Thomas Aquinas' 5 Ways (Proving God's Existence) DEBATE
Vložit
- čas přidán 30. 06. 2024
- Join George and John as they discuss and debate different Philosophical ideas, today they will be looking into Thomas Aquinas’ 5 Ways proving the existence of God.
Developed by the 13th Century Philosopher and Theologian St Thomas Aquinas showed 5 logical ways we could prove the existence of God. These arguments have been widely developed within the Philosophy of religion and have gone on to shape the Cosmological and Teleological arguments. Using ideas of Cause and Effect, Motion, Gradation and design, Aquinas believes this is the proof that God exists.
Watch as George and John discuss each argument, look at the strengths and the weakness.
The script to this video part of the Philosophy Vibe - "Philosophy of Religion Part I" eBook, available on Amazon: www.amazon.com/dp/B088QM8QXC
Does God Exist a Philosophical Inquiry: This books offers an in-depth analysis of The Problem of Evil and the three main arguments for the existence of God; the Ontological Argument, the Teleological Argument and the Cosmological Argument. Available Worldwide on Amazon...
Paperback:
US - www.amazon.com/dp/B088BH5HTL
UK - www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B076GRHTQ2
Canada - www.amazon.ca/dp/B088BH5HTL
eBook:
US: www.amazon.com/dp/B076GRHTQ2
UK: www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B076GRHTQ2
Canada: www.amazon.ca/dp/B076GRHTQ2
India: www.amazon.in/dp/B076GRHTQ2
Australia: www.amazon.com.au/dp/B076GRHTQ2
Germany: www.amazon.de/dp/B076GRHTQ2
Check out the Philosophy Vibe merchandise store: philosophy-vibe-store.creator...
0:00 - Introduction
0:48 - Argument from Motion (1st way)
2:50 - Argument from Efficient Cause (2nd way)
4:14 - Problems with the 1st and 2nd way
7:57 - Argument from Possbility and Necessity (3rd way)
9:27 - Problems with the 3rd way
9:57 - Argument from Gradation (4th way)
11:17 - Problems with the 4th way
11:52 - Argument from Design (5th way)
13:44 - Problems with the 5th way
#Aquinas #5proofs #Aquinas5ways #philosophyofreligion #cosmologicalargument #teleologicalargument #philosophy
Does God Exist a Philosophical Inquiry: This books offers an in-depth analysis of The Problem of Evil and the three main arguments for the existence of God; the Ontological Argument, the Teleological Argument and the Cosmological Argument. Available Worldwide on Amazon...
Paperback:
US - www.amazon.com/dp/B088BH5HTL
UK - www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B076GRHTQ2
Canada - www.amazon.ca/dp/B088BH5HTL
eBook:
US: www.amazon.com/dp/B076GRHTQ2
UK: www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B076GRHTQ2
Canada: www.amazon.ca/dp/B076GRHTQ2
India: www.amazon.in/dp/B076GRHTQ2
Australia: www.amazon.com.au/dp/B076GRHTQ2
Germany: www.amazon.de/dp/B076GRHTQ2
The Philosophy Vibe "Philosophy of Religion" paperback anthology, available worldwide on Amazon:
US: www.amazon.com/dp/B092H42XCS
UK: www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B092H42XCS
Canada: www.amazon.ca/dp/B092H42XCS
why cant "god" and "the universe" be of the same? "god clearly isn't a physical embodiment here or in another dimension. maybe the thing that has always been is consciousness.
Consciousness requires explanation, it has beginning and end. Allah has beginning nor end.
Does this book include the objections that were raised in the video? Thanks
@@zakirnaikahmaddeedat3651 Assumption with no evidence.
One of the most underrated channels on CZcams. The content is brilliant and thought provoking - good work chaps
Thank you very much. so happy to hear you're enjoying the content.
I dont think there is any other philosophy channel on youtube that can make philosophy this much easy to understand and digest . Your method of teaching through argument is so comprehensive and Fantastic
Thank you so much, delighted to read this comment, really happy to hear these videos are helping.
@@PhilosophyVibe is this video made to debunk aquinas proofs? I listen to the whole thing, and it seems the believer had no rebuttals.
No, not really a debunking video, just raising the proofs and then providing arguments against them. As there is a lot to cover we didn't do too much of a back and forth. For a more detailed debate please take a look at our Teleological and Cosmological argument videos.
I’m reading a bunch of these texts that you have uploaded onto your page, I love watching these in addition to make sure I am understanding them correctly 😂 please keep uploading!
Its important that you understand at 2:01 pertaining to The First Way, when you state "if we go forever into the past, there was no point where everything started...", that is not the First Way, and its a misunderstanding of Thomistic and Aristotelian Causality. The First Way did not (nor any of his arguments) have anything whatsoever to do with the beginning of the universe. In fact he explained in detail that would be a problem to prove and to ensure his arguments were airtight, assumed the universe is eternal, for the sake of argument.
Aristotelian Causality is a study of simultaneity. A cause and effect is SIMULTANEOUS (a brick smashing a window will smash the window at the exact time it is hit, and not before, and this is extremely important).
To distinguish what had seemed to develop as two different notions of causation, Aquinas referred to the Aristotelian notion as an Essentially Ordered causal series rather than Accidentally Ordered causal series (ie my parents caused me to exist, i caused my children to exist, stars forming second generation stars forming planets etc etc). Most modern people only understand this later concept.
