@@RockSmithStudio Can he? God answers the question of creation of the universe. We still don't know why God is and self-creation and standing outside time doesn't really cut it.
It's related, but I think the worst part is actually the idea that WE are part of the chain. We can all be the next "God" in the cycle if we're good enough Mormons. It's cosmic narcissism unrivaled by any but Lucifer himself
The idea of a world turtle is from Hindu paganism, not Greek paganism. And the idea of an infinite regression of world turtles isn't documented until the mid-20th century.
@@jeremygunter8806 I know it was Terry Prastchett who documented it. The world is flat and is carried on top of four elephants that stands on the back of a celestial turtle. and while the jury is still out, many believes that the turtle is female
@@jeremygunter8806We still have the same issue in Christianity. Where did the universe come from? God. Where did God come from? Erm, he created himself. So how did he create himself? He's outside time. How and why is he around? Theologians have attempted to answer these questions and have not entirely succeeded.
No because that wasn't Aquinas, that was Aristotle, who debunked it 2350 years ago. You don't need a Christian to challenge such absurdities, just someone who comprehend logic.
I converted to mormonism when I was only 9, the missionaries convinced me with a sugarcoat mormonism, my parents didn't do anything to stop me. However, thank God, I read Thomas Aquinas as a teenager when I became fascinated with philosophy. After reading him, I began to doubt the mormon idea of infinite regression. After some years of doubt and also reading other christian philosophers like St. Augustine and William Lane Craig, I stopped believing in mormonism when I was 17 and I embraced trie christianity. Now I'm 23 and I feel so happy, knowing that God is eternal and no one could be like him.
@ThursoBerwick That's the point, the ground of existence don't have to find the causes for it's own existence outside itself.. that's what old Greeks would called "divine". Other way you have an infinite regress that explains nothing.
@@TheBurningWarrior That still has us at square one. He is clearly a thing which exists, but how? If we don't answer that we don't answer creation either.
@ThursoBerwick You misunderstand what God is. God is eternal (exists outside of time and space), pure act (pure actuality without any potentiality and is not subject to time, space, and change), and being itself (existence itself). God is ipsum esse subsistens (the very act of being subsisting) which means God's essence (esse or being) is existence itself and is not dependent on anything else to exist. So, God is not a "thing" in the sense that He is created, subject to time, space, and change. Rather, He is "being" itself which is why He is uncreated (Not contingent on anything else to exist). He exists necessarily (i.e. His existence is absolutely unavoidable and cannot not exist), not a mere possibility (hence, pure act). God is simple, which means He is not composed of parts and qualities. God is the First Cause. God simply *is.*
A couple of days ago, I was arguing with an Atheist on the cosmological argument, by stating that there needs to be an unmoved mover. He said, "Well, there is the possibility of an infinite regress." This video came in a few days later, and now I can answer that point. Thanks Testify.
Aquinas's argument doesn't argue against an infinite linear regress in time (ala dominos falling down upon the next without a first domino), but against an infinite vertical regress in causality (an electrical socket that has no electricity on its own, and only gets its electricity by being plugged into another socket, which is then also plugged into another ad infinitum, where the electricity is actually ultimately unsourced because there is no member who has it in themselves, so there can be no electricity flowing in such a series). Aquinas himself never argued for the kalam cosmological argument that the past must be finite. The video does clarify this with the boxcar analogy in the end, which is a good thing, but the usage of it against an infinite linear series of fathers begetting children forever may lead people to think it's a linear regression series that's in mind, when it's not.
Isaiah 43:10 NIV [10] “You are my witnesses,” declares the Lord, “and my servant whom I have chosen, so that you may know and believe me and understand that I am he. Before me no god was formed, nor will there be one after me.
As a fun fact, Saint Thomas' philosphical ideas are mostly based on Aristotle's... well, he literally took Aristotle's philosophy and dipped it into christian ideas. Based.
@minecraftthelostorder5782 yes and no. Thomas both relies on Aristotle but interprets him always in a way that Thomas thinks is true and philosophically sustainable. He is also drawing on Neo-Platonism. Aristotle is the first to reject an infinite regress (despite believing the cosmos to be eternal) but it’s Thomas’s use of this argument that is clever. He even allows for a dependent, caused and eternally existing material universe created by God. The man makes many modern geniuses look like intellectual midgets.
These Aristotle Philosophical teaching are now Official catholic doctrine, thanks to Aquinas. Humanism, rationalism, philosophy, man's thoughts and reasoning over the word of God. Truly the catholic church was correctly described/procheised to resemble Greece(Revelation 13:2)
@@GogakuOtaku This is a pretty stupid claim. Thats like saying Islam would violate it too if not for talheed. Or Judaism would too if not for the first commandment.
Mormon confessing their esoteric beliefs with that "God the Father" was human and obtained Godhood and there are many like him. May as well call it buddha
At least Buddha never claimed to be a god. He made it very clear that he was still just a man, albeit an enlightened one. Any man fool enough to declare himself divine is just that, a fool.
One of these days Testify is gonna replace the 'holy chanting' sound bit with HALO's Gregorian chant theme, and every *single* one of us will activate like a sleeper agent.
@@picklerick.n.666 Ali brate moj, Nemoj vjerovati ove laži. Ovaj nije nauk mormona nego je neiskren strawman. Mormoni vjeruju druge stvari od katolika, to je sigurno, ali ovaj čovjek je neiskren. On ne zasluži nikakvo poštivanje
The idea that you can become a God, have a God/wife and make celestial babies while ruling over your own planet in Mormonism always seemed super sus and new age to me not to mention counterintuitive to causality.
Muslims are monotheists by name but if you dig deeper you find more stuff. Example how to become a Muslim? You must acknowledge the shahada which you say this part Muhammad is the messenger of allah. Muhammad is associated with Allah and without Muhammad can’t be a Muslim.
@@samsam-nx8gq That’s true but it would be dishonest to say Muslims aren’t monotheists. Their belief in Muhammad being the penultimate prophet doesn’t contradict Allah being One.
if only there was a saint that wrote a book possibly titled "a dialogue concerning heresies" that even non-catholics like C.S. Lewis hailed the best work of english literature ever produced. If only.
I'm pretty sure most, if not all the early church fathers end up accidently debunking all of Mormonism's heretical claims. Mostly because most of Mormonism's nonsense is just rehashing of old heresies.
This applies to atheists too, except instead of arguing for an infinite regress of gods, they argue for an infinite regress of causation, or an infinite regress of parallel universes, or expansions of the same universe, or what ever other theory they have to get away from God.
Strictly, it'd apply to materialist atheists. Other atheists can argue the unmoved mover is a cosmic force or "it just happens." Both of those answers are supernatural (outside any natural inquiry), they just don't involve God.
@@nisonatic Yeah, that's called magic. Eternity of nothing, then suddenly, poof! A universe! No cause, nor source. Just magic. One argument I've seen is this: "Before the universe, there was nothing, -a field of mathematical 0s. Then at the moment of the Big Bang, all the 0s shifted their value over. So half of the 0s became 1s, and the other half became -1s. And the 1s and -1s collided and canceled each other out, creating several large explosions, which were the Big Bangs in the infinite sea of parallel universes." Beyond just being absurd, this theory completely misses what "nothing" is. "Nothing" isn't a 0; it's no thing.
This video seems to initially misunderstand Aquinas's argument from motion, since it thinks that an infinite linear chain of fathers begetting sons is what the argument is targetted against, which it is not. It's not an argument against beginningless linear causal chains (ala infinite dominos falling down on the next), but against first-member-less vertical causal chains (ala infinitely many electrical sockets each plugged into one another, where none has original electricity but only gives it to another, where the actual existence of electricity in the chain is suspect at all because none of the members is a source of electricity). Aquinas himself never argued for a form of kalam cosmological argument. Thankfully the traincar analogy gets it right as the essence of the argument. But yeah, Aquinas's argument isn't directed against an infinite series of begetting fathers specifically.
It still doesn't explain the first mover. If you use the example of trains like the narrator, then those trains have to be built to push/pull the rest to begin with. No one adequately explains the existence of God. (By the way, I think he exists but saying he is outside time or self-creating still leaves questions.)
