I wonder what the purpose of putting this presentation together was if those putting it together didn't understand the argument. The know nothing of concurrent causality, the act/potency distinction and why a purely actual cause cannot, by definition, be caused itself. Very sloppy work.
This was like a summary of a summary of Aquinas. It's a total misrepresentation of his argument, actually. I appreciate the visuals and the effort into making the video, but it seems like the task of actually understanding the argument was severely neglected
@@DookyButter Where could we find a better outline of the first mover argument? I esp didn’t like how they ended bringing up an objection im sure he addressed as if theres no respone
It’s a bad presentation of the argument, an awful misrepresentation. The last question “and what caused God” also shows that she doesn’t know the argument.
There are many very relevant issues with this video. First - to understand Five Ways one must now at least a little bit about Aristotelian and Thomistic metaphysics. This is needed to understand what words like 'actuality', 'poteniality', 'motion' etc. mean. Second - Five Ways in Summa Theologica are just summaries of what Aquinas speaks of further in the book and in his other works. Five Ways are deductive metaphicical demonstrations not inductive reasonings, coming from the first principles. There is nothing about this stuff in this video. Going forward - Aquinas speaks of motion as change. He does not posit that everything changes. But just that there are things that change. So conclusion about Prime Mover being unchanged is not begging the question. Change means going from potential state to actual. This does not mean regress going back in time and we are not speaking about 'beginnigs'. Time here is irrelevant as well as current scientific theories. We are talking about the fact that here and now we need Prime Mover to explain motion happening now. We speak about essentialy ordered series when every element is dependent on previous one. We are talking here also about such things like motion of our body being dependent on motion of organs being dependent on motion of cells, being dependent on motion of particles etc. Change is here something like a power in computer. You need First Mover to terminate regress because from where the actuality that enable it came from? Just like you cannot explain electrical power in computer just by apeal to infinate cable - you need a power-plant (remeber that it is an analogy). No matter how many intermidiate changers we have we still need First Changer. And He must be unchangable and be Pure Act - meaning He would not have any potentiality in him to actualize. Because if he would not be Pure Act He could be actualized and therefore would need again external source of power to act. Moving further - it follows that Pure Act must be simple (because complexity requires differences and therefore potentials and would not be First Mover), eternal (because Pure Act cannot begin to exist or cease to exist - therefore always exists), all powerful (because pure actuality means you can actualize anything including bringing into existance anything) etc. Questions about possibility of infinite regress are missing a point - as Aquinas never talked about such thing in his arguments and 'who caused God' makes no sense here if we now that not everything must have a cause and that God is Pure Act - therefore is not caused by anything, but just is. Even atheists like Michael Rouse agree that such objection is absurd no matter what theistic arguments from motion, casuality or contingency you take into account. I recommend 'Thomistic Institute' channel on YT and Edward Feser's "The Last Superstition" to read about this topics in more detail but still approachable for begginers.
What i have a hard time wrapping my head around is how could TA grant that the universe is infinite yet claim that it needs something else to sustain it?? Doesn't infinity imply that it(the universe) has independent power of motion?
"Besides, saying that the winner of the race, the guy who came before everyone else, was John, just leaves the awkward question: who came before John?"
Thomas Aquinas never argued that God 'moved himself' but that God himself is pure actuality and has no potency. God never changes because he is perfect so there's no need to 'move himself'. Being perfect just means that there is no potency, it just is.
Aquinas' argument is based on problem he can't prove even exists, which Aquinas attempts to solve simply by defining his solution as something that solves the problem. Nothing can exist without cause, therefore let's invent an entity that can exist without cause, by calling it timeless and infinite, while at the same time we deny such properties to anything else. And then, the final touch, let's call this solution God, even though we didn't even start to prove that our solution is a sentient being, all-good, all-powerful, all-just, all-knowing, unique etc.
What caused the uncaused Cause? That's your zinger at the end? It's only an awkward question because it shows that you have not understood Aquinas' First Mover Argument.
This video completely misunderstands the argument. Aquinas states in the argument that indeed we cannot prove the universe had a beginning in time (temporal causal chains) but rather that in the here and now, there must necessarily be something that gives us our existence. So for eg. a paintbrush can’t paint by itself even if it had an infinitely long handle, and similiarly, even if we say “the rock moves because it’s pushed by a stick and I’m pushing the stick” but we must then say how we push the stick. Ok so, “my hand is moved by my muscles and my muscles by the motion of my heart pumping blood which is moved by molecules moved by atoms etc etc.” and eventually you get to the point where further explanation is not possible. But even more importantly, before we even postulate this causal chain in the present, it stands to reason that there must be something whose essence and existence are identical (i.e. that which is existence itself which “all men call God”). Aquinas himself says that everything that is contingent (relies on the source of existence from external to itself) is moved by another (which necessarily rules out God as he is not contingent necessarily). Anyway, this video was very poorly presented and clearly aims to present a distorted version of Aquinas’ theory to further a philosophical position of atheism.
This is terrible. Aquinas didn't argue that God moved Himself, he argued that the first move is an "unmoved mover". He clearly states in the Summa that nothing can move itself, and this is true even of God.
The prime mover argument talks about the ontological movement of potency to act. Which has only a passing relationship to temporal events like the domino chain - Aquinus himself admitted that the universe could have always existed. Nor does it have anything to do with mechanistic efficient causes. Thus the argument certainly isn't about is God reaching into the universe to push things about to get them moving... Whether it is ultimately true or not is of course open to debate.
Aquinas did not argue for a first mover in the past. He argues that any change in movement of a thing requires a first mover now. Check out the difference between a accidental and essentially ordered series for more detail.
1:24 you got wrong hear Aristotle and perhaps aquinas wasn't talking about movement in time but about dependence of one motion onto another. Time is irrelevant here because Aristotle believed in eternity of universe
Motion is an absolute. Time is the illusion. Motion never began, just as time never began. Time only appears to have a beginning due to our Observable Universe but the Entire Universe never began. It is an eternal moving substance.
You establish that the first mover moves itself, and therefore is not caused by anything else. Then asked what caused it like that could counter the argument when your own description shows it to be a stupid question.
And, then, the atheist goes, "Ha! I've got you!", and congratulates themselves, without realizing they haven't even begun to seriously examine the Aquinas argument.
Your entire message appears to simply be yet another, "Ha! I've got you!". Except you didn't even attempt to further the argument at all. Are you really trying to claim that no atheist has ever begun to serious examine the argument? No need to reject that sentiment, I'll bet the farm you're wrong.
Wow... this horrifically butchers Thomas Aquinas' argument. God is not moved at all, neither by Himself nor by another. As the more extensive treatment of the argument from motion, found in Summa Contra Gentiles Book I, chapter 13, explicitly states, God is the Unmoved Mover. Did the producers of this segment do any research at all?
ForeverSharkman643 The argument is that whatever is in motion is put in motion by another. Motion meaning change here. Since God is changeless, he is not, nor ever has been, nor ever can be in motion. That is what is meant by unmoved mover.
ForeverSharkman643 But what in nature is unmoved, changeless? Nothing I've observed and I'm guessing nothing you've observed either... Our senses inform us that all of nature is in change. So the question is how can something natural be unmoving, and still be natural? As to thoughtless... Why would a natural anything need to be thoughtless ony any account? For even if all you believe in is nature you're not denying your own thoughts are you? If not then thoughts surely exist within nature even within your own naturalist account of reality, no?
Energy (E) is the origin by which all things are set in motion. Once energy is applied, it creates momentum (p). When this momentum comes in contact with another object(s), it enables momentum to push or pull. I discovered that in physics the word, "Force" is an expression for surface contact. In other words, Force and contact are two different words, but mean exactly the same thing. Without energy, there is no momentum. Without momentum, there is no force (contact). This means that Sir Isaac Newton's Second Law of Motion needs to be updated by replacing the word, "Force" with "Energy". The physics formula Ep=ma is the update to the physics formula F=ma. Energy is the initial cause of motion.
How did an immaterial something, make something from nothing, if something from nothing is impossible? If space did not exist prior to our universe, where could a Being be? Where could you put a universe if there is no where? If nothing can happen without time, how did anything do anything without time? Note: "It was magic" is not an explanation. More questions/ no answers.
