and are generally taken for granted and that's not because they were refuted either. Also, the use of certain terms change over time, like the term 'motion' which has come to mean generally just change in position over time when it previously meant change of any kind. Some topics are more complex than others, such explaining the special theory of relativity is more complex than explaining linear momentum, which is more complex than explaining velocity.

'If an answer to a question (any question) is complex. The 4th way by Aquinas is a good example of a proof that works but requires a lot of groundwork to explain because people are not exposed to the foundaitonal ideas behind it at all. The reason he chose these 5 is because they are good arguments, they have been neglected and so are worth addressing, but also easier to explain to readers today than other proofs that might be good but require much more background knowledge.

Ed feser five proofs