Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae. Prima Pars, question 2 - Introduction to Philosophy
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 30 сен 2024
- Get Thomas Aquinas' Summa Theologiae - amzn.to/2ITcKYQ
Support my work here - / sadler or here - www.buymeacoff...
Philosophy tutorials - reasonio.wordp...
Take classes with me - reasonio.teach...
In this lecture from my Fall 2011 Introduction to Philosophy class at Marist College, we discuss Thomas Aquinas' Summa Theologiae, Prima Pars, question 2: on the existence of God
If you'd like to support my work producing videos like this, become a Patreon supporter! Here's the link to find out more - including the rewards I offer backers: / sadler
You can also make a direct contribution to help fund my ongoing educational projects, by clicking here: www.paypal.me/...
If you're interested in philosophy tutorial sessions with me - especially on Thomas Aquinas' thought and works - click here: reasonio.wordp...
You can find the copy of the text I am using for this sequence on Thomas Aquinas' Summa Theologiae here - amzn.to/2ITcKYQ
My videos are used by students, lifelong learners, other professors, and professionals to learn more about topics, texts, and thinkers in philosophy, religious studies, literature, social-political theory, critical thinking, and communications. These include college and university classes, British A-levels preparation, and Indian civil service (IAS) examination preparation
(Amazon links are associate links. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases)
#Aquinas #Thomism #God
I dont know where he is going but allowing people to THINK is something missing. You are either beat into not believing or visa-versa. This teacher is how all my teachers were, both in parochial school and public university. I never had a professor/teacher who berated his students. This man is excellent!
Yes, he's eminently quotable. Chesterton was a real lover of paradox, but never rested content with just saying one and then leaving it out there for people to, as it were. marvel at -- instead, he'd explore them, and show how, from a fuller perspective, they make perfectly good sense.
I suppose sometime down the line I ought to do some writing and speaking on Chesterton
Interesting marti-grecia odalyz
No, I actually left FSU almost two years ago. I started a consulting company, teaching part-time at Marist, and shooting many new videos
I'm glad you like the videos. Typically, you'll see, when I'm presenting on a thinker, I don't show my hand much (i.e. my own views). Thomas is one of the guys with whom I'm typically in agreement (Anselm a bit more) -- which would include Aristotle, Plato, Augustine, Kierkegaard, Pascal, Von Hilldebrand, Chesterton (who's not usually looked at as a philosopher, but deserves to be)
As to the open talk invitation, that sounds great! Next time I'm in that area, I'll definitely take you up on it
I'm glad you like them, and you're very welcome. I can't encourage you enough to study philosophy -- both when you're older, and (perhaps less systematically?) now as well.
Yes, I am a Catholic, but I've been one long enough to realize that I'm not as good of one as I'm called to be
You are a great teacher!! Thank you!
+Dianna Honey You're very welcome
Well, anytime you're teaching Philosophy -- particularly Intro classes -- you've got to cut out way more people than you actually get to teach.
I am interested in Thomas' metaphysics, sure -- but shooting more videos on Thomas, outside of class videos (I'll be shooting on his discussions about truth and about the will later this semester) has got to wait until I've got a number of other video projects out of the way.
I've got one of my Dr. Sadler Chalk and Talks devoted to the question of whether we ought to teach about religion in public schools -- you can find it in that playlist
Yes, I've had those kinds of experiences often as well -- along with those often go realizations that those who are wounded (someone did something wrong to them) choose paths that ensure (or at least make it likely) they remain wounded, and closed off. There's a kind of inchoate choosing-to-remain at work
The other aspect is that oftentimes the openness required -- which really is connected with real humility -- has to be dynamic, active, ongoing. Tough to find or expect
Sure -- and then, we're discussing several different types or senses of "freedom", which would need to be carefully distinguished from each other. You'd also have to decide what sense of the term you're invoking when asking whether someone is "truly free".