The argument that Aquinas (and other philosophers like Aristotle before him) made was not what the video represents. The argument you're arguing against is more like a Kalam argument. Aquinas accepted that there may never have been a beginning of the material universe at all. The argument goes something like this: Anything moving from potential to actual is actualized by another. For example, my hand moves from point A to point B. It is actualized/moved by my nervous system, which is actualized by the cells, and then the atoms that make up those cells, and then the sub atomic particles, etc. This chain of causation ends somewhere in regard to this series, since it is hierarchical and not linear (i.e. I'm not talking about going back in time to the beginning of time). Whatever is at the end of this hierarchical line must require nothing else to actualize itself, which means it is an un-actualized actualizer (using Dr. Ed Feser's words) or unmoved mover. Since anything within space-time can be moved from potential state to actual, or from non-motion to motion, then we see that the most fundamental aspect of the universe is dependent upon something outside of the universe to actualize it. Your thoughts?
We don't know what caused the Big Bang. Even if we do find out, that won't answer the question of God's existence. But the idea of God being uncreated has stumped me logically. But that is because I'm using human reasoning and applying it to something like God. Who says God must go by our presumptions?
I have tried many times to convince my son that God exists, but he is very stubborn. According to the Bible, I should take him before the elders for judgement, but I don't know anybody older. How can I resolve this problem ?
Thought experiment - Advanced aliens land on earth and we ask them if they evolved or were created, and they say they have always existed. Do you believe them?, and if not, why not?
1:05 is flat out wrong; Aquinas never claimed that the first mover moved itself. Just the opposite in fact (hence the "unmoved" bit in "unmoved mover")
@@lubright9637 No, he didn't. He wrote : "a nullo movetur" ("isn't moved by anyone") and called God "Actus purus" ("Pure Act", which means He knows no movement at all).
I'm not going to say all non-theistic professors treat theistic arguments dismissively and superficially, but in my experience non-theistic professors tend to misrepresent the argument. I'll give two quotes, one from a theist, one from a non-theist, on this argument of a word (=temporal) that serves as a litmus test to shows if Aquinas' first way argument has been misrepresented. Non-theist: "A concrete example is the retracting process that starts *temporally* with children and moves back to parents." Theist (one that doesn't even agree with the argument): "It [the argument] seeks a Cause that is first, *not in the temporal sense* -- -- Aquinas is thinking here on causes that act simultaneously like the gears in a machine, not successively like falling dominoes." The point being that even as a skeptinc one doesn't need to misrepresent arguments of the opposing view. Maybe more communication with theists could help?
Aquinas' argument is based on problem he can't prove even exists, which Aquinas attempts to solve simply by defining his solution as something that solves the problem. Nothing can exist without cause, therefore let's invent an entity that can exist without cause, by calling it timeless and infinite, while at the same time we deny such properties to anything else. And then, the final touch, let's call this solution God, even though we didn't even start to prove that our solution is a sentient being, all-good, all-powerful, all-just, all-knowing, unique etc.
@@goranmilic442 I can tell you've been thinking ! We all know that anything that begins to exist has a cause. Lightning begins to exist, therefore it has a cause and we call that Zeus.
??! What a waste! The video had clearly worded explanations and clever visuals all throughout only to end and wrap things up in the most silly and unjust way. I say it's silly because Thomas Aquinas was NOT arguing for merely a "First Mover". Instead, he argued for an UNMOVED Mover . The Unmoved Mover is precisely THE Supreme Being (i.e. God) and the FIRST mover of all things because he was NOT moved by something or someone else (he wouldn't be God if that were the case). I say unjust because it sets you up (erroneously albeit) to make you think of how weak Thomas Aquinas argument on motion is after all. The 5 Ways or Arguments of St. Thomas Aquinas on the existence of God are not supposed to be taken individually or in isolation as if they were 5 independent arguments that have nothing to do with each other. All them complement and reinforce each other. So the answer to the video's last question "What caused God?"-- well God is the UNCAUSED CAUSE! (Aquinas' 2nd Argument). Just like in the First Argument on Motion, there can't be an infinite regress of causes. God can't caused by something or someone else because that would mean that he wouldn't be superior to all things (the cause is always greater than the effect). Hence, God is the Unmoved Mover, Uncaused Cause, the Pinnacle of Perfection, the Necessary Being and Last End of all things. Q.E.D.
What caused God? That's to misunderstand what the theist means by God. Theists typically agree that God exists a se, by a necessity of His own nature. Asking, "What caused God," is simply misunderstanding the doctrine of divine aseity. See Leibniz's formulation of the cosmological argument for clarification.
I'm sorry to hear that since it actually muddles the situation. As you regress back and examine what's causing what, things get simpler and simpler, then suddenly you need something extremely complex to start it that didn't need anything to start it? That's called solving a problem almost as poorly as saying, "the answer is the answer". As Carl Sagan once said, if you have to invent a god to then assign to him a property of having always existed in order to solve this problem, why not simply save yourself a step and simply conclude that the universe always existed. He offers that up, but obvious being a man of science his life's work greatly improved our knowledge in pursuit of the truth.
It's really disappointing that a video purporting to explain Aquinas' argument actually ends with the simplest, most basic question one can ask on the topic, and which the argument, properly understood, completely answers. This video's :conclusion" is the starting point of the discussion. I'd expect better from the British!
I'm sorry, but it's not an awkward question, I think it's an unreasonable or stupid question, when " god" needs a cause to move so we still in the loop, thus the one who causes others to move does not in need to a cause , he creates causes , he creates the law of movement he is the Creator, period
I don't get it - I'm not especially smart and I can understand, very clearly, that the argument from motion has nothing to do with a temporal series of causes. Why can't professional philosophers and scientists with PhDs in their respective fields understand this simple fact?
Christopher Wojdak Because they did not study Aquinas, not properly anyway. Most majors in philosophy today, in their college education, had perhaps one course where medieval philosophy is treated and often shabbily dismissed. The same often apply with Greek philosophers as well and even most modern philosophers. Hence for most of them, everything before 1950 is often just one vague blob, unless they of course specialize in one particular period of philosophy.
Overall, I find the video to be made incredibly well. The visual imagery presented through art captured the audiences’ attention and certainly kept it throughout the whole video. I can definitely appreciate how well organized it was and the effort that was obviously made into creating this piece. Personally, I find the comments to be highly unwarranted for a sheer number of reasons. Especially, given the fact, that about roughly ninety percent of them did not even support their claim as to why it was “so bad”. I have no idea why it garnered so much negative attention, but I find it to be irrational of the audience. Sadly, only a small portion of people had commented, supported, and even quoted from reliable textual evidence. It was a huge reminder to how the real world is, and to how ignorant/hateful people can be. The video did touch base with Saint Thomas Aquinas’s belief that there are five ways in which one can prove the existence of God. One of the five ways they touched base on was in the Argument of Motion, where Aquinas has eight main ideas to be understood by. BBC Radio touched base on the first, fifth, sixth, seventh, and eight points though they missed second, third, and fourth.. BBC Radio goes into saying “Some things in the universe are in motion, maybe your heart. Certainly are the birds in the sky and the cars on the road…” (BBC Radio) In this simple introduction, they already pointed out how our senses prove that somethings are in motion (First point), Thomas’s first point in his belief that the First Way to understand God is the Argument in Motion. In this quote, BBC Radio tells the audience of two points in Thomas’s Argument from Motion where “Anything in motion must have been caused to move. Nothing can move itself spontaneously without something moving it and the thing that moves another thing must itself be in motion. Every effect has a prior cause” (BBC Video). They told the audience that nothing can move itself (Fifth point) and how each thing in motion is moved by something else (Sixth point). They point out to the audience how something had to move first otherwise an “...infinite regress of effects and their causes going back forever without a beginning but if there has to be a beginning of the chain of cause and effect what caused the first mover to move…”. This proves the seventh point, where in The First Way, Argument from Motion, Thomas says that “The sequence of motion cannot extend ad infinitum” (Theodore Gracyk translation). Finally, they said that “The first mover just moved itself, that's because the first mover was God who can do that sort of thing” (BBC Video). They aren’t wrong either. Thomas’s final point was that, “therefore, it is necessary to arrive at a first mover, put in motion by no other; and this everyone understands to be God” (Theodore Gracyk translation). BBC Radio only missed Thomas’s second, third and fourth point. His second point in the First Way, Argument from Motion was that “Things move when potential motion into an actual motion” (Theodore Gracyk translation). Though, the video might have insinuated that, it did not however, flat out say it, in which, we can assume, they didn’t. That could be argued, but otherwise, that’s how many perceive it. BBC Radio’s second mistake was missing the third point in Thomas’s Argument from Motion was that “Only an actual motion can convert a potential motion into an actual motion” (Theodore Gracyk translation). Again, like before, it did not say it, though, might have insinuated it. Therefore, the final error in BBC Radio’s mistake was the fact that they disregarded the fourth point in Thomas’s Argument from Motion where “Nothing can be at once in both actuality and potentiality in the same respect” (Theodore Gracyk translation). They never said anything relevant to that, nor the previous points but it could be argued for the fact they insinuated it.
