I didn't realize this until now, but Aquinas proofs not only refute atheism but also deism. If God is himself Pure Act, the Act whereby creation exists now, then he couldn't have created the world like a watchmaker and left it to run on it's own.
Aquinas proves atheism, aquinas doesnt think univocal predication applies to God's essence This means the word "knowing" in "all knowing" doesnt mean the same thing if you said "Bob is not all knowing" The problem is if God's properties are not predicated univocally with us he isnt a God. If Aquinas is right God isnt really a person, or intelligent, or loving. All these words mean something else for aquinas. Aquinas cant use a argument from design because only minds design. God doesnt have a mind, he has something else that happens to also be called a mind. Aquinas' God isnt really a God, in fact it concedes all the things atheists want. A non-personal non-intelligence. For a atheist a God's literal human like properties are defined in a univocal sense. Essentially thomist equivocate on "God"
30:00 Just because a complex designer needs his own designer does not disprove the designed designer; it just introduces an infinite progression of designers which most of modern Christianity is unwilling to consider. God has a Father, and He has a Father, etc. "As man now is, God once was, and as God now is man may become." The Eternal progression of man is made possible through Christ's atonement.
Lol Stephan hawking falls into the same boat as Dawkins when it comes to bad philosophy. Did you read The Grand Design? His conclusion is “therefore the universe created itself out of nothing.” Talk about jumping through hoops to avoid admitting God as a possibility.
@@atzuricher6218 No, because the universe began to exist, according to the big bang theory. The main concept of God is that is an uncaused cause. So God did not begin to exist. So, no, it does not apply.
@@Darksaga28 The question of the "beginning" is identical for god/gods and the universe as a setting. The phrase "uncaused cause" reflects no different an approach then the Hawking view. Does it really matter how the universe was created ?
"The principal argument used to eliminate such a regress is that in essentially ordered infinite regress of causes, only instrumental causes would exist, and, hence there would be no intrinsic causality in the series to produce the observed effect. The defender of this argument faces, however, this dilemma: if an instrumental cause is defined as a cause lacking intrinsic causal efficacy, one cannot preclude an infinite regress of instrumental causes each receiving its casual efficacy extrinsically from its predecessor but if an instrumental cause is defined as a cause depending ultimately upon a first cause, then it cannot be shown that the causes in an infinite regress are truly instrumental. Even should this dilemma be irresolvable, however, it could still be the case that an infinite regress of essentially ordered causes is intuitively implausible: it would mean, for example, that a watch could run without a spring if it had an infinite number of gears or that a train could move without an engine simply by having an infinite number of box cars." (289, The cosmological argument from Plato to Leibniz).
Most atheists probably don't understand Thomistic metaphysics. St. Thomas teaches that a potential property is one that someone or something could have a property when he or it doesn't have it now. But in modal logic, which may be familiar to Prof. Dawkins, an actual property is possible, too. For example, in modal logic, an actually hot flame is also possibly hot because it's able to be hot when it is hot.
A no sequitur is an argument where the conclusion doesn't follow from the premises. But in a sound argument, the conclusion can come before the premises. In some arguments, you may write the conclusion above the premises.
More like explaining the existence of Santa to a 9 year old. 1. Presents appear at Christmas, therefore Santa. 2. The milk and cookies are eaten. Therefore Santa. 3. The presents are those that I asked for. Therefore Santa is real. 9 year old: yeah Santa is not the only possible cause of 1, 2 or 3. 6 year old believer: you’re not engaging with each argument! Therefore you’re wrong!
@@shankz8854 except it's proven that the parents put there the presents, whereas you can't argue against the Actus Purus without defying logic and rationality
Mario Baratti my comment was not supposed to be analogous to the idea of god as pure actuality, but you most certainly can argue against this concept without being illogical. We no longer need to think of the world the same way we did before the advent of physics - in terms of unmoved movers and potentiality and actuality. Every event can be explained in much more precise terms back in time as far as you care to go. At the Big Bang our current understanding of physics breaks down and we cannot answer questions like: is the universe eternal? are there infinite expanding and collapsing universes? can you get a universe from nothing? and why is there something rather than nothing? You can answer the above by saying it was created by a simple thing that needs no explanation and couldn’t not exist, but that’s not really much of an answer it’s just an assertion to halt further questions - untestable and therefore unfalsifiable. Most of the arguments for god or the truth of the Christian bible that COULD be tested have been proven to be false.
@@mateokarlvonpavlovic8295 I realise Santa is not a perfect analogue for God, but I will say this: God WAS created by humans. And he was created to explain the natural world and to keep people in line. Santa is a little bit of a god-like character for children - I agree - that’s why he works as an analogue albeit an imperfect one.
I'm not sure why you give Dawkins so much credit as being a "brilliant biologist" or whatever you said. He's a very unaccomplished biologist. Look up his H-index, it's under 30. This is a very normal, accomplished range, for say a very brilliant younger scientist. For his age, he as almost no accomplishments in biology, and his major focus has been in philosophy of religion, which he is seems obsessed with but has learned almost nothing about because he thinks he's already an expert in it lol. How sad.
This is an argument inspired by Professor Law's argument. Suppose there is a being that is omniscient and omnipotent and all loving. Then suppose there is another being that is omniscient and omnipotent and all hating. If ask which is God how would one answer? Any argument for one works equally well for the other so which is God? Effectively, the Euthyphro dilemma is sound.
Divine simplicity is true. If divine simplicity is true, then God's omniscience is identical to his metaphysically necessary existence. If God's omniscience is identical to his metaphysically necessary existence, then what God knows is metaphysically necessary. If what God knows is metaphysically necessarily, then free will is impossible. Therefore free will is impossible.
An immaterial being is the pinnacle of perfection? Can we at least prove an immaterial being can exist first before using it in the proof for an immaterial being?
I don't understand the argument being used saying that God can be omnipotence and omniscient. Wouldn't that mean that God never changes because God would never learn anything and change and God would never be unable to do something and change? So if God is those things, the issue I have is that in order to do anything it requires change of the doer.
God is pure act. If God is pure act, then there are no unactualized potentials in God. If there are no unactualized potentials in God, then God has no free will. Therefore God has no free will.
What is wrong with God being a self mover? Suppose God was in an initial state of doing nothing, and then he is in a subsequent state of doing something; why think that something outside of God must move God? If God can move himself, then the premise that what is in motion is put in motion by something else is false. The first way must be false if nothing outside of the self causes the self to have a thought. Free will suggests that we move ourselves to create thoughts and thus the first way fails if we believe that God have free will and if humans have free will. God has free will. If God has free will, then he can move himself. If he can move himself, then the premise what is in motion is put in motion by another is false. If the premise what is put in motion by another is false, then the first way is false. Therefore the first way is false.
Being simultaneous to an effect involves temporal location. If being simultaneous to an effect involves having temporal location, then any thing that is simultaneous to their effect is in time. If any thing that is simultaneous to their effect is in time, then a timeless God is not simultaneous to any of his effects. If a timeless God is not simultaneous to any of his effects, then God is not a prime mover. If God is not a prime mover, then the first way is false. Therefore the first way is false.