The major point for the first causal series (essentially ordered) like train engine pulling train cars, or protein metabolizing into my muscle making it larger, or the suns rays making my skin slightly darker or a brick going through the window at this very moment, is that if the immediate cause of the effect isnt Acting on the effect RIGHT NOW, at this very second, then the effect is not possible, not even theoretically. If a train engine just disappears, the cars will just stop, as they cannot "move" themselves. If the sun disappears, my skin will no longer change color as my skin cannot change itself. If the brick doesn't exist, then it is not even possible that the window can be in the act of breaking (unless there's another reason apart from the brick) because a window cannot break itself, not even in theory. This is different than an accidentally ordered causal series like my mother giving birth to me. When she dies and is gone, I will petsist, same with myself and my children. If the sun burns out, that doesn't mean the earth will just cease to exist (though there's also essentially ordered causal series associated with that as well, such as the orbit of the earth would cease etc).
The point here is, Aquinass argument has absolutely nothing to do with time and nothing to do with accidentally ordered causal series.
In essentially ordered causal series, if the "train engine" (the thing empowering the "train cars" to change location) doesn't exist, then the train cars can't change location, ever. It is not adequate to try to argue "well, maybe theres an infinite number of train cars", that point simply does not matter. Without the engine, it doesn't matter if there's one car or infinity, they could not change location. Without an entity that can actualize any chage you are seeing at this very moment, that change would cease to exist, immediately, and this series of causes cannot be infinite (for an explanation), and there MUST be an actualizer (ie engine) of all changes that we see at this very moment, or all that we see "in motion" at this very moment would cease.
I'm afraid that a lot of people educated in a modern philosophy in a modern university dont really grasp the material that was put forth by the Scholastics, put forth by Neo Scholastics or by The Church.
Thanks for putting this content out there, as i think its real important, but hope my comment clears up a couple things.
Thanks man this was very clear
Thanks this was very helpful, you should start a youtube channel to make counter arguments to other channels like this
@@flamingsoundsofficial8730 Thanks! There's a lot of people in The Church who understands Aquinas far better than me. But yeah, the secular response to Aquinas seems to be that of hand waving coupled with complete ignorance. Not sure if that's intentional. However, Aquinas is not a simple subject, and hand waving just doesn't cut it.
@@ttc_juzzyy8318 Thanks! Glad I could help some.
Very good point! :)
This is the best philosophy channel, it's so interesting to learn by listening to both sides and making your own assertion, I wish I could subscribe one million times
Thank you so much :D
@@PhilosophyVibeit’s given some new perspectives on the arguments and that’s rare to find as one in the debate for decades now could attest.
You guys have no idea what you have done for me! Thank you so much
Glad we could help :)
Super interesting arguments and video. Really loved the animations, helped me follow through. Thank you!
Glad you enjoyed, thanks for watching!
All praise to the almighty holy God!! 🙌🏾
Odin?
@fabriziocamisani5477 you know what he was trying to say. The polytheist views are very different from that of monotheists. The polytheists "gods" are finite and just created by humans with no backing and not very good philosophical arguments. The monotheist God is infinite and not finite like oden, and has good philosophical backings like that of St. Thomas Aquinas first way, which says that everything exists has a second secondary cause. For example imagine a glass room in a library, the glass room gets it's light from the library. Now imagine that the library is a glass room, the light is now coming from the sun, but if you have infinite glass rooms then none of them would have light in them because there is no secondary cause. But if you have an uncaused source of light, then it illuminates the glass rooms. Basically everything that changes needs a cause, so there must be an uncaused cause or else nothing would exist. This would have to be one (the first causer (so the monotheists view)), and infinite and also outside of time, gravity and space. These all had a beginning, even time itself. Don't believe me? Look up Albert Einstein's view on the beginning of time. Anyways I hope this helps, please look into arguments for God with an open mind, and don't go into it wanting him to not be true. Thanks for reading this have a great day.
Ps: please watch these
-
czcams.com/video/QS-V90xxYLI/video.htmlsi=pqt0xuvukrJkn1QD
-
czcams.com/video/a_bArb3ADOM/video.htmlsi=GkF1uNnP9w_Glo71
-
czcams.com/video/EI8KT6EDeP0/video.htmlsi=_SnCnZ--TPt-wGKK
@@lucaamenta791contrary to religion, science doesnt rest on authorities. science is based on facts. There are no known facts about what happened before big bang so what Einstein believed doesnt matter.
underrated channel.this channel deserve more viewers
Thank you. The channel is growing, slowly but surely 😀
The idea of God makes sense in order for something to be created it must have someone who has always been there in order to start it
I definitely enjoyed the vibe, keep up the good work. One thing I did not quite get is, how the first two ways are any different, but my English is not flawless so I think that might have cost a little error in my logic. Now I am going to binge watch your entire stuff, Cheerio.
Thank you glad you enjoyed :) The first two ways are very similar, however the 1st way focuses on motion and sees God as the one who created all the motion in the universe, whereas the 2nd way focuses on the Efficient Cause, saying God must be the cause that created the physical universe. Hope that helps.
@@PhilosophyVibe Not even just "created," but _creates continually,_ because He upholds the universe as an essentially-subordinated cause, not chronologically, but metaphysically.
@@CatholicismRulesnice username lol. I think block time is gods perspective somehow so our view from within that also seems explained.
The Best video and the way to make something understood👏… Could not find a better one anywhere else!
Thank you!
God send you guys as a helper for us❤️❤️ as without you guys these theories seems impossible to understand!!😀
So glad we can help :)
or maybe it was a "matter of chance" that you've found this channel 😭😭
@@Un-TedxTalksWhen you use the word 'maybe', you acknowledge that God's will was a possibility. And if she chose to believe that over 'mere chance' (since both cannot be verified at the present stage), why obsess over it?
@@Contra.Mundum. That was just a light-hearted joke, With the reference of video, Chill !!
@@Un-TedxTalks My bad, brother.
The theist wouldn't argue against the infinite regress at 9:45. That's not actually a Thomistic argument... Aquinas himself said that an infinite regress is possible, and that's because the crucial distinction that anyone studying Aquinas has to understand is the difference between chronological cause and metaphysical cause.