There are many very relevant issues with this video. First - to understand Five Ways one must now at least a little bit about Aristotelian and Thomistic metaphysics. This is needed to understand what words like 'actuality', 'poteniality', 'motion' etc. mean. Second - Five Ways in Summa Theologica are just summaries of what Aquinas speaks of further in the book and in his other works. Five Ways are deductive metaphicical demonstrations not inductive reasonings, coming from the first principles. There is nothing about it in this video. I wonder why they even make a 1:53 minute video about much complex topic. Going forward - Aquinas speaks of motion as basically change. He does not posit that everything changes. But just that there are things that change. So conclusion about Prime Mover being unchanged is not begging the question. Change means going from potential state to actual. This does not mean regress going back in time and we are not speaking about 'beginnigs'. Time here is irrelevant as well as current scientific theories. We are talking about the fact that here and now we need Prime Mover to explain motion happening now. We speak about essentialy ordered series when every element is dependent on previous one. We are talking here also about such things like motion of our body being dependent on motion of organs being dependent on motion of cells, being dependent on motion of particles etc. Change is here something like a power in computer. You need First Mover to terminate regress because from where the actuality that enable it came from? Just like you cannot explain electrical power in computer just by apeal to infinate cable - you need a power-plant (remeber that it is an analogy). No matter how many intermidiate changers we have we still need first changer. And He must be unchangable and be Pure Act - meaning He would not have any potentiality in him to actualize. Because if he would not be Pure Act He could be actualized and therefore would need again external source of power to act. Moving further - it follows that Pure Act must be simple (because complexity requires differences and therefore potentials and would not be First Mover), eternal (because Pure Act cannot begin to exist or cease to exist - therefore always exists), all powerful (because pure actuality means you can actualize anything including bringing into existance anything) etc. Questions about possibility of infinete regress are missing a point - as Aquinas never talked about such thing in his arguments and 'who caused God' makes no sense here if we now that not everything must have a cause and that God is Pure Act - therefore is not caused by anything, but just is. Even atheists like Michael Rouse agree that such objection is absurd no matter what theistic arguments from motion, casuality or contingency you take into account. I recommend reading third part of Edward Feser's "The Last Superstition", he elaborates on this more detail.
@@TheGeneralGrievous19 This video will totally mislead the viewer. Prof Ed Feser is the go to guy, and he's readable and has videos. And he knows what he's talking about.
@Lu Bright Saint Thomas of Aquinas wrote : "a nullo movetur". We can't translate that as "put in motion by no other [than himself]", the right translation is "isn't put in motion by anyone". The use of the pronoun "nullus" prevent the use of "non" before the verb, because "a nullo non movetur" means "put in motion by everyone", that's why saint Thomas wrote "a nullo movetur", "nullo" is sufficient to negate the verb. Also, it is obvious that saint Thomas meant that God doesn't move, because he calls God "Actus Purus". That God is "Actus Purus" means that He has no potency at all, He is fully act, which excludes the possibility for Him to move ! Because the movement or change (latin "motio" means "change", not only the local movement) is the transition from potency to act ; God has no potency, then He cannot change. The BBC here, is either dishonest, either ignorant. But this moment of the video 0:56 - 1:10 : "What caused the first mover to move ? Thomas Aquinas, a 13th dominican friar, argued that the first mover just moved itself. That's because the first mover was God, who can do that sort of thing !", shows that BBC would rather be dishonest (or maybe they are quoting a dishonest author). Saint Thomas never "argued that the first mover just moved itself, because he's God who can do that". It is pure invention and lie. Anyone who has read the Summa of Aquinas will agree that it is a lie.
Though the visuals are good, this is one of the worst explanations of the argument I have ever heard, first of all Aquinas doesn’t ever argue that the regress extends back in TIME, he grants for the sake of argument that the world has always existed. Aristotle is the first to have argued along these lines, and he actually believed change to be eternal past and future. And there is no reference to actuality and potentiality or hylomorphic realism which are central concepts to this argument.
Lol. He wouldn’t be God if something else caused God. Otherwise that thing would be God (by definition) and that just puts you on the same argument lol. A first mover implies perfection and if God (in every sense of the word) is perfect it implies unchanging. If something is ultimate and perfect it need not improvement.
@@thevulture5750 It's not a choice though, is it ? Evidence for the existence of a god: 0 You seem to struggle with the idea the the universe came into existence without a cause but then have no issue accepting the idea of a massless, timeless, spaceless consciousness that is all-powerful, all-knowing and everywhere at the same time yet is utterly indetectable.
@@thevulture5750 I don't chose what I believe. I don't believe anything. I have levels of confidence. I think that, given what we know, it's very unlikely that a god or gods exist, it's most likely that we do not fully understand quantum physics _et al_ . If you believe that god exists, why does it exist ? Whatever answer you give, apply that to matter & energy.
@@thevulture5750 Until you can prove that god exists, it isn't the first cause. You're also erroneously thinking that there *was* a first cause. If matter & energy always existed in a dynamic form, then a first cause isn't needed. You're using school-boy thinking for physical phenomena that is way beyond your comprehension... so you employ a "god of the gaps" approach.
@@thevulture5750 I'm giving valid alternatives to what you assert as fact. Matter (i.e. the universe) always existing has been suggested by Alan Guth, co-author of the Borde, Guth, and Vilenkin Theorem: _"It's (the universe) very likely eternal but nobody knows"_ "If you believe it is, you had better inform Krauss and Carroll how it works" - I'd only be telling Carroll what Carroll already knows as I've listened to many of his discussions. To quote Carroll: _"The problem with this premise [that everything that begins to exist needs a cause] is that it is false."_ _"But there's a bigger problem with it in that it is not _*_even_*_ false"_ Source of Guth's & Carroll's comments: czcams.com/video/X0qKZqPy9T8/video.html
God is just another wall. "What made him?" The space that he is in. The space that everything is. (a huge supercluster of all the universes and multiverses). You can go all the way back to the first thing that ever existed. Call it whatever you want. It can't have "always been". (atleast that answer doesnt satisfy me personally). So, did it came out of nothing? Science says that energy can't be created. But we also have atoms in Quantum physics that pop out of nothing. So... did it manifested itself? Possibly. Hence the "First Mover" argument isn't completely false. Something can just move (appear) itself. How, now that, it what we should look for.
Video misrepresents the argument. If something caused god then the thing which caused him, by definition, would be God. Since "God" is defined as "Maximally Great Being." A really great being can be caused by something else. . . but if it owes its existence to something else, then he is not *Maximally* Great.
frank dunleavy Aquinas (like any other monotheist) points out that no being could possibly be greater than God. Thus God is defined as a *maximally* great being. If something caused God, then God would owe His existence to something else. . . and therefore would not, by very definition, be God. So asking "what caused God?" is like asking, "can a square be round?" The person who asks it is merely confused as to the definition of either the word "round" or else the word "square."
+Steve Bennett There's no logical necessity that something that created, say, the biblical Jewish wargod Yahweh, is "maximally great" though. It's not even clear that the expression "maximally great" even means anything objective. It seems to me that "greatness" is necessarily a subjective value judgment.
+Steve Bennett _"So asking "what caused God?" is like asking, "can a square be round?""_ Not if a specific god, such as the Christian god, is involved, because that god certainly is not maximally great in any sense. I wouldn't even use the unqualified word "great" about that creature. _"The person who asks it is merely confused as to the definition of either the word "round" or else the word "square.""_ A hopeless analogy. The reason "What caused God?" is meaningless is not because he's "great", but because theism proposes that the god is the grounding of all being. Of course, Naturalism defines Nature as the grounding of existence, so the question "What caused Nature?" is equally meaningless under Naturalism and this is of course the point people are trying to make if they ask the question "What caused God?". We need an actual reason to think that it's possible for nature to not exist and currently, such a reason doesn't exist. All we observe is that nature rearranges itself. There's not a single instance of creatio ex nihilo observed by mankind. And moreover, if nature in fact is eternal, then it is as meaningless to talk about "the beginning of the universe" as it is to talk about "the beginning of the surface of the earth".