All beings with free will have unactualized potential. God is a being with free will. Therefore God has unactualized potential. If God has unactualized potential, then God is not pure act. If God is not pure act, then the conclusion of the first way is false. If the conclusion of the first way is false, then the first way is false. Therefore the first way is false.
The first way is sound. If the first way is sound, then God is pure act. If God is pure act, then God is intrinsically and extrinsically changeless. If God is intrinsically and extrinsically changeless, then his actions are intrinsically and extrinsically changeless. If his actions are intrinsically and extrinsically changeless, then God’s act of creating and sustaining the universe is intrinsically and extrinsically changeless. If God’s act of creating and sustaining the universe is intrinsically and extrinsically changeless, then the universe is intrinsically and extrinsically changeless. If the universe is intrinsically and extrinsically changeless, then the A theory of time is false. If the A theory of time is false, then the first premise of the first way is false. If the first premise of the first way is false, then the first way is false. Therefore, the first way is false
God is pure act. If God is pure act, then there are no unactualized potentials in God. There are unactualized potentials in the Trinity. Therefore the Trinity is not pure act. Therefore the trinity is not God.
This guy doesn't need to bang on the glass, you start to wonder how many pints this guy has imbibed or is imbibing while making his presentation, the questions begs to be asked is he the presentation.!! or the subject that he is presenting?Hey mate you are very intelligent but cut the theatrics. !!!
I cannot help but notice that you bash on atheism as an entire group, yet you cannot even take the time to examine a single professional criticism from the philosophical literature. You just pick in Dawkins exclusively and then paint all of atheism with the same stroke. Way to do “serious” philosophy there, buddy.
You're kidding. 90% of the people who call themselves atheists are so because of the simpleton arguments from people like Dawkins. If atheists would do as you said, look for the professional criticism from the philosophical literature (which is very serious scholarship of course), then there would hardly be any atheists. The movement that is "the nones" or atheism or anti theism, or "The new atheists", whatever you want to call them. relies on a lot of very ignorant young people, who think their favorite second rate scientist is an expert on every subject, so when they "refute" these sort of arguments their refutation must be brilliant. The basis for their scholarship are online "historians" who think Jesus never existed, "philosophers" such as Chris Hitchens, and Richard Dawkins, and they view themselves as highly educated. You're right, it would be much nicer if he would deal with the best refutations against Acquinas, but if it wasn't for the "new atheist" movement, and the millions of their ignorant followers, this sort of thing wouldn't be necessary. So, you can thank your own for that.
Why does everybody whose points are rejected assume they _must_ have been misunderstood, and that they're wrong is _not_ a possibility they're willing to ever entertain?
In this particular case, the podcast lays out pretty clearly how and why Aquinas's ways have been misunderstood by Dawkins and other atheists. There may very well be legitimate arguments against Aquinas's ways, and Catholics would be excited to hear them (we love TRUTH, we pursue it and it alone), but in this case the refutations given do not successfully disprove the ways when seen in their full, correct context.
You should check out the video you commented on. It's pretty clear on why these are misunderstandings. Thomas Aquinas wrote many many books. One of those books argues why you cannot prove the universe had a beginning through philosophy. Did you know that? Or did you believe that 3 of the 5 ways were predicated on the beginning of the universe? I'm assuming the latter, as it is most common. Case and point, thinking that the 5 ways are dependant upon the universe's beginning is a huge misunderstanding as none of them are. The reason for this is because not many people (myself included) have read extensively on Aquinas, I have just a little more information than the average Joe who reads the 5 ways out of context.
@@AveChristusRex I doubt there is logical and physical evidence for any gods. But I dont see why any evidence presented for particular gods wouldn't apply to others.
Tony B Also, according to atheists definitions of atheism, how could it be proven true? It’s just the proposition that something isn’t true. At least that’s what Christopher hitchens claims.
I think the issue here if that the Thomist forces in the church are looking to force agnostics and others to prove a negative, which is a logical fallacy. The burden is ENTIRELY on the shoulders of believers to prove that there is a deity. We back at the Flying Spaghetti Monster of Russell. The church has no answer.
Richard Dawkins is very articulate when speaking. He has his own opinions but neither the less, in general he speaks in facts based by evidence of reality. The Bible is not evidence for a God or a deity.
Jacob Taylor So how do you use that as evidence without the Bible or any holy book when the idea of god is from religion. See how that is a circular argument? And yes he does pull ideas straight from a holy book. That is the fallacy of this argument.
Jacob Taylor I can use the same reasoning he uses to any mythological god as Zeus or nimhra or ra or unicorns or fairies so this is how his argument is illogical and why Richard Dawkins makes sense.
We understand the arguments. But we also understand that arguments without evidence to support them are meaningless, and that claims of causation requires evidence. Essentially, these "proofs" are proclamations that we have these phenomena X Y Z and so on, and they need to have some explanation. Well ... set aside the fact that the arguments then violate that fundamental rule by stating that the proposed explanation doesn't need an explanation. So they know that some things require an explanation and some don't. So let's say that there's movement. Okay. Maybe it doesn't need an explanation. Right? You're the one who is going to say that there's this god that moves and does things and changes and thinks and all. But he doesn't need to have an explanation or someone or something that moved him. He moves, and wasn't made to move. So I reject your claim that reality as a whole and the way it behaves requires some explanation, and I won't engage in violations of Occam's Razor, so I'll suggest that the universe moves but it wasn't made to move by anything or anyone. Do you have a case to make? But again. Let's set that aside, and let's say that there is some explanation. Good for you. Now you need to present the evidence from the real world that the thing you suggest is a cause is actually real. The phenomenon doesn't establish your imagined cause. This is why fairies weren't proven when we observed blooming flowers. And the correct and reasonable response to those jokers was "So you think that fairies make flowers bloom. Good for you. Now show they exist, and then I can believe that they do that." You're telling us that this thing that you can't demonstrate exists is _doing_ something. You are aware that things that don't exist can't do things, right?
+Jillum89 This is not an adequate summary of any of the five ways: "Essentially, these "proofs" are proclamations that we have these phenomena X Y Z and so on, and they need to have some explanation." Perhaps before telling us what the arguments "essentially" say you could give us a more adequate summary, just so that it's clear that you understand what the argument even is. Furthermore, if you're asking who's moving that which is unmoved or any other variant of 'who made/caused that which is unmoved/uncaused and cannot even in principle be moved or caused' then you also have not understood the argument: "set aside the fact that the arguments then violate that fundamental rule by stating that the proposed explanation doesn't need an explanation. ... But he doesn't need to have an explanation or someone or something that moved him. He moves, and wasn't made to move."
“Furthermore, if you're asking who's moving that which is unmoved or any other variant of 'who made/caused that which is unmoved/uncaused and cannot even in principle be moved or caused' then you also have not understood the argument:” Yes I absolutely have, because I am not asking that question: the argument is. The _argument_ is asking who moved the unmoved mover (which is the universe).
