You have made very difficult philosophical terminology intelligble. You have the voice for it, and the demanour to broadcast it. Thank you very much. From and Imbecile.
Hi there, I have a question. Does the argument still work if the chain of causation would be circular? Then you would not have an infinite chain of causes but X depending on Y and Y depending on X for example. An explanation would be appreciated as I have been struggling with this question for over a week
The chain of causation cannot be circular as it would be logically incoherent; if it was circular, then X would cause Y, and Y would then cause X, but this cannot be, for Y cannot cause X because it needed X to be (or to exist). In other words, if a piano made music come into being, then music cannot be the cause for the piano to come into being, because the music needed the piano in the first place to come into being. An effect anteceding its cause is a logical impossibility. Hope I could help you in your doubts, God bless your journey, I sympathize a lot with your struggle, I've had them too. I think that's part of the merit of faith and love of God.
@@Mikelo7420 thanks a lot for your answer! I just happened to have found this answer as well :) quite hard to wrap your head around at first but ultimately it makes sense
This is not my area of expertise, but another challenge to the circular causation system, if that were even possible, is what caused the system to begin in the first place, that is, even if X causes Y and Y causes X, what causes the existence of an X-Y system? This has just moved the explanation one level down, without giving an ultimate cause.
Because he is infinite and is everywhere, he effects creation at all times and places. This is what happens when you are infinite in knowledge and power.
In that analogy, the piano player stopping would be like the laws of nature ceasing. The music is the natural world, always in motion thanks to the keystrokes of the musician. I hope that helped.
@@antoniomoyal I also believe that Hanuman the monkey God Is infinite and is everywhere, he effects creation at all times and places. This is what happens when you are infinite in knowledge and power. Do you agree ?
@@Bugsy0333 of course not. Your argument is full of nonsense: A monkey cannot be infinite, as monkeys are animals. And so animals are created, so if it would exist, it would be the work of God, the only perfect being that there can be. You just ridicule yourself.
@@Bugsy0333 Your belief is "that whichis infinite and everywhere, and effects creation at all times and places, is a monkey, and I call it Hanuman" You can call God however you want, but it is logically impossible for him to be a monkey in the sense that his nature is the same as a monkey nature. On the other hand, if you mean it as saying that "that whichis infinite and everywhere, and effects creation at all times and places took up a monkey nature", then that's possible but I'd like to see the evidence for it. Or maybe by monkey you mean primate, and in that sense you're very close to christianity, because God did take up human nature, which is also a primate nature.
Quick question, an uncaused cause is evidently irrefutable, however the fact that said uncaused cause still exists is not. If all things that cannot be must have at some time not have been, why can’t that time of non existence be in the future. Ex. If there is an infinite line of dominos and I push one over, but then die I was an uncaused case and the dominos could not make themselves fall, but now I’m dead so even though I was uncaused I now don’t exist. Something in this logic seems fallacious, can anyone help?
Excuse me for this stupid question, but if God has not a cause, how can we explain the generation between the Father and the Son, or the procession of the Holy Spirit? Maybe - but it's only a thought of mine, that I would reject if heretical - God, being outside space and time, is His own cause.
Here is a philosophical critique of the arguments presented in the video "How St. Thomas Proves God's Existence Through Efficient Causality (Aquinas 101)" from a classical theistic perspective: This video provides a helpful introduction to Thomas Aquinas' Fifth Way argument for God's existence, which argues from efficient causality. Aquinas contends that in any causal series or chain, there must be an initial or prime mover that causes change without itself being changed. For the world of contingent beings, this prime mover is God. Some potential critique points: - The argument relies on the premise that an infinite causal regress is impossible, but some philosophers dispute this and propose alternative models like causal finitism or potential infinite causal chains. More would need to be said to conclusively rule these alternatives out. - Showing the need for a prime mover or first cause only establishes a deistic concept of a distant creator, not necessarily the personal God of classical theism. More arguments would be needed to bridge this conceptual gap. - Defining causality in terms of change risks reducing God's role to just originating the chain of changes, rather than sustaining each contingent being at every moment. An act/potency metaphysic helps address this but requires separate development. - The video presents the argument at an introductory level and could delve more into historical formulations and objections from philosophers over the centuries to develop a more robust picture. Overall, the video provides a clear initial presentation of Aquinas' efficient causality argument, but a more comprehensive philosophical analysis would incorporate counterarguments, address alternative models, and situate the argument more precisely within the classical theistic tradition.