Gnomefro It's a common argument to think that "greatness" is a subjective idea. But actually, if you think about it, "greatness" can be moved into the realm of objectivity by asking very straightforward "either/or" questions. For example: Q: Is it greater to be omnipotent? Or limited in power? Q: Is it greater to be omniscient? Or limited in possible knowledge? Q: Is it greater to be logical? Or illogical? Q: Is it greater to be loving and empathetic? Or to be selfish, and self-centered? Q: Is it greater to be necessary? Or contingent on something else existing first? Q: Is it greater to be primary? Or derived from something else? --------- On and on the list goes. But as you can see, a "Maximally Great Being" is not, actually, a subjective idea. There are clear answers to these questions that any truly objective person would answer consistently.
frank dunleavy The questions are simple, straightforward, "either / or" questions. Such as "is it greater to be 2? Or 3?" Concepts which are greater, rather than lesser, are actually very easy for any objective person to understand. The key is to frame it as an "either / or" question.
"Perhaps effects and their causes do stretch back in time infinitely" except evidence of the big bang shows that there was a beginning, where time, space and matter simultaneously were created from nothing. Also, the question "Who created God" is such an amateur question to both theist and atheist philosophers. A God that is eternal is by definition not created. Good explanation of Aquinas' theory though.
is that it? does it make you feel better? i tell you brother, The fact that people is searching something in this world that they couldn't seek. They seek pleasure they couldn't find, they seek true happiness they couldn't find, they seek security they couldn't find. The humanity seeks this things in this world, in sex, in money, in buying things they like. BUT all this things they realized was rubbish when death comes.
GOD put emptiness in our hearts to seeks HIM. Seek HIM brother, Find His voice, seek His face,and let the hole in your heart be filled with Christ, amen.
Ryan Lowe It's actually more plausible than anything. Creation itself is a paradox. It is from this paradox that the creation of a god or big bang was given the OK. Because something cannot create itself from will. So if the big bang and a god cannot create themselves,this means they are impossible. And so are we in that case. However, i have found that for something to not be able to exist, it must first be observable. There is no non-existence without existence,
Shovels is creation plausible then? What if the universe has existed eternally in some form? If we are impossible then how are we here? Your findings are seriously flawed! Do round squares exist? Can you observe them? Lastly how do you know that there is no non - existence without existence? Have you always existed?
Ryan Lowe No i have not always existed wich is the point. It is neccesity that made us, or create that wich created us. The part about round sqaures is not a good argument. There are only perceptions on these things. Calling a something a something. What i hate about Gods and big bangs is that they are just supposed to be there because of something that is just there without explanation. The paradox supports everyone's life view. i'll sayit again. he infinite loop of possible predecessors makes their existence impossible. For something cannot create itself from will. However, for nothing to exist, there must a confirmation, a spectator, something that can observe existence. There is no non existence without existence because if there was no non-existence existence itself would not have mattered. It's the old story of light and dark, different sides of the same coin that can't be without each other. "what if the universe has existed eternally in some form?" That's ignorant. Iunderstand why you would think that, but it's too easy to conclude this with. We are impossible, yes. But the paradox created us as a collective. Before you begin about how perceive our world let me tell we view it flawed. Like how we perceive time. Time does not exist entirely, it's a manmade concept. For all we know our full life is captured in one moment. Also our perception is flawed to the very foundation. We percive things the same as others. But are they truth? And thus, round sqaures serve no purpose because "round" nd "square" are just words, definitions, other manmade concepts, Don't trust religion, and don't trust science. Science is ,of course, still usefull for it helps perceiving our world as we have made it. But it cannot explain our existence,
Shovels ain't you long winded and disingenuous. Your like an Atheistic version of Bill Craig! Explain why the round square is no good as it smashes the BS about observable in the face with a brick! Call me ignorant you dismiss everything that blows your limited knowledge to pieces. I'm so angry that we could carry out an experiment to see if you could feel your existence with my help! Address the points I stated as I did your's and remember if you haven't got something worth saying the be quiet!
Aquinas was not the inventor of the "first mover" idea; that was Aristotle! (or someone even earlier than him) Besides that: it's rubbish! - you just wrapped up the question for the cause of a rational chain of events with the non-answer "because magic!" - if nothing can move itself, then nothing can move itself, that's the premise. If you introduce a wildcard (god) that is after all able to break that rule, some great magician, who can even create himself out of nothing (before he is there? - how did he do that?.... - he didn't!) - then you just revoked your premise. The infinite roundabout of causes and effects makes much more sense; in the terms of the universe: big bang, big crunch and bing bang again, like an infinitely pumping big heart of all existence!
Except the infinite regression is illogical which you would know if you actually understood the argument. God is necessary to break the regression problem.
Possibly the worst misrepresentation of Aquinas I have ever seen. This only discredits atheists and atheism by presenting straw men that any basic research will reveal.
Aaron Harburg I agree wholeheartedly. That awkward moment when someone doesn't understand the difference between an accidental and essential causal series.
The vid presented Aquina's first way in terms of accidental series. That, and the fact they brought up the "who created God?" objections shows how ill informed they are of Aquinas' argument and his concept of God as pure act, accordingly.
Aaron Harburg You haven't seen John Green from Crash Course misrepresent Thomas Aquinas 5 ways (1-4 in one video, 5 in another). Trust me, it is THE WORST misinterpretation of Thomas Aquinas 5 ways ever. EVER! He commits every strawman. The worst is his video of the fifth way, which is a stand alone video (unlike the first which he talks about the 4 ways). In this video, he talks about William Paley instead of Thomas Aquinas (he assumes William Paley is the "modern" representation of Thomas Aquinas' fifth way).
This is exactly the reason I am an agnostic atheist. Religion has the trump card of "oh we can't understand it" and yes it is a viable option to say. They don't need proof as long as human knowledge is not totally objective truth. This doesn't mean I'll jump to the conclusion god exists. I think it's possible for there to be a god and I can't disprove it, but my limited human logic tells tell me there isn't one.
The last question shows that this person doesn't understand Thomas Aquinas.
I wonder what the purpose of putting this presentation together was if those putting it together didn't understand the argument. The know nothing of concurrent causality, the act/potency distinction and why a purely actual cause cannot, by definition, be caused itself. Very sloppy work.
This was like a summary of a summary of Aquinas. It's a total misrepresentation of his argument, actually. I appreciate the visuals and the effort into making the video, but it seems like the task of actually understanding the argument was severely neglected
@Paco Piedad
This is how Aquinas is taught at GCSE level.
“This still leaves the question: And what caused God?” End video.
Despite that fact that Aquinas addressed that question.
I LITERALLY SAID THE SAME THING! Then I looked at the comments and saw yours lol. The narrator totally avoids what Aquinas really means by motion.
@@DookyButter Where could we find a better outline of the first mover argument? I esp didn’t like how they ended bringing up an objection im sure he addressed as if theres no respone
This is so bad. Philosophers Ed Feser or Peter Kreeft at least know what he actually said and meant.
I had to watch this for my class and all of the comments are saying it’s wrong.
It’s a bad presentation of the argument, an awful misrepresentation. The last question “and what caused God” also shows that she doesn’t know the argument.
Same
There are many very relevant issues with this video. First - to understand Five Ways one must now at least a little bit about Aristotelian and Thomistic metaphysics. This is needed to understand what words like 'actuality', 'poteniality', 'motion' etc. mean. Second - Five Ways in Summa Theologica are just summaries of what Aquinas speaks of further in the book and in his other works. Five Ways are deductive metaphicical demonstrations not inductive reasonings, coming from the first principles. There is nothing about this stuff in this video.
Going forward - Aquinas speaks of motion as change. He does not posit that everything changes. But just that there are things that change. So conclusion about Prime Mover being unchanged is not begging the question. Change means going from potential state to actual. This does not mean regress going back in time and we are not speaking about 'beginnigs'. Time here is irrelevant as well as current scientific theories. We are talking about the fact that here and now we need Prime Mover to explain motion happening now. We speak about essentialy ordered series when every element is dependent on previous one. We are talking here also about such things like motion of our body being dependent on motion of organs being dependent on motion of cells, being dependent on motion of particles etc.
Change is here something like a power in computer. You need First Mover to terminate regress because from where the actuality that enable it came from? Just like you cannot explain electrical power in computer just by apeal to infinate cable - you need a power-plant (remeber that it is an analogy). No matter how many intermidiate changers we have we still need First Changer. And He must be unchangable and be Pure Act - meaning He would not have any potentiality in him to actualize. Because if he would not be Pure Act He could be actualized and therefore would need again external source of power to act.