I didn't follow up on the conversation here, because it was getting framed so tendentiously, and because with limited time, I don't put what time I've got into doing apologetics -- enough other people out there for that sort of conversation
Well, then we differ, I suppose. I don't have trouble conceiving of freedom of the will as having such an intrinsic value. You do. I don't see that sort of matter as one upon which my role would be to try to convince you by argument (let alone on RUclips)
Generally, the reasoning for understanding these complex and murky matters -- an, about these matters, I don't intend to try to provide you with the sort of response you seem to asking me for -- which I find the best is Anselm's.
I see. I'm not into Garrigou-Lagrange. If it's 20th century Thomists, I'd much rather read Sertillanges, Maritain, Simon, Rousselot -- all of whom are readily available in most decent university libraries, as well as many other places. I find them considerably less schematic and tendentious, and I'd say thereby much more faithful to Thomas' spirit, than is G-L.
Then again, I'm not a Thomist myself.
I occasionally say things to the people on the TV
Sometimes, it is. . .
Glad you liked it
What's SOSU?
I like the 5 ways and I personally like the 5th way the most. Design argument catches my mind. Atoms serve an important function in the universe, but they don't have intelligence. But there is also another version of the teleological argument formulated by then Cardinal Ratinzger (Benedict XVI) in his Introduction to Christianity called "The Argument from Intelligibility". The fact that the universe is endowed with objective intelligibility and logos corresponds to a great subjective "Logos" which has thought the world into being. When we recognize a truth about nature, we "think it again" because it has already been thought into being by God.
I don't how the modern sciences could have started without being within a Christian based society.
David Viscuso In the ancient world, there was a fairly common argument as well that might be called the "argument from intelligence" -- a variation on cosmological arguments, arguing that intelligence (such as we experience it) could not have arises from something that was not itself intelligent. . . .
That's nice to read.
My beliefs are probably too numerous to attempt to list. I'll say this: I'm a struggling Christian. I can't say I'm all that much better than those who do believe, but tremble.
If it weren't for the nourishment I've derived from intellectual traditions found in Catholic, Orthodox, and some Protestant churches, I'd likely not be a Christian - though that's less a verdict on the truth of Christian doctrine and more about my own intellectual biases (see, I have some)
That's a somewhat different variation of Thomas' 5th way -- a Design argument.
How can a person see these things and not arrive at the conclusion you're looking for? Well (assuming you're not just asking a rhetorical question), Hume provides some good discussion of that in the Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion.
Just sticking with Thomas, however, he recognizes that passion/interest can interfere with reason. Perhaps look at his Commentary on the Psalms
There's a fundamental problem with trying to make an appeal to the coherence, richness, depth, etc. of a tradition -- it requires a person who is already to some extent open to seeing what's there, who is willing to spend the time (rather than demanding immediate answers, proof-texting arguments, etc) to explore what it offers.
Something perhaps I need to do a video about down the line.
Well, that's a long answer -- but I'll say this: I don't do it, or my work in general, in an analytic manner.
I actually don't see a "problem of grace, free will, and hell" -- but rather view these as each of them topics which require, as Anselm put it (about some related topics) many other things to be investigated.
As to G-L, I suspect that his failures had much less to do with thinking that he was right and others were wrong and much more to do with the way he lived that out
Well, those are some big questions, with (at least on my part) long answers. I'll say this in the 375 characters remaining: I don't see fundamental conflict between what is true in philosophy (which is certainly not all of philosophy) and the truth of the Christian faith taught by the Fathers, Doctors, and Saints of the Catholic Church. In fact, I had left the Church when 16, and only came back through the study of philosophy when I was about 27 or so. This probably needs a video response
Thanks very much! Very nice to read.
But, as things are at present, Marist doesn't actually have a professor in me -- I'm currently just an adjunct instructor. I do like it there, I have to say, so if down the line an position opens up, I'd certainly put in for it there
Well, there's that factor - which has been going on for decades.
I also think that there's a reluctance to take positions that "stand out" on college campuses, unless they're what we might call the "approved" eccentricities, activisms, or protests.