“I presume you're talking about the argument from motion/change (first way)” Yep, as an example. “It is asking who moved the unmoved mover? This is demonstrably false.” So you can demonstrated that the universe isn’t unmoved with more an assertion? From the observation that it moves. But then it says that the god that also moves doesn’t need a mover. So it makes two categories. Things that move that require a cause, and things that move that do _not_ require a cause. And then it says that the movement of the universe demonstrates that it clearly had to have a mover. Can you now see that something there is clearly wrong? It assumes that the universe requires a mover, and in order to do so, it denies the possible option that the universe itself is the unmoved mover; that’s the possibility I introduce, and that’s an option that’s denied during the argument, but embraced at the conclusion. That’s the inconsistency. Can we compare the mistake to for example the original first cosmological argument? That stated that _everything_ that exists has a cause, but then it made a special category of things that exist that don’t have a cause. Well, we have the same problem here. Because the property that is used as “evidence that makes us recognize that a mover is needed” is a property that this proposed unmoved mover (god) as too. Is it not? Does God not move and change? You don’t believe in a god that stands still and doesn’t do anything, right? “I would challenge you to summarize the argument in your own words if you think you understand it” Sure. Things move. I can’t imagine that they can move on their own. So I deny it. I say that something had to move them. And that’s God ... who wasn’t moved and who moves on his own, so _now_ I’m ready to accept that thing I denied earlier.
Slavomirohc, you at least got my point that when we have two categories (moving things that are moved, and moving things that just move on their own) you need to make an effort to try and show which one the thing in question is in. But you're once again just pointing to the movement. As the argument is.
I think Aquinas was giving five ideas or hypothesis. It then CLAIMS to know the answer (god) but that doesn’t actually demonstrate the premise. It is synonymous to: X is the answer because X is the answer. 1. The Argument from Motion: We now know that all motion is relative. Things are moving only relative to other things that are moving relative to them. The notion that things are naturally stopped, and only move when something else pushes them, is based on a terrestrial viewpoint and a lack of familiarity with the frictionlessness of space. Back when this no-motion-without-a-mover view was plausible, it was assumed that angels had to push the planets around to keep them moving. The core of the Thomist argument is that every moving thing must have been given a 'push' by another moving thing in order to start it moving. That was a reasonable assumption given the physics of the time, but we know now that it is simply wrong. Even if it was correct, however, all it would mean is that that if God is a moving thing, then something else must have started him moving, and if God is not a moving thing, then he can't have started anything else moving. 2. The Argument from Efficient Cause: This is repackaged number 1. X is true because I say X is true. Where you insert god i can insert X and get the same result. 3. The Argument from Necessary Being: In order for god to exist, existence must exist or can god exist without existence? Can god be OUTSIDE of existence? Is there something OUTSIDE of Existence? 4. The Argument from Gradation: This is a repackaged number 2 cause which Aquinas again asserts without demonstrating. I can insert X in place of god and get the same result. 5. The Argument from Design: All things have an order or arrangement that leads them to a particular goal. If all things are that way then why not leave out god?
Things that come into being have an efficient cause, but Aquinas never said that 'All things' (including God) have a cause. That's a strawman popularized by Dawkins. Dr. Edward Feser has spoke about this and other claims you've made before. Part 1: /watch?v=GNxnGQDT0As Part 2: /watch?v=X1IZFZgHWj4&t
slavomirohc Maybe I am wrong but in summa theologica it says: “ there is no case known in which a thing is found to be the cause of itself.” www3.nd.edu/~jspeaks/courses/2008-9/10100-spring/_LECTURES/3%20-%20Aquinas%202d%20way.pdf He said *no case*. Is it some case or no case? If you said there is one case, Aquinas and this hypothesis is refuted.
“there is no case known in which a thing is found to be the cause of itself.” What is it that you don't understand here? These 'things' mentioned here are created, material beings, that don't have the power to create themselves. There must be an un-caused thing that causes all other things. This argument is not related to time or a sequence of events. Rather, it considers the fact that all things are dependent on something else for their existence. In other words, the second of Aquinas’s ways to show God’s existence is based on the fact that all effects are caused by some other event, which in turn is the effect of some other cause. But this chain of causality cannot be infinitely long, so there must be some un-caused cause: God, the First Cause. The rest seems understandable.
slavomirohc Anywhere where you insert god I can insert “X” and get the same result. That is how weak this “god” word is. I would really like to know how do you get around from the base of the argument which is *nothing causes itself* or in other words, anything that exists, has a cause and you keep asserting “god exists” therefore, how do you get around that? Of course you will assert god is the uncaused but again, I can insert “X” is the uncaused cause and have the same result. I can assert that Supergod is the uncaused and get the same result but what you have to understand is how do you get around infinite regression? Of course you will say we can’t have infinite regression so you then go and insert a concept and name it “god” and voila, problem solved but it doesn’t actually solve the problem because you’ve inserted a concept. This is a reification fallacy and equivocation fallacy because you are inserting a concept of something and conflating it with something that is actual in reality without proving it to be the case. Example: The President of the United Kingdom signed three laws this week. While this may seem valid and the structure is valid, it is not valid because in the U.K. there is no president but a Prime Minister. You are conflating a concept of something with something concrete that exists in reality without actually demonstrating the proof of the premise. Sorry but till someone does that, all the Aquinas five concepts are invalid.
Hello.. a time ago, i decided that there was no logic to pursue changing the mindset of what was clear and simple for me to the gullible. I hurt so much, and feel most of time powerless x irrevelant to people who long ago decided faith and belief , over critical thinking and questioning.. for me it is so simple, although i was told and pushed to catholic upbringing.i read the bible, and inmediately realized that nothing in the bible was from any god.. it is so simple for me to see the ovbious. That it only reveals to me the flawed of the human species. In todays age.. it is beyond my understanding what brain would be needed to still believe anything.. when we have forwarded the understanding of what was god achievements at that time, to now simple natural selection , and so on...for me, it is sad because i will die before i see in general societys wake up..God is a word . Only a word nothing more.. the only way god exist, is if he is spoken of.. if he is not ever said, he ceases to be.. never like imperical thruth... man created god.. not more... bye.. wake up..
boy you sound depressed... you are wrong, though, so that's some good news for you! God is real, as proven by Aquinas and is obvious to anybody that can de-program themselves from the brainwashing and indoctrination of Modernism and Postmodernism, which you still, unwittingly, suffer from.
Wow, you talk about "reason" and "critical thinking" and this and that, but you couldn't use the logical rules of inference to support a word you just said. Every single thing Aquinas believed, he could support, with the mathematical logical rules of inference, from start to finish. You on the other hand, literally have no idea what you are saying.
+unit 003 "I don't need to make an argument, I just haven't heard any proofs!" If you think the proofs are not valid, then state clearly which of the premises are invalid, instead of throwing out a vacuous statement. Challenge the premises, and also present your own that does not presuppose materialist/naturalist paradigms.