Well, certain theists would. When you make the claim that infinite regresses are not possible, it is typically distinguished as the cosmological argument.
Aquinas does reject metaphysical infinite regress. The first 3 ways all reject metaphysical infinite regress, but not chronological.
these works are incredible , thanks you guys for diligent works
You're very welcome, thanks for watching.
Good job with the video! I do have something to note specifically about the first way (though it would also seem to apply to the others). In the first way Aquinas was actually talking about an essentially ordered series of events, not an accidentally ordered series. This is crucial to the argument because Aquinas didn't believe it was possible to prove that the universe had a beginning. So when he discussed "motion" in the Summa, he was describing the composite existence of potency and act within the universe *right here and right now.* To illustrate the difference between an accidentally ordered series of events and an essentially ordered one, suppose that person A's parents were persons B and C. In this equation, person A initially depended upon persons B and C, but as he grows he becomes less dependent in every way. Now suppose person A is 25 years old now and both his parents were killed in a car accident. Now obviously this is terrible, but person A can still have children of his own. In other words, he no longer depends upon persons B and C and his future children will one day be able to have their own children even if he dies etc. etc. This is an accidentally ordered series of events. On the other hand, think of a coffee cup resting on a table. What is causing it stay in place? The table. What is causing the table to stay in place and be able to hold the coffee cup? The floor. What's causing the floor to be able to hold the table? The foundation and so on and so fourth. In this equation, every member of the series is *here and now* depending upon another member of the series, which in turn relies on another member, and so on and so fourth. THIS is what Aquinas is talking about and it is crucial to understanding his arguments because in this type of series an infinite regress IS impossible because all causes are merely instrumental. In other words, an infinite amount of effects doesn't give you a cause. Take away the cause and you have no effect. If you're interested in learning more about the Aristotelian/Thomist Arguments I suggest you check out Edward Feser's book *Five Proofs of the Existence of God.* Great job once again! I really enjoy your videos.
Thank you for pointing that out. Can God be the prime mover without being the creator of the universe, in this case?
@@eristic1281 good question! Yes, according to Aquinas himself, his arguments are consistent with an eternally existent universe, because he didn’t believe an absolute beginning of the universe could be proved.
@@timtaft8585 And he was correct.
I was going to point this out, but you did so well! So many miss the, admittedly difficult, point that it's essential order, not accidental.
I was eager to hear this debate. Seeing the clear bent of allowing the secularist to appear victorious was disappointing but probably shouldn’t have been a surprise. The pushing of the universe as random is typical. Randomness in our exquisite and complicated universe is not a logical view. The design points to the Designer. It makes me sad to see the intellectual mind become frequently directed toward denying God. His fingerprints are all over the universe if one will only open their eyes. God bless you.
This is actually quite good. How did I not know your channel?
The most convincing argument for myself:
- my personal relationship with Jesus Christ
- my personal experience with God
The gradation principle would probably be supported by the premise that God created an essence in humans to distinguish between good and bad. Disagreements are more about prejudice than about aesthetics.
Amazing! Thanks for the content!
Pleasure, thank you for watching.
Great, balanced overview of the two opposing viewpoints. I enjoyed the video. Here are my reactions if I could be a tiny third character in this cartoon:
5:49 The idea of backing up to a super universe is not adding much to the Russell viewpoint. I could keep adding parents universe tiers with superlatives like "mega-verse" and "ultramega-verse." The origin of these still leaves the question of what initiated them.
11:19 This is an appeal to moral relativism. Cultures do have different traditions and rules but not necessarily different moralities. It's easier to explain by saying they may have differing sets of ideal forms. Kant's work on morals is appealing. I also could argue that a culture may temporarily deviate from the one true set of morals, the culture will not persist over time because the failure of morals leads to weakness and death.
11:55 I like the teleological argument. Normally we think that a cause pushes to an effect. An alternative, timeless way to think about it is an effect induces a cause.
I really enjoyed this. Thank you.
This left out a large portion of Aquinas' reasoning, the _ipsum esse subsistens_ that God's essence is equal to his existence. The essence v existence distinction is fundamental to his reasoning, and makes all of the objections raised in this video to the first 3 ways irrelevant.
In order for something to have necessary existence, its essence (what it is) must be equal to its existence (that it is). This is divine simplicity, the fact that this necessary being is not a composite of essence and existence, but it pure existence. The "universe" cannot be substituted here because the universe is composite.
In order for something to be composite, some cause for it to be composite is necessary. A composite is two distinct things put together, so something must cause those two things to unite. If we try to counter this with "what if both of these things are necessary?" or "what if there are more than one necessary being?", then we've violated divine simplicity. If thing A were _ipsum esse subsistens_ and thing B were also _ipsum esse subsistens_ both thing A and thing B have an essence equal to its existence, or otherwise said thing A and thing B are the same exact thing. This shows there can only be one being that is necessary being.
And there is another clarification, the second way does not have the premise that "all things have an efficient cause", but that all things that are caused imply an existence of a cause. If we just propose that the entire universe is uncaused, then we've introduced an element of absurdity to our understanding of reality. If we assume all things began without a cause, then how can we ever apply cause and effect reasoning in any situation?
"If there is such an intelligent creator, why is life so scarce" is easily answerable by the the argument of humans / this world having a purpose (which at the end of the day nudges you in one direction or the other if you beleive in a powerful creator interferring in the affairs of life or not)
So why does any other planets not having a purpose?
Sensational as per
Amazing!
Thank you :)
SoooooOOOoo Gooood! The structure is godlike! Love it!
Thank you so much!!
Awesome video!
Thanks!
Hello uni student here! Can you give counter arguments for thomas aquinas’ efficient cause? i really need ideas for our debate tomorrow, hope you reply asap
Thank you!!!
You're welcome!
