Thomists and fans of Aristotle: Why should I accept your metaphysics?

So you're now saying that no observed types of energy (regardless whether they are just manifestations of one type of energy) are reliant on oscillating fields or particle motion?

No. But wouldn't one be equivocating to say that a specific type of energy (that we've given a name to) reliant on what we perceive to be oscillating fields or particle motion is the same energy that is at bottom of all interactions?

That discards a tremendous amount of empirical evidence and scientific knowledge about what energy is and how it works,

To say that our scientific knowledge is probably wrong in many ways, according to pessimistic meta-induction, isn't that sketchy really. Not that I agree, but it's a valid position.

Again, matter is energy - this much is agreed upon in science.

Right.

That's backwards. Spacetime exists because energy (oscillating fields / particle motion, and matter) exists.

The way you worded this seems very ambiguous to me, especially with the parenthetical you've provided.

The problem I'm having is that you're saying that matter, a form of energy, has always existed. Are you saying that particles just started existing 13.7 billion years ago?

The way I'm seeing it is that neither spacetime, nor matter (and thus, oscillating fields and particles motions that rely on, or are forms of matter themselves) existed ontologically prior to energy.

You seem to be claiming the opposite. Particles and spacetime existed before the energy required for either to exist, existed. This doesn't seem to make sense.

So what I'm saying is that there can't only be the energy that is a result of oscillating fields and particle motion.

/r/DebateReligion Thread Parent