+1981andybt "What I don’t get is how do any theist actually know or can demonstrate that the Bible god IS the cause?" Good and reasonable question. First, when you follow the Aristotelian/Thomistic/Leibnizian argument to its logical conclusion, you find that there exists a purely actual cause of the existence of things, which is one, immutable, eternal, immaterial, incorporeal, perfect, fully good, omnipotent, intelligent, and omniscient. These are the characteristics that follow necessarily from the line of reasoning, which in totality we would attribute to God. You will also not, and logically infer, that there can be only one such being, otherwise one god would still have potentialities that need to be actualized (is lacking in some characteristic). Thus we get to monotheism. This narrows the playing field to Judaism, Islam, and Christianity. Since I consider Christianity (NT) as an extension of Judaism (OT), that narrows the field further. The central claim for Christianity is Jesus Christ (whom orthodox Jews reject as the Messiah, based on their own definition of who their new King should be; and whom Muslims reject for similar, not same, reasons). Pure reason prove through philosophical arguments that there is a God and that we have immortal souls. This by itself entails that a miracle like a resurrection from the dead is possible. Now the historical evidence that Jesus Christ was in fact resurrected from the dead is overwhelming when interpreted in light of that background knowledge. Hence pure reason also shows that Jesus really was raised from the dead. But Jesus claimed to be divine, and that the authority of His teachings would be confirmed by His being resurrected. So the fact that He was resurrected provides divine authentication of His claims. Hence reason shows that He really was divine. But He was also obviously distinct from the Father to whom He prayed and the Holy Spirit whom He sent. Since this entails the doctrine of the Trinity, reason shows that doctrine must be true as well. And so forth. At every step, evidence and rational argumentation - no “blind faith” or a “will to believe” - are taken to justify our acceptance of certain teachings. Of course some of those teachings are taken on the basis of authority, but the point is that the trustworthiness of that authority is something that, it is claimed, can be established by reason. We can know such-and-such a teaching was true because Christ taught it; we can know that He is an authority to be trusted because His miraculous resurrection puts a divine seal of approval on what He said, including His claim to be divine, and a divine being cannot be in error; we can know that He really was resurrected because such-and-such historical evidence together with our background knowledge that God exists and that the soul is immortal because of such-and-such philosophical proofs; and so on. Every link in the chain is supported by argument. Case for Christ by Lee Strobel and/or Cold Case Christianity by J.Warner Wallace are good beginning resources.
😂😂😂 Aquinas’s babble pre-assumes that “god is the cause”. More designer-based babble of insufficient examples that FAILED to prove god as the necessary source. Why? Because all things don’t need intellect to exist 😮😮😮. A rock is still a rock without intrinsic purpose ... mic drop 🎙
You've missed the point entirely. It is not pre-supposed that God is the cause. For one, it depends on how you define God. You're also misunderstanding what it means that God is a necessary being.
@@chosenskeptic5319 You are technically incorrect. I'd also not call it an "argument." It edges on semantics but it is necessary to point out that it is not an argument, but deductive reasoning. There is a difference between the two. If you disagree with any premise then say so and then we could argue. I'd also ask you to define evidence, since, in the end, evidence is not self-explanatory or self-evident - so that if you were to witness it/be presented it (in the form of reasoning, in this case) you would automatically act in accordance to it, in one determined way. Where exactly is the technical difference between evidence for say, God, as reasoned by Thomas Aquinas and evidence for the moon landing. You might laugh, but ti is nonetheless a legitimate quesiton that inquires about the nature of evidence and what you think of it. If you don't understand this then, it might be because I lack in my explanation ability or because you are simply unable to understand the concept of evidence and how it functions, pertaining to our perception and our ability to reason.
@@chosenskeptic5319 Again... Name one premise that you disagree with, in any of the 5 ways of Aquinas. It's deductive reasoning, based on our senses. So it becomes a matter of 1. Not being able to share similar senses (which is preposterous) and 2. Disagreeing with any premise - Which is where your disagreement should lie... But it doesn't because, as is evident in your comment, you've misunderstood Thomas Aquinas reasoning and therefore failed to grasp the evidence provided by him.
@@chosenskeptic5319 ... Simply put, you've misunderstood all of Aquinas' arguments and their reasoning, as well as (and mainly) misunderstood the definition of some terms that he use. For example, "motion" has nothing to do with what you describe, in the way Aquinas defines it and uses it in his reasoning. Motion is the process of going from potentiality to actuality. This presents the logical conclusion of a primary mover, which was unmoved or you'd have an infinite line of movers (which is illogical.) Thus the conclusion of the necessary being, God, being an (the) unmoved mover. All other of your rebuttals are based on misunderstandings, as well. So we can just keep it to the first way, for time being. I hope you understand that misunderstanding something and then basing your counter-argument on a misunderstanding is unreasonable.
@@csongorarpad4670 🤔 no sir. The only one misunderstanding is you. 🤔 In regard to motion, Aquinas fails to prove that an infinite regress cannot exists. Aquinas makes a failed “a priori” assertion appeal to ignorance. Genesis 1:7 🍎 disproves 🍎 God as the first cause of motion, since god had to separate the existing waters to place his firmament in its midsts. Meaning, matter already existed in its natural state of causation. Therefore, Aquinas fails to prove his necessary unmoved mover as the first cause of motion. Einstein’s theory of relativity proves that motion consist of two things, the object and the observer, not from a fixed unmoved mover 😮😮😮. 🤔 Aquinas potentiality argument is “purposed” potentiality which has no potential without the actualizer 😮😮😮. Aquinas fails to prove a actualizer is necessary for motion.
Were you, like, completly drunk while recording this? Your tone is hilarious 😂 Great job, man!!!
God bless you and your family!
I didn't realize this until now, but Aquinas proofs not only refute atheism but also deism. If God is himself Pure Act, the Act whereby creation exists now, then he couldn't have created the world like a watchmaker and left it to run on it's own.
Aquinas proves atheism, aquinas doesnt think univocal predication applies to God's essence
This means the word "knowing" in "all knowing" doesnt mean the same thing if you said "Bob is not all knowing"
The problem is if God's properties are not predicated univocally with us he isnt a God.
If Aquinas is right God isnt really a person, or intelligent, or loving.
All these words mean something else for aquinas.
Aquinas cant use a argument from design because only minds design.
God doesnt have a mind, he has something else that happens to also be called a mind.
Aquinas' God isnt really a God, in fact it concedes all the things atheists want.
A non-personal non-intelligence.
For a atheist a God's literal human like properties are defined in a univocal sense.
Essentially thomist equivocate on "God"
Exactly. Thomism is sanity.
30:00 Just because a complex designer needs his own designer does not disprove the designed designer; it just introduces an infinite progression of designers which most of modern Christianity is unwilling to consider. God has a Father, and He has a Father, etc. "As man now is, God once was, and as God now is man may become." The Eternal progression of man is made possible through Christ's atonement.
Lol Stephan hawking falls into the same boat as Dawkins when it comes to bad philosophy. Did you read The Grand Design? His conclusion is “therefore the universe created itself out of nothing.” Talk about jumping through hoops to avoid admitting God as a possibility.
Doesn't this very same conundrum apply to who created god?
@@atzuricher6218 No, because the universe began to exist, according to the big bang theory. The main concept of God is that is an uncaused cause. So God did not begin to exist. So, no, it does not apply.