Moving further - it follows that Pure Act must be simple (because complexity requires differences and therefore potentials and would not be First Mover), eternal (because Pure Act cannot begin to exist or cease to exist - therefore always exists), all powerful (because pure actuality means you can actualize anything including bringing into existance anything) etc.
Questions about possibility of infinite regress are missing a point - as Aquinas never talked about such thing in his arguments and 'who caused God' makes no sense here if we now that not everything must have a cause and that God is Pure Act - therefore is not caused by anything, but just is. Even atheists like Michael Rouse agree that such objection is absurd no matter what theistic arguments from motion, casuality or contingency you take into account.
I recommend 'Thomistic Institute' channel on YT and Edward Feser's "The Last Superstition" to read about this topics in more detail but still approachable for begginers.
What i have a hard time wrapping my head around is how could TA grant that the universe is infinite yet claim that it needs something else to sustain it?? Doesn't infinity imply that it(the universe) has independent power of motion?
"Besides, saying that the winner of the race, the guy who came before everyone else, was John, just leaves the awkward question: who came before John?"
Thomas Aquinas never argued that God 'moved himself' but that God himself is pure actuality and has no potency. God never changes because he is perfect so there's no need to 'move himself'. Being perfect just means that there is no potency, it just is.
Exactly
Aquinas' argument is based on problem he can't prove even exists, which Aquinas attempts to solve simply by defining his solution as something that solves the problem. Nothing can exist without cause, therefore let's invent an entity that can exist without cause, by calling it timeless and infinite, while at the same time we deny such properties to anything else. And then, the final touch, let's call this solution God, even though we didn't even start to prove that our solution is a sentient being, all-good, all-powerful, all-just, all-knowing, unique etc.
@@goranmilic442
Actually Thomas does prove all of that in his writings. Thomas assumings nothing
@@ColeB-jy3mh Proves how?
@@ColeB-jy3mh Yes, how? I'm also still waiting.
What caused the uncaused Cause? That's your zinger at the end? It's only an awkward question because it shows that you have not understood Aquinas' First Mover Argument.
You completely cut out the part where he deduces the qualities of God without presupposing his existence.
0/10
This video completely misunderstands the argument. Aquinas states in the argument that indeed we cannot prove the universe had a beginning in time (temporal causal chains) but rather that in the here and now, there must necessarily be something that gives us our existence. So for eg. a paintbrush can’t paint by itself even if it had an infinitely long handle, and similiarly, even if we say “the rock moves because it’s pushed by a stick and I’m pushing the stick” but we must then say how we push the stick. Ok so, “my hand is moved by my muscles and my muscles by the motion of my heart pumping blood which is moved by molecules moved by atoms etc etc.” and eventually you get to the point where further explanation is not possible. But even more importantly, before we even postulate this causal chain in the present, it stands to reason that there must be something whose essence and existence are identical (i.e. that which is existence itself which “all men call God”). Aquinas himself says that everything that is contingent (relies on the source of existence from external to itself) is moved by another (which necessarily rules out God as he is not contingent necessarily). Anyway, this video was very poorly presented and clearly aims to present a distorted version of Aquinas’ theory to further a philosophical position of atheism.
This is terrible. Aquinas didn't argue that God moved Himself, he argued that the first move is an "unmoved mover". He clearly states in the Summa that nothing can move itself, and this is true even of God.
BBC hates the concept of that God. They have their own agenda as you see
ikk!
that's super close to what Socrates (Plato) said in Faidros, in order to explain why the soul is immortal
The prime mover argument talks about the ontological movement of potency to act. Which has only a passing relationship to temporal events like the domino chain - Aquinus himself admitted that the universe could have always existed.
Nor does it have anything to do with mechanistic efficient causes. Thus the argument certainly isn't about is God reaching into the universe to push things about to get them moving...
Whether it is ultimately true or not is of course open to debate.
Aquinas did not argue for a first mover in the past. He argues that any change in movement of a thing requires a first mover now. Check out the difference between a accidental and essentially ordered series for more detail.
Facts can change beliefs, but beliefs cannot change facts.
1:24 you got wrong hear Aristotle and perhaps aquinas wasn't talking about movement in time but about dependence of one motion onto another. Time is irrelevant here because Aristotle believed in eternity of universe
Motion is an absolute. Time is the illusion. Motion never began, just as time never began. Time only appears to have a beginning due to our Observable Universe but the Entire Universe never began. It is an eternal moving substance.
Gillian Anderson should have used an Italian accent to narrate this piece.
Special Pleading.
You establish that the first mover moves itself, and therefore is not caused by anything else. Then asked what caused it like that could counter the argument when your own description shows it to be a stupid question.
Sounds like the Merevinge's argument in the movie, Matrix Revolutions.
And, then, the atheist goes, "Ha! I've got you!", and congratulates themselves, without realizing they haven't even begun to seriously examine the Aquinas argument.
Your entire message appears to simply be yet another, "Ha! I've got you!". Except you didn't even attempt to further the argument at all. Are you really trying to claim that no atheist has ever begun to serious examine the argument? No need to reject that sentiment, I'll bet the farm you're wrong.
If God is Eternal...then God is outside of Cause and Effect, since this happens in Time/Space. Therefore, God doesn’t need a Cause...
Did anyone else notice the robot chicken from the clangers
Wow... this horrifically butchers Thomas Aquinas' argument. God is not moved at all, neither by Himself nor by another. As the more extensive treatment of the argument from motion, found in Summa Contra Gentiles Book I, chapter 13, explicitly states, God is the Unmoved Mover.
Did the producers of this segment do any research at all?
Brian Kemple But him being an "unmoved mover" completely discredits the fact that the argument is NOTHING can move without being moved.
I don't think you understand act and potency.
ForeverSharkman643 The argument is that whatever is in motion is put in motion by another. Motion meaning change here. Since God is changeless, he is not, nor ever has been, nor ever can be in motion. That is what is meant by unmoved mover.
But why must it be a deity that is "the unmoved mover"? Couldn't it be a natural, thoughtless process just as well?
ForeverSharkman643
But what in nature is unmoved, changeless? Nothing I've observed and I'm guessing nothing you've observed either... Our senses inform us that all of nature is in change. So the question is how can something natural be unmoving, and still be natural?
As to thoughtless... Why would a natural anything need to be thoughtless ony any account? For even if all you believe in is nature you're not denying your own thoughts are you? If not then thoughts surely exist within nature even within your own naturalist account of reality, no?
umm
Theres only the illusion of movement. Like a film strip its all still pictures.
Even then, Thomas's idea of motion was really any sort of change.
Change would be an illusion if we grant Zatoichiable's suggestion.
All the arguments for the existence of anything physical fail for a very simple and easy to understand reason.
The idea of the prime mover is an Aristotelian Idea
Energy (E) is the origin by which all things are set in motion. Once energy is applied, it creates momentum (p). When this momentum comes in contact with another object(s), it enables momentum to push or pull. I discovered that in physics the word, "Force" is an expression for surface contact. In other words, Force and contact are two different words, but mean exactly the same thing. Without energy, there is no momentum. Without momentum, there is no force (contact). This means that Sir Isaac Newton's Second Law of Motion needs to be updated by replacing the word, "Force" with "Energy". The physics formula Ep=ma is the update to the physics formula F=ma. Energy is the initial cause of motion.
Energy can't be mass x acceleration, because we measure energy in Joules, not Newtons.
@@goranmilic442 Update: Energy (E) x momentum (p) equals mass x acceleration or Ep=ma.
@@GuerrasLaws Right.
How did an immaterial something, make something from nothing, if something from nothing is impossible? If space did not exist prior to our universe, where could a Being be? Where could you put a universe if there is no where? If nothing can happen without time, how did anything do anything without time? Note: "It was magic" is not an explanation. More questions/ no answers.
The argument that Aquinas (and other philosophers like Aristotle before him) made was not what the video represents. The argument you're arguing against is more like a Kalam argument. Aquinas accepted that there may never have been a beginning of the material universe at all.
The argument goes something like this: Anything moving from potential to actual is actualized by another. For example, my hand moves from point A to point B. It is actualized/moved by my nervous system, which is actualized by the cells, and then the atoms that make up those cells, and then the sub atomic particles, etc. This chain of causation ends somewhere in regard to this series, since it is hierarchical and not linear (i.e. I'm not talking about going back in time to the beginning of time).
Whatever is at the end of this hierarchical line must require nothing else to actualize itself, which means it is an un-actualized actualizer (using Dr. Ed Feser's words) or unmoved mover. Since anything within space-time can be moved from potential state to actual, or from non-motion to motion, then we see that the most fundamental aspect of the universe is dependent upon something outside of the universe to actualize it.
