5 ms·
> I disagree with the reductionist account of a table that is I think implicit here Even the proofs imply a reductionist account no? The first proof says: the
by sdht0 3y ago
> I disagree with the reductionist account of a table that is I think implicit here
Even the proofs imply a reductionist account no? The first proof says: the table holds up the glass, the floor holds up the table and the earth holds up the table. And then asks, what holds up it all? Answer: necessarily God. But then God is at the edge (first) of this causal chain and the table is still holding up the glass (directly), no? And God is holding up the universe (directly) and everything in it (indirectly). Thus, saying that God is holding up the glass would be misusing the usual meaning of the term "holding up".
- geye1234 3y agoThat's not what it says at all. It's using the glass-table-floor-earth picture as an aid to understanding, to illustrate the difference between a linear series and a hierarchical series. It is separate from the actual argument, which comes later.
- sdht0 3y agoHuh. Maybe you have a proper example of a hierarchical series then? I'm thinking God -> object1 -> object2 -> object3. Is this not what the book means?