Add to that the fact that their K-12 schools have done poor work in teaching about religion - not from a theological (they shouldn't be doing theology, unless religious schools), but from a religious studies perspective - so the kids know little
So, a lot of questions
1) if they're actual intellectuals, they take arguments seriously -- doesn't mean they agree, of course
2) those who say Thomistic philosophy is just theology don't know Thomas, philosophy, or theology well -- they're relying on tendentious, needing-to-be-argued-for "definitions" of philosophy and theology
3) do they have a point? The various schools of Thomists themselves argue about the line between theology and philosophy
Well, there you touch on something very interesting -- does it make sense to believe, to act in accordance with, to commit oneself to Christianity because this enables one to develop a better philosophical perspective? Put like that, it sounds rather impious, doesn't it? As if it's finding the value of Christianity -- supposed to be something higher -- in terms of its philosophical pay-off -- something lower.
I can't speak for Gilson on this point, but I can say that for me, the answer's Yes
I would actually love to do that! Outside of the classroom and educational/professional settings, I'm actually a big classic metal guy, and tend to wear metal band tshirts, jeans, flannels, etc. Never was big on shades or bandanas, but I used to wear leather a long time back.
Yes, I've read Clarke, who I like quite a bit -- a good follower of Thomas Aquinas in that he aimed to engage and assimilate everything that was true in other modes of thinking.
If you're looking for broadly Thomistic personalism, I'd say the Lublin Thomists, including Woytyla (later John Paul II), are a great place to explore. Also, two non-Thomists who were influential on Thomists -- Maurice Blondel and Dietrich von Hildebrand
Thanks very much! Very nice compliment. I haven't got any plans to do any further hour-length vids on Thomas Aquinas this semester, but I will be shooting some shorter "Core Concept" vids discussing some of his ideas. Down the line though, I'm thinking I'll do a series of hour-length lectures on key issues in Thomas's thought
Well, both are legitimate interpretations of the argument, which you'll find expositors of Aquinas using down through the ages.
Keep in mind that each of the "ways" is supposed to demonstrate that God exists, not exhaustively detail the divine nature and attributes
Yep -- and this is an intro class, encountering these issues for probably the first time. so, I keep it pretty simple.
Antonin Sertillanges has some particularly good discussions of Thomas' position on eternity and causality
I always hated the hesitancy of people to speak and get engaged in discussion in class.
Yes, it is tough sometimes to get students as engaged as they ought to be
Gregory B. Sadler I was always biting back my commentary until the discussion was underway. There is always that uncomfortable moment, I don't know why, I think it's age and perception, in the beginning. However it's always so much more enthralling when the discussion starts rolling. I'm sure as a teacher it's an enjoyable way to gauge accumen, rhetoric and to see what one's learned. I enjoyed my first listen and appreciate the offerings. It's very kind of you, many thanks.
I've read some of Fesers stuff from time to time. Having read around in Thomas for quite a while, and looked at a number of different schools claiming to represent "Thomism", I tend to be skeptical about claims made about "Thomists" as a whole.
I'm willing to grant Thomas' fifth way is not precisely the same as the version of the Design argument made over and over by Paley - nor for that matter the same as that made in Cicero's De Natura Deorum. They're similar enough to be classed together.
You're welcome -- glad to read that it was helpful.
I'll be shooting a 25-30-video Thomas Aquinas course of videos starting sometime this Spring
Glad to read that! And, if you like this sort of stuff, I've got some Aquinas Core Concept videos (stuff about natural law, mainly) coming out in the next few weeks
well, it's an Intro course, their first semester -- and they are rather reticent to talk openly about God or religion.
You're welcome. Glad you liked it. I'm planning on shooting an entire Aquinas sequence sometime next Spring
You're welcome. Glad you found it useful. This coming Spring, I'm hoping to start a full video sequence on Thomas Aquinas
All? That would be quite lucky.
I'm glad they've been helpful. You're quite welcome!
You're welcome -- and thanks very much for those kind words
Doc: I have no idea anymore. It was someone who posted and then deleted.
Well, you get some of those on RUclips. Sometimes, its a person who closed their account or who got kicked off for one reason or another
And mine as well -- though I'm not a Thomist per se
Bertrand Russell points out the counter-argument to Augustine's theory of evil. It is a circular argument, it would be as true to say that good existed for the sake of evil. That we must have saints to punish and murder so that we can fulfill our evil indulgences to the fullest extent, otherwise we could not truly appreciate the nature of evil for what it is.