Your thoughts?
We don't know what caused the Big Bang. Even if we do find out, that won't answer the question of God's existence. But the idea of God being uncreated has stumped me logically. But that is because I'm using human reasoning and applying it to something like God. Who says God must go by our presumptions?
I have tried many times to convince my son that God exists, but he is very stubborn. According to the Bible, I should take him before the elders for judgement, but I don't know anybody older. How can I resolve this problem ?
By the way, Deuteronomy chapter 21 explains what is the usual procedure for dealing with a stubborn son (verses 18 to 21).
@@tedgrant2 it only applies to Jews
@@verl0000
He is a Jew
I thought BBC4 was supposed to be the good arm of the BBC?
Thought experiment - Advanced aliens land on earth and we ask them if they evolved or were created, and they say they have always existed. Do you believe them?, and if not, why not?
1:05 is flat out wrong; Aquinas never claimed that the first mover moved itself. Just the opposite in fact (hence the "unmoved" bit in "unmoved mover")
cellomon09 He actually did. Check out my comment on this video, I have cited evidence.
@@lubright9637 No, he didn't. He wrote : "a nullo movetur" ("isn't moved by anyone") and called God "Actus purus" ("Pure Act", which means He knows no movement at all).
I wanted so much to like this video. I loved The X Files. Sad face.
I'm not going to say all non-theistic professors treat theistic arguments dismissively and superficially, but in my experience non-theistic professors tend to misrepresent the argument.
I'll give two quotes, one from a theist, one from a non-theist, on this argument of a word (=temporal) that serves as a litmus test to shows if Aquinas' first way argument has been misrepresented.
Non-theist: "A concrete example is the retracting process that starts *temporally* with children and moves back to parents."
Theist (one that doesn't even agree with the argument): "It [the argument] seeks a Cause that is first, *not in the temporal sense* -- -- Aquinas is thinking here on causes that act simultaneously like the gears in a machine, not successively like falling dominoes."
The point being that even as a skeptinc one doesn't need to misrepresent arguments of the opposing view. Maybe more communication with theists could help?
If you think the question of what caused God still remains then you still don’t understand the concept of God. See St. Anselm.
Throughout history there have been many miracles, but nobody is more than 150 years old.
Aquinas' argument is based on problem he can't prove even exists, which Aquinas attempts to solve simply by defining his solution as something that solves the problem. Nothing can exist without cause, therefore let's invent an entity that can exist without cause, by calling it timeless and infinite, while at the same time we deny such properties to anything else. And then, the final touch, let's call this solution God, even though we didn't even start to prove that our solution is a sentient being, all-good, all-powerful, all-just, all-knowing, unique etc.
@@goranmilic442
I can tell you've been thinking !
We all know that anything that begins to exist has a cause.
Lightning begins to exist, therefore it has a cause and we call that Zeus.
at the quantum level the "law of cause and effect" doesn't necessarily apply. so asserting that everything must have a cause is not always true.
Quite right. In fact, theologians agree with you. They believe that at least one thing has no cause.
??! What a waste! The video had clearly worded explanations and clever visuals all throughout only to end and wrap things up in the most silly and unjust way.
I say it's silly because Thomas Aquinas was NOT arguing for merely a "First Mover". Instead, he argued for an UNMOVED Mover . The Unmoved Mover is precisely THE Supreme Being (i.e. God) and the FIRST mover of all things because he was NOT moved by something or someone else (he wouldn't be God if that were the case).
I say unjust because it sets you up (erroneously albeit) to make you think of how weak Thomas Aquinas argument on motion is after all. The 5 Ways or Arguments of St. Thomas Aquinas on the existence of God are not supposed to be taken individually or in isolation as if they were 5 independent arguments that have nothing to do with each other. All them complement and reinforce each other. So the answer to the video's last question "What caused God?"-- well God is the UNCAUSED CAUSE! (Aquinas' 2nd Argument). Just like in the First Argument on Motion, there can't be an infinite regress of causes. God can't caused by something or someone else because that would mean that he wouldn't be superior to all things (the cause is always greater than the effect). Hence, God is the Unmoved Mover, Uncaused Cause, the Pinnacle of Perfection, the Necessary Being and Last End of all things.
Q.E.D.
All regress on the question of the origin of things will always lead to special pleading.
This is not Aquinas' argument.
Great! This channel in extremely underrated.
What caused God? That's to misunderstand what the theist means by God. Theists typically agree that God exists a se, by a necessity of His own nature. Asking, "What caused God," is simply misunderstanding the doctrine of divine aseity. See Leibniz's formulation of the cosmological argument for clarification.
This video showcases a complete and utter ignorance of Aquinas's argument. Horrible representation of what serious theists actually believe.
But it isn't about atheists?????
No
Why???
This is the only argument for God I have ever heard that actually makes sense.
I'm sorry to hear that since it actually muddles the situation. As you regress back and examine what's causing what, things get simpler and simpler, then suddenly you need something extremely complex to start it that didn't need anything to start it? That's called solving a problem almost as poorly as saying, "the answer is the answer".
As Carl Sagan once said, if you have to invent a god to then assign to him a property of having always existed in order to solve this problem, why not simply save yourself a step and simply conclude that the universe always existed.
He offers that up, but obvious being a man of science his life's work greatly improved our knowledge in pursuit of the truth.
Hilarious. BBC you totally and completely failed to understand even the basics of Aquinas's argument from motion.
But sadly this is what is taught to our children.
It's really disappointing that a video purporting to explain Aquinas' argument actually ends with the simplest, most basic question one can ask on the topic, and which the argument, properly understood, completely answers. This video's :conclusion" is the starting point of the discussion. I'd expect better from the British!
I'm sorry, but it's not an awkward question, I think it's an unreasonable or stupid question, when " god" needs a cause to move so we still in the loop, thus the one who causes others to move does not in need to a cause , he creates causes , he creates the law of movement he is the Creator, period
This notion only pertains to the physical
God is called an uncaused cause
Is God not the uncaused cause?
I don't get it - I'm not especially smart and I can understand, very clearly, that the argument from motion has nothing to do with a temporal series of causes. Why can't professional philosophers and scientists with PhDs in their respective fields understand this simple fact?
Christopher Wojdak Because they did not study Aquinas, not properly anyway. Most majors in philosophy today, in their college education, had perhaps one course where medieval philosophy is treated and often shabbily dismissed.
The same often apply with Greek philosophers as well and even most modern philosophers.
Hence for most of them, everything before 1950 is often just one vague blob, unless they of course specialize in one particular period of philosophy.
Overall, I find the video to be made incredibly well. The visual imagery presented through art captured the audiences’ attention and certainly kept it throughout the whole video. I can definitely appreciate how well organized it was and the effort that was obviously made into creating this piece. Personally, I find the comments to be highly unwarranted for a sheer number of reasons. Especially, given the fact, that about roughly ninety percent of them did not even support their claim as to why it was “so bad”. I have no idea why it garnered so much negative attention, but I find it to be irrational of the audience. Sadly, only a small portion of people had commented, supported, and even quoted from reliable textual evidence. It was a huge reminder to how the real world is, and to how ignorant/hateful people can be. The video did touch base with Saint Thomas Aquinas’s belief that there are five ways in which one can prove the existence of God. One of the five ways they touched base on was in the Argument of Motion, where Aquinas has eight main ideas to be understood by. BBC Radio touched base on the first, fifth, sixth, seventh, and eight points though they missed second, third, and fourth.. BBC Radio goes into saying “Some things in the universe are in motion, maybe your heart. Certainly are the birds in the sky and the cars on the road…” (BBC Radio) In this simple introduction, they already pointed out how our senses prove that somethings are in motion (First point), Thomas’s first point in his belief that the First Way to understand God is the Argument in Motion. In this quote, BBC Radio tells the audience of two points in Thomas’s Argument from Motion where “Anything in motion must have been caused to move. Nothing can move itself spontaneously without something moving it and the thing that moves another thing must itself be in motion. Every effect has a prior cause” (BBC Video). They told the audience that nothing can move itself (Fifth point) and how each thing in motion is moved by something else (Sixth point). They point out to the audience how something had to move first otherwise an “...infinite regress of effects and their causes going back forever without a beginning but if there has to be a beginning of the chain of cause and effect what caused the first mover to move…”. This proves the seventh point, where in The First Way, Argument from Motion, Thomas says that “The sequence of motion cannot extend ad infinitum” (Theodore Gracyk translation). Finally, they said that “The first mover just moved itself, that's because the first mover was God who can do that sort of thing” (BBC Video). They aren’t wrong either. Thomas’s final point was that, “therefore, it is necessary to arrive at a first mover, put in motion by no other; and this everyone understands to be God” (Theodore Gracyk translation). BBC Radio only missed Thomas’s second, third and fourth point. His second point in the First Way, Argument from Motion was that “Things move when potential motion into an actual motion” (Theodore Gracyk translation). Though, the video might have insinuated that, it did not however, flat out say it, in which, we can assume, they didn’t. That could be argued, but otherwise, that’s how many perceive it. BBC Radio’s second mistake was missing the third point in Thomas’s Argument from Motion was that “Only an actual motion can convert a potential motion into an actual motion” (Theodore Gracyk translation). Again, like before, it did not say it, though, might have insinuated it. Therefore, the final error in BBC Radio’s mistake was the fact that they disregarded the fourth point in Thomas’s Argument from Motion where “Nothing can be at once in both actuality and potentiality in the same respect” (Theodore Gracyk translation). They never said anything relevant to that, nor the previous points but it could be argued for the fact they insinuated it.
