>>784303
>The “existential inertia” thesis holds that, once in existence, the natural world tends to remain in existence without need of a divine conserving cause.

The laws of physics as we understand them suggest that yes, once a universe starts to exist, it will continue to do so. Arguments for this are many, but are of a highly technical nature.

>>784309
In what sense do the laws of physics exist?

>>784312
Just wanted to add that you speak of it like it works just like divine conservation but say that these laws are part of the universe.

I'm very curious how you parse the laws of physics in the sense you refer to them in >>784309 from divine conservation.

>>784312

They are observations about reality. They exist in the form of patterns in our brains, and in books and on computers.

>>784332
So the laws of physics you mention you understand as regularities in things in nature. From that, how do get a support for existential inertia instead of divine conservation?
It seems to really have no immediate say one way or the other to me.

>>784336
>From that, how do get a support for existential inertia instead of divine conservation?

Because there is no "room" left for divine conservation. Everything we have observed about nature supports the conclusion that once something is created, it continues to exist. This is true of particle-antiparticle pairs created in a lab, and seems to be true on the scale of universes, too. If you want to posit that this is in some way the workings of a god, then you'd have to either show some kind of mechanism whereby this happens, or admit that your position is baseless conjecture.

>>784339
>Because there is no "room" left for divine conservation. Everything we have observed about nature supports the conclusion that once something is created, it continues to exist.

Again, it continues to exist but things continuing to exist is assumed in both divine conservation and existential inertia. The difference is how they continue to exist. You're trying to say one is proven without making any manner of argument for it.

>>784359

I never used the word proof. My position is not a philosophical one but an empirical one. The mechanisms for why particles stay together (the Strong force) is pretty well understood. It tells us that particles, once formed, stay together for trillions of years before the energy between them is exhausted. There is no need to posit some unknown outside action that sustains matter, we already have a perfectly good physical explanation.

>>784368
>There is no need to posit some unknown outside action that sustains matter, we already have a perfectly good physical explanation.
Which is why he's trying to shift the argument to "what sustains that which sustains matter." And once that is answered, there supposedly needs to be something that sustains that, etc,

Every time you have an inertial explanation, someone is going to come up running with the "yeah, but what is beyond that?" argument in an attempt to invoke the divine explanation.

>>784368
You're misunderstanding the question then, I'm not speaking of what takes the role of gluon or specifically of compounds of particles but rather if those things that exist in the universe (fundamental particles or whatever core thing that we say exists to bring about change down the hierarchy of causation) exist to themselves en masse or are maintained by something else en masse.

But alright, it seems your view is that existential inertia is correct as there is nothing to your knowledge to suggest how it exists and there is no "need" for an answer that could imply more.


>>784376
Don't be a dumbass, I'm not trying to preference one view or another and saying "well this material thing supports this other material thing" as an answer is missing the point entirely which allows for people (and supports of divine conservation) to screw with the idiots and try to ask for one thing further.
There's no shifting arguments, there is making sure arguments don't get misunderstood.

>>784396
>But alright, it seems your view is that existential inertia is correct as there is nothing to your knowledge to suggest how it exists and there is no "need" for an answer that could imply more.

It's not that there's no need, it's that there is no room. Once you account for everything you can using current scientific theories, there is nothing left to explain. Conservation of energy is a universally observed phenomena / law of nature, matter / energy doesn't need to be sustained by anything external to it, it has it's own internal energy supply that has slowly "wound down" since the Big Bang.

>>784408
...Conservation of Mass-Energy isn't what we're talking about here and isn't relevant. That no physical actual can create or destroy energy has nothing to do with the manner in which the universe exists.

Studies on the mechanics of things in the universe has little to do with the manner in which they exist. That depends more on the metaphysical framework that the physics are framed in.

>>784427
>Studies on the mechanics of things in the universe has little to do with the manner in which they exist. That depends more on the metaphysical framework that the physics are framed in.

And your evidence for THIS claim is...? Physics has shown time and time again that our own human intuitions simply cannot be trusted when it comes to the fundamental nature of reality.

>>784303

According to Feser, both. The conflict is illusory when we realize what physics is about and what metaphysics is about.

http://faculty.fordham.edu/klima/SMLM/PSMLM10/PSMLM10.pdf

It is the first paper.

welp

>>784303
Feser has an article on the topic. I believe it is available on his new book.
If you take Aristotle's and Aquinas arguments to be true, then they show that existence needs divine conservation (since existence is a kind of act)