Both Augustine - and Aquinas (who the videos is about) - thought good has an ontological priority over evil.
I wouldn't go to Russell for discussions of medieval (or even many ancient and early modern) thinkers.
Russell had a reputation as a sophist, to be true. he went out of his way to find the logical paradoxes involved in almost every argument. I would generally support Aquinas and Augustine's ontological view of good and evil. However when I heard Russell make the counter argument, it was so tongue and cheek, I just had to reference it. His general view was that logic could neither prove or disprove the existence of God. I think most modern theologians would agree that a belief in God is a leap of faith.
BTW, I know you are not in the Russell camp, and I have spent much of my time in his history of western philosophy. I'm ok with that. you are very true to the text, and very in detail. You can't discount Russell. His logic is impeccable. And philosophy is mired with eons of faulty metaphysics. He points the flaws out in ruthless detail. A circular argument is what it is. It doesn't discount the argument. Its a question of whether you agree or not. Knowing the counter argument is the only way to judge the argument on its merit. And in this regard, Russell is valuable.
You go on ahead with your Russell-fandom then.
You won't get any further conversation about him from me, since I consider his History of Philosophy a very mediocre text
I don't want to argue with you. It's just that you sort of twist my strings. I know that you have spent a good deal of time with continental idealism, and that you like a dialectal framework. I'm ok with that. And I am one of the few people who understand this debate. This is about ego. You found a way to make money at this. That doesn't validate your opinion. I respect your scholarship. I just expect you to show me my due respect as well. I comment, because I don't have anyone around me who can realize the subtle arguments that I am making.
You're welcome!
You're very welcome!
Glad to read it!
Thanks!
i've seen so many of your lectures in just 2 days, and you've helped me catch up on a lot. i wish my professor would keep his students engaged the same way instead of just sitting there. you're great
Sorry to hear that your prof isn't quite so engaged -- but glad you enjoy the videos
Most rational option for human is to believe in god and worship him alone. From Our normal universal experience when we see Mobile, TV , pencil , most rational option we choose is someone must have created it, although all the components inside Mobile, tv, pencil exist in nature, they just don't pop up. So when it comes to Universe we see its more sophisticated , well-balanced, well designed, how can we not believe in master-designer God, if we use same kinds of universal normal experience?
As an aside, I thought I would post a link to some posts by a contemporary Thomist about how the Fifth Way is not at all like Paley's Intelligent Design. Thomists tend to be rather fierce critics of ID.
edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2010/05/id-versus-t-roundup.html
Feser's blog is what got me seriously started on Thomism, so I thought you might (as someone who takes inspiration from Aquinas) find it interesting reading. David Oderberg's work is also very good, particularly on hylemorphism.
@Sadler.. I do see an intrinsic quality in freedom, but I think the question that chris is asking is important. Not only should we question if freedom is more important than well being, but are we truly free if we have to live a life among those who would do evil things? For instance, is a rape victim free of her rapist? Are those evil people truly free, if they are crippled and made crooked by the life that they are born in to?
There is a theologian that I was listening to, who basically said that it is a common misconception that God's sole desire is our happiness... Certainly, if a God does exist, it would be quite selfish of us to assume that our happiness is the most important thing in the entire universe.
You cant get an ought from an is unless there is a way things ought to be. This simple quote blows the rough off any activist, atheist or agnostic trying to make moral claims about religions. If this 1 phrase could just be taught in schools, i think we would either have more religious people, or at least more consistent non believers. Oh well the world will never be a perfect place ey lol
I would agree, growing up religion was always put in the corner where it was dark and damp. All religions are lumped together into 1 and are shown only to be as strong as the weakest of them. So yes i would entirely agree ! I wonder why they do not bother teaching what the pillars of life rest on being true. Religion is bad, but that can only be true if God exist. They conveniently leave that out, knowing later in life its hard to teach a dog new tricks ! If i was a teacher id be fired quick !
Your students seem a little slow lol. And bias against the thought of God. For me it was a personal experience that was just as real as any other experience that i take on faith that exist. Then i began to want to know more and more until i got sucked in to all fields of science and philosophy and i will never go back. At the end of the day, you have to put your foot down and choose a side, because we all do based on our actions anyways.
