Guys, Thank you so much for this. This video started me on the path to coming back to God through study of St Thomas and Thomism. I just joined the Catholic church yesterday. I have you both to thank for that. Thanks! And happy Easter.
Thanks for the great work. I haven't found time to listen to all of the theological/philosophical videos yet but I've been using your math studies for a long while now to augment my efforts to learn some math in my old age. Anyway, I'm working on trying to get my teenage daughters to consider their faith with a greater depth of intellectual underpinnings. The secular world tells them essentially that silly believers in the sky fairy are the unreasoning fools pretty much all day long via one medium or another and videos like these are, if I can get them to watch even a few minutes, might help trigger a deeper introspection. So, thanks again!
chris schmidt Children are taught a diluted version of history in most Europeans and Western schools, unfortunately. Secularism with all it's benefits does oversimplify pretty much everything, and it does so for profit. Once you realise that this theme of contemporanity is not coincidental and it is pushed and peddled by a very cynical, egocentric and malicious few, you can break yourself from this maladictive ideology and be truly and genuinely happy. I've, myself started a few years ago by cutting down my Facebook usage to a minimum and to this day, it has been one of the best and most productive decisions I've ever made.
Chris Schmidt: I personally think that more and more people will inevitably have to wake up to the drivel they are handed by society and the universities; in the end, the poverty of falsehood fails to satisfy.
Nice work guys! I'd say that intellectualism wasn't deemphasized, it was distorted: so-called historical-critical methods attempted to do in theology and the church what reductionism did in philosophy and science. And both are ultimately failures. How about Veritatis Splendor? (my personal favorite)
At 8:56, yeah people lack common sense. If an object falls 10 feet off a 10 foot building, I don’t have to do further studies into what would happen if an object fell off of a 10 foot tree. SMH!
I have a question. I know that Aquinas' argument from motion says that everything that changes, changes on account of something else changing it; and that in order to avoid an infinite regress, it has to terminate with a single, actual cause, and this is understood to mean God. And I know that this argument has two types of causal series; one being the accidental causal series, one stretching back through time, and the other being the essential cause (per se), that is concerned with causal series on the here and now (like a stone being pushed with a stick, which is being pushed by my hand, which is being put in motion by the muscles, which is being put in motion by motor neurons, etc.). What I don't understand is why can't a causal series per se terminate with something other than God? Why can't an essential cause terminate with something like matter or energy or just fundamental quarks sustaining it? I'm asking this because I don't completely understand Essential Causes; I'm much more used to understanding cause as being linear.
+Nathaniel Olson No, it has to be being unlimited any potencies whatsoever, i.e. Pure Act and must be absolutely simple, having no composition of any sort. There also cannot be more than one Pure Act or absolutely simple thing. Matter is just stuff out of which other things are made and is therefore in potency and is numerous, so quarks don't make sense in light of either of those. "Energy" in the modern sense is quite changeable and therefore has potencies; anything that changes has potencies and cannot be Pure Act. No physical/natural reality at all fits the bill. You might say "energy" in the old Greek sense "energeia", like Aristotle, but then you're just swapping a word "Act" with "energeia" which is a change in name only, not substance.
Considering, nature of the podcasts and Hangouts on this channel. Please consider investigating, Hameroff-Penrose 'Orch OR' Theory. Given, many of the topic on this channel share an affinity, this may be a nice addition. www.quantumconsciousness.org/content/hameroff-penrose-review-orch-or-theory
The problem with the Most Holy and Most Blessed Lord John Paul II is how much he was leaning towards Modernism and Neo-Modernism (a term I use for the "Nouvelle Théologie" and related systems like Hegelianism, and whatever Karl Rahner was trying to put forth). He should have stuck with his teacher Réginald Garrigou-Lagrange, and followed the method of St. Thomas, which the Church has proscribed as "official theology". Instead, he deviated from Scholasticism/Thomism, and even claimed the Church had no official philosophy, which is obviously contradictory to all Popes of the 19th and 20th century, and even Popes prior to that. As is the case with Paul VI, John Paul II brought many bad things into the Church, and due to his extremely long pontificate, his failures were very significant, especially when it came to protecting the Faith from heretical attacks (from within the Church). He is a Saint, but he was not a good Pope. And this encyclical shows how he does not return to Thomas, but follows much of what the Neo-Modernists proposed. Réginald Garrigou-Lagrange, certainly a Saint as well, will have an earnest talk with John Paul in Heaven, I am sure.
![NISAMANEE - TADA (ท้าดา) [ OFFICIAL MV ]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/hcQHEPMmJpU/mqdefault.jpg)
Guys, Thank you so much for this. This video started me on the path to coming back to God through study of St Thomas and Thomism. I just joined the Catholic church yesterday. I have you both to thank for that. Thanks! And happy Easter.