Thanks so much for all the great info about Mormonism, I live in Utah and it’s so hard to explain my beliefs because a lot of Mormons are very set in their ways
@@astutik8909pray Means talking, Jesus talked to Moses and Elijah on mount Tabor. All Christians can talk to the Saints in heaven like Jesus. Saying we cant or should not is Heretical
I’m not Mormon, but it seems to me that Aquinas’ argument could be rebutted within the framework of the argument through a simple rephrasing: 1. Events happen. 2. All Events are caused by a preceding Event 3. There cannot be an infinite regress of events. 4. Therefore there must be a First Event, preceded by no others. (Aka the Big Bang). Thus the argument while conserving the framework can be reformatted as an argument of equal validity and strength for Deism, Agnosticism, and maybe even Atheism. Even Aquinas’s unaltered original only confirms Deism, not Triune Christianity nor any other religion. Further, if we allow criticism of the framework do the argument itself, why mustn’t there be an infinite regress? Simply because our minds cannot fathom it? There is nothing that prevents such a thing in theory, since the Universe, and whatever is outside it, is infinite. An infinite space can hold infinite information. Each Event or Mover has an information value of X, but regardless of the value of X no multiplication thereof would exhaust or approach infinity. Therefore while an infinite regress is not necessary, it is plausible within the laws of physics and our understanding of the Universe. For instance, let us take the Mormon belief of this unending chain of Gods. While I don’t believe in it myself, nor has it been substantiated with any viable evidence, purely in the HYPOTHETICAL, it is plausible, at least. An infinite space can accommodate infinite information, and Infinity can be contained within infinity with infinite room remaining, as shown in the Hotel Paradox and the various types and sizes of infinity, like Aleph and so on. So an infinite universe would have more than enough space and information to store an infinite chain of Mormon Gods, and still have an abundant excess thereafter. The dismissal outright of infinite regress is the simple folly of Human reason, given we are finite it is common to assume that all things must be so. Why cannot you have an infinite chain, with each in the sequence being caused by the previous. Why does everything need a first, initial cause? Perhaps there is no first cause. Why must motion be explained? Perhaps it simply is, just as you describe your god as. It reminds me of Vonnegut: “Tiger got to hunt, Bird got to fly, Man got to wonder why, why, why? Tiger got to sleep, Bird got to land, Man got to tell himself he understand.”
The problem is if #4 is true then #2 must be false. If all events are caused by a preceding event then there can be no first event. There can be no infinite chain of events because there is no event that causes the chain to exist.
First off, I’m a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints and I agree with @Asvnaro. You’re right in that if #4 is true then #2 must be false. If all events are caused by an initial event, then not all events are caused by a preceding event because the first wasn’t caused by another event. It already existed. #2 and #4 contradict themselves and we are led to ask, where did God come from if nothing caused Him? He always just existed with no beginning? Obviously; after all, He is eternal, as the Bible states. But it does not say that He always was the way He is now. Moreover, what in the Bible states that there can’t be an infinite regress? Like @Asvnaro says, there is nothing that prevents a theory of an infinite regress, only Aquinas’ claim. Is his word scripture? Obviously not, he was simply a Catholic priest/theologian, a great mind and to an extent inspired, but not a mouthpiece for God. Seeing as we can’t prove that there can’t be infinite regress with the Bible, can we prove it’s possible with the Bible? The Bible teaches that we can become like God, when Christ says “Is it not written in your law … Ye are gods”(John 10:34), referencing Psalms 82:6. Acts 17:29 states that we are the offspring of God and I ask, what could the offspring of a cow be other than a cow, or that of a man be other than a man? If a cow cannot give birth to a chicken, for example, why could we not become Gods, being the offspring of God? Rev. 3:21 says “To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne.” If Christ is equal to God, and those who overcome sit down with Christ who sits down with God, then those who overcome are equal to them, are they not? If we are to take the scripture at face value, then yes. And what is equal to God, if not another God of equal stature and perfection? Nothing. While yes, the Bible says that there is only one true God and only one Savior, it is saying that WE only have one true God and one Savior. If there are other gods with their own worlds, then they are not our gods anymore than we are their children or subject to them. Christ and God are one in purpose, and we can become one with them through the gospel and atonement.
@@grilledcheeseguy7639Firstly, none of your points addressed the issue with infinite regress. Furthermore, God is eternal, or in other words, unchanged. By Him being eternal, he never could have been man. Finally, the John verse is taken out of context, and likening an omnipotent creator to a cow doesn’t make much sense. We cannot become God ourselves.
The Philosophical analysis of the conclusion of the Kalam Cosmological argument on the Kalam Cosmological Argument's Wikipedia page does a brilliant job at explaining why everything that began to exist must have been caused by a mind to exist.
I don't think Aquinas' argument refutes an infinite regress of gods. The argument from motion doesn't address all infinite regresses, but only those that are "essentially ordered". These are regresses where each member depends on the previous member's activity at each moment. Aquinas' example of this kind of series is a staff being moved by a hand. This series is "essentially ordered" because the staff ceases to move at all if the hand ceases to move, and the hand ceases to move at all if its muscles stop contracting, and so forth. By contrast, Mormonism's infinite regress of gods is not essentially ordered. Even the Mormon regress of gods stretches backwards into infinity, each god can exist on their own without the direct intervention of their predecessor. This would be an "accidentally ordered" series, and Aquinas does not argue these series are impossible. In fact, he even argues that we cannot refute the idea that the universe is infinitely old(i.e. an accidentally ordered series) through reason alone, but rather must rely on Scripture to do this. All that being said, I agree that the Mormon god cannot be Aquinas' Unmoved Mover. I'm also sympathetic to the infinite regress argument you give, but I think it draws more the Kalam argument than the argument from motion.
Wouldnt mormonism's regress still be essentially ordered too? In that system, we still rely upon our god in order to become a god ourselves, even if we might be self-sufficient afterwards. A more fitting analogy might be an engineer inventing a prepetual motion machine. The machine can move on its own once its all put together, but it relies on the engineer to make it before its self-sufficient.
@@blu2106 As I understand it, members of an essentially ordered series can't be fully self-sufficient because each one is always dependent on its predecessor. Once someone becomes a god in mormonism, the godhood is not continuously sustained by their previous god, making the whole series accidentally ordered. The same is true of the perpetual motion machine: as you say, it no longer depends on the engineer after it is made.
@@TestifyApologetics Thanks! I like how explicit the quote is, especially coming from one of Joseph Smith's own apostles. If you read my other comment, you'll see that this kind of resource is necessary because some Mormons will outright deny that this even a Mormon doctrine! (Understandable, as it's the most problematic, blasphemous, incoherent, and embarrassing teaching that they have.)
@@elijahb2787 _"Mormons will outright deny that this even a Mormon doctrine"_ Because it isn't. The Seer isn't in our Canon of scriptures nor is Orson Pratt someone who can declare doctrine in our Church. It is a school of thought within our Church that I and many others don't believe in. But let's say it is true, We don't believe God, Jesus Christ or that we are created beings. D&C 93:29 “Man was also in the beginning with God. *Intelligence, or the light of truth, was not created or made, neither indeed can be.”* I think it is safe to say that God, Jesus and us have intelligence so therefore He couldn’t have been created in our theology. Also in Abraham 3:18 “Howbeit that he made the greater star; as, also, if there be two spirits, and one shall be more intelligent than the other, yet these two spirits, *notwithstanding one is more intelligent than the other, have no beginning; they existed before, they shall have no end, they shall exist after, for they are gnolaum, or eternal.”* So there are 2 of our own scriptures that completely contradict the idea of God and Jesus being a created being and saying that He has always existed, same as us. Joseph Smith even says in the King Follet discourse “The mind or the intelligence which man possesses is co-equal [co-eternal] with God himself. … The intelligence of spirits had no beginning, neither will it have an end. That is good logic. That which has a beginning may have an end. There never was a time when there were not spirits; for they are co-equal [co-eternal] with our Father in heaven.” They are still eternal even if they did grow in power. The term "unchangeable God" is not referencing a physical state. This can be shown from similar terms from the Bible about Jesus. Jesus is referred to as "the same yesterday, today, and forever" (Hebrews 13:8). Yet we learn from the scriptures that Jesus “increased in wisdom and stature, and in favor with God and man” (Luke 2:52). There is certainly a change in condition and there is succession of time with God, a before and after, there is being and becoming. Jesus was a spirit, He became man and in becoming man, He passed through all the phases in life from infancy to manhood. It is important also that it was not until Jesus had arisen from the tomb and stood in the presence of His disciples, glorified personage, body and spirit united, that He exclaimed, “all power is given unto Me in heaven and earth.” (Matthew 28:18). If he was “given” something then there must have been a time when He did not possess all power in heaven and on earth, hence a change from possessing some power to the condition of possessing “all power”. So this term is not meant to mean His physical condition. In context, no scripture tells us of God's physical change, but actually tells us that one can be eternal, unchanging, the same yesterday, today and forever, and still go through physical changes. And no matter what, He is the beginning of this earth and he is the end of this earth. There is no other God before him for this earth and there is no other God after him for this earth.
Hello Mr Erik Manning are you a Thomist Catholic ?? That's really cool, I watch Christian B wagner too from Scholastic Answers although I don't understand the english that much.
If I were a Mormon, I would be restless with the question of who it is righteous to worship. If Elohim were simply among the last in a bloodline of gods, I would wonder what the will and character of the progenitor god were. Where are his temple and rituals? Why are there no writings about his exploits? If he were indeed a god, then his glory would demand record of its existence and worship of his majesty. And if the succession of gods requires the denouncing of the previous, why would Elohim be worshiped alongside Jesus? What happens when one arrives in the Heaven of Mormonism and becomes a god?