Thomas Aquinas was one of the first to apply Epistemic Foundationalism to Metaphysics. He believed all the horns within Munchhausen Trilemma were problematic sicne it runs into an infinite regress except for Foundationalism, since to accept any horn within the Trilemma would itself be an acceptance of foundationalism.
I would debate anyone any day that this CZcams channel is the best for philosophy
Thank you 😀
the problem with an infinite time before now is that we would never reach now.
So if you say there was no time 5 minutes before time began you admit time cant help but always be
And everywhere is the center of time and space and thought because they all cant help go on forevere in all direction
What devise could add or subtract any of them
@@jameshale6401 Well the concept of God is pure being and actuality, so he can’t be in time, because time has potentiality. If there was no time before time than there cannot be 5 min before time.
@Levi-ht4st hey levi this is wrangler
Of course GOD dont need time in order to exist but time and space are not matter and unless GOD himself tell me how they can not exist i will not believe
But cacause if that was the case they wouldnt exist now
best explanation ever ✌️
Note: There Is a God: How the World's Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind
Book by Antony Flew and Roy Abraham Varghese
😇😎😇
Wonder presentation of the long running human discussion.
I LOVE THIS!
Thank you!
The one aspect that I would like someone to illustrate is an actual example of infinite regress affecting an issue/object today. I keep hearing that it is possible, so please give an example.
Aquinas didn't believe that you could prove that the universe had a beginning.
Fax.
@@drycleanernick7603 people purposefully trying to make the claim aquinas was saying the kalam is one of the most disingenuos things these content creators make
Before talk to the first mover, define motion (and rest). Also define "first".
7:10 I don't understand this argument. Are we taking causality as ontologically necessary or something empirically inferred?
That's where they went wrong in the video. They assumed that we got causality through empirical studies, while it is the contrary, we started empirical studies after realizing that causality is inherent. Even a 2 months kid when slapped on the right cheek will look at the right to see the cause of that.
i really like the video how can i donate to the channel?
So glad you liked the video and thank you for offering to donate to the channel this really means a lot to us. The best way to support us is to purchase one of our ebooks, available on amazon. We have compiled our scripts into a series of ebooks. The links are included in all video descriptions. Thank you again, very much appreciated.
Last argument the best.
Only the Lord could've done what we see, etc. The objection of other worlds with no intelligence actually strengthens the point- God has centered His attention on earth and rest is a testimony.
But if there are other intelligent worlds, then the skeptical would say ,see there is no God!
Thank you!
Regarding the last point, wouldn't an infinite universe with one planet containing life have an infinite amount of that same planet with life at any given moment in time? Making not just one planet in time
I like the concept of the video, the problem is that the logic used for the counter-refutations is extremely weak.
(FIRST TWO ARGUMENTS AGAINST) The problem with the first two arguments against is that God is outside of our universe and thereby is not within either space or time and therefore is not under the force of any physical laws. The problem with the third argument is that quite literally no other universe can exist, that is not divinely created. Since a universe by definition must have physical laws in order to exist, then since our universe extends into eternity then no other universe can possible exist, there would be no room left for such a universe. Some people might want to claim that our universe doesn’t extend forever, but that we have not discovered the end of it yet and that there is a super universe from which multiple universes come from. There are two problems with this: one scientific and the other logical. First, in an experiment carried out by astronomers in the 1920s, we have discovered that our universe is actually expanding (which is supported by Isaiah 42:5, “he stretches out the heavens”. The Isaiah supports and is the thing being supported is that no argument for the existence of God can use the Bible as support as the Bible assumes the existence of God and thereby would classify as circular reasoning). The logical problem is that the term ‘universe’ would now apply to the super-universe and thus require that a mover move the super-universe. (THIRD ARGUMENT AGAINST) The problem with this argument of infinite regression is that you would be approaching infinity from the wrong side. Proponents think that we are staring at zero and working our way into a positive infinite number of causes; the problem is that we would actually be at the infinite end not the zero end and thus we must work backwards towards a set cause which must also be the mover and efficient cause. (FOURTH ARGUMENT AGAINST) The problem which this argument is that it is an ad ignorantiam fallacy or a fallacy due to ignorance of the subject matter. It doesn’t matter which culture you go to all of them follow the same basic principles (i.e. murder is wrong, kindness is good). Termed as moral wrongs, these principles aren’t subjective but instead objective. Because of this standard for good and bad, then there must have been a Creator and ultimate Standard for this standard. (FIFTH ARGUMENT AGAINST) The claim that life on Earth is by chance. However, this is the problem with studying solely philosophy and absolutely no science. Entropy or the tendency of everything to turn into chaos is the root of thermodynamics and the supposed heat death of the universe because all the energy in the universe would be equally spaced out so it would take the same amount of energy to gain the exact same amount of energy thus zero energy profits. According to the Laws of Thermodynamics, Law of the Conservation of Energy as well as Einstein’s Law of Energy (E=mc^2), energy and matter cannot become more organized but only more disorganized as time passes. Now, let’s look at DNA, if chance were actually what created the universe then DNA should not exist because DNA contains information then it cannot come from chance or entropy. Therefore, because matter and energy cannot become more organized and yet we see organization in all areas of life (although I’ve only talked about DNA for time’s sake), then the universe must have an Orderer.
I would absolutely love a part 2 that would take these counter-arguments into account!
I just loveeeeeeeeeeee this channel.
Greetings from Macedonia!
Thank you very much, hope you keep enjoying the content.
@@PhilosophyVibe So much that I'm watching videos on topics I don't even need. I love the voices and the dialogues (especially). At some point I even considered changing my facebook cover photo with one of the scenery from this channel. Yes, I was that hooked to you lads lol
Lovely to read this, hope we can continue with you on your philosophical journey!