Can you please dress like a harley biker? I just think the contrast would be hilarious. Black leather vest, ponytail, bandana, sunglasses... yeah. Then start talking about Plato's Crito, and the Allegory of the Cave.. PLEASE???
Why do you think people are so afraid of this topic ? Do you think its because they will be labeled freaks in the academic world because of it ? If so when do you think this happened ?
Actually, that link apparently doesn't work, so just search "feser id versus at roundup" on Google if you're interested.
awesome class! congrats from Brazil!!
imtv same here! Your lectures have been very helpful to us too!
I quite admire this professor's ostensible lack of bias. I wonder what his own theological beliefs are.
Funny, I sometimes feel a religious experience while working on math problems --sort of a rational experience of God. I'm sure it translates to my emotions or the order of things. So, I can see Aquinas's point of views based on Aristotle. Thomas Aquinas seems sympathetic to the common man's strivings to seek God, while investigating deep philosophical truths concerning God through Aristotle's philosophy of the prime mover, because something clicked and he found harmony in it to Christian doctrine. He seems to be a very sincere person and was constanly seeking personal answers.
Darwin does say that he is awed by the complexity of the eye, but then goes on to propose its most likely evolutional design. To attempt to encompass God with reason, I think, should be analogous to carry water within a cage: although some of the water may cling to the bottom of the cage, it will not be able to hold all the water.
The silence of the class, it is awkward.
Southeastern Oklahoma State University
Lol if I remember correctly, my Intro to Philosophy professor summarily dismissed Thomas and ultimately used Thomist arguments as a prop to segue into nihilistic shit. Intentionally or not, he left us with the impression that Thomist philosophy is somehow fundamentally unsound. You’re a much better professor and teacher than he was.
Thanks - and sorry you got stuck with that instructor
Sadler , is it possible to add subtitles to your videos, it will make much more useful
As far as I know, they already have captions (a standard RUclips feature) -- but you have to turn them on.
We really don't have the available time to subtitle videos in the editing process -- not if we're going to offer these for free
thats a great intro! many thanks!
ps: guys check this out with subs for some laughs
Jim Tsan Glad you enjoyed it
If there's any power in this world,and universe,that humans cannot,or do no understand and control completely(and neither do animals)What would it be?And,how do we get some of it?Or,how can a people or person of an institution promote the seeking,and joining with something,assuming his own species cannot understand it,the thing-energy-awareness;if,he himself assumes that he cannot even prove if his own species really DOES not know it or of it?how to be come close to this ''unknown'' quantity of this world or universe?That which is assumed to be unknown to the species?
Thank you for your lectures. Concerning Aquinas's argument from first cause though, I have always understood it to mean not so much cause and effect through time (e.g. billiard balls, Big Bang etc) but rather a cause 'in depth' i.e. this typing I am doing now goes back through cause and effect to the first cause: pure act - God at this very moment. In other words God keeps all things in being all the time. This does away with the deist position of 'God only started it all'.
Good stuff! The two philosophy classes I've taken both ignored Aquinas and had us reading Plato, Boethius, Hume, and some modern dialogues on identity and mind-as-computer. I've now been studying Aquinas in depth on my own for about two years, and have essentially adopted Thomism as my philosophical worldview as a result.
I was hoping you would cover causal chains per se and causal chains per accidens, as they're crucial elements of Aquinas's case. Are you at all interested in his metaphysics?
I would like to talk to you about Thomas aquinas
here's my helpouts listings: helpouts.google.com/115610514266074572098
great lecture
Are these students seriously this mindlessly mute?
I'm avoid making sweeping assumptions from a video
Your videos have made me succeed through all my philosophy courses!
Thank you, Dr. Sadler!
Teaching religion in high school is not controversial. Most of the time it's just not a proper environment. There is little room for lecture in a high school classrom nowadays.
Not sure where you're living, but teaching religion, or the different activity of teaching about religion (you might check out my Dr. Sadler Chalk and Talk about that) is actually controversial in many places.