+libertyhopeful18
Happy Easter!
Thanks for the great work. I haven't found time to listen to all of the theological/philosophical videos yet but I've been using your math studies for a long while now to augment my efforts to learn some math in my old age.
Anyway, I'm working on trying to get my teenage daughters to consider their faith with a greater depth of intellectual underpinnings. The secular world tells them essentially that silly believers in the sky fairy are the unreasoning fools pretty much all day long via one medium or another and videos like these are, if I can get them to watch even a few minutes, might help trigger a deeper introspection.
So, thanks again!
chris schmidt Children are taught a diluted version of history in most Europeans and Western schools, unfortunately. Secularism with all it's benefits does oversimplify pretty much everything, and it does so for profit. Once you realise that this theme of contemporanity is not coincidental and it is pushed and peddled by a very cynical, egocentric and malicious few, you can break yourself from this maladictive ideology and be truly and genuinely happy. I've, myself started a few years ago by cutting down my Facebook usage to a minimum and to this day, it has been one of the best and most productive decisions I've ever made.
God bless you and your little one. The taught of a father and his daughter being in the pursuit of truth is hearth warming.
Chris Schmidt: I personally think that more and more people will inevitably have to wake up to the drivel they are handed by society and the universities; in the end, the poverty of falsehood fails to satisfy.
Nice work guys!
I'd say that intellectualism wasn't deemphasized, it was distorted: so-called historical-critical methods attempted to do in theology and the church what reductionism did in philosophy and science. And both are ultimately failures.
How about Veritatis Splendor? (my personal favorite)
Very well said.
At 8:56, yeah people lack common sense. If an object falls 10 feet off a 10 foot building, I don’t have to do further studies into what would happen if an object fell off of a 10 foot tree. SMH!
I have a question. I know that Aquinas' argument from motion says that everything that changes, changes on account of something else changing it; and that in order to avoid an infinite regress, it has to terminate with a single, actual cause, and this is understood to mean God. And I know that this argument has two types of causal series; one being the accidental causal series, one stretching back through time, and the other being the essential cause (per se), that is concerned with causal series on the here and now (like a stone being pushed with a stick, which is being pushed by my hand, which is being put in motion by the muscles, which is being put in motion by motor neurons, etc.). What I don't understand is why can't a causal series per se terminate with something other than God? Why can't an essential cause terminate with something like matter or energy or just fundamental quarks sustaining it?
I'm asking this because I don't completely understand Essential Causes; I'm much more used to understanding cause as being linear.
+Nathaniel Olson
No, it has to be being unlimited any potencies whatsoever, i.e. Pure Act and must be absolutely simple, having no composition of any sort. There also cannot be more than one Pure Act or absolutely simple thing. Matter is just stuff out of which other things are made and is therefore in potency and is numerous, so quarks don't make sense in light of either of those. "Energy" in the modern sense is quite changeable and therefore has potencies; anything that changes has potencies and cannot be Pure Act. No physical/natural reality at all fits the bill. You might say "energy" in the old Greek sense "energeia", like Aristotle, but then you're just swapping a word "Act" with "energeia" which is a change in name only, not substance.
Mathoma Thanks loads! I've been trying to understand the argument from motion for some time now. Thanks for clarifying!
@@nathanielolson I had this question on my mind for a while, thanks for asking it so I could have some closure on it! God bless ☦️
Considering, nature of the podcasts and Hangouts on this channel. Please consider investigating,
Hameroff-Penrose 'Orch OR' Theory. Given, many of the topic on this channel share an affinity,
this may be a nice addition.
www.quantumconsciousness.org/content/hameroff-penrose-review-orch-or-theory
The problem with the Most Holy and Most Blessed Lord John Paul II is how much he was leaning towards Modernism and Neo-Modernism (a term I use for the "Nouvelle Théologie" and related systems like Hegelianism, and whatever Karl Rahner was trying to put forth). He should have stuck with his teacher Réginald Garrigou-Lagrange, and followed the method of St. Thomas, which the Church has proscribed as "official theology". Instead, he deviated from Scholasticism/Thomism, and even claimed the Church had no official philosophy, which is obviously contradictory to all Popes of the 19th and 20th century, and even Popes prior to that. As is the case with Paul VI, John Paul II brought many bad things into the Church, and due to his extremely long pontificate, his failures were very significant, especially when it came to protecting the Faith from heretical attacks (from within the Church). He is a Saint, but he was not a good Pope. And this encyclical shows how he does not return to Thomas, but follows much of what the Neo-Modernists proposed. Réginald Garrigou-Lagrange, certainly a Saint as well, will have an earnest talk with John Paul in Heaven, I am sure.