I will be a commentator from an ex Mormon. Everything he’s talking about that video is true. I left the Mormon church. They now have a policy even if it’s your brother your mother your father leaves the church because he’s critical of the church you cannot associate with that relative who is now considered a heretic and an apostate no one no one in my family talks to me, so much for the eternal family issues that they so strongly preach😂😂😂
@ the specialist on it aren’t you ask the Mormon church? I’m at the church how would I freaking know where they kept it? It’s a cult. How would I know where it’s at all I was told by my family Tube bishops said they can no longer be with me because the current policy they do not want people being around apostates and those who have left the church so ask her ask her Bishop can you hang around with the past members cause I wouldn’t want you hang around with me you see my phone of those hang on the testicles as long as I can. Smith is gotta come sometime, it’s a cult, cult, cult, cult
@ are you one of the I got a no I’m not. I’m gonna talk to you man. You’re Nicole if you’re Mormon you’re a cult leader keep hanging onto it. Keep waiting for Jesus and Joseph to show up in your room temples. He’s not your profits never prophesied they’re more interested in money and your apostles are nothing but businessmanand attorneys that’s all they’re not spirited in the Scriptures. They ask questions that not the meaning not Mormon. I’m sure he’s a good looking dude sucking
That's not true. Speaking from experience. It's not a mormon policy. Would you like to show me where that policy is stated ? More like that's your family policy. - it is a JW policy tho.
Hello, the second premise is because either that thing is moved by another or moved itself. However, moving itself, i.e, actualizing itself, is nonsensical. Every potential that is actualized is so actualized by another already in a state of actuality. For something to actualize itself in the same respect, it would require it to be logically prior to itself and for the potential being to have actual causal power which it only potentially does. Both of those requirements are nonsensical and obviously impossible.
The reason Thomists use the boxcar image is because it is not a chain of causation through time (per accidens) but in a single moment (per se.) The other example you see is of a stick pushing a rock. Notice that when the arm holding the stick stops, all motion stops. It is NOT like a series of dominoes. Furthermore, Mormons can be happy to hold that there are no contingent beings, that all beings are necessary. A better reply will probably attack that absurdity; if they deny contingency, there's one set of problems; if they affirm it, there's another set, i.e. that now they're subject to the Third (and not first) Way.
Active member of the LDS church here. The idea that God hasn’t always been God or that he once existed as a man isn’t really taught in church doctrine, and you definitely won’t find it in scripture. It’s an esoteric idea that is only held by few in the church. I personally believe that God has always been God, as both the Book of Mormon and the Bible talk of God existing from eternity to eternity. This belief is also shared by many of my friends, also active members of the church. Love your videos! We’re all brothers in Christ 👍
Depending on how you interpret certain teachings. Not every single word that came out of Joseph Smith’s mouth became church doctrine, and not every single word is universally believed by all members. This particular idea isn’t found in church doctrine, nor is it taught by the church, nor do all (or even most members from my experience) believe it.
@@unido5411 yeah exactly and that demonstrates a serious problem within the LDS church. The idea that you can pick and choose which prophecies are acceptable is highly troubling and would cause a lot of confusion amongst members
The problem with a infinite universe date of regress is that we'd never reach to the current date of human existence because One: ancient times has changed and we'll be butterfly affect out of existence, And two it'll take literally forever to reach our point that within this absurdity, we would simply never exist.
A small critue on the use of Aquinas' first way. Do the mormons consider their gods continued existence to depend on their higher gods? Aquinas does not nessesarily argue for a temporal chain of causality that stretches back in time. A temporal form of the argument only works by demonstrating that time and the world began and does not stretch infintly into the past. Aquinas did not believe it could be demonstrated through philosophy that the world hasnt existed in an eternity stretching into the past. Rather the chain of motion is present. Not like a line of dominoes. The next domino is not dependent on previous dominos continued existence to impart force on the next domino after being set in motion. Rather to use Aquinas's example the chain of motion is like a stick moving a rock because it is held by a man. My favorite example is a chandelier held up by succesive chains. The stick has no motion to impart to The rock except for the motion imparted to it by the human hand. The individual links have no strength to hold the chandelier apart from the nex link. The rock moving demonstrates the existence of a being capable of capable to impart motion though the stick to the rock. The existence of a chandelier held up by a chain of links demonstrate something strong enough to hold the chain and chandelier. Therefore if the mormon gods do not depend on their priors for their continued existence; then an infinite regress into the past is philosophically possible. However, in this case, there must exist some substrata of existence that holds the Mormon gods in being. And therefore the Mormon gods are not God the souce and foundation of all reality.
Love your videos man! I recently made a video in a similar style breaking down 3 arguments why belief in God is a “rational” decision for any human to make
3rd one is doubtful at best, hence 4th is too. In a biblical context, they are true, outside, they are possible. Not absolute. That why Buddhism makes sense in its own way, for example.
Buddhism makes sense because Samsara makes sense. Six cycles, if you didn't achieve Nirvana, you reincarnate, if you did, you get to live as a Buddha forever, not being reincarnated
Ibn Sina explains further that even if an infinite chain of contingent beings was possible ... well the chain would itself be contingent and require a necessary being outside it by definition of it not being able to start itself. Since all contingents are dependent on something outside of themselves, the set of all contingents is no exception.
Even if infinite regress is possible, the Mormon "Heavenly Father" can still not be God, by definition, because he would be contingent. (Not to mention several other problems.)
There’s also another philosophical problem with having an infinite chain of causes: an infinite chain requires an infinite amount of time to have passed to get to our point in time which is not possible. Rather it is better concluded that just one God who is outside of time started and created time itself and our universe had a definite beginning
I take mormon theology pretty seriously, because its followers tend to do very well in school. surely, if their character supports conquest for education, it is hard to believe something this basic (cosmological argument, which by the way arguably begs the question) refutes the theology that they are consciously aware of believing. They would be educated enough to realize that
- Premise 3 is an unsupported assumption. Making 4 an invalid conclusion. - All the analogies that need a prime mover or base ignore the concept of infinity. - Motion does not require an unmoved mover. Can you enlighten me as to how something moves something else without moving/changing ? So 2 contradicts 4.
Premise 3 follows from premise 2 and premise 1. If everything is in motion and everything that is in motion is moved by something else then an infinite chain of movers moving future movers does not answer anything because without a starting point you can't explain where the energy came from to begin this infinite chain of movers.
@@Doc-Holliday1851 And that "starting point" doesn't explain where it got the energy to move something in the first place. Where did that initial energy come from ? Infinity is tough to grasp, isn't it ? Premise 3 is still an unsupported assumption. It doesn't follow. And 2 still contradicts 4. Also you didn't address my question as to how something moves/changes something else without moving/changing itself.
@@tezzerii Christian's claim that God is infinite, the concept isn't foreign to Christianity. The part that doesn't work is an infinite line of movers being moved themselves. Because God is a non-contingent being. He is reliant on nothing. The mormon pantheon is nothing but contingent beings. They all rely on something so by definition there must be something which forms the base for these contingent beings since they are admittedly contingent on other things to exist.
@@Doc-Holliday1851 The concept of infinity may not be foreign to christianity, but don't try to tell me you understand it. I don't agree with your/Aquinas's premises and conclusions. I haven't mentioned god or mormons till now, and you still haven't explained how he or anything can bring about movement/change without moving/changing in the process.
@@tezzerii God created time, space, and matter therefore he is not subject to their laws therefore he can exist infinitely without being contingent on anything else.
So... I think there was a confusion here when it comes to Aquinas' philosophy of motion and the First way. You seem to be asserting that Aquinas argued that you cannot have an infinite chain of movers going backwards in time (son begotten by father, begotten by grandfather, begotten by great grandfather, etc.) when Aquinas is actually one of the Theologians throughout the history of the Church who argued that the creation of the world was known only through divine revelation and not through philosophical demonstration, i.e. he didn't believe there was a philosophical argument against temporal infinite regressions. After all, you must remember that Aristotle, who proposed the original argument from motion, believed that he had actually demonstrated that the universe was eternal (though I've heard that the details of this are somewhat disputed, but it is certainly the line taken by virtually all the major Islamic Aristotelians) The argument from motion's point isn't that all change must ultimately come from a single unmoved mover who set the dominos in motion, but rather that any change whatsoever can only be explained by said unmoved mover. That is, even if God didn't create the universe (i.e., it existed into the infinite past alongside Him) He would still be the necessary source of all motion that has ever existed. I don't want this to come off as too aggressive, since that's not my intention, but I felt I was getting several mixed impressions from the argument made in the video and I thought it would be useful to offer pushback. Thanks!
Aquinas's argument is based on the premise that the source of motion is found outside of the things that change, but why should we believe this? Magnets attract because of the magnets themselves and not becayse of something outsideof the magnets, for example. So all we have to do is argue that the source of change is found within the changing things themselves. This is clearly possible so anyone that uses the first way needs to show that whatever changes or could change is inherently causally inert.
Plus, Aquinas himself believed the universe could logically have always existed, as time would be a per accident series of causes(which means the things within the chain have inherent causal power of their own). But he believed this infinite universe would haft to have been created by God, beceuse all per accident series of cause is dependent on a per se series of causes.
@charles21137 The defender of the first way needs to show that the source of change is found outside the things that change. However, it could be that the source of change is found within the things that change so that the universe is its own source of change. If this were the case, then the first way is unsound.
@ I mean, technically there is something that causes the magnet’s attraction ability, the structure of the electrons of its atoms. Motion in philosophy doesn’t just mean physical movement, it means change in general(there needs to be a reason for why this thing was given the property of magnetism).