@@PhilosophyVibe You most definitely will because:
1. I've been subscribed to your channel since last summer.
2. I'm retaking Ethics again because the first time I was so fascinated by the topics we covered that I just spent more time watching your videos on stuff we didn't even need, in order to further enlarge my knowledge, instead of studying for the actual exam.
3. I met a girl (future girlfriend) who's older and quite versed in the categorical imperative, and she told me she only likes guys with a college degree. So yeah, I definitely have to pass this time around!
I hope this channel explodes like the Big Bang soon! You deserve it!!
I would argue there is a common view of goodness. I study a lot of religions and philosophy. There is a common thread to most of these.
I'm not sure that this video can justify the notion that because things outside of the universe are not necessarily the same as the universe, therefore we would be taking too much of a leap in rejecting infinite regress.
The reason why is because we don't base our decisions on absolute knowledge but what is likely the case, and that means we base our decisions on what we DO know, not on what we don't, and that is why since based on what we do know from within the universe we understand that there cannot be infinite regresses, this is why we would apply it to things outside of the universe as well. Otherwise, to reject it based on "the possibility" that absurdities could apply differently prior to the universe would be an argument from ignorance, which is a logical fallacy.
Furthermore, if we are going to deny the notion that we should reject an infinite regress because of not knowing the state of reality prior to the universe because it isn't observable, then we would also have to be consistent and apply this within the universe that we live in, because not all of the universe is observable and therefore it's possible that reality does not work the same way outside of what is observable within the same universe, and that would remove our justification for making universal conclusions or predictions of the Big Bang, which would cause us to reject much of scientists conclude is true. However, this video supports the agreement amongst scientists of there being a beginning and therefore supports a universal assumption that implies the beginning of the universe even though it was not observed, and that people are applying their immediate experiences of reality to unobservable aspects of reality, and if a person can do this with the extents of the universe one has not observed, then they should also be able to do this concerning things beyond the universe, and therefore this may give a reason not to reject these Theistic arguments that utilize the point of infinite regress to arrive to these conclusions.
As for there not being life on other planets, just because God would have created other planets does not mean that the purpose for their existence is to put life on them. That is an assumption this video is making, and the video is also rejecting other assumptions that theists are making, so it's fair to point out these assumptions as well from The Atheist conclusion.
The moon may not have life on it, but it does serve a purpose for the Earth, because it stabilizes the tides being at the distance it is at. There might also be other purposes for the moon and the stars or other planets.
Biblically speaking, God created the Stars and planets to be lights for the Earth so that those lights would be for signs and seasons, and to give light on the Earth, implying the Earth was one of the main focuses and the other planets exist in order to support the experience of those from Earth, so there are other explanations as to why these other planets exist and don't have life on them. We are merely assumed that if there is a Creator, then they're absolutely must be life on these other planets, but that is an assumption one cannot justify. There may have been other purposes for them, but those were the purposes mentioned in the Bible.
The point is, that there can be other reasons for why planets exist.
Also, this video has an issue when the objection is raised that it does not have to be God who best explains the first cause that caused the universe but it could be a multiverse which has a mindless ultimate eternal universe that keeps producing other universes and eventually our universe by chance. Why is there a problem with this objection? *Because it violates Occam's razor.*
Occam's razor states that in explaining a thing, no more assumptions should be made than are necessary, and the problem is you have to make even more assumptions with a mindless multiverse in which one has to accommodate for all of the randomness that led to our existence through an endless emergence of different universes that eventually arrived to us rather than you would for God, which makes God the best explanation.
I think you are a bit confused on how proofs or rejections work. If I make a statement (as Aquino did), I have to back it up with proof. Your first comment referred a lot to “if you dont know you cant reject something”, although its not their job to do so (the expectation of proof lies with the person that makes the claim, not the other way around). Secondly, Occam’s razor is NOT A LAW (its a knowledge-dependent principle), so its perfectly fine for something to have a complex and unexpected truth. Third, how on earth is believing in God making less assumptions than believing in similar other universes? We at least know our universe exists
@@cristianfazio362 The point of Occam’s razor is not to argue for laws or non laws, it is to argue that it is a logical principle. The atheist holding a default position of skepticism is not "a law" either, But that doesn't stop an atheist from using that reasoning and imposing it on the theist to gain control over the dialog. Therefore, by the same standard that you would not accept my point on the basis of it not being a law would be the same standard by which we would not accept your argument concerning the burden of proof.
The reason why a multiverse would violate Occam's razor is because it literally must presuppose that all possible realities actually exist whereas presupposing God as a singular entity requires less assumptions. Furthermore, there being a multiverse to begin with arguably implies a fine tuning mechanism which potentially supports the theistic argument.
In this situation in which God requires less assumptions than the alternative, God Therefore becomes a better default position, which would make atheistic presuppositions the alternative claim in this case.
_" Your first comment referred a lot to “if you dont know you cant reject something”, although its not their job to do so (the expectation of proof lies with the person that makes the claim, not the other way around)."_
My first comment points out a logical fallacy called "An appeal to ignorance" In which a person is using what they don't know in order to conclude an alternative. Regardless of your description of the expectation of proof, this is still a logical fallacy, And is a "naturalism of the gaps". Your criticism is making an allowance for naturalism of the gaps while it seems to simultaneously deny God of the gaps. This seems to be a double standard.
@@Bi0Dr01d Thing is, if you dont accept my argument concerning the burden of proof, I can claim the exact opposite of what you claim (or any claim for that matter) and expect you to provide a rejection.