Here is one way to formally notate how Aquinas' argument from efficient causality does not conclusively prove God's existence in classical theism, using standard logical notation: P1) Every contingent being has a cause of its existence. (Principle of Causality) P2) It is impossible for there to be an infinite regress of causes. C1) Therefore, there must be an uncaused first cause of all contingent beings. (From P1, P2) P3) The existence of an uncaused first cause only establishes a deistic "watchmaker" god, not the personal God of classical theism. C2) Therefore, the argument only proves the existence of a deistic god, but not the personal God of classical theism. (From C1, P3) P4) A deistic god is not sufficient to bridge the conceptual gap to the personal God of classical theism. C3) Therefore, the argument from efficient causality does not conclusively prove the existence of the God of classical theism. (From C1, C2, P4) In propositional logic: P1 → C1 C1 & P3 → C2 C2 & P4 → C3 Where C1 establishes a first cause but only a deistic God, C2 notes this gap, and C3 is the final conclusion that the classic personal theistic God is not proven due to the gaps identified in C2 based on P3 and P4. This formalization aims to logically clarify the conceptual issues or "gaps" in how the argument from efficient causality moves from a first cause to the God of classical theism.
Yet, some people refuse to accept this plain and irrefutable logic. They hold on to the argument God doesn't exist because science can't prove it (while not realizing it is beyond its capabilities) and refuse to look at this argument of pure logic that contradicts their unstated belief that only science must be able to provide answers - that they will simply not accept any truths that are not derived from their accepted channels.
La causa eficiente es contraria a la causa ineficiente. La causa eficiente logra su objetivo observando que está bien. La causa ineficiente también es causa, pero contraria a su objetivo y considerada engendro del males
Question the first cause of all causes may not be visible otherwise it could be see as an Effect ,for this to be primordial cause and let the others causes exist in some free state, this first cause must at some point stay hide but still interract with all part of the existence since it give is existence to all causes. Am I right ? If it is so, can we say that revealing primordial cause, is not only impossible through the experience sine experience stand on visual knowledgeable experiment and for the primordial cause it is required to be untouchable through any physical sens or even physical way. Does it implies that proving God's existence is trying to prove the existence its self as the primordial cause? which mean for me an impossible task
Very good as usual. But in my opinion God has a cause; He is his own cause. Being God is in the essence of being God. If, following Aristotle/Aquinas, a cause is defined as the reason for the existence of a being, then we can say God is His own formal cause. God is who he is because it is necessary that God is how He is. Now to say "everything has a cause" incurs in the categorical mistake of identifying "cause" with "efficient -hence external- cause". If the equivocation is clarified, yes, we can say God has a cause in Himself. This is also the case when arguing a succession of causes; it is assumed we refer to efficient external causes. Laus Deo!
"God is his own cause" That's a contradiction. God is the first uncause-cause of everything. God is existence itself. So God is uncause. God is the very ground of all beings.
@@hugofernandes8545 You are confounding "cause" with "efficient cause" (which is what most people understand for a cause). For Aristotle and Saint Thomas, every corporeal being has four causes: Efficient, final, formal and material. To say God is his own cause is to say God is how he is because he is God: The formal cause. Take your case as an example: Your formal cause is just as when you say that you are intelligent BECAUSE you are a human (it is the essence of humans to be intelligent). You are not intelligent because your parents had you (they are the efficient cause), neither because you are made of flesh, as angels are not material but intelligent (material cause), and neither because your parents wanted to continue humanity by having you (final cause). So God is his own formal cause, but has no efficient cause ("uncaused"), material (he is only spirit) or final cause (there is no finality outside of him). Makes sense?
@@antoniomoyal To say that God is his own cause implies that he is an effect, even if only of himself. But this is false. He is the cause of everything and the effect of nothing (because to be an effect is to be dependent upon a cause, whereas God is pure act and in no way passive).