@@Darksaga28 I am sorry, but I am unclear what this means ? Or, seeks to question ?
Tony B I think I made myself clear... Do you think the Universe has a beginning? Do you believe the universe began to exist with the Big Bang?
@@Darksaga28 The question of the "beginning" is identical for god/gods and the universe as a setting. The phrase "uncaused cause" reflects no different an approach then the Hawking view. Does it really matter how the universe was created ?
Thank you! This is the best explanation that I have heard about God’s omnipotence, and the Euthyphro dilemma.
What is the song at the beginning and ending of the clip? It touches me deeply, i would like so much to get it!
The voice sounds like "Sixpence None The Richer"
"The principal argument used to eliminate such a regress is that in essentially ordered infinite regress of causes, only instrumental causes would exist, and, hence there would be no intrinsic causality in the series to produce the observed effect. The defender of this argument faces, however, this dilemma: if an instrumental cause is defined as a cause lacking intrinsic causal efficacy, one cannot preclude an infinite regress of instrumental causes each receiving its casual efficacy extrinsically from its predecessor but if an instrumental cause is defined as a cause depending ultimately upon a first cause, then it cannot be shown that the causes in an infinite regress are truly instrumental. Even should this dilemma be irresolvable, however, it could still be the case that an infinite regress of essentially ordered causes is intuitively implausible: it would mean, for example, that a watch could run without a spring if it had an infinite number of gears or that a train could move without an engine simply by having an infinite number of box cars." (289, The cosmological argument from Plato to Leibniz).
Most atheists probably don't understand Thomistic metaphysics. St. Thomas teaches that a potential property is one that someone or something could have a property when he or it doesn't have it now. But in modal logic, which may be familiar to Prof. Dawkins, an actual property is possible, too. For example, in modal logic, an actually hot flame is also possibly hot because it's able to be hot when it is hot.
A no sequitur is an argument where the conclusion doesn't follow from the premises. But in a sound argument, the conclusion can come before the premises. In some arguments, you may write the conclusion above the premises.
I like his voice fo Dawkins
Explaining the existence of God to an atheist is like explaining the wetness of water to a child
More like explaining the existence of Santa to a 9 year old.
1. Presents appear at Christmas, therefore Santa.
2. The milk and cookies are eaten. Therefore Santa.
3. The presents are those that I asked for. Therefore Santa is real.
9 year old: yeah Santa is not the only possible cause of 1, 2 or 3.
6 year old believer: you’re not engaging with each argument! Therefore you’re wrong!
@@shankz8854 except it's proven that the parents put there the presents, whereas you can't argue against the Actus Purus without defying logic and rationality
Mario Baratti my comment was not supposed to be analogous to the idea of god as pure actuality, but you most certainly can argue against this concept without being illogical.
We no longer need to think of the world the same way we did before the advent of physics - in terms of unmoved movers and potentiality and actuality. Every event can be explained in much more precise terms back in time as far as you care to go. At the Big Bang our current understanding of physics breaks down and we cannot answer questions like: is the universe eternal? are there infinite expanding and collapsing universes? can you get a universe from nothing? and why is there something rather than nothing?
You can answer the above by saying it was created by a simple thing that needs no explanation and couldn’t not exist, but that’s not really much of an answer it’s just an assertion to halt further questions - untestable and therefore unfalsifiable. Most of the arguments for god or the truth of the Christian bible that COULD be tested have been proven to be false.
No. Your answers are insufficient, get better answers that are a posteriori knowledge, not a priori knowledge
@@mateokarlvonpavlovic8295 I realise Santa is not a perfect analogue for God, but I will say this:
God WAS created by humans. And he was created to explain the natural world and to keep people in line. Santa is a little bit of a god-like character for children - I agree - that’s why he works as an analogue albeit an imperfect one.
I'm not sure why you give Dawkins so much credit as being a "brilliant biologist" or whatever you said. He's a very unaccomplished biologist. Look up his H-index, it's under 30. This is a very normal, accomplished range, for say a very brilliant younger scientist.
For his age, he as almost no accomplishments in biology, and his major focus has been in philosophy of religion, which he is seems obsessed with but has learned almost nothing about because he thinks he's already an expert in it lol. How sad.
This is an argument inspired by Professor Law's argument.
Suppose there is a being that is omniscient and omnipotent and all loving.
Then suppose there is another being that is omniscient and omnipotent and all hating.
If ask which is God how would one answer?
Any argument for one works equally well for the other so which is God?
Effectively, the Euthyphro dilemma is sound.
Instead of the wine bottle, you could take a hint from the Divine Liturgy: "Listen, be attentive!"
Divine simplicity is true.
If divine simplicity is true, then God's omniscience is identical to his metaphysically necessary existence.
If God's omniscience is identical to his metaphysically necessary existence, then what God knows is metaphysically necessary.
If what God knows is metaphysically necessarily, then free will is impossible.
Therefore free will is impossible.
Have you eat the Tenth doctor? You sound like David Tennant LoL
An immaterial being is the pinnacle of perfection? Can we at least prove an immaterial being can exist first before using it in the proof for an immaterial being?
Oh, and none of this BS saying that we don't know therefore it's possible. Saying it is possible is a claim that needs proof to back it up.
I don't understand the argument being used saying that God can be omnipotence and omniscient. Wouldn't that mean that God never changes because God would never learn anything and change and God would never be unable to do something and change? So if God is those things, the issue I have is that in order to do anything it requires change of the doer.
God is pure act.
If God is pure act, then there are no unactualized potentials in God.
If there are no unactualized potentials in God, then God has no free will.
Therefore God has no free will.
What is wrong with God being a self mover?
Suppose God was in an initial state of doing nothing, and then he is in a subsequent state of doing something; why think that something outside of God must move God?
If God can move himself, then the premise that what is in motion is put in motion by something else is false.
The first way must be false if nothing outside of the self causes the self to have a thought. Free will suggests that we move ourselves to create thoughts and thus the first way fails if we believe that God have free will and if humans have free will.
God has free will.
If God has free will, then he can move himself.
If he can move himself, then the premise what is in motion is put in motion by another is false.
If the premise what is put in motion by another is false, then the first way is false.
Therefore the first way is false.
This is a really good one
Being simultaneous to an effect involves temporal location. If being simultaneous to an effect involves having temporal location, then any thing that is simultaneous to their effect is in time. If any thing that is simultaneous to their effect is in time, then a timeless God is not simultaneous to any of his effects. If a timeless God is not simultaneous to any of his effects, then God is not a prime mover. If God is not a prime mover, then the first way is false. Therefore the first way is false.
All beings with free will have unactualized potential.
God is a being with free will.
Therefore God has unactualized potential.
If God has unactualized potential, then God is not pure act.
If God is not pure act, then the conclusion of the first way is false.
If the conclusion of the first way is false, then the first way is false.
Therefore the first way is false.
The first way is sound.
If the first way is sound, then God is pure act.
If God is pure act, then God is intrinsically and extrinsically changeless.
