Video není dostupné.
Omlouváme se.
St. Thomas' Third Way: You Didn't Have To Exist-But You Do! (Aquinas 101)
Vložit
- čas přidán 31. 07. 2024
- ⭐️ Enjoying Aquinas 101? Donate $5 now to keep these videos FREE for everyone!
You can pay it forward for the next viewer: go.thomisticinstitute.org/don...
Why does anything exist at all? How does St. Thomas' third way prove the existence of God from the effect of "possible beings"? In this episode of Aquinas 101: The Five Ways, join Fr. James Brent, O.P., a Dominican friar from the Province of St. Joseph, as he presents St. Thomas' Third Way to prove the existence of God.
This video is an excerpt from Lesson 7: St. Thomas' Third Way: You Didn't Have to Exist (But You Do!) (Aquinas 101) by Fr. James Brent, O.P. To explore the complete module, including supplemental readings and lectures, click here: aquinas101.thomisticinstitute...
For readings, podcasts, and more videos like this, go to www.Aquinas101.com. While you’re there, be sure to sign up for one of our free video courses on Aquinas. And don’t forget to like and share with your friends, because it matters what you think!
Subscribe to our channel here:
czcams.com/users/TheThomisti...
--
Aquinas 101 is a project of the Thomistic Institute that seeks to promote Catholic truth through short, engaging video lessons. You can browse earlier videos at your own pace or enroll in one of our Aquinas 101 email courses on St. Thomas Aquinas and his masterwork, the Summa Theologiae. In these courses, you'll learn from expert scientists, philosophers, and theologians-including Dominican friars from the Province of St. Joseph.
Enroll in Aquinas 101 to receive the latest videos, readings, and podcasts in your email inbox each week.
Sign up here: aquinas101.thomisticinstitute...
Help us film Aquinas 101!
Donate here: go.thomisticinstitute.org/don...
Want to represent the Thomistic Institute on your campus? Check out our online store!
Explore here: go.thomisticinstitute.org/sto...
Stay connected on social media:
/ thomisticinstitute
/ thomisticinstitute
/ thomisticinst
Visit us at: thomisticinstitute.org/
Dominican Friars: dominicanfriars.org/
#Aquinas101 #ThomisticInstitute #ThomasAquinas #Catholic
You can't even fathom how much good you're doing with these videos. May God Bless you always! Thank you!
Thanks so much for your kind words -- it's a joy! Thanks for taking the time to watch and comment. May the Lord bless you!
Fr. Jim Brent, O.P. is my favorite Dominican.
Thank you for defending logic, thought, and reason ! Truth sets us Free ! 1 = 1 .
Finally a new video by Fr James Brent. He’s very intelligent and articulate… his videos are very compelling.
Thank you, father!
Yep 😇
Thanks so much for your kind words, and for taking the time to watch and comment! We're so happy to have Fr. Brent on Aquinas 101. May the Lord bless you!
Thank you so much for making these videos. They have helped me discover my faith.
We're thrilled to hear that! Thanks for taking the time to watch and comment. May the Lord bless you!
This video is awesome. This is personally my favorite of the 5 proofs and I believe it is the most uniquely Thomistic and also the most appealing to our times. It actually has helped lead me through many personal difficulties whereby things seemed hopeless...but I don't have to exist, yet God wills that I exist and that I bear such crosses, therefore, it must be for some eternal good.
Brilliant as usual. Not using 'contingency' is a good choice.
Even with the help of these videos Aquinas' Summa Theologia still dizzies my head. I can only imagine how difficult it was to understand in his time without CZcams explanations.
Wonderful upload!!!
Thanks Father
We do not see the human mind and yet we know that it exists through its manifestations. The same could be said of the divine mind.
Absolutely brilliant. Thank you for the work you do. God bless!
Thanks so much for your kind words, and for taking the time to watch and comment! May the Lord bless you!
Amazingly clear, thank you very much
You're very welcome! Thanks for taking the time to watch and comment. May the Lord bless you!
Great videos!
Love these videos!
We're so glad to hear it! Thanks for taking the time to watch and comment. May the Lord bless you!
I think that this is actually the strongest argument for the existence of God. So much so, that you can also use it to argue for God’s consciousness.
Defining the Source of All as 'god' the beginning point, the creative force, but not just blind physics - Life clearly demonstrates Order, Purpose, Meaning...
From the smallest plant and insect, to the largest whales swimming in the ocean, all Life has purpose, all Life has meaning.
Could you please put together and sequentially these videos about the Existence of God
Thsnks,
How would Aquinus response to someone who posits that the celestial bodies do not have their necessity caused from outside themselves? That they are themselves uncaused causes? I understand that we now understand the contingency of the stars and planets, but if he can grant the existence of caused necessary beings, what reason is there to believe that such things as physical laws are caused as opposed to uncaused?
I think you're misunderstanding St. Thomas' argument. As you mention in the video, this is a tricky argument to parse, and the reason is the wording of the first conclusion, which reads as follows:
"Therefore, if everything is possible not to be, then at one time there could have been nothing in existence."
It's the words "could have been" that are the source of the trouble. You translate them in this video as "was," in essence claiming that he's concluding that if everything is possible not to be, then there was necessarily a time when everything was not. But that's not the argument.
Here's what Thomas is actually saying: Everything that is possible not to be at some time is not. But if that's the case, and we assume that everything is possible not to be (since otherwise we are already admitting the existence of a necessary being), then it's *possible* that there was a time when everything was not. Let's assume there was such a time. In that case, nothing would now exist, because nothing can be brought into existence except by something already existing. Yet obviously, things exist. Therefore, it's impossible that there was a time when everything was not.