@@jimnewl good call! This is very interesting issue, and I remain open to change my mind. So what we are trying to do here is define the undefinable, so the only way we can approach this is by acknowledging revelation and use reason, defining by analogy of the thing we can know. We are trying to decide which model for God suits him best. God is not the effect of himself because effect requires change, as effect is different from its action. God is unchangeable, as he is infinite, to which nothing can be added nor substracted. God changes things (creates effects) but remains unchanged. To say God is the void effect of himself seems to me quite intricate. But just as God is love because he loves himself, he could not love if there is something to be loved, which is himself. And we are to do the same; we can only love others if we love ourselves first. And in the critical passage when God defines Himself "I am that I am" (Exodus 3:7), he is saying he is his own cause. Otherwise he would have only said "I am". In metaphysical or even mathemstical terms, that God is infinite, means he has everything in himself perfectly, infinitely, of what he has. Which means he has all four causes (material in Jesus), not just the formal one. If God is not a cause of himself, then he lacks something to be perfect and infinite of the attribute of being a cause. He knows everything, including himself, and he loves everything, including himself. So he is best defined by saying that He is his own cause.
@@antoniomoyal "So what we are trying to do here is define the undefinable...we are trying to decide which model for God suits him best." If that's what you're doing, it's not clear why, since it has nothing to do with St. Thomas' second way :) "God is not the effect of himself because effect requires change..." No, God is not the effect of himself because God has no passive potentiality. He can't receive action. (Not that you're wrong here. It's just not the immediate reason.) "But just as God is love because he loves himself..." No, God is Love because he is the alpha and omega of all being. He is at once the source of all existence and that to which all existing things are drawn as an end. "And in the critical passage when God defines Himself 'I am that I am' (Exodus 3:7), he is saying he is his own cause. Otherwise he would have only said 'I am.'" YHWH is difficult to translate precisely, since it applies to a being beyond our direct experience, but the general meaning is "I am the one who simply is." As such, what he is NOT saying is that he is the cause of himself. He is telling us that he simply IS. He always was, is now, and ever shall be--unchanging, pure, perfect. "In metaphysical or even mathematical terms, that God is infinite, means he has everything in himself perfectly..." No, "infinite" means "without limit." God is infinite in being--without limit--and, as I said, pure and perfect. He contains nothing. Whatever exists besides God (because he created it FROM NOTHING), exists apart from God. The existence itself of created things doesn't exist apart from God, but all the rest--a thing's body, for example--are separate from God. That is what makes them distinct beings and not just limbs on God's torso (so to speak). "Which means he has all four causes (material in Jesus), not just the formal one. If God is not a cause of himself, then he lacks something to be perfect and infinite of the attribute of being a cause." There are no causes in God in the sense you mean. Causes are present only in the world of change--of becoming. God is unchanging. We speak of God causing because we have no choice but to speak in the language of our experience, but in point of fact, God does not cause in the way the things around us cause; i.e. in time. God has acted, in one simple, eternal, creative act that encompasses everything that ever was and ever will be, and that's all we can say about it. He is the first cause of things, but it's not exactly the same sense in which things in our everyday experience are the cause of other things, as he is completely outside of time. There is no before and after in God. "He knows everything, including himself, and he loves everything, including himself."
True, but he is not known by himself, nor loved by himself. All loving in God is radiated outward, not absorbed inward. To receive love would be to be affected, and as I said, God is active only, and not passive. He cannot be known, loved, caused, or anything else, by himself.
making a very complicated concept and argument by St. Thomas very easy to understand. God bless you all
We're glad to hear the video helped! Thanks for taking the time to watch and comment. May the Lord bless you!
@@ThomisticInstitute thank you
Well said Father . Thank you for this insight 🙏
It's a joy! Thanks for taking the time to watch and comment. May the Lord bless you!
May God bless your ministry!
Thank you for your kind words, and for taking the time to watch and comment! May the Lord bless you!
the piano example is fantastic. great video
When I think about how we can know that God exists, I liken it to this question: how would characters in a story prove that an author exists?
3rd time around and I think I'm starting to get it. Thank you, Father. What an amazing resource.
We're so glad the video is helpful! Thanks for taking the time to watch and comment. May the Lord bless you!
You have made very difficult philosophical terminology intelligble. You have the voice for it, and the demanour to broadcast it. Thank you very much. From and Imbecile.
Thank you 🙏
Our pleasure! Thanks for taking the time to watch and comment. May the Lord bless you!