If God is intrinsically and extrinsically changeless, then his actions are intrinsically and extrinsically changeless.
If his actions are intrinsically and extrinsically changeless, then God’s act of creating and sustaining the universe is intrinsically and extrinsically changeless.
If God’s act of creating and sustaining the universe is intrinsically and extrinsically changeless, then the universe is intrinsically and extrinsically changeless.
If the universe is intrinsically and extrinsically changeless, then the A theory of time is false.
If the A theory of time is false, then the first premise of the first way is false.
If the first premise of the first way is false, then the first way is false.
Therefore, the first way is false
If there were an atheist that understood the proofs of god... well they wouldn't be an atheist would they? So there's your semantic answer.
we could really use aquinas today.
God is pure act.
If God is pure act, then there are no unactualized potentials in God.
There are unactualized potentials in the Trinity.
Therefore the Trinity is not pure act.
Therefore the trinity is not God.
What do you mean? In what way?
This guy doesn't need to bang on the glass, you start to wonder how many pints this guy has imbibed or is imbibing while making his presentation, the questions begs to be asked
is he the presentation.!! or the subject that he is presenting?Hey mate you are very intelligent but cut the theatrics. !!!
I cannot help but notice that you bash on atheism as an entire group, yet you cannot even take the time to examine a single professional criticism from the philosophical literature. You just pick in Dawkins exclusively and then paint all of atheism with the same stroke. Way to do “serious” philosophy there, buddy.
You're kidding. 90% of the people who call themselves atheists are so because of the simpleton arguments from people like Dawkins. If atheists would do as you said, look for the professional criticism from the philosophical literature (which is very serious scholarship of course), then there would hardly be any atheists.
The movement that is "the nones" or atheism or anti theism, or "The new atheists", whatever you want to call them. relies on a lot of very ignorant young people, who think their favorite second rate scientist is an expert on every subject, so when they "refute" these sort of arguments their refutation must be brilliant. The basis for their scholarship are online "historians" who think Jesus never existed, "philosophers" such as Chris Hitchens, and Richard Dawkins, and they view themselves as highly educated.
You're right, it would be much nicer if he would deal with the best refutations against Acquinas, but if it wasn't for the "new atheist" movement, and the millions of their ignorant followers, this sort of thing wouldn't be necessary. So, you can thank your own for that.
Why does everybody whose points are rejected assume they _must_ have been misunderstood, and that they're wrong is _not_ a possibility they're willing to ever entertain?
In this particular case, the podcast lays out pretty clearly how and why Aquinas's ways have been misunderstood by Dawkins and other atheists. There may very well be legitimate arguments against Aquinas's ways, and Catholics would be excited to hear them (we love TRUTH, we pursue it and it alone), but in this case the refutations given do not successfully disprove the ways when seen in their full, correct context.
You should check out the video you commented on. It's pretty clear on why these are misunderstandings. Thomas Aquinas wrote many many books. One of those books argues why you cannot prove the universe had a beginning through philosophy. Did you know that? Or did you believe that 3 of the 5 ways were predicated on the beginning of the universe? I'm assuming the latter, as it is most common. Case and point, thinking that the 5 ways are dependant upon the universe's beginning is a huge misunderstanding as none of them are. The reason for this is because not many people (myself included) have read extensively on Aquinas, I have just a little more information than the average Joe who reads the 5 ways out of context.
Obviously he is drunk !!!
how is this supposed to help prove the existence of the pantheon of the norse gods?
How is what
@@AveChristusRex the video claims proof of one god's existence but doesn't cover any of the norse gods.
@@bloodygorecomix Is there evidence for the Norse gods' existence logical or physical?
@@AveChristusRex I doubt there is logical and physical evidence for any gods. But I dont see why any evidence presented for particular gods wouldn't apply to others.
@@bloodygorecomix So Thor the son of Odin could be the first cause of all things?
This presentation is a validation of atheism.
Tony B How so?
Tony B You made a claim without a basis
Tony B Also, according to atheists definitions of atheism, how could it be proven true? It’s just the proposition that something isn’t true. At least that’s what Christopher hitchens claims.
I think the issue here if that the Thomist forces in the church are looking to force agnostics and others to prove a negative, which is a logical fallacy. The burden is ENTIRELY on the shoulders of believers to prove that there is a deity. We back at the Flying Spaghetti Monster of Russell. The church has no answer.
Tony B Except you didn’t claim a negative, you claimed, “this presentation is a validation of atheism.”
Richard Dawkins is very articulate when speaking. He has his own opinions but neither the less, in general he speaks in facts based by evidence of reality. The Bible is not evidence for a God or a deity.
The Bible is not used as a piece of evidence here, though.
Jacob Taylor
Really explain?
Aquinas's ways do not consult the Bible at all, they just use reason and observation to extrapolate the existence of a God.
Jacob Taylor
So how do you use that as evidence without the Bible or any holy book when the idea of god is from religion. See how that is a circular argument? And yes he does pull ideas straight from a holy book. That is the fallacy of this argument.
Jacob Taylor
I can use the same reasoning he uses to any mythological god as Zeus or nimhra or ra or unicorns or fairies so this is how his argument is illogical and why Richard Dawkins makes sense.
Proofs? These seem more like assertions.
We understand the arguments. But we also understand that arguments without evidence to support them are meaningless, and that claims of causation requires evidence. Essentially, these "proofs" are proclamations that we have these phenomena X Y Z and so on, and they need to have some explanation.
Well ... set aside the fact that the arguments then violate that fundamental rule by stating that the proposed explanation doesn't need an explanation. So they know that some things require an explanation and some don't. So let's say that there's movement. Okay. Maybe it doesn't need an explanation. Right? You're the one who is going to say that there's this god that moves and does things and changes and thinks and all. But he doesn't need to have an explanation or someone or something that moved him. He moves, and wasn't made to move. So I reject your claim that reality as a whole and the way it behaves requires some explanation, and I won't engage in violations of Occam's Razor, so I'll suggest that the universe moves but it wasn't made to move by anything or anyone. Do you have a case to make?
But again. Let's set that aside, and let's say that there is some explanation. Good for you. Now you need to present the evidence from the real world that the thing you suggest is a cause is actually real. The phenomenon doesn't establish your imagined cause. This is why fairies weren't proven when we observed blooming flowers. And the correct and reasonable response to those jokers was "So you think that fairies make flowers bloom. Good for you. Now show they exist, and then I can believe that they do that." You're telling us that this thing that you can't demonstrate exists is _doing_ something. You are aware that things that don't exist can't do things, right?
+Jillum89
This is not an adequate summary of any of the five ways: "Essentially, these "proofs" are proclamations that we have these phenomena X Y Z and so on, and they need to have some explanation." Perhaps before telling us what the arguments "essentially" say you could give us a more adequate summary, just so that it's clear that you understand what the argument even is.
Furthermore, if you're asking who's moving that which is unmoved or any other variant of 'who made/caused that which is unmoved/uncaused and cannot even in principle be moved or caused' then you also have not understood the argument: "set aside the fact that the arguments then violate that fundamental rule by stating that the proposed explanation doesn't need an explanation. ... But he doesn't need to have an explanation or someone or something that moved him. He moves, and wasn't made to move."