Regarding your second point, you claimed that it violates Occam’s razor, so you must prove that the assumption of God less far fetched that the assumption of a multiverse or any other alternative. As i dont believe, assuming God would change radically my worldview, and assuming multiples realities would not, for me its the other way around. I dont know what specific school of thought you follow, but in general, abrahamic religions agree on that God is everything + the creator of everything. Believing on many “everythings” (that we know at least 1 exists) is less far fetched that believing on a being that creates those everythings
Lastly, you referred to the argument of ignorance. Making the claim that “we see cause and effect in our reality, therefore there is cause and effect outside of it” is a fallacy. You have to prove that this relation holds, not expect someone to reject it in order to be false. Its not outlandish to think that a law inside a system doesnt apply outside of it, we can observe that in our reality as well.
@@cristianfazio362 Regarding your first paragraph, that's just it, if We do accept your idea of the burden of proof, then it's logically consistent to accept my point concerning Occam's razor. I'm not arguing to not accept the principle of the burden of proof, I'm saying that The principle of Occam's razor is logically consistent. Your opening sentence reinforces my point.
Your post which assumes that I did not explain why God is less far-fetched within my post is not accurate. Instead of assuming that I did not give an explanation, you can perhaps present a counter argument as to why my explanation isn't true, but to only assume that it did not make an explanation does not necessitate me to present the same explanation a second time. Because your post does not directly acknowledge my explanation, then your response that assumes that I gave none is not valid, with all due respect.
As a result, I am at liberty of dismissing as a type of red herring your explanation that because believing in God would radically change your worldview and believing in a multiverse would not, this would therefore be your basis not to accept God. This response of yours doesn't acknowledge my explanation or point, and your reasoning does not counter my reasoning/explanation as to why God should be presupposed in this case.
Also, I could flip your argument and say that I don't believe that atheism should be the true default position, and that you actually do have a burden of proof within your atheism to demonstrate why God doesn't exist or that there is generally no sufficient evidence for God. Again, this is how your position is logically inconsistent. You're wanting to apply and impose these principles on me that are not actual laws and will not conform your view based on how you personally see things but do not grant me the same privileges.
This is why your arguments are self-defeating, because just as you rightly pointed out in your first post, if you reject Occam's razor, then I can reject your position as a default position and apply a burden of proof to your position. However, if you reject my argument concerning the burden of proof, then It is logically consistent to accept my argument concerning Occam's razor which therefore calls you to conform your worldview to Theism.
If it doesn't matter my opinion of the burden of proof and that I should conform to your views concerning the burden of proof, then your worldview changing also doesn't matter.
Finally, you're not assuming "multiple realities", your position must assume all possible realities actually exist. This means that a reality actually does exists in which metal accidentally fell from the sky and landed on the ground in such a way to where it formed a space rocket. Since this is not a logically contradictory reality, it actually exists.
However, presupposing God's existence still only consists of one reality and one additional entity. There are less assumptions in presupposing God than a multiverse.
I think the problem with the refutation of the infinite regress is the putting the universe outside of time and space. Saying the universe is eternal but the “observable” universe had a beginning then begs the question how did time come into existence? How did a non-intelligent impersonal universe create time? If physicalism is true an entire dimension (or multiple) being added is a little absurd without God.
best philosophy channel oat
Thank you!
The blank stare of these two guys is rather unnerving. The rigidity in their sitting position borders on the psychopathological. The monotone interjections from the guy on the left is almost maniacal
I have a critical question about Thomas Aquinas's proof of God's existence even though I believe in God and God's existence. My question revolves around " The Argument From Contingency ". Contingent beings are beings that could have existed (human, objects, and others), whiles a Necessary being is a being that always exists and is the supreme God. How can we classify Angels because based on these categories? This is because angels don't die, but they are living with God in heaven.
Please, could you help me with this question?
Angels are created as well, so they would be contingent beings. Hope that helps.
All those things are assumptions with no evidence.
"god of the gaps" aka "argument from ignorance"
Angels aren't real so they can do anything you want them to do.
What about cyclical infinite regress?
U r missing the fact that aquinas distinguished between essentially ordered series and accidentally ordered series . Essentially ordered series he argues cannot go to infinite regress but accidentally ordered series can ( he felt it was impossible to prove or disprove it ) . And the starting premise is some things not everything is in motion .
Aquinas has never claimed that everything needs a mover , in fact none of the philosophers who came up with these arguments ever claimed that everything needs a cause or a mover , they all start with simple observable phenomenon like cooling of a tea , heating of water etc .
we all do know instinctively what right and wrong is.... that's Objective Morality
15:04 The fact that life is so rare leaves me wondering why we are spending $24 billion to find life? Couldn't we spend $24 billion to feed the poor here on Earth?
So funny as soon as this started I thought, "the guy in purple is the atheist".
someone get the guy on the left a glass of water
God says "do not lean on your own understanding" and "my thoughts are higher than your thoughts" etc but that goes over every atheist and skeptics head. They feel the need to try to understand everything.🤷🏾♀️
Humans are logical beings that require to reason things out,even God said 'come now let us reason together...'(isaiah 1:18) -
And if we can't trust our own basis of reasoning (logic) and are just supposed to do and trust what God says without understand why seems like something a slave would do.
I feel like logic is objective and even God is bound by it because if He isn't then even He himself wouldn't understand his nature, which seems ubsurd.Hence I believe that we can at least come to understand God and the universe using logic.(not empiricism).
(Hope it makes sense)
🖤🖤🖤
Why did I get a christian school ad at the start of the video???!!!!!
I think saying humanity is scarce and that would show God doesn't exist isn't a very strong argument. It implies that there *should* be more humanity, and the lack of life (that we know about) has anything to do with or against God's plan. We as humans cannot assume we know every purpose of the universe as God created it, so our assumptions about how much life should be in it would not affect His existence.
If a supposedly "Super Universe" created all the other universes, what created this "Super Universe"?
how two cells leanred to construct themselves into a human being is , I guess, something to think about in regards to whether it was designed by a God or pure random chance. I give 50 percent chance to both😀
I think god is also the infinite .. universe . I think Aquinas did intend to say this as well, as he understood God to be that infinite universe. Not a .. aspect similar to a being as we are.