@charles21137 the source of change of the magnets attracting each other is found within the nature of the magnets. Namely, the magnetic and electric field. The point of the example of the magnets is to show that what is in motion is put in motion by another does not mean that the source of change is found outside of the things that change. The burden of proof to prove that the Aristotlean notion that what changes is inherently causally inert is on the defender of the first way since it is possible that the source of change is found within the things that change.
@ (This argument goes into Duns Scotus, not Thomas Aquinas) The nature of something can either come from a)itself, b)nothing, c)something else. It is important here to note that this isn’t talking about motion, but what gives something its nature in an essential sense. The nature of a magnet cannot come from itself(in other words, the reason for the magnetic nature of something can’t be the magnetic nature itself). The reason for this is simple, the giving of nature would be a per se series of causes, because each member in the chain requires the member before it to give its causal power, meaning it would need an end(ask if I need to explain this part further). Its nature can’t be from nothing, as nothing isn’t a cause(it is nothing). So its nature had to come from something else. I trust that you can figure the rest out on your own, you seem pretty bright.
The concept of a “prime mover” (or as i like to call them: not-weh) actually was created in Ancient Greece in the document Metaphysics. Where our boy, Not-Weh, intentionally or unintentionally kicked off the creation of the universe.
Objective truth exists There must be an eternal, unchanging source of objective truth, otherwise it is not objectively true The universe began to exist, so it cannot be the eternal, unchanging source Therefore, the source of objective truth came from something greater than the universe Abstract, objective truths cannot cause anything to exist on their own Therefore a mind, or some type of cognitive agent, caused the universe to exist, which is itself the eternal, unchanging source of objective truth
The problem with TA's logic, is that he assumes that there can only be one universe observable by man. If an infinite number can exist, just undetectable by man, there is no problem. We LDS scratch our heads regarding the traditional Trinity. These 3 beings have existed for eternity and all o a sudden, one of them gets an idea to create a physical universe. Why? They decide to create man. Why? They decide to create Hell and destine the vast majority of mankind to be sent there to burn for all eternity rather than just destroying the souls of those that don't love them as much as they want. Why did this divine committee do all of this?
There are no 3 beings. There are 3 persons, sharing the One Divine essence. None is independently existing or created. There is a Greek distinction between Person/Being you can look into, but to simplify the Being of God (3 Persons) is far higher and greater than the Being of Man (1 Person per Man)
@@GamerDragoniteES Sorry, but 3 beings sharing a divine essence comes from Greek/Pagan philosophy and not the Bible. Essence is only mentioned once in the Bible (2 Pet. 1:4) where it says believers will partake of the same essence that God has for themselves. 3 Beings making up one God is not in the Bible. The Holy Ghost is never called God and Jesus referred to the Father as the only true God (Jn. 17:3) and the Father, Christ, and Paul refer to Christ to the Father as the God of Christ (Heb. 1:8,9, Jn. 20:17, and Eph. 1:2,3, and 17...plus others). The Creeds are a mix of scripture and pagan Greek philosophy. They teach another Jesus and another Gospel.
@Chris_in_Idaho god is fully each of them. Not three seperate beings making up one. Suggesting all powerful god can't body have another body or form is absurd.
1. The universe must originate ex nihilo in being without natural cause, because no natural explanation can be causally prior to the very existence of the natural world. Therefore, the cause of the universe is outside of space and time (timeless, therefore changeless, and spaceless) as well as immaterial and enormously powerful, in bringing spacetime and its contents into existence. 2. Even if positing a plurality of causes prior to the origin of the universe, the causal chain must terminate in a cause which is absolutely first and uncaused, otherwise an infinite regress of causes would arise, which Craig and Sinclair argue is impossible. 3. Occam's Razor maintains that unicity of the First Cause should be assumed in the absence of specific reasons to believe that there is more than one causeless cause. 4. Agent causation, or volitional action, is the only ontological condition in which an effect can arise in the absence of prior determining conditions. Therefore, only personal, free agency can account for the origin of a first temporal effect from a changeless cause. 5. There are two conceivable categories of objects with the potential to be uncaused, spaceless, timeless and immaterial: Minds (in some conceptions of mind-body dualism) may be characterized as immaterial and spatially unextended, with the potential to be unembodied, timeless, changeless and beginningless. Abstract objects, such as the set of natural numbers, may be described as non-spatial and non-temporal, but do not sit in causal relationships and are therefore causally ineffective. Based upon analysis of the information above, Craig concludes: "... an uncaused, personal Creator of the universe exists, who sans the universe is beginningless, changeless, immaterial, timeless, spaceless and enormously powerful." He notes the theological implications of this union of properties: "... our whole universe was caused to exist by something beyond it and greater than it. For it is no secret that one of the most important conceptions of what theists mean by 'God' is Creator of heaven and earth."
You aren't wrong about your argument, however the impossibility of an infinite sequence of causes is actually the SECOND way of St. Thomas. The first way is a lot less intuitive for the modern reader than it seems at first. When he speaks of motion requiring a mover, he does not mean that there was a second motion before a first motion which started the first motion, but instead he means that if there is a first motion happening right now, then there is a mover moving it right now, like how if I pick up a book and move it, my hand, the mover, is moving the book at the same time. He is saying that in this kind of sequence there must be a first mover, which moves everything. The first moved object was believed by many to be the outermost celestial sphere, which they thought contained the fixed stars, but this could not move itself since nothing can move itself, so God was the mover of it. That means that in this understanding and motion could be traced, in theory, not BACK a chain of movers, but UP a chain of movers through the planets and celestial spheres, and up to God, all happening at the same time. This was largely Aristotelian in origin, and is one of the hardest to make match up with any modern understanding of motion. Book 4 of Aristotle's Physics talks a lot about this kind of thing, as well as parts of the metaphysics, and let me tell ya, to the modern ear it sounds batshit insane at first. I think there is a lot more to it than pure insanity, but from a Newtonian background that's the way it sounds. To be totally honest, I don't fully understand this myself, but if the motion argument cannot just be a cause argument, because he immediately follows it with a cause argument.
Other way around evidently: It isn't that God is necessarily the Unmoved Mover, it is that the Unmoved Mover is what we would call God. Being God does not automatically make you the Unmoved Mover, rather being the Unmoved Mover is what makes you God. The Summa Theologica goes into greater depths rooting the Unmoved Mover to being the god of Abraham, Jacob, and Issac, and you can read it there if you're interested. The source material explains it better than anyone you'll find in TH-cam comments.
Thats actually a point for mormonism. It isnt an explaination, but they make the problem with the infinite chain of causes part of their religion. Simply throwing the excuse "theres one unmoved mover" is like putting a shield "is broken, can't be repaired" on a car instead of fixing it and call it a solution
@Doc-Holliday1851 it's their religion, so its their descision which unanswerable questions they claim to answer and which not. Mormons don't tend to be violent so who is he or anybody to attack a faith?
Yeah so I’ve studied Mormon philosophy extensively. This leads Mormonism to be more like Buddhism, theistic Taoism, or Jainism, where God is bound by the laws of the universe. I personally like this idea but I can see why most Christians don’t.
Loving this channel, but now I am waiting to see him roast my man John Westley. Grew up a Methodist, let's see how strong that style of foundation on God is according to Testify.
I have heard these things before. But where is the information? -Where does it say that there is an infinite line of gods- with no beginning point? ( It is sad that Mormons want us to believe in the Book Of Mormon by faith- and feelings- ALONE. Then when one joins their church, one is discouraged to research the religion any-more.)
The thing is mormons believe mankind can become like our Heavenly Father more than we know anything about our Father in Heaven ever being like us. It's supposedly loosely based on the gospel of John where Christ says he does nothing but what He hath seen the Father do. The infinite regression isn't doctrine for this reason but rather just a refutation of ex nihilo as a Calvinist tradition.
Also, if the uncaused God exists, and I am certain with 99.9%, I am certain with 99.9%. If there would be another one, total chance multiplies down. So more chain links you have worst is the chance, with infinite gods your chance of being right about all of them approaches zero.
Here’s another one you might like, from St. John of Damascus: “-…things which are changeable must definitely be created. Created beings have certainly been created by something. *But the creator must be uncreated, for, if he has been created, then he has certainly been created by someone else - and so on until we arrive at something which has not been created.* Therefore, the creator is an uncreated and entirely unchangeable being. And what else would that be but God?” And also: “That [God] is without a body is obvious, for how could a body contain that which is limitless, boundless, formless, impalpable, invisible, simple, and uncompounded? How could it be immutable, if it were circumscribed and subject to change?” From ‘The Orthodox Faith’, in chapters 3 & 4
Yea, your whole comment is pretty ignorant. First, We don't believe God, Jesus Christ or that we are created beings. D&C 93:29 “Man was also in the beginning with God. *Intelligence, or the light of truth, was not created or made, neither indeed can be.”* I think it is safe to say that God, Jesus and us have intelligence so therefore He couldn’t have been created in our theology. Also in Abraham 3:18 “Howbeit that he made the greater star; as, also, if there be two spirits, and one shall be more intelligent than the other, yet these two spirits, *notwithstanding one is more intelligent than the other, have no beginning; they existed before, they shall have no end, they shall exist after, for they are gnolaum, or eternal.”* So there are 2 of our own scriptures that completely contradict the idea of God and Jesus being a created being and saying that He has always existed, same as us. Joseph Smith even says in the King Follet discourse “The mind or the intelligence which man possesses is co-equal [co-eternal] with God himself. … The intelligence of spirits had no beginning, neither will it have an end. That is good logic. That which has a beginning may have an end. There never was a time when there were not spirits; for they are co-equal [co-eternal] with our Father in heaven. ” But hey, why actually know what you are talking about when criticizing a religion? Your second point is a huge contradiction with scripture and your own false beliefs of God. Jesus Christ is one of the 3 personages of God and scripture tells us that He has a body. We know the tomb was empty and Jesus himself says “See my hands and my feet, that it is I myself. Touch me, and see. *For a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see that I have”* (Luke 24:39). Therefore, God would have to have body parts or you would have to say Jesus isn’t God. I with you luck in somehow not contradicting what scripture says and still holding to your point.