Cute profile pic, and I agree, they didn't represent his argument very well
There are many very relevant issues with this video. First - to understand Five Ways one must now at least a little bit about Aristotelian and Thomistic metaphysics. This is needed to understand what words like 'actuality', 'poteniality', 'motion' etc. mean. Second - Five Ways in Summa Theologica are just summaries of what Aquinas speaks of further in the book and in his other works. Five Ways are deductive metaphicical demonstrations not inductive reasonings, coming from the first principles. There is nothing about it in this video. I wonder why they even make a 1:53 minute video about much complex topic.
Going forward - Aquinas speaks of motion as basically change. He does not posit that everything changes. But just that there are things that change. So conclusion about Prime Mover being unchanged is not begging the question. Change means going from potential state to actual. This does not mean regress going back in time and we are not speaking about 'beginnigs'. Time here is irrelevant as well as current scientific theories. We are talking about the fact that here and now we need Prime Mover to explain motion happening now. We speak about essentialy ordered series when every element is dependent on previous one. We are talking here also about such things like motion of our body being dependent on motion of organs being dependent on motion of cells, being dependent on motion of particles etc. Change is here something like a power in computer. You need First Mover to terminate regress because from where the actuality that enable it came from? Just like you cannot explain electrical power in computer just by apeal to infinate cable - you need a power-plant (remeber that it is an analogy). No matter how many intermidiate changers we have we still need first changer. And He must be unchangable and be Pure Act - meaning He would not have any potentiality in him to actualize. Because if he would not be Pure Act He could be actualized and therefore would need again external source of power to act.
Moving further - it follows that Pure Act must be simple (because complexity requires differences and therefore potentials and would not be First Mover), eternal (because Pure Act cannot begin to exist or cease to exist - therefore always exists), all powerful (because pure actuality means you can actualize anything including bringing into existance anything) etc.
Questions about possibility of infinete regress are missing a point - as Aquinas never talked about such thing in his arguments and 'who caused God' makes no sense here if we now that not everything must have a cause and that God is Pure Act - therefore is not caused by anything, but just is. Even atheists like Michael Rouse agree that such objection is absurd no matter what theistic arguments from motion, casuality or contingency you take into account.
I recommend reading third part of Edward Feser's "The Last Superstition", he elaborates on this more detail.
@@TheGeneralGrievous19 This video will totally mislead the viewer. Prof Ed Feser is the go to guy, and he's readable and has videos. And he knows what he's talking about.
@Lu Bright Saint Thomas of Aquinas wrote : "a nullo movetur". We can't translate that as "put in motion by no other [than himself]", the right translation is "isn't put in motion by anyone". The use of the pronoun "nullus" prevent the use of "non" before the verb, because "a nullo non movetur" means "put in motion by everyone", that's why saint Thomas wrote "a nullo movetur", "nullo" is sufficient to negate the verb.
Also, it is obvious that saint Thomas meant that God doesn't move, because he calls God "Actus Purus". That God is "Actus Purus" means that He has no potency at all, He is fully act, which excludes the possibility for Him to move ! Because the movement or change (latin "motio" means "change", not only the local movement) is the transition from potency to act ; God has no potency, then He cannot change.
The BBC here, is either dishonest, either ignorant. But this moment of the video 0:56 - 1:10 : "What caused the first mover to move ? Thomas Aquinas, a 13th dominican friar, argued that the first mover just moved itself. That's because the first mover was God, who can do that sort of thing !", shows that BBC would rather be dishonest (or maybe they are quoting a dishonest author). Saint Thomas never "argued that the first mover just moved itself, because he's God who can do that". It is pure invention and lie. Anyone who has read the Summa of Aquinas will agree that it is a lie.
@BBC Radio 4-> take this video off CZcams it’s misleading
Though the visuals are good, this is one of the worst explanations of the argument I have ever heard, first of all Aquinas doesn’t ever argue that the regress extends back in TIME, he grants for the sake of argument that the world has always existed. Aristotle is the first to have argued along these lines, and he actually believed change to be eternal past and future. And there is no reference to actuality and potentiality or hylomorphic realism which are central concepts to this argument.
Why always the question "And what caused God?" Nothing caused God. The existence of God as the ultimate, original, and eternal default. Simple.
Then replace God with existence (universe/everything) and we're back to square one.
Either an infinite regress or not. If not then an eternally existent default. I hate language.
Lol. He wouldn’t be God if something else caused God. Otherwise that thing would be God (by definition) and that just puts you on the same argument lol. A first mover implies perfection and if God (in every sense of the word) is perfect it implies unchanging. If something is ultimate and perfect it need not improvement.
Infinite regress is absurd. Therefore, to stop at God as unmoved mover is necessary.
How is an infinite regress any more absurd than a god ?
What makes you think that it's even possible for a god to exist ?
@@thevulture5750
It's not a choice though, is it ?
Evidence for the existence of a god: 0
You seem to struggle with the idea the the universe came into existence without a cause but then have no issue accepting the idea of a massless, timeless, spaceless consciousness that is all-powerful, all-knowing and everywhere at the same time yet is utterly indetectable.
@@thevulture5750
I don't chose what I believe.
I don't believe anything.
I have levels of confidence.
I think that, given what we know, it's very unlikely that a god or gods exist, it's most likely that we do not fully understand quantum physics _et al_ .
If you believe that god exists, why does it exist ?
Whatever answer you give, apply that to matter & energy.
@@thevulture5750
Until you can prove that god exists, it isn't the first cause.
You're also erroneously thinking that there *was* a first cause.
If matter & energy always existed in a dynamic form, then a first cause isn't needed.
You're using school-boy thinking for physical phenomena that is way beyond your comprehension... so you employ a "god of the gaps" approach.
@@thevulture5750
I'm giving valid alternatives to what you assert as fact.
Matter (i.e. the universe) always existing has been suggested by Alan Guth, co-author of the Borde, Guth, and Vilenkin Theorem:
_"It's (the universe) very likely eternal but nobody knows"_
"If you believe it is, you had better inform Krauss and Carroll how it works"
- I'd only be telling Carroll what Carroll already knows as I've listened to many of his discussions.
To quote Carroll:
_"The problem with this premise [that everything that begins to exist needs a cause] is that it is false."_
_"But there's a bigger problem with it in that it is not _*_even_*_ false"_
Source of Guth's & Carroll's comments:
czcams.com/video/X0qKZqPy9T8/video.html
God is just another wall. "What made him?" The space that he is in. The space that everything is. (a huge supercluster of all the universes and multiverses). You can go all the way back to the first thing that ever existed. Call it whatever you want. It can't have "always been". (atleast that answer doesnt satisfy me personally). So, did it came out of nothing? Science says that energy can't be created. But we also have atoms in Quantum physics that pop out of nothing. So... did it manifested itself? Possibly. Hence the "First Mover" argument isn't completely false. Something can just move (appear) itself. How, now that, it what we should look for.
If time had a beginning, whatever caused time, can't be made of time. i.e timeless.
Video misrepresents the argument. If something caused god then the thing which caused him, by definition, would be God. Since "God" is defined as "Maximally Great Being." A really great being can be caused by something else. . . but if it owes its existence to something else, then he is not *Maximally* Great.
frank dunleavy Aquinas (like any other monotheist) points out that no being could possibly be greater than God. Thus God is defined as a *maximally* great being. If something caused God, then God would owe His existence to something else. . . and therefore would not, by very definition, be God.