Gregory B. Sadler Thanks for making these videos by the way. I'm going to watch them this summer. I'll start putting together lesson plans for High School kids.
This is so helpful!!! I'm a student at SOSU and I wish this professor taught here.
Great lecture! Thank you very much for uploading, you are a wonderful teacher.
weak strong electromagnetic and gravity
by the way, it's now three forces: electroweak, strong, gravity
Well, there you go. . .
Gregory B. Sadler My comment was wholly unnecessary. Sorry about that. I really enjoyed this video and I think it's great that you're making philosophy more accessible.
Not a problem -- it's actually useful here. Glad you enjoy the videos
Dr. Sadler. I know you're a big fan of Aristotle and I would assume a big fan of Aquinas as well. Are you a Catholic also? Also don't you do some sort of live video calling via youtube ?
I do indeed like Thomas, though I'm not really a Thomist per se. And, I am Catholic, though not a particularly good one.
About once a month, I do a Dr. Sadler's Philosophy Forum, which live-streams on RUclips. But perhaps you're thinking of my Google Helpouts. helpouts.google.com/115610514266074572098
Gregory B. Sadler Ok the latter was what I was referring, but I didn't know you did a live stream. What time of the month do you usually do the philosophy forum? Also, are you still teaching at Marist College?
I still teach for Marist, but online for the most part. If you want to see when future events are coming up, check my Events on either my G+ profile or FB page
Thanks for the post !!!
You're welcome
Excellent lecture. Thank you for uploading it.
St. Thomas Aquinas is one of my heroes!!!
Professor, do you think the Shorter Summa that Thomas wrote covers the philosophical points that’s in the Summa Thealogiae? Is it sufficient to read it only?
Depends on what you're interested in. They're designed for two different sorts of purposes.
Against religion?
No idea what you're asking, since you've given no context.
Thank you! You seem passionate about your subject. Don't stop !
+Belova M You're welcome - and no plans to stop anytime soon
Really enjoyed your approach, very encouraging, one point - Does this make Thomas Aquinas the Father of "The Age Of Reason"?
+AL GIRO I don't see why he, out of all the other thinkers who thought rationality was important, would be the father of an age that ended up turning against revealed religion
good lecture i enjoyed listening.
Dr. Sadler, I am currently writing a speech in a basic theology class about Aquinas and the Summa theologica (coincidently for a Marist school in Australia). Do you have any suggestions on some concepts that I should focus on in the short time frame of ten minutes? Any help would be more then appreciated. By the way, your videos are great and you break down some very complex concepts very well.
I'm glad that you enjoy the videos.
So, Thomas in 10 minutes? That's perhaps long enough to say a few things about Thomas' method/structure in the S.T. He's in effect using something like Aristotle's method of dialectics -- you canvas possible positions for and against on a given topic, and then sift them to determine what's right or valuable in them, and what's not, and then incorporate them into a new perspective that represents a kind of advance. . . . .
hi Prof. Gregory, is there a continuing video on this topic?
What do you mean by a "continuing video"?
Gregory B. Sadler My apologies for the ambiguity. What i meant was is there a second part for instance to this Introduction to Philosophy. In this video, you mentioned at the end if anyone was interested in going further with this, then there was another video which you could post., I was referring to that. Thanks.
Raymund Francis I've got a number of other videos on Aquinas in a playlist. This fall, I'll be shooting more video on Aquinas, some of which will go into this channel, some of which will go into one of the new channels I'm rolling out
Thank you for your lectures . About to become a Senior in high school and Philosophy is growing more interesting just from this one video.
You're welcome! Glad to be able to get someone into philosophy!
Worship the bread...Sounds familiar :) Would like to know if that was your intention. Really enjoy your lectures. I began my journey with Thomas Aquinas Theologiae from a religious interest in wanting to understand the truth. Now getting into Plato, Aristotle and Kant. Seeing life in a completely different way now. Your videos help me understand these somtimes complex subjects.
Glad that the videos are useful for you
Great video. Thank you.
You're welcome. Glad you enjoyed it
B
,wj
In his argument from motion, Aquinas says that nothing moves itself. How do you suppose he would have reconciled this with the idea of our free will?