While infinite regression of gods was no doubt widely believed and taught in the days of Orson Pratt, the truth is, Mormonism has no systematic theology that stipulates whether there is in fact an infinite chain of divine beings or an uncaused first cause. Doctrine and Covenants 121: 28. A time to come in the which nothing shall be withheld, whether there be one God or many gods, they shall be manifest. 29. All thrones and dominions, principalities, and powers shall be revealed and set forth upon all who have endured valiantly for the gospel of Jesus Christ. In our faith, the number and nature of the divine hosts is something yet to be revealed to us until the millennium. So, while many in the church accept the idea and as problematic as it may be, even to some faithful members, it ain't doctrine and never was. So, Mormonism's God? Not quite, my friend.
It's like that idea that the world is on top of a giant turtle that walks around on a bigger turtle that walks around on an even bigger turtle that walks around on an even bigger turtle that walks around on a... you get it.
Based St Thomas Aquinas!!😎
Its sad that christians are just competing on mocking other religion and denom. Haha your denom is the goofiest ! . Yeah this is fractured
So based that he can disprove bad theology despite being dead over 750 years ago
@@RockSmithStudio Can he? God answers the question of creation of the universe. We still don't know why God is and self-creation and standing outside time doesn't really cut it.
This is the _most_ problematic belief of Mormonism. 🤦♂️
That and believing a single word of what charlatan Joseph Smith has to say
One of many!
.................. and the fact that the Book of Mormon has MORE errors in it than there are stars in the sky.
It's related, but I think the worst part is actually the idea that WE are part of the chain. We can all be the next "God" in the cycle if we're good enough Mormons. It's cosmic narcissism unrivaled by any but Lucifer himself
Not the racism?
Some Greek guy: "It's turtles all the way down!"
Joseph Smith: "Oooo, that's good!"
Aristotle was his name
The idea of a world turtle is from Hindu paganism, not Greek paganism. And the idea of an infinite regression of world turtles isn't documented until the mid-20th century.
@@jeremygunter8806came to say this.
@@jeremygunter8806 I know it was Terry Prastchett who documented it.
The world is flat and is carried on top of four elephants that stands on the back of a celestial turtle.
and while the jury is still out, many believes that the turtle is female
@@jeremygunter8806We still have the same issue in Christianity.
Where did the universe come from? God.
Where did God come from? Erm, he created himself.
So how did he create himself? He's outside time.
How and why is he around?
Theologians have attempted to answer these questions and have not entirely succeeded.
Aquinas cooking Mormonism with this one 🗣🗣🔥🔥
Fr
Bro i literally see you in every single one of this guy’s comment sections
@@mommytheape
Real
No because that wasn't Aquinas, that was Aristotle, who debunked it 2350 years ago.
You don't need a Christian to challenge such absurdities, just someone who comprehend logic.
He's been cooking cults for a while now😅
I converted to mormonism when I was only 9, the missionaries convinced me with a sugarcoat mormonism, my parents didn't do anything to stop me. However, thank God, I read Thomas Aquinas as a teenager when I became fascinated with philosophy. After reading him, I began to doubt the mormon idea of infinite regression. After some years of doubt and also reading other christian philosophers like St. Augustine and William Lane Craig, I stopped believing in mormonism when I was 17 and I embraced trie christianity. Now I'm 23 and I feel so happy, knowing that God is eternal and no one could be like him.
Amen
@@amaryllidinaeHey amary its me yorikida LOL
@@amaryllidinaeayy
@RadicalSharkRS hi brah
As Johann Georg Hamann once said metaphysics and history are the tests of true religion. Only Christianity meets both.
JWs/Gnostics: If you think that's absurd, hold my Demiurge...
How is that possible
@@Just_a_Reflection Gnostics are Hellenistic Masons who submit to the matter even if they deny it.
Jehovah's Witnesses are more similar to Arians than Gnostics.
@carlose4314 no, because arians has apostolic sucession and believed in a Church autority, gnostics just made their own
@@Onlyafool172 I was referring to their Christology.
As a Roman Catholic I see this as an absolute win
How and why does God exist? Standing outside time and self-creation are not adequate answers. God answers the universe but not his own existence.
@ThursoBerwick That's the point, the ground of existence don't have to find the causes for it's own existence outside itself.. that's what old Greeks would called "divine". Other way you have an infinite regress that explains nothing.
@ThursoBerwick God doesn't self create, he is uncreated. Every contingent thing needs a cause, but God is not contingent, he is subsistant existence.
@@TheBurningWarrior That still has us at square one. He is clearly a thing which exists, but how? If we don't answer that we don't answer creation either.
@ThursoBerwick You misunderstand what God is. God is eternal (exists outside of time and space), pure act (pure actuality without any potentiality and is not subject to time, space, and change), and being itself (existence itself). God is ipsum esse subsistens (the very act of being subsisting) which means God's essence (esse or being) is existence itself and is not dependent on anything else to exist. So, God is not a "thing" in the sense that He is created, subject to time, space, and change. Rather, He is "being" itself which is why He is uncreated (Not contingent on anything else to exist). He exists necessarily (i.e. His existence is absolutely unavoidable and cannot not exist), not a mere possibility (hence, pure act). God is simple, which means He is not composed of parts and qualities. God is the First Cause. God simply *is.*
A couple of days ago, I was arguing with an Atheist on the cosmological argument, by stating that there needs to be an unmoved mover. He said, "Well, there is the possibility of an infinite regress." This video came in a few days later, and now I can answer that point. Thanks Testify.
An infinite regress is, by definition, a self-defeating argument. It's strange for someone to use it, let alone an Atheist 🤔
Aquinas's argument doesn't argue against an infinite linear regress in time (ala dominos falling down upon the next without a first domino), but against an infinite vertical regress in causality (an electrical socket that has no electricity on its own, and only gets its electricity by being plugged into another socket, which is then also plugged into another ad infinitum, where the electricity is actually ultimately unsourced because there is no member who has it in themselves, so there can be no electricity flowing in such a series). Aquinas himself never argued for the kalam cosmological argument that the past must be finite. The video does clarify this with the boxcar analogy in the end, which is a good thing, but the usage of it against an infinite linear series of fathers begetting children forever may lead people to think it's a linear regression series that's in mind, when it's not.
@@religiousystuff Your linear regress example is an vertical regress as shown in your second point.
@@CathoDice Even science agrees that the universe had a beginning, meaning it is not eternal, meaning something or someone had to create it.
By the way, great profile picture
How dare TH-cam hide this from me for 17 minutes?
Isaiah 43:10 NIV
[10] “You are my witnesses,” declares the Lord, “and my servant whom I have chosen, so that you may know and believe me and understand that I am he. Before me no god was formed, nor will there be one after me.
As a fun fact, Saint Thomas' philosphical ideas are mostly based on Aristotle's... well, he literally took Aristotle's philosophy and dipped it into christian ideas. Based.
Aristotle was maybe the closest person to reach God in a vacuum. He is awesome.
@minecraftthelostorder5782 yes and no. Thomas both relies on Aristotle but interprets him always in a way that Thomas thinks is true and philosophically sustainable. He is also drawing on Neo-Platonism. Aristotle is the first to reject an infinite regress (despite believing the cosmos to be eternal) but it’s Thomas’s use of this argument that is clever. He even allows for a dependent, caused and eternally existing material universe created by God. The man makes many modern geniuses look like intellectual midgets.
@@ZanderSabbag I bet when Jesus conquered hell he converted Aristotle
@ that is a hope I share as well, may God have given him and others the salvation they deserved.
These Aristotle Philosophical teaching are now Official catholic doctrine, thanks to Aquinas. Humanism, rationalism, philosophy, man's thoughts and reasoning over the word of God. Truly the catholic church was correctly described/procheised to resemble Greece(Revelation 13:2)
So Mormonism pretty much violates the 1st Commandment
Yup. Christianity would too, if not for the Trinity
@@GogakuOtaku This is a pretty stupid claim. Thats like saying Islam would violate it too if not for talheed. Or Judaism would too if not for the first commandment.
@ yeah I’m not even sure why I bought it up in the first place 😅
No, there's a difference between acknowledging the existence of other gods and worshipping them.