But if it's impossible that there was a time when everything was not, then, per the reductio, it's impossible that all beings are possible not to be. Therefore, there is at least one necessary being. Etc.
This is great analysis! How did you develop such an advanced understanding of metaphysics if you don’t mind me asking?
"But if it's impossible that there was a time when everything was not, then, per the reductio, it's impossible that all beings are possible not to be."
What would you say of the thought that this is a non sequitur? If someone objected by stating:
One can admit that it is impossible that there was a time when everything was not, and propose instead that this can be explained by the hypothesis that there has ALWAYS been a _possible_ being in existence (or in other words, there has never been a time where nothing existed), and this necessary chain of possible beings can be retraced infinitely into the past.
So, the impossibility that there was a time when everything was not, would not necessarily entail that therefore there is a necessary being, but rather, we can also conclude that there is a necessary 'chain of infinite possible beings that goes infinitely into the past' that is not a being itself.
Would this objection be satisfactorily answered if we responded: well, a necessary "inifnite chain of possible beings" *IS* a being in itself, so we come down to the same conclusion?
How does the 3rd way work in Anthropic Principle and multiverse hypothesis 🤔
i feel it operates above these concepts.
Comment for traction
I'll join you
GOD ! Have mercy on a poor siner !
Our LORD, GOD and SAVIOUR did create the simplest fabric (H²O) to sustain all of life here on earth.
Just as the Jordan and the Euphrates are made of this fabric, so to also are the Bow and the ELbow.
🌱LIFE IS BUT A VAPOUR (H²O)🌹
HOLY BIBLE
Habakkuk 3:9
Thy bow was made quite naked (bare),
according to the oaths of the tribes
(oaths were sworn over your arrows),
even thy word, Selah.
Thou didst cleave (divided) the earth
with rivers.
🙌ALLELUIA🙌
A-men' 🌿
The existence of the self is necessary because to experience nonexistence does not exist, therefore the self must exist and by extension God because God's existence can be inferred from the self.
There is actually no way to prove a potential without actualize it. . Which would of course negate the potential nature of the statement. . Ie. The only way for me to definitively prove that I "could have been" a school teacher would be for me to actually become one. . There is also no proof that things did not have to be the way they are . . (Einstein one asked if God had any"choice"in the creation of our universe)
Be it proof or not, he is correct.
What you think of modal collapse as an objection to the third way
Besides Roman Catholic hereditary royalty, I find refugees to be a source of family values. Thank you for reminding me of gathering wild dandelions for food in Croatia during my devotions to Blessed Stepinac.
Here is a philosophical critique of Aquinas' Third Way as presented in this video:
- The key premise that contingent beings require an explanation for their existence is asserted without proper justification. This premise requires more defense.
- The argument illicitly exempts God from having to be explained, suggesting God's existence is self-evident. But there is no reason given as to why God does not also require an external ground of being.
- Even if valid, the argument only points to a necessary being, not necessarily the God of classical theism. Other conceptualizations of a metaphysically necessary being are ignored.
- The analogy of contingent beings requiring an external cause for existence does not accurately characterize cosmological contingency and necessity. This disanalogy weakens the reasoning.
- Aquinas assumes that infinite causal regresses are impossible, but does not rule out actual infinite causal chains. This assumption requires more defense.
- The video explicator fails to consider and address objections to the key premises and logic of the argument. As presented, it is one-sided.
In summary, Aquinas' Third Way relies on unsupported assumptions about contingency and necessity while neglecting alternative conceptualizations. It does not constitute a sound deductive proof of God's existence without addressing major philosophical objections.
Here is a propositional logic formulation of Aquinas' Third Way:
1. ∀x (Cx → ∃y(Ny ∧ Cyx))
For any contingent being x, there exists some necessary being y, such that x is caused by y.
1. ∃x Cx
There exists some contingent being x.
1. ∴ ∃y (Ny ∧ ∀x (Cx → Cyx))
Therefore, there exists some necessary being y, such that for any contingent being x, x is caused by y.
Problems:
- Premise 1 asserts without justification that contingent beings require necessary beings.
- Premise 2 is reasonable, but does not justify the conceptualization of necessity in the conclusion.
- The conclusion makes an unsupported leap by equating this necessity with God.
Symbolically representing the argument reveals gaps in reasoning from contingent beings to the existence of the classical God concept of theism. Key premises lack substantive support and the conclusion does not deductively follow.
Why does God create people He knows will go to Hell? Isn't that cruel?
God only knows someone will go to hell, but He didn't predetermined it. It will still be an honest choice of the person to reject the love offered by God. One goes to heaven through the grace of God and Hell by their own choice. I suggest you look at a debate of Jimmy Akin vs. James White on predestination. It's available on CZcams.
This sounds like the nonsensical sophism of the theistic.
Once again..no actual proof in the way we understand the word and its meaning..lt is simply a philosophical hypothesis.Everything that exists requires a cause,except the first cause...There is an inherant contradiction in that statement..Its simply special pleading.
in philosophy everything is hypothesis and nothing. seems confusing natural science (in which you have hypotheses, theories, etc) with philosophy. it looks like a special pleading only if you formalize this way: "everything is … except …" but does not is also tell the same idea if you say "there are 2 kind of things: caused and uncaused"?
At no point is “every that exists requires a cause” apart of the syllogism. Reread the arguments from Aquinas. I’d recommend reading Ed Feser’s book about the proofs also
do you know what a strawman fallacy is? Can you provide a definition.
@@bandie9101 of you are claiming that uncaused or necessary things exist,you need to be able to demonstrate that. Its still the uncaused cause position..
@@no3339 No but the implication is that all caused things will eventually trace their existence back to an uncaused cause..