Doutor Angélico!'👏👏🇧🇷🇧🇷
Hi there, I have a question. Does the argument still work if the chain of causation would be circular? Then you would not have an infinite chain of causes but X depending on Y and Y depending on X for example. An explanation would be appreciated as I have been struggling with this question for over a week
The chain of causation cannot be circular as it would be logically incoherent; if it was circular, then X would cause Y, and Y would then cause X, but this cannot be, for Y cannot cause X because it needed X to be (or to exist).
In other words, if a piano made music come into being, then music cannot be the cause for the piano to come into being, because the music needed the piano in the first place to come into being.
An effect anteceding its cause is a logical impossibility. Hope I could help you in your doubts, God bless your journey, I sympathize a lot with your struggle, I've had them too. I think that's part of the merit of faith and love of God.
@@Mikelo7420 thanks a lot for your answer! I just happened to have found this answer as well :) quite hard to wrap your head around at first but ultimately it makes sense
This is not my area of expertise, but another challenge to the circular causation system, if that were even possible, is what caused the system to begin in the first place, that is, even if X causes Y and Y causes X, what causes the existence of an X-Y system? This has just moved the explanation one level down, without giving an ultimate cause.
If the piano player stops playing, the music stops. In what sense does the first uncaused efficient cause maintain creation?
Because he is infinite and is everywhere, he effects creation at all times and places. This is what happens when you are infinite in knowledge and power.
In that analogy, the piano player stopping would be like the laws of nature ceasing. The music is the natural world, always in motion thanks to the keystrokes of the musician. I hope that helped.
@@antoniomoyal I also believe that Hanuman the monkey God Is infinite and is everywhere, he effects creation at all times and places. This is what happens when you are infinite in knowledge and power.
Do you agree ?
@@Bugsy0333 of course not. Your argument is full of nonsense: A monkey cannot be infinite, as monkeys are animals. And so animals are created, so if it would exist, it would be the work of God, the only perfect being that there can be.
You just ridicule yourself.
@@Bugsy0333 Your belief is "that whichis infinite and everywhere, and effects creation at all times and places, is a monkey, and I call it Hanuman"
You can call God however you want, but it is logically impossible for him to be a monkey in the sense that his nature is the same as a monkey nature. On the other hand, if you mean it as saying that "that whichis infinite and everywhere, and effects creation at all times and places took up a monkey nature", then that's possible but I'd like to see the evidence for it. Or maybe by monkey you mean primate, and in that sense you're very close to christianity, because God did take up human nature, which is also a primate nature.
Quick question, an uncaused cause is evidently irrefutable, however the fact that said uncaused cause still exists is not. If all things that cannot be must have at some time not have been, why can’t that time of non existence be in the future. Ex. If there is an infinite line of dominos and I push one over, but then die I was an uncaused case and the dominos could not make themselves fall, but now I’m dead so even though I was uncaused I now don’t exist. Something in this logic seems fallacious, can anyone help?
Excuse me for this stupid question, but if God has not a cause, how can we explain the generation between the Father and the Son, or the procession of the Holy Spirit? Maybe - but it's only a thought of mine, that I would reject if heretical - God, being outside space and time, is His own cause.
Here is a philosophical critique of the arguments presented in the video "How St. Thomas Proves God's Existence Through Efficient Causality (Aquinas 101)" from a classical theistic perspective:
This video provides a helpful introduction to Thomas Aquinas' Fifth Way argument for God's existence, which argues from efficient causality. Aquinas contends that in any causal series or chain, there must be an initial or prime mover that causes change without itself being changed. For the world of contingent beings, this prime mover is God.
Some potential critique points:
- The argument relies on the premise that an infinite causal regress is impossible, but some philosophers dispute this and propose alternative models like causal finitism or potential infinite causal chains. More would need to be said to conclusively rule these alternatives out.
- Showing the need for a prime mover or first cause only establishes a deistic concept of a distant creator, not necessarily the personal God of classical theism. More arguments would be needed to bridge this conceptual gap.
- Defining causality in terms of change risks reducing God's role to just originating the chain of changes, rather than sustaining each contingent being at every moment. An act/potency metaphysic helps address this but requires separate development.