@@tezzerii Michael Heiser fans have entered the chat!
Mormon confessing their esoteric beliefs with that "God the Father" was human and obtained Godhood and there are many like him. May as well call it buddha
The God of the Book of Mormon is NOT the god of Mormonism.
At least Buddha never claimed to be a god. He made it very clear that he was still just a man, albeit an enlightened one. Any man fool enough to declare himself divine is just that, a fool.
yeah, no matter what religion you believe in, this is just stupid,
Buddha didn't claim to be God, and the Mormon God doesn't dissolve into Nirvana.
One of these days Testify is gonna replace the 'holy chanting' sound bit with HALO's Gregorian chant theme, and every *single* one of us will activate like a sleeper agent.
God bless you and your family sir ❤ deep respect from Croatia-Europe ❤
🇭🇷❤
@@picklerick.n.666 Ali brate moj, Nemoj vjerovati ove laži. Ovaj nije nauk mormona nego je neiskren strawman. Mormoni vjeruju druge stvari od katolika, to je sigurno, ali ovaj čovjek je neiskren. On ne zasluži nikakvo poštivanje
The idea that you can become a God, have a God/wife and make celestial babies while ruling over your own planet in Mormonism always seemed super sus and new age to me not to mention counterintuitive to causality.
Mormons' god also is not the same thing we mean or Aristotle meant or Aquinas meant or most monotheists mean when we said "God."
And yet God made Mary pregnant with Jesus Christ. I am well aware he pre-existed but we know his body was formed in Mary.
The funny thing is, Muslims are actually closer to Christianity than the Mormons, because we’re at least both monotheists
Muslims are monotheists by name but if you dig deeper you find more stuff. Example how to become a Muslim? You must acknowledge the shahada which you say this part Muhammad is the messenger of allah. Muhammad is associated with Allah and without Muhammad can’t be a Muslim.
@@samsam-nx8gq
Because alla and Muhammad are one.
But Muslims kiss a black stone. More paganism than anything
They are both far far away.
@@samsam-nx8gq That’s true but it would be dishonest to say Muslims aren’t monotheists. Their belief in Muhammad being the penultimate prophet doesn’t contradict Allah being One.
Aristotle talked about this long before St. Thomas, which is where St. Thomas gets his unmoved mover from.
Guys we need to have a new defense against heresies in this modern day.
You sure? Looks like the old defenses are working just fine to me.
Why? They are just recirculating things that have already been debunked over and over through the years.
@@TacoTuesday4except they haven't been debunked. The LDS just deny it and lie
if only there was a saint that wrote a book possibly titled "a dialogue concerning heresies" that even non-catholics like C.S. Lewis hailed the best work of english literature ever produced.
If only.
You need to look closer to home. Francis. He's dismantling everything and takes orders from Schwab.
Yo that's genius
Hey Do you know I typed This Eternity Ago I leave this to your thoughts your reply would have happened Eternity Ago
As a Catholic, i see this as a big win
St. Ignatius has debunked Mormonism too
I'm pretty sure most, if not all the early church fathers end up accidently debunking all of Mormonism's heretical claims. Mostly because most of Mormonism's nonsense is just rehashing of old heresies.
Forget tearing down mormonism, you're telling me Saint Aquinas figured out Newton's first law of motion centuries before newton?
@@alphaundpinsel2431 motion means something distinct here, more similar to actualization
Newton's law says the opposite. Things continue to move despite not being moved.
@@zachbills8112 I thought newtons law said that things only stop moving because theyre caused by something else to stop moving
Love your use of catholic figures and ideas in your videos, regardless of your faith background ❤ God bless!
I was also surprised to see testify using a Catholic figure because he is protestant😂
This applies to atheists too, except instead of arguing for an infinite regress of gods, they argue for an infinite regress of causation, or an infinite regress of parallel universes, or expansions of the same universe, or what ever other theory they have to get away from God.
Strictly, it'd apply to materialist atheists. Other atheists can argue the unmoved mover is a cosmic force or "it just happens." Both of those answers are supernatural (outside any natural inquiry), they just don't involve God.
@@nisonatic Yeah, that's called magic. Eternity of nothing, then suddenly, poof! A universe! No cause, nor source. Just magic.
One argument I've seen is this:
"Before the universe, there was nothing, -a field of mathematical 0s. Then at the moment of the Big Bang, all the 0s shifted their value over. So half of the 0s became 1s, and the other half became -1s. And the 1s and -1s collided and canceled each other out, creating several large explosions, which were the Big Bangs in the infinite sea of parallel universes."
Beyond just being absurd, this theory completely misses what "nothing" is. "Nothing" isn't a 0; it's no thing.
This video seems to initially misunderstand Aquinas's argument from motion, since it thinks that an infinite linear chain of fathers begetting sons is what the argument is targetted against, which it is not. It's not an argument against beginningless linear causal chains (ala infinite dominos falling down on the next), but against first-member-less vertical causal chains (ala infinitely many electrical sockets each plugged into one another, where none has original electricity but only gives it to another, where the actual existence of electricity in the chain is suspect at all because none of the members is a source of electricity). Aquinas himself never argued for a form of kalam cosmological argument. Thankfully the traincar analogy gets it right as the essence of the argument. But yeah, Aquinas's argument isn't directed against an infinite series of begetting fathers specifically.
Thank you for saying SAINT Thomas! Don't know if this channel is Catholic, but thank you!
It's not.
i’m pretty sure he’s orthodox from a portion of one of his videos where he uses orthodoxy as an example
@Ilovedeiselguzzling He can't be Orthodox, because he denies the perpetual virginity of Mary.
I heard he was Pentecostal. Not like it matters-if you’re not a heretic and you believe in Christ Jesus you’re alright in my book
@Ilovedeiselguzzling He is not Orthodox, because he denies the perpetual virginity of Mary.
And he strikes again.
This is one of the best concise explanations of Aquinas' first way (with bonus dunking on Mormonism)
It still doesn't explain the first mover. If you use the example of trains like the narrator, then those trains have to be built to push/pull the rest to begin with. No one adequately explains the existence of God. (By the way, I think he exists but saying he is outside time or self-creating still leaves questions.)
Thanks so much for all the great info about Mormonism, I live in Utah and it’s so hard to explain my beliefs because a lot of Mormons are very set in their ways
St. Thomas Aquinas, please pray for us!!
Why dont just pray to GOD?
Jesus prayed to GOD.
Praying for someone isnt praying to God? 😂@@astutik8909
@@astutik8909pray Means talking, Jesus talked to Moses and Elijah on mount Tabor. All Christians can talk to the Saints in heaven like Jesus. Saying we cant or should not is Heretical
@@astutik8909 You can, no one is stopping you. But you can pray to the Saints AND God. Prayer doesn't always mean worship.
@@astutik8909Yeah Jesus prayed to himself
Thanks for sharing 🙏🏿
His grace and mercy be upon you and your loved ones 🕊️🥛🍯
I’m not Mormon, but it seems to me that Aquinas’ argument could be rebutted within the framework of the argument through a simple rephrasing:
1. Events happen.
2. All Events are caused by a preceding Event
3. There cannot be an infinite regress of events.
4. Therefore there must be a First Event, preceded by no others. (Aka the Big Bang).
Thus the argument while conserving the framework can be reformatted as an argument of equal validity and strength for Deism, Agnosticism, and maybe even Atheism. Even Aquinas’s unaltered original only confirms Deism, not Triune Christianity nor any other religion.
Further, if we allow criticism of the framework do the argument itself, why mustn’t there be an infinite regress? Simply because our minds cannot fathom it? There is nothing that prevents such a thing in theory, since the Universe, and whatever is outside it, is infinite. An infinite space can hold infinite information. Each Event or Mover has an information value of X, but regardless of the value of X no multiplication thereof would exhaust or approach infinity. Therefore while an infinite regress is not necessary, it is plausible within the laws of physics and our understanding of the Universe.
For instance, let us take the Mormon belief of this unending chain of Gods. While I don’t believe in it myself, nor has it been substantiated with any viable evidence, purely in the HYPOTHETICAL, it is plausible, at least. An infinite space can accommodate infinite information, and Infinity can be contained within infinity with infinite room remaining, as shown in the Hotel Paradox and the various types and sizes of infinity, like Aleph and so on. So an infinite universe would have more than enough space and information to store an infinite chain of Mormon Gods, and still have an abundant excess thereafter.
The dismissal outright of infinite regress is the simple folly of Human reason, given we are finite it is common to assume that all things must be so. Why cannot you have an infinite chain, with each in the sequence being caused by the previous. Why does everything need a first, initial cause? Perhaps there is no first cause. Why must motion be explained? Perhaps it simply is, just as you describe your god as.
It reminds me of Vonnegut:
“Tiger got to hunt,
Bird got to fly,
Man got to wonder why, why, why?
Tiger got to sleep,
Bird got to land,
Man got to tell himself he understand.”
The problem is if #4 is true then #2 must be false. If all events are caused by a preceding event then there can be no first event. There can be no infinite chain of events because there is no event that causes the chain to exist.
First off, I’m a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints and I agree with @Asvnaro.