So asking "what caused God?" is like asking, "can a square be round?" The person who asks it is merely confused as to the definition of either the word "round" or else the word "square."
+Steve Bennett There's no logical necessity that something that created, say, the biblical Jewish wargod Yahweh, is "maximally great" though. It's not even clear that the expression "maximally great" even means anything objective. It seems to me that "greatness" is necessarily a subjective value judgment.
+Steve Bennett
_"So asking "what caused God?" is like asking, "can a square be round?""_
Not if a specific god, such as the Christian god, is involved, because that god certainly is not maximally great in any sense. I wouldn't even use the unqualified word "great" about that creature.
_"The person who asks it is merely confused as to the definition of either the word "round" or else the word "square.""_
A hopeless analogy. The reason "What caused God?" is meaningless is not because he's "great", but because theism proposes that the god is the grounding of all being. Of course, Naturalism defines Nature as the grounding of existence, so the question "What caused Nature?" is equally meaningless under Naturalism and this is of course the point people are trying to make if they ask the question "What caused God?". We need an actual reason to think that it's possible for nature to not exist and currently, such a reason doesn't exist. All we observe is that nature rearranges itself. There's not a single instance of creatio ex nihilo observed by mankind. And moreover, if nature in fact is eternal, then it is as meaningless to talk about "the beginning of the universe" as it is to talk about "the beginning of the surface of the earth".
Gnomefro It's a common argument to think that "greatness" is a subjective idea. But actually, if you think about it, "greatness" can be moved into the realm of objectivity by asking very straightforward "either/or" questions. For example:
Q: Is it greater to be omnipotent? Or limited in power?
Q: Is it greater to be omniscient? Or limited in possible knowledge?
Q: Is it greater to be logical? Or illogical?
Q: Is it greater to be loving and empathetic? Or to be selfish, and self-centered?
Q: Is it greater to be necessary? Or contingent on something else existing first?
Q: Is it greater to be primary? Or derived from something else?
---------
On and on the list goes. But as you can see, a "Maximally Great Being" is not, actually, a subjective idea. There are clear answers to these questions that any truly objective person would answer consistently.
frank dunleavy The questions are simple, straightforward, "either / or" questions. Such as "is it greater to be 2? Or 3?" Concepts which are greater, rather than lesser, are actually very easy for any objective person to understand.
The key is to frame it as an "either / or" question.
"Perhaps effects and their causes do stretch back in time infinitely" except evidence of the big bang shows that there was a beginning, where time, space and matter simultaneously were created from nothing. Also, the question "Who created God" is such an amateur question to both theist and atheist philosophers. A God that is eternal is by definition not created. Good explanation of Aquinas' theory though.
What a complete misrepresentation of the argument.
All the arguments fail.
is that it? does it make you feel better?
i tell you brother, The fact that people is searching something in this world that they couldn't seek. They seek pleasure they couldn't find, they seek true happiness they couldn't find, they seek security they couldn't find. The humanity seeks this things in this world, in sex, in money, in buying things they like. BUT all this things they realized was rubbish when death comes.
GOD put emptiness in our hearts
to seeks HIM. Seek HIM brother, Find His voice, seek His face,and let the hole in your heart be filled with Christ, amen.
+klent dom Baton =>A man may seek gold, but that doesn't mean he will find it.
there is a hole in your heart, but that doesn't mean you have decease.
tell me now brother, What good is it for someone to gain the whole world, yet forfeit their soul? mark 8:36
It is in fact impossible that we exist.
Therefore, we do.
If you can't say something sensible say nothing!
Ryan Lowe It's actually more plausible than anything.
Creation itself is a paradox.
It is from this paradox that the creation of a god or big bang was given the OK.
Because something cannot create itself from will.
So if the big bang and a god cannot create themselves,this means they are impossible.
And so are we in that case.
However, i have found that for something to not be able to exist, it must first be observable.
There is no non-existence without existence,
Shovels is creation plausible then?
What if the universe has existed eternally in some form?
If we are impossible then how are we here?
Your findings are seriously flawed! Do round squares exist?
Can you observe them?
Lastly how do you know that there is no non - existence without existence?
Have you always existed?
Ryan Lowe No i have not always existed wich is the point.
It is neccesity that made us, or create that wich created us.
The part about round sqaures is not a good argument. There are only perceptions on these things.
Calling a something a something.
What i hate about Gods and big bangs is that they are just supposed to be there because of something that is just there without explanation. The paradox supports everyone's life view. i'll sayit again. he infinite loop of possible predecessors makes their existence impossible. For something cannot create itself from will. However, for nothing to exist, there must a confirmation, a spectator, something that can observe existence.
There is no non existence without existence because if there was no non-existence existence itself would not have mattered. It's the old story of light and dark, different sides of the same coin that can't be without each other.
"what if the universe has existed eternally in some form?" That's ignorant. Iunderstand why you would think that, but it's too easy to conclude this with.
We are impossible, yes. But the paradox created us as a collective. Before you begin about how perceive our world let me tell we view it flawed. Like how we perceive time.
Time does not exist entirely, it's a manmade concept. For all we know our full life is captured in one moment. Also our perception is flawed to the very foundation. We percive things the same as others. But are they truth?
And thus, round sqaures serve no purpose because "round" nd "square" are just words, definitions, other manmade concepts, Don't trust religion, and don't trust science.
Science is ,of course, still usefull for it helps perceiving our world as we have made it. But it cannot explain our existence,
Shovels ain't you long winded and disingenuous. Your like an Atheistic version of Bill Craig!
Explain why the round square is no good as it smashes the BS about observable in the face with a brick!
Call me ignorant you dismiss everything that blows your limited knowledge to pieces. I'm so angry that we could carry out an experiment to see if you could feel your existence with my help!
Address the points I stated as I did your's and remember if you haven't got something worth saying the be quiet!
Aquinas was not the inventor of the "first mover" idea; that was Aristotle! (or someone even earlier than him)
Besides that: it's rubbish! - you just wrapped up the question for the cause of a rational chain of events with the non-answer "because magic!" - if nothing can move itself, then nothing can move itself, that's the premise. If you introduce a wildcard (god) that is after all able to break that rule, some great magician, who can even create himself out of nothing (before he is there? - how did he do that?.... - he didn't!) - then you just revoked your premise.
The infinite roundabout of causes and effects makes much more sense; in the terms of the universe: big bang, big crunch and bing bang again, like an infinitely pumping big heart of all existence!
You understand nothing for all of your supposed rational logic..
Except the infinite regression is illogical which you would know if you actually understood the argument. God is necessary to break the regression problem.
WHY DOES GOD LOOK LIKR A PRDO LEL XD
Which in the end does not prove his God
Possibly the worst misrepresentation of Aquinas I have ever seen. This only discredits atheists and atheism by presenting straw men that any basic research will reveal.
Aaron Harburg I agree wholeheartedly. That awkward moment when someone doesn't understand the difference between an accidental and essential causal series.
Completely agree. This video is trash.
The vid presented Aquina's first way in terms of accidental series. That, and the fact they brought up the "who created God?" objections shows how ill informed they are of Aquinas' argument and his concept of God as pure act, accordingly.
Aaron Harburg You haven't seen John Green from Crash Course misrepresent Thomas Aquinas 5 ways (1-4 in one video, 5 in another).
Trust me, it is THE WORST misinterpretation of Thomas Aquinas 5 ways ever. EVER!
He commits every strawman.
The worst is his video of the fifth way, which is a stand alone video (unlike the first which he talks about the 4 ways). In this video, he talks about William Paley instead of Thomas Aquinas (he assumes William Paley is the "modern" representation of Thomas Aquinas' fifth way).
God is outside of the universe we live in, God himself is above logical forms of the universe.
And what cause him to move?
This is exactly the reason I am an agnostic atheist.
Religion has the trump card of "oh we can't understand it" and yes it is a viable option to say. They don't need proof as long as human knowledge is not totally objective truth.
This doesn't mean I'll jump to the conclusion god exists. I think it's possible for there to be a god and I can't disprove it, but my limited human logic tells tell me there isn't one.
Why god what if its like a retarded spaghetti monster thats just always existed?
Blueberry Funk
I mean the spaghetti monster is a creator in Pastafarian beliefs so it kinda gets the same treatment as Yahweh aka Allah.
Lol making new characteristics of a god
This is a rather abominable straw-man.
This is a terrible representation and misleading
0-10 would not recommend