- The video presents the argument at an introductory level and could delve more into historical formulations and objections from philosophers over the centuries to develop a more robust picture.
Overall, the video provides a clear initial presentation of Aquinas' efficient causality argument, but a more comprehensive philosophical analysis would incorporate counterarguments, address alternative models, and situate the argument more precisely within the classical theistic tradition.
Here is one way to formally notate how Aquinas' argument from efficient causality does not conclusively prove God's existence in classical theism, using standard logical notation:
P1) Every contingent being has a cause of its existence. (Principle of Causality)
P2) It is impossible for there to be an infinite regress of causes.
C1) Therefore, there must be an uncaused first cause of all contingent beings. (From P1, P2)
P3) The existence of an uncaused first cause only establishes a deistic "watchmaker" god, not the personal God of classical theism.
C2) Therefore, the argument only proves the existence of a deistic god, but not the personal God of classical theism. (From C1, P3)
P4) A deistic god is not sufficient to bridge the conceptual gap to the personal God of classical theism.
C3) Therefore, the argument from efficient causality does not conclusively prove the existence of the God of classical theism. (From C1, C2, P4)
In propositional logic:
P1 → C1
C1 & P3 → C2
C2 & P4 → C3
Where C1 establishes a first cause but only a deistic God, C2 notes this gap, and C3 is the final conclusion that the classic personal theistic God is not proven due to the gaps identified in C2 based on P3 and P4.
This formalization aims to logically clarify the conceptual issues or "gaps" in how the argument from efficient causality moves from a first cause to the God of classical theism.
I am curious if evolution is now considered.... some of which can be proven,
Hold up. How are you sure that the “uncaused efficient cause” is unique. If 1 exists, why aren’t there multiple efficient causes?
Yet, some people refuse to accept this plain and irrefutable logic. They hold on to the argument God doesn't exist because science can't prove it (while not realizing it is beyond its capabilities) and refuse to look at this argument of pure logic that contradicts their unstated belief that only science must be able to provide answers - that they will simply not accept any truths that are not derived from their accepted channels.
@@js-wl3wi Well said. Love Fr. Ripperger (even the name is awesome and fitting as an exorcist). Thanks for sharing that.
uncaused cause, first efficient cause - Jah
La causa eficiente es contraria a la causa ineficiente. La causa eficiente logra su objetivo observando que está bien. La causa ineficiente también es causa, pero contraria a su objetivo y considerada engendro del males
Question the first cause of all causes may not be visible otherwise it could be see as an Effect ,for this to be primordial cause and let the others causes exist in some free state, this first cause must at some point stay hide but still interract with all part of the existence since it give is existence to all causes. Am I right ?
If it is so, can we say that revealing primordial cause, is not only impossible through the experience sine experience stand on visual knowledgeable experiment and for the primordial cause it is required to be untouchable through any physical sens or even physical way. Does it implies that proving God's existence is trying to prove the existence its self as the primordial cause? which mean for me an impossible task
Glad I don’t need man to prove anything to me.
Apparently St Thomas never heard of circular logic
He never used circular logic, maybe he really never heared of it.
You look and sound like a monk. But wait, you are a monk! Thank you, Father!
He's actually a friar! And you're very welcome -- thanks for taking the time to watch and comment. May the Lord bless you!
Very good as usual.
But in my opinion God has a cause; He is his own cause. Being God is in the essence of being God. If, following Aristotle/Aquinas, a cause is defined as the reason for the existence of a being, then we can say God is His own formal cause. God is who he is because it is necessary that God is how He is.
Now to say "everything has a cause" incurs in the categorical mistake of identifying "cause" with "efficient -hence external- cause". If the equivocation is clarified, yes, we can say God has a cause in Himself. This is also the case when arguing a succession of causes; it is assumed we refer to efficient external causes.
Laus Deo!
"God is his own cause" That's a contradiction. God is the first uncause-cause of everything. God is existence itself. So God is uncause. God is the very ground of all beings.
@@hugofernandes8545 You are confounding "cause" with "efficient cause" (which is what most people understand for a cause).