You’re right in that if #4 is true then #2 must be false. If all events are caused by an initial event, then not all events are caused by a preceding event because the first wasn’t caused by another event. It already existed. #2 and #4 contradict themselves and we are led to ask, where did God come from if nothing caused Him? He always just existed with no beginning? Obviously; after all, He is eternal, as the Bible states. But it does not say that He always was the way He is now.
Moreover, what in the Bible states that there can’t be an infinite regress? Like @Asvnaro says, there is nothing that prevents a theory of an infinite regress, only Aquinas’ claim. Is his word scripture? Obviously not, he was simply a Catholic priest/theologian, a great mind and to an extent inspired, but not a mouthpiece for God.
Seeing as we can’t prove that there can’t be infinite regress with the Bible, can we prove it’s possible with the Bible?
The Bible teaches that we can become like God, when Christ says “Is it not written in your law … Ye are gods”(John 10:34), referencing Psalms 82:6. Acts 17:29 states that we are the offspring of God and I ask, what could the offspring of a cow be other than a cow, or that of a man be other than a man? If a cow cannot give birth to a chicken, for example, why could we not become Gods, being the offspring of God? Rev. 3:21 says “To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne.” If Christ is equal to God, and those who overcome sit down with Christ who sits down with God, then those who overcome are equal to them, are they not? If we are to take the scripture at face value, then yes. And what is equal to God, if not another God of equal stature and perfection? Nothing.
While yes, the Bible says that there is only one true God and only one Savior, it is saying that WE only have one true God and one Savior. If there are other gods with their own worlds, then they are not our gods anymore than we are their children or subject to them. Christ and God are one in purpose, and we can become one with them through the gospel and atonement.
@@grilledcheeseguy7639Firstly, none of your points addressed the issue with infinite regress. Furthermore, God is eternal, or in other words, unchanged. By Him being eternal, he never could have been man. Finally, the John verse is taken out of context, and likening an omnipotent creator to a cow doesn’t make much sense. We cannot become God ourselves.
The Philosophical analysis of the conclusion of the Kalam Cosmological argument on the Kalam Cosmological Argument's Wikipedia page does a brilliant job at explaining why everything that began to exist must have been caused by a mind to exist.
Let's be honest here... Aquinas is the Chad of Christian Apologetics
if I'm not mistaken, it was John Philopponus who first came with the idea, but still nice video. Never knew this about Mormons.
I don't think Aquinas' argument refutes an infinite regress of gods. The argument from motion doesn't address all infinite regresses, but only those that are "essentially ordered". These are regresses where each member depends on the previous member's activity at each moment. Aquinas' example of this kind of series is a staff being moved by a hand. This series is "essentially ordered" because the staff ceases to move at all if the hand ceases to move, and the hand ceases to move at all if its muscles stop contracting, and so forth.
By contrast, Mormonism's infinite regress of gods is not essentially ordered. Even the Mormon regress of gods stretches backwards into infinity, each god can exist on their own without the direct intervention of their predecessor. This would be an "accidentally ordered" series, and Aquinas does not argue these series are impossible. In fact, he even argues that we cannot refute the idea that the universe is infinitely old(i.e. an accidentally ordered series) through reason alone, but rather must rely on Scripture to do this.
All that being said, I agree that the Mormon god cannot be Aquinas' Unmoved Mover. I'm also sympathetic to the infinite regress argument you give, but I think it draws more the Kalam argument than the argument from motion.
Wouldnt mormonism's regress still be essentially ordered too? In that system, we still rely upon our god in order to become a god ourselves, even if we might be self-sufficient afterwards.
A more fitting analogy might be an engineer inventing a prepetual motion machine. The machine can move on its own once its all put together, but it relies on the engineer to make it before its self-sufficient.
@@blu2106 As I understand it, members of an essentially ordered series can't be fully self-sufficient because each one is always dependent on its predecessor. Once someone becomes a god in mormonism, the godhood is not continuously sustained by their previous god, making the whole series accidentally ordered. The same is true of the perpetual motion machine: as you say, it no longer depends on the engineer after it is made.
This is a great summary of the 5 ways of Aquinas
Hey @TestifyApologetics, where is that Orson Pratt quote from? I would love to have it as a resource.
The Seer pg 132
@@TestifyApologetics Thanks! I like how explicit the quote is, especially coming from one of Joseph Smith's own apostles. If you read my other comment, you'll see that this kind of resource is necessary because some Mormons will outright deny that this even a Mormon doctrine! (Understandable, as it's the most problematic, blasphemous, incoherent, and embarrassing teaching that they have.)
@@elijahb2787 _"Mormons will outright deny that this even a Mormon doctrine"_ Because it isn't. The Seer isn't in our Canon of scriptures nor is Orson Pratt someone who can declare doctrine in our Church. It is a school of thought within our Church that I and many others don't believe in.
But let's say it is true, We don't believe God, Jesus Christ or that we are created beings. D&C 93:29 “Man was also in the beginning with God. *Intelligence, or the light of truth, was not created or made, neither indeed can be.”* I think it is safe to say that God, Jesus and us have intelligence so therefore He couldn’t have been created in our theology. Also in Abraham 3:18 “Howbeit that he made the greater star; as, also, if there be two spirits, and one shall be more intelligent than the other, yet these two spirits, *notwithstanding one is more intelligent than the other, have no beginning; they existed before, they shall have no end, they shall exist after, for they are gnolaum, or eternal.”* So there are 2 of our own scriptures that completely contradict the idea of God and Jesus being a created being and saying that He has always existed, same as us. Joseph Smith even says in the King Follet discourse “The mind or the intelligence which man possesses is co-equal [co-eternal] with God himself. … The intelligence of spirits had no beginning, neither will it have an end. That is good logic. That which has a beginning may have an end. There never was a time when there were not spirits; for they are co-equal [co-eternal] with our Father in heaven.” They are still eternal even if they did grow in power.
The term "unchangeable God" is not referencing a physical state. This can be shown from similar terms from the Bible about Jesus. Jesus is referred to as "the same yesterday, today, and forever" (Hebrews 13:8). Yet we learn from the scriptures that Jesus “increased in wisdom and stature, and in favor with God and man” (Luke 2:52). There is certainly a change in condition and there is succession of time with God, a before and after, there is being and becoming. Jesus was a spirit, He became man and in becoming man, He passed through all the phases in life from infancy to manhood. It is important also that it was not until Jesus had arisen from the tomb and stood in the presence of His disciples, glorified personage, body and spirit united, that He exclaimed, “all power is given unto Me in heaven and earth.” (Matthew 28:18). If he was “given” something then there must have been a time when He did not possess all power in heaven and on earth, hence a change from possessing some power to the condition of possessing “all power”. So this term is not meant to mean His physical condition.
In context, no scripture tells us of God's physical change, but actually tells us that one can be eternal, unchanging, the same yesterday, today and forever, and still go through physical changes. And no matter what, He is the beginning of this earth and he is the end of this earth. There is no other God before him for this earth and there is no other God after him for this earth.
Hello Mr Erik Manning are you a Thomist Catholic ?? That's really cool, I watch Christian B wagner too from Scholastic Answers although I don't understand the english that much.
Without lies Joe Smith cries.
If I were a Mormon, I would be restless with the question of who it is righteous to worship. If Elohim were simply among the last in a bloodline of gods, I would wonder what the will and character of the progenitor god were. Where are his temple and rituals? Why are there no writings about his exploits? If he were indeed a god, then his glory would demand record of its existence and worship of his majesty. And if the succession of gods requires the denouncing of the previous, why would Elohim be worshiped alongside Jesus? What happens when one arrives in the Heaven of Mormonism and becomes a god?
I will be a commentator from an ex Mormon. Everything he’s talking about that video is true. I left the Mormon church. They now have a policy even if it’s your brother your mother your father leaves the church because he’s critical of the church you cannot associate with that relative who is now considered a heretic and an apostate no one no one in my family talks to me, so much for the eternal family issues that they so strongly preach😂😂😂
@@markgibson1076 can you show me that policy? Thanks.
@ the specialist on it aren’t you ask the Mormon church? I’m at the church how would I freaking know where they kept it? It’s a cult. How would I know where it’s at all I was told by my family Tube bishops said they can no longer be with me because the current policy they do not want people being around apostates and those who have left the church so ask her ask her Bishop can you hang around with the past members cause I wouldn’t want you hang around with me you see my phone of those hang on the testicles as long as I can. Smith is gotta come sometime, it’s a cult, cult, cult, cult
@ are you one of the I got a no I’m not. I’m gonna talk to you man. You’re Nicole if you’re Mormon you’re a cult leader keep hanging onto it. Keep waiting for Jesus and Joseph to show up in your room temples. He’s not your profits never prophesied they’re more interested in money and your apostles are nothing but businessmanand attorneys that’s all they’re not spirited in the Scriptures. They ask questions that not the meaning not Mormon. I’m sure he’s a good looking dude sucking
Im very sorry that your family has cut ties with you. Never forget that you still have your family in Christ
That's not true. Speaking from experience. It's not a mormon policy. Would you like to show me where that policy is stated ? More like that's your family policy. - it is a JW policy tho.