There's a number of ways motion takes place. I suggest you take a look at my video on Thomas Aquinas' discussion of the will
Gregory B. Sadler Thank you for the suggestion. I enjoyed the will lecture. Nevertheless, I see no way to reconcile Aquinas's idea that nothing moves itself with his idea of free will. Someone who chooses to stand up to a bully moves himself. Don't you agree?
Yep. Someone who stands up to a bully is a self-moved mover, and also moved in a different sense by the bully, and their response to him/her.
The answers are there in Thomas, specifically in his discussions -- quite explicit -- about whether God necessitates the will. I'd check them out
Gregory B. Sadler Thanks. I'm a subscriber, by the way. You have a very interesting and useful channel.
Who/What is God?
thanks for sharing excellent presentation
You're welcome
You remind me of a Professor I had at Purdue named Dave Detmer. Always felt I could say anything in class and he'd be open to anything. Get the same vibe with you.
The name sounds familiar -- and you know, I used to be in the Midwest. Perhaps he and I crossed paths at a conference
Gregory B. Sadler I went to Purdue Calumet in Hammond Indiana.
I'm surprised no one laughed when you asked if God was under the eraser. Unintentionally funny to a twisted sense of humor I guess. Great lecture!
Or even looked to see, right?
Gregory B. Sadler If we can only say what God isn't, then perhaps looking under an eraser would be the most sensible thing to do!
Thank you very much!
You're welcome!
This is an excellent video. I believe there could be no infinite regress of past finite events, which is the main defense I use for my Theism. Even if subatomic particles could spring from nothingness, that itself would be a finite process and would have to be created. However, I do believe that our distant ancestors did metaphysical thinking which brought them to the conclusion that God or gods exist, because every culture I am aware of has some religion and some notion of God or the divine as well as creation myths. Even the Neanderthals had religion, because they buried their dead with ceremonial objects.
The opinions are infinite regress or spontaneous first cause. God doesn't do anything for the argument
Im curious as to how god is not subjected to this infinite regress?
And once you answer how is that not special pleadding?
Dylan Ost An infinite regress of previous finite occurances is inconceivable, thus I believe it cannot be the case that existence is an infinite regress. This means there had to be an uncaused cause. In most cases the uncaused cause is thought to be God. However, I now believe that an analysis of Quantum Mechanics (specifically Quantum Entanglement) makes for a much better argument for God's existence, since this phenomena falsifies Materialism. For the matter of the uncaused cause, maybe it could be something other than God, like a Quantum Vacuum, but since I am not a physicist I have no idea whether it could serve as the uncaused cause. As for the infinite regress--how could the universe be in motion if it was not set into motion. I hope that answers your question.
Joel Fry Personally I don't understand quantum physics very well so I won't go into that. It is by my understand however that particles go in and out existence all the time(seemingly random), but just well ignore that for now. (I just got done read Lawrence Krauss " A universe from nothing")
However why wouldn't infinite regress make sense? Or maybe it instead it could be reoccurring loop?
And how are using this term "god"? It sounds like you are using it in the sense of a "First cause" apposed too a "deity"?(Im just trying to avoid equivocation). We clearly both don't know the answer to this question of "if the universe had a cause/s" so why are we saying "god" (in the sense of first cause), apposed to "I don't know".
And if so why dons't god need a cause?
If all we can tell is that universe exist, why not instead we just use Occam's razor to eliminate the extra baggage?
Also I like our tone currently, please don't take any offense for my questioning your religious beliefs.
Dylan Ost I'm not really that religious. I used to be a Christian, but am now just a theist. I simply believe God or god is consciousness which is transcendant. I think ultimately there had to be an uncaused cause. But it's hard to say why exactly and infinite regress makes less sense to me than a finite past. If the universe has always existed why did it not reach heat death long ago. Why did the Big Bang occur 13.5 billion years ago instead of much sooner or much later? "I don't know" is a good answer too, and for me it's also an honest answer. I don't know, but I am convinced that god exists. So I simply say, "I believe." I know precious little about physics, but I think that if you check out quantum entanglement it will blow your mind.