Aquinas never said "God was the Universe".
6:52
I am a bit confused by this example as the argument here is that "every human being has a parent but one cannot say it (the human race) has a mother." Is it not true that the human race has a point of origin (as does all life in the world)? The human species has a "mother" in the sense that sometime in the past an organism birthed the first human thus becoming the catalyst for the human race. This would mean that all humans have a common "parent".
exactly i thought the same thing.... this example is very poor tbh.
I believe in God, but mine is a pragmatic belief (William James). Like Kant, I don't believe we have the capacity to discuss the nature of a Being that is beyond our own empirical understanding. Belief in God is a matter of faith, not reason in the form of Western proofs such as those put forward by Aquinas or any other Western academic philosopher. Mahatma Ghandi believed in God, but he said there was no way to prove God's existence.
The universe can’t be its own cause when explaining it and god can because he is outside it.
That’s the true limit of our horizon it seems.
Just as we know things exist outside our observable horizon we can speak of outside space time while being inside it
I am from India Hello 👋 sir
Hello :)
5:30 What caused the big bang is the real mystery.
It might not be caused at all; depends how spacetime works.
it never exsist
If everyone just.. forgets the term “God/god” and plugs in breath, thought, spark, light… whatever .. then all of Aquinas arguments seems must less arguable to those who refute… it seems.
Religion has caused so many to turn from the inner most truth of the aspects of thoughts and feelings and innate intuition.. including the reason for morphic reasonable etc..
The rebuttals to Aquinas come across as grasping, gotchas, and emotionally driven. For instance, the "superuniverse" is just kicking the can down the road, as long as the subject is material in some sense (including energy), you're dealing with all the same issues. It reminds me of when Dawkins admitted that the argument for intelligent design by the fine tuning of the universe was now overwhelmingly demonstrated by scientific discover. When asked how he could explain that without God he said... 'Maybe aliens?' 😑 Who made the aliens!? 🤣
The infinite regress rebuttal is a cop out. 'Well, there's (insert smart sounding references) and we have no idea how they work so... there!'
Finally, the rebuttal to the argument of perfection was unscientific. Research has proven that there are nearly universal standards of beauty and goodness. The exceptions to the rule are predictable disordered outliers.
Just because a satanist has convinced themselves that spilling the blood of the innocent is a good thing, doesn't mean that we are at a loss as to how we proceed with the study of ethics.
6:15 the disagreement about super-universe vs. God is only a semantic discrepancy. With scrutiny, both claims could be argued as functionally identical.
I think Aquinas' arguments are definitely of their time. Important and useful as a philosophical "mover," so to speak, but greatly improved upon by the following thinkers mentioned.
The way he exercises the dialectic in his work is profound (he even disproves his own ontological arguments in later questions of the Summa Prima Pars! Albeit unintentionally)
Very cool video
Puagh.
The only assertion that Thomas successfully defended was his ability to construct a compelling argument using words that failed to deliver a god. To this day, no god claimed by god believers has ever appeared to silence skeptics.
You know nothing about Thomism.
The counter-arguments used against Aquinas in the video are against the theistic personalist conception of God. Aquinas was a classic theist, not a theistic personalist.
I feel infinite regress is too quickly accepted by the atheist.
I also contest the meaninglessness of reasoning about things outside spactetime.
We are limited in reasoning about that state but less so reasoning that it must exist and have a contour of it.
Now, go for 5 proof for Goods no-existence.
That's why contingency argument is stronger than causality/cosmological argument, even the multiverse argument is contingent. There has to be only one indivisible necessary being. Spoiler alert : one of Allah's names is Ash-Shomad = the necessary being. Stop by Efdawah youtube channel livestreams and have friendly fruitful discussions insya Allah.
The Truth will set you free , it is true , it will help you overcome all those unreasonable fears they brainwashed you with , it will set you free of religion .
I dont see why the Motion thing is the sane as efficient cause. Motion exists due to a caused mover. I feel like efficient cause should just be the same
If GOD showed himself to the world everyday but didnt answer any of our but why this that or the other thing questions would you server him
Or if he let you know all the answers to your questions including how he came to be but never let you see him would you serve him
Powerful question… but most humans would inquire you to suggest or explain which GOD?
@@SawYouDie so your saying because some stories about lets say elivs are not true and made up none are true
If you need 100 percent proof about any subject you believe nothing
They had everything but video of oj simpson being the killer but he was found not guilty
Just think if the same story in the bible about the man jesus was going on in isreal 200 years ago instead
Dont you think if he didnt exist people would have swept it under a rug just like now when world wide over the last hundred year some claim to be jesus
No bibles or miracles from them yet
@@SawYouDie there is always a original then copies in all of life
Which elvis sang hound dog
Many of them but there one elvis that was first
super universe that caused the big bang?? ok even if you accept that it is correct, you still have to answer the primary question of who caused the super universe to cause the big bang? you still have to find the first mover.
"Argument from Ignorance" aka "God of the Gaps."
The guy in the purple shirt is devoid of reality. Different cultures don't have different morals. Morals are concrete. People choose their actions, this doesn't mean they have different ethical values but have free will. Most of his arguments argue against free will. In ordered chaos you have boath views represented the theists and atheists and in chaos there is no choice no free will people. This just proves that people belive what they conjure up not using reason. In chaos I have have no choice I would be either a theist or atheist it's predetermined, the change is also predetermined by order chaos from one side to the other giving us no choice. Life with no choice doesn't have a purpose reasonably speaking. I don't understand why people CHOOSE to exist if they don't surve a purpose. Keep in mind his point, different cultures don't hold same moral values.
Of course different cultures have different moral values. There is a lot of overlap, but even common things are not absolute.