0:49
But how do you know? Your mind is not universal
-David Hume
Hello, the second premise is because either that thing is moved by another or moved itself. However, moving itself, i.e, actualizing itself, is nonsensical. Every potential that is actualized is so actualized by another already in a state of actuality. For something to actualize itself in the same respect, it would require it to be logically prior to itself and for the potential being to have actual causal power which it only potentially does. Both of those requirements are nonsensical and obviously impossible.
Straw-manning again, are we? Why don't you sit down and have a proper debate?
Me being Catholic, I'm biased, but I love St. Thomas Aquinas. Even his controversial takes.
Cults usually forbid critical thinking, just do as we say or else.
Yeah, because Credal Christians never say culty things like "believe in Trinitarianism of go to Hell".
The reason Thomists use the boxcar image is because it is not a chain of causation through time (per accidens) but in a single moment (per se.) The other example you see is of a stick pushing a rock. Notice that when the arm holding the stick stops, all motion stops. It is NOT like a series of dominoes.
Furthermore, Mormons can be happy to hold that there are no contingent beings, that all beings are necessary.
A better reply will probably attack that absurdity; if they deny contingency, there's one set of problems; if they affirm it, there's another set, i.e. that now they're subject to the Third (and not first) Way.
Active member of the LDS church here.
The idea that God hasn’t always been God or that he once existed as a man isn’t really taught in church doctrine, and you definitely won’t find it in scripture. It’s an esoteric idea that is only held by few in the church. I personally believe that God has always been God, as both the Book of Mormon and the Bible talk of God existing from eternity to eternity. This belief is also shared by many of my friends, also active members of the church.
Love your videos! We’re all brothers in Christ 👍
It's not just an idea. It was taught by your prophet.
Depending on how you interpret certain teachings. Not every single word that came out of Joseph Smith’s mouth became church doctrine, and not every single word is universally believed by all members. This particular idea isn’t found in church doctrine, nor is it taught by the church, nor do all (or even most members from my experience) believe it.
The only point im making is, saying it’s a tenant of the church’s beliefs isn’t really a fair characterization
@@unido5411 yeah exactly and that demonstrates a serious problem within the LDS church. The idea that you can pick and choose which prophecies are acceptable is highly troubling and would cause a lot of confusion amongst members
@@unido5411 Its fair when it comes from your prophet
The problem with a infinite universe date of regress is that we'd never reach to the current date of human existence because
One: ancient times has changed and we'll be butterfly affect out of existence,
And two it'll take literally forever to reach our point that within this absurdity, we would simply never exist.
A small critue on the use of Aquinas' first way. Do the mormons consider their gods continued existence to depend on their higher gods? Aquinas does not nessesarily argue for a temporal chain of causality that stretches back in time. A temporal form of the argument only works by demonstrating that time and the world began and does not stretch infintly into the past. Aquinas did not believe it could be demonstrated through philosophy that the world hasnt existed in an eternity stretching into the past. Rather the chain of motion is present. Not like a line of dominoes. The next domino is not dependent on previous dominos continued existence to impart force on the next domino after being set in motion. Rather to use Aquinas's example the chain of motion is like a stick moving a rock because it is held by a man. My favorite example is a chandelier held up by succesive chains. The stick has no motion to impart to The rock except for the motion imparted to it by the human hand. The individual links have no strength to hold the chandelier apart from the nex link. The rock moving demonstrates the existence of a being capable of capable to impart motion though the stick to the rock. The existence of a chandelier held up by a chain of links demonstrate something strong enough to hold the chain and chandelier.
Therefore if the mormon gods do not depend on their priors for their continued existence; then an infinite regress into the past is philosophically possible.
However, in this case, there must exist some substrata of existence that holds the Mormon gods in being. And therefore the Mormon gods are not God the souce and foundation of all reality.
Hard to believe that this debate exists because "an angel" told Joseph about it.
Like the verse says, God is the same yesterday as today.
Love your videos man! I recently made a video in a similar style breaking down 3 arguments why belief in God is a “rational” decision for any human to make
3rd one is doubtful at best, hence 4th is too. In a biblical context, they are true, outside, they are possible. Not absolute. That why Buddhism makes sense in its own way, for example.
Buddhism makes sense because Samsara makes sense. Six cycles, if you didn't achieve Nirvana, you reincarnate, if you did, you get to live as a Buddha forever, not being reincarnated
One of many holes to poke in the Mormon theology.
Ibn Sina explains further that even if an infinite chain of contingent beings was possible ... well the chain would itself be contingent and require a necessary being outside it by definition of it not being able to start itself. Since all contingents are dependent on something outside of themselves, the set of all contingents is no exception.
Another banger 10/10
The Super Sayian ki sound is 🐐’d
Even if infinite regress is possible, the Mormon "Heavenly Father" can still not be God, by definition, because he would be contingent. (Not to mention several other problems.)
There’s also another philosophical problem with having an infinite chain of causes: an infinite chain requires an infinite amount of time to have passed to get to our point in time which is not possible. Rather it is better concluded that just one God who is outside of time started and created time itself and our universe had a definite beginning
And yet this issue bounces back on the creator. "He is outside of time" does not answer his cause and his origin, only the universe's
1:02 I’m worried that might be disrespectful to our Lord but great video!
How is it disrespectful
I take mormon theology pretty seriously, because its followers tend to do very well in school. surely, if their character supports conquest for education, it is hard to believe something this basic (cosmological argument, which by the way arguably begs the question) refutes the theology that they are consciously aware of believing. They would be educated enough to realize that
- Premise 3 is an unsupported assumption. Making 4 an invalid conclusion.
- All the analogies that need a prime mover or base ignore the concept of infinity.
- Motion does not require an unmoved mover. Can you enlighten me as to how something moves something else without moving/changing ? So 2 contradicts 4.
Premise 3 follows from premise 2 and premise 1. If everything is in motion and everything that is in motion is moved by something else then an infinite chain of movers moving future movers does not answer anything because without a starting point you can't explain where the energy came from to begin this infinite chain of movers.
@@Doc-Holliday1851 And that "starting point" doesn't explain where it got the energy to move something in the first place. Where did that initial energy come from ? Infinity is tough to grasp, isn't it ?
Premise 3 is still an unsupported assumption. It doesn't follow. And 2 still contradicts 4.
Also you didn't address my question as to how something moves/changes something else without moving/changing itself.
@@tezzerii Christian's claim that God is infinite, the concept isn't foreign to Christianity. The part that doesn't work is an infinite line of movers being moved themselves. Because God is a non-contingent being. He is reliant on nothing. The mormon pantheon is nothing but contingent beings. They all rely on something so by definition there must be something which forms the base for these contingent beings since they are admittedly contingent on other things to exist.
@@Doc-Holliday1851 The concept of infinity may not be foreign to christianity, but don't try to tell me you understand it. I don't agree with your/Aquinas's premises and conclusions. I haven't mentioned god or mormons till now, and you still haven't explained how he or anything can bring about movement/change without moving/changing in the process.
@@tezzerii God created time, space, and matter therefore he is not subject to their laws therefore he can exist infinitely without being contingent on anything else.
“Everything has a creator” is incorrect. There has to be one thing or being that necessarily exists and was never created.
So... I think there was a confusion here when it comes to Aquinas' philosophy of motion and the First way. You seem to be asserting that Aquinas argued that you cannot have an infinite chain of movers going backwards in time (son begotten by father, begotten by grandfather, begotten by great grandfather, etc.) when Aquinas is actually one of the Theologians throughout the history of the Church who argued that the creation of the world was known only through divine revelation and not through philosophical demonstration, i.e. he didn't believe there was a philosophical argument against temporal infinite regressions. After all, you must remember that Aristotle, who proposed the original argument from motion, believed that he had actually demonstrated that the universe was eternal (though I've heard that the details of this are somewhat disputed, but it is certainly the line taken by virtually all the major Islamic Aristotelians)
The argument from motion's point isn't that all change must ultimately come from a single unmoved mover who set the dominos in motion, but rather that any change whatsoever can only be explained by said unmoved mover. That is, even if God didn't create the universe (i.e., it existed into the infinite past alongside Him) He would still be the necessary source of all motion that has ever existed.
I don't want this to come off as too aggressive, since that's not my intention, but I felt I was getting several mixed impressions from the argument made in the video and I thought it would be useful to offer pushback.
Thanks!
I've been wondering when testify would bring Aquinas into the fight.
Aquinas's argument is based on the premise that the source of motion is found outside of the things that change, but why should we believe this? Magnets attract because of the magnets themselves and not becayse of something outsideof the magnets, for example. So all we have to do is argue that the source of change is found within the changing things themselves. This is clearly possible so anyone that uses the first way needs to show that whatever changes or could change is inherently causally inert.
Plus, Aquinas himself believed the universe could logically have always existed, as time would be a per accident series of causes(which means the things within the chain have inherent causal power of their own). But he believed this infinite universe would haft to have been created by God, beceuse all per accident series of cause is dependent on a per se series of causes.
@charles21137 The defender of the first way needs to show that the source of change is found outside the things that change. However, it could be that the source of change is found within the things that change so that the universe is its own source of change. If this were the case, then the first way is unsound.
@ I mean