“Furthermore, if you're asking who's moving that which is unmoved or any other variant of 'who made/caused that which is unmoved/uncaused and cannot even in principle be moved or caused' then you also have not understood the argument:” Yes I absolutely have, because I am not asking that question: the argument is. The _argument_ is asking who moved the unmoved mover (which is the universe).
"The argument is asking who moved the unmoved mover (which is the universe)."
Wrong. Universe was moved, it had a beginning. God is the unmoved mover.
“I presume you're talking about the argument from motion/change (first way)” Yep, as an example. “It is asking who moved the unmoved mover? This is demonstrably false.” So you can demonstrated that the universe isn’t unmoved with more an assertion? From the observation that it moves. But then it says that the god that also moves doesn’t need a mover. So it makes two categories. Things that move that require a cause, and things that move that do _not_ require a cause. And then it says that the movement of the universe demonstrates that it clearly had to have a mover. Can you now see that something there is clearly wrong?
It assumes that the universe requires a mover, and in order to do so, it denies the possible option that the universe itself is the unmoved mover; that’s the possibility I introduce, and that’s an option that’s denied during the argument, but embraced at the conclusion. That’s the inconsistency.
Can we compare the mistake to for example the original first cosmological argument? That stated that _everything_ that exists has a cause, but then it made a special category of things that exist that don’t have a cause. Well, we have the same problem here. Because the property that is used as “evidence that makes us recognize that a mover is needed” is a property that this proposed unmoved mover (god) as too. Is it not? Does God not move and change? You don’t believe in a god that stands still and doesn’t do anything, right?
“I would challenge you to summarize the argument in your own words if you think you understand it” Sure. Things move. I can’t imagine that they can move on their own. So I deny it. I say that something had to move them. And that’s God ... who wasn’t moved and who moves on his own, so _now_ I’m ready to accept that thing I denied earlier.
Slavomirohc, you at least got my point that when we have two categories (moving things that are moved, and moving things that just move on their own) you need to make an effort to try and show which one the thing in question is in. But you're once again just pointing to the movement. As the argument is.
I think Aquinas was giving five ideas or hypothesis. It then CLAIMS to know the answer (god) but that doesn’t actually demonstrate the premise. It is synonymous to: X is the answer because X is the answer.
1. The Argument from Motion:
We now know that all motion is relative. Things are moving only relative to other things that are moving relative to them.
The notion that things are naturally stopped, and only move when something else pushes them, is based on a terrestrial viewpoint and a lack of familiarity with the frictionlessness of space.
Back when this no-motion-without-a-mover view was plausible, it was assumed that angels had to push the planets around to keep them moving.
The core of the Thomist argument is that every moving thing must have been given a 'push' by another moving thing in order to start it moving. That was a reasonable assumption given the physics of the time, but we know now that it is simply wrong. Even if it was correct, however, all it would mean is that that if God is a moving thing, then something else must have started him moving, and if God is not a moving thing, then he can't have started anything else moving.
2. The Argument from Efficient Cause:
This is repackaged number 1. X is true because I say X is true. Where you insert god i can insert X and get the same result.
3. The Argument from Necessary Being:
In order for god to exist, existence must exist or can god exist without existence? Can god be OUTSIDE of existence? Is there something OUTSIDE of Existence?
4. The Argument from Gradation:
This is a repackaged number 2 cause which Aquinas again asserts without demonstrating. I can insert X in place of god and get the same result.
5. The Argument from Design: All things have an order or arrangement that leads them to a particular goal.
If all things are that way then why not leave out god?
Things that come into being have an efficient cause, but Aquinas never said that 'All things' (including God) have a cause. That's a strawman popularized by Dawkins.
Dr. Edward Feser has spoke about this and other claims you've made before.
Part 1: /watch?v=GNxnGQDT0As
Part 2: /watch?v=X1IZFZgHWj4&t
slavomirohc
Maybe I am wrong but in summa theologica it says: “ there is no case known in which a thing is found to be the cause of itself.”
www3.nd.edu/~jspeaks/courses/2008-9/10100-spring/_LECTURES/3%20-%20Aquinas%202d%20way.pdf
He said *no case*. Is it some case or no case? If you said there is one case, Aquinas and this hypothesis is refuted.
“there is no case known in which a thing is found to be the cause of itself.”
What is it that you don't understand here? These 'things' mentioned here are created, material beings, that don't have the power to create themselves. There must be an un-caused thing that causes all other things. This argument is not related to time or a sequence of events. Rather, it considers the fact that all things are dependent on something else for their existence.
In other words, the second of Aquinas’s ways to show God’s existence is based on the fact that all effects are caused by some other event, which in turn is the effect of some other cause. But this chain of causality cannot be infinitely long, so there must be some un-caused cause: God, the First Cause.
The rest seems understandable.
slavomirohc
Anywhere where you insert god I can insert “X” and get the same result. That is how weak this “god” word is.
I would really like to know how do you get around from the base of the argument which is *nothing causes itself* or in other words, anything that exists, has a cause and you keep asserting “god exists” therefore, how do you get around that?
Of course you will assert god is the uncaused but again, I can insert “X” is the uncaused cause and have the same result. I can assert that Supergod is the uncaused and get the same result but what you have to understand is how do you get around infinite regression? Of course you will say we can’t have infinite regression so you then go and insert a concept and name it “god” and voila, problem solved but it doesn’t actually solve the problem because you’ve inserted a concept. This is a reification fallacy and equivocation fallacy because you are inserting a concept of something and conflating it with something that is actual in reality without proving it to be the case.
Example:
The President of the United Kingdom signed three laws this week.
While this may seem valid and the structure is valid, it is not valid because in the U.K. there is no president but a Prime Minister. You are conflating a concept of something with something concrete that exists in reality without actually demonstrating the proof of the premise.
Sorry but till someone does that, all the Aquinas five concepts are invalid.
Philosophy & Science
You add nothing concrete without support of your assertion. Support it if you would like it to be of worthy consideration.
Why does every theologian attempt to present a rational argument for an irrational belief in a mythological god?
Hello.. a time ago, i decided that there was no logic to pursue changing the mindset of what was clear and simple for me to the gullible. I hurt so much, and feel most of time powerless x irrevelant to people who long ago decided faith and belief , over critical thinking and questioning.. for me it is so simple, although i was told and pushed to catholic upbringing.i read the bible, and inmediately realized that nothing in the bible was from any god.. it is so simple for me to see the ovbious. That it only reveals to me the flawed of the human species. In todays age.. it is beyond my understanding what brain would be needed to still believe anything.. when we have forwarded the understanding of what was god achievements at that time, to now simple natural selection , and so on...for me, it is sad because i will die before i see in general societys wake up..God is a word . Only a word nothing more.. the only way god exist, is if he is spoken of.. if he is not ever said, he ceases to be.. never like imperical thruth... man created god.. not more... bye.. wake up..
boy you sound depressed...
you are wrong, though, so that's some good news for you! God is real, as proven by Aquinas and is obvious to anybody that can de-program themselves from the brainwashing and indoctrination of Modernism and Postmodernism, which you still, unwittingly, suffer from.
Wow, you talk about "reason" and "critical thinking" and this and that, but you couldn't use the logical rules of inference to support a word you just said.
Every single thing Aquinas believed, he could support, with the mathematical logical rules of inference, from start to finish.
You on the other hand, literally have no idea what you are saying.
@@thegreatcornholio7255 It is tragic indeed. Somebody who've gone down the path of OP will likely not be able to understand one bit of what you said.
Aquinas fails in his 5 ways and your video equals this failure.
how?
Not an argument
Ive never heard 1 proof of a god that was reasonable, never mind 5! lol
I don't need to make an argument, I just haven't heard any proofs!
+unit 003
"I don't need to make an argument, I just haven't heard any proofs!"
If you think the proofs are not valid, then state clearly which of the premises are invalid, instead of throwing out a vacuous statement. Challenge the premises, and also present your own that does not presuppose materialist/naturalist paradigms.
Logos Truth
What I don’t get is how do any theist actually know or can demonstrate that the Bible god IS the cause?
^ Because the 'Bible God' is the only God that fits the description of an unmoved mover, beyond time and space. No other deity fits that description.
+1981andybt
"What I don’t get is how do any theist actually know or can demonstrate that the Bible god IS the cause?"
Good and reasonable question.
First, when you follow the Aristotelian/Thomistic/Leibnizian argument to its logical conclusion, you find that there exists a purely actual cause of the existence of things, which is one, immutable, eternal, immaterial, incorporeal, perfect, fully good, omnipotent, intelligent, and omniscient. These are the characteristics that follow necessarily from the line of reasoning, which in totality we would attribute to God. You will also not, and logically infer, that there can be only one such being, otherwise one god would still have potentialities that need to be actualized (is lacking in some characteristic). Thus we get to monotheism. This narrows the playing field to Judaism, Islam, and Christianity. Since I consider Christianity (NT) as an extension of Judaism (OT), that narrows the field further. The central claim for Christianity is Jesus Christ (whom orthodox Jews reject as the Messiah, based on their own definition of who their new King should be; and whom Muslims reject for similar, not same, reasons).
Pure reason prove through philosophical arguments that there is a God and that we have immortal souls. This by itself entails that a miracle like a resurrection from the dead is possible. Now the historical evidence that Jesus Christ was in fact resurrected from the dead is overwhelming when interpreted in light of that background knowledge. Hence pure reason also shows that Jesus really was raised from the dead. But Jesus claimed to be divine, and that the authority of His teachings would be confirmed by His being resurrected. So the fact that He was resurrected provides divine authentication of His claims. Hence reason shows that He really was divine. But He was also obviously distinct from the Father to whom He prayed and the Holy Spirit whom He sent. Since this entails the doctrine of the Trinity, reason shows that doctrine must be true as well. And so forth. At every step, evidence and rational argumentation - no “blind faith” or a “will to believe” - are taken to justify our acceptance of certain teachings. Of course some of those teachings are taken on the basis of authority, but the point is that the trustworthiness of that authority is something that, it is claimed, can be established by reason. We can know such-and-such a teaching was true because Christ taught it; we can know that He is an authority to be trusted because His miraculous resurrection puts a divine seal of approval on what He said, including His claim to be divine, and a divine being cannot be in error; we can know that He really was resurrected because such-and-such historical evidence together with our background knowledge that God exists and that the soul is immortal because of such-and-such philosophical proofs; and so on. Every link in the chain is supported by argument.
Case for Christ by Lee Strobel and/or Cold Case Christianity by J.Warner Wallace are good beginning resources.
Maybe Thomas Aquinas would not also understand Dawkins, a little more respect please.
40 min and not a single proof for the existence of a god
You are one of the proofs for the existence of God
You mean "40 minutes in and I still don't understand the subject".
😂😂😂 Aquinas’s babble pre-assumes that “god is the cause”. More designer-based babble of insufficient examples that FAILED to prove god as the necessary source.
Why? Because all things don’t need intellect to exist 😮😮😮. A rock is still a rock without intrinsic purpose ... mic drop 🎙
You've missed the point entirely. It is not pre-supposed that God is the cause. For one, it depends on how you define God. You're also misunderstanding what it means that God is a necessary being.
@@chosenskeptic5319 You are technically incorrect. I'd also not call it an "argument." It edges on semantics but it is necessary to point out that it is not an argument, but deductive reasoning. There is a difference between the two.
If you disagree with any premise then say so and then we could argue. I'd also ask you to define evidence, since, in the end, evidence is not self-explanatory or self-evident - so that if you were to witness it/be presented it (in the form of reasoning, in this case) you would automatically act in accordance to it, in one determined way.
Where exactly is the technical difference between evidence for say, God, as reasoned by Thomas Aquinas and evidence for the moon landing.
You might laugh, but ti is nonetheless a legitimate quesiton that inquires about the nature of evidence and what you think of it. If you don't understand this then, it might be because I lack in my explanation ability or because you are simply unable to understand the concept of evidence and how it functions, pertaining to our perception and our ability to reason.
@@chosenskeptic5319 Again... Name one premise that you disagree with, in any of the 5 ways of Aquinas.
It's deductive reasoning, based on our senses. So it becomes a matter of 1. Not being able to share similar senses (which is preposterous) and 2. Disagreeing with any premise - Which is where your disagreement should lie... But it doesn't because, as is evident in your comment, you've misunderstood Thomas Aquinas reasoning and therefore failed to grasp the evidence provided by him.
@@chosenskeptic5319 ... Simply put, you've misunderstood all of Aquinas' arguments and their reasoning, as well as (and mainly) misunderstood the definition of some terms that he use.
For example, "motion" has nothing to do with what you describe, in the way Aquinas defines it and uses it in his reasoning. Motion is the process of going from potentiality to actuality. This presents the logical conclusion of a primary mover, which was unmoved or you'd have an infinite line of movers (which is illogical.) Thus the conclusion of the necessary being, God, being an (the) unmoved mover.
All other of your rebuttals are based on misunderstandings, as well. So we can just keep it to the first way, for time being.
I hope you understand that misunderstanding something and then basing your counter-argument on a misunderstanding is unreasonable.
@@csongorarpad4670 🤔 no sir. The only one misunderstanding is you. 🤔 In regard to motion, Aquinas fails to prove that an infinite regress cannot exists. Aquinas makes a failed “a priori” assertion appeal to ignorance.
Genesis 1:7 🍎 disproves 🍎 God as the first cause of motion, since god had to separate the existing waters to place his firmament in its midsts. Meaning, matter already existed in its natural state of causation. Therefore, Aquinas fails to prove his necessary unmoved mover as the first cause of motion. Einstein’s theory of relativity proves that motion consist of two things, the object and the observer, not from a fixed unmoved mover 😮😮😮.
🤔 Aquinas potentiality argument is “purposed” potentiality which has no potential without the actualizer 😮😮😮. Aquinas fails to prove a actualizer is necessary for motion.