Not all flowers grow vertically - have you heard of phototropism 😂
If a god was real I'm certain he would just announce himself , especially one as petty as this one , instead of religious people trying to make one up using only words .
He said its just organized Chaos ..lol Atheism is a problem of psychology.. not theology
Regarding your negation of the 4th way: Why can't God maintain within himself a paradox of multiple goods and tunings and be the sum of all? Also, Thomas Aquinas did not use logic alone like the Greeks, but rather a combination of both logic and secondarily faith. The former uses the intellectual faculties much like that of academia and those displayed in this video. The other requires a direct and personal relationship with God which leads to an experiential understanding of some truths that cannot be arrived at using the standard methods we are used to in the west, but which have been documented often in ways which Western critique has fallen short of understanding due to an inability to obtain such understanding by simply putting it to the logical intellectual and theoretic proof level test. Rather, this is just the first step (for a Western, science loving) mind to begin their walk of faith. The totality of the problem here is that the negations all rely on: you cannot give me information in the format which I demand it, therefore I will not humor it. However, truth on such matters is two parts: the first is an intellectual reasoning and the second is an experiential understanding which comes from practicing the faith with earnest and having proper spiritual guidance. Lastly, it requires a capacity to perceive the experience which requires inward work. We wouldn't say surfers do not exist simply because I cannot surf yet or for some that the ocean isn't there simply because I cannot see the beach from my inland home. So it is with Faith. Walking closer to God and removing the barriers of perception can reveal the ocean. However, not everyone needs to become a surfer to know and believe in the ocean. Only the most stubborn amongst us. So it is with intellectuals and so their path is the most difficult if they should ever try to embark on it. It also does not negate their duties as a human being and available salvation given to them by their creator. The paradox of free will to believe is that it grants you grace for your pride, but you must come into alignment at your own free will through Faith. If you attempt to arrive at God via intellectualism and reasoning, you will either fail or be ill prepared to handle it which you would understand simply by reading and interpreting scripture. Not everyone could enter Abraham's constructed Tabernacle except those who are sinless enough to handle an encounter with God. Things which do not make sense out of ignorance and lack of understanding, do not negate their truth. The microbiome of your gut is complex. Certainly the construction of the human mind and spirit are also following rules of their own. The pride of academia comes from wanting to know what those rules are from a scientific approach which is a trespass of a human being. We are called to believe, not to know.
The randomness negation argument is not mathematically sound as it is still beyond improbable to get proteins to form, much less RNA and defies entropy.
Regarding infinite regress: this is addressed in the bible in Revelation 22:13: "I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last, the Beginning and the End.”
Thinking there is an infinite regress is much more illogical than a God. People that think an infinite regress is more plausible than a divine being are just hard stuck convicted atheists
No, any argument for finite time and space are incoherent as well as unsound. Just because it feels "simpler" and caters to your dogma doesn't mean it's logical.
Just to start:
A.) Everything has a preceding cause.
B.) There is an uncaused first cause.
Both cannot be true. If everything has a preceding cause that means an uncaused first cause cannot exist (God of your type is impossible). If there is an uncaused first cause then "everything needs a preceding cause" is untrue and God (of your type) is unnecessary. I could go on but don't need to. The argument always falls apart.
people that think a divine being is more plausible than an infinite regress are just brainwashed biased theists.
The Big Bang is no longer such a sure thing.
But what if one day scientists prove that any universe with a average Hubble expansion greater than 0 cannot have an infinite past-time? What if this proof has just that one condition regardless of the properties of that universe? Well, according to the Borde-Vilenkin-Guth Theorem does indicate a finite past-time even for a hypothetical bouncing universe or bubble universe or any other universe with H(av) > 0. See Alexander Vilenkin explain this himself: czcams.com/video/NXCQelhKJ7A/video.html
JMJ O HOLY SPIRIT PLEASE HELP US,
My dear friends in MIGHTY GOD AND LORD JESUS CHRIST, I am not here to say, right or wrong about your arguments of the creator CREATOR, just take both of you as an example, both are you sitting and talking, for you to do this, there is something moving within you, you don't know what is that, Even I am watching your conversation, but I don't bother to think about that, however the reality is there is something causing US to do this, well you guys MAY turnaround and say, it is chemical reactions or whatever it is, my dear friends for everything to move there is something, that you can't see at all as you all are using your finite mind, because, GOD'S KNOWLEDGE AND UNDERSTANDING IS beyond human comprehension, GOD IS OMNIPOTENT, OMNISCIENT, AND OMNIPRESENT. THERE IS GOD NO DOUBT AT ALL..
MAY THE ALMIGHTY GOD AND SAVIOR LORD JESUS CHRIST BLESSED AND OUR BLESSED HOLY MOTHER GUIDE AND GUARD YOU AND MAKE ALL OF YOU TO UNDERSTAND ABOUT GOD.
The guy just destroyed himself trying to give a counter argument in the 5th way. The universe isn't infinite, the mustiverse is just as true as the big spagetti monster, and the probabilities to get life is even smaller than the smallest thing you can imagine. The philosophical chance doesn't exists anyway, so saying that the Universe or life just pooped "just like that", "by chance" is scientifically and rationnaly innacurate.
@S i R k A
Nope, but I am talking about the video, so it's kinda off topic. But still, I think I found the site you are talking about, and it look facinating, I am gonna check it out, thanks.
This cartoon in purple sounds like Trump
And special pleading
Oh please.
@@martam4142 almost all of it is special pleading
🤗🍝❣☻😃
Thomas Aquinas believed the universe was eternal so you're not understanding his argument
He said one couldn't prove that the universe had a beginning. He claimed, however, that anyone can reason to ipsum esse Subsistens
No he didn't. Aristotle believed the universe was eternal.
Aquinas did not have the tools- telescope or periscope( electron) . we have to excuse him for his lack of data .