For Aristotle and Saint Thomas, every corporeal being has four causes: Efficient, final, formal and material. To say God is his own cause is to say God is how he is because he is God: The formal cause. Take your case as an example: Your formal cause is just as when you say that you are intelligent BECAUSE you are a human (it is the essence of humans to be intelligent). You are not intelligent because your parents had you (they are the efficient cause), neither because you are made of flesh, as angels are not material but intelligent (material cause), and neither because your parents wanted to continue humanity by having you (final cause).
So God is his own formal cause, but has no efficient cause ("uncaused"), material (he is only spirit) or final cause (there is no finality outside of him).
Makes sense?
@@antoniomoyal To say that God is his own cause implies that he is an effect, even if only of himself. But this is false. He is the cause of everything and the effect of nothing (because to be an effect is to be dependent upon a cause, whereas God is pure act and in no way passive).
@@jimnewl good call! This is very interesting issue, and I remain open to change my mind.
So what we are trying to do here is define the undefinable, so the only way we can approach this is by acknowledging revelation and use reason, defining by analogy of the thing we can know. We are trying to decide which model for God suits him best.
God is not the effect of himself because effect requires change, as effect is different from its action. God is unchangeable, as he is infinite, to which nothing can be added nor substracted. God changes things (creates effects) but remains unchanged. To say God is the void effect of himself seems to me quite intricate.
But just as God is love because he loves himself, he could not love if there is something to be loved, which is himself. And we are to do the same; we can only love others if we love ourselves first.
And in the critical passage when God defines Himself "I am that I am" (Exodus 3:7), he is saying he is his own cause. Otherwise he would have only said "I am".
In metaphysical or even mathemstical terms, that God is infinite, means he has everything in himself perfectly, infinitely, of what he has. Which means he has all four causes (material in Jesus), not just the formal one. If God is not a cause of himself, then he lacks something to be perfect and infinite of the attribute of being a cause. He knows everything, including himself, and he loves everything, including himself.
So he is best defined by saying that He is his own cause.
@@antoniomoyal "So what we are trying to do here is define the undefinable...we are trying to decide which model for God suits him best."
If that's what you're doing, it's not clear why, since it has nothing to do with St. Thomas' second way :)
"God is not the effect of himself because effect requires change..."
No, God is not the effect of himself because God has no passive potentiality. He can't receive action. (Not that you're wrong here. It's just not the immediate reason.)
"But just as God is love because he loves himself..."
No, God is Love because he is the alpha and omega of all being. He is at once the source of all existence and that to which all existing things are drawn as an end.
"And in the critical passage when God defines Himself 'I am that I am' (Exodus 3:7), he is saying he is his own cause. Otherwise he would have only said 'I am.'"
YHWH is difficult to translate precisely, since it applies to a being beyond our direct experience, but the general meaning is "I am the one who simply is." As such, what he is NOT saying is that he is the cause of himself. He is telling us that he simply IS. He always was, is now, and ever shall be--unchanging, pure, perfect.
"In metaphysical or even mathematical terms, that God is infinite, means he has everything in himself perfectly..."
No, "infinite" means "without limit." God is infinite in being--without limit--and, as I said, pure and perfect. He contains nothing. Whatever exists besides God (because he created it FROM NOTHING), exists apart from God. The existence itself of created things doesn't exist apart from God, but all the rest--a thing's body, for example--are separate from God. That is what makes them distinct beings and not just limbs on God's torso (so to speak).
"Which means he has all four causes (material in Jesus), not just the formal one. If God is not a cause of himself, then he lacks something to be perfect and infinite of the attribute of being a cause."
There are no causes in God in the sense you mean. Causes are present only in the world of change--of becoming. God is unchanging. We speak of God causing because we have no choice but to speak in the language of our experience, but in point of fact, God does not cause in the way the things around us cause; i.e. in time. God has acted, in one simple, eternal, creative act that encompasses everything that ever was and ever will be, and that's all we can say about it. He is the first cause of things, but it's not exactly the same sense in which things in our everyday experience are the cause of other things, as he is completely outside of time. There is no before and after in God.
"He knows everything, including himself, and he loves everything, including himself."
True, but he is not known by himself, nor loved by himself. All loving in God is radiated outward, not absorbed inward. To receive love would be to be affected, and as I said, God is active only, and not passive. He cannot be known, loved, caused, or anything else, by himself.
The winner is the one who counts how many “cause”es there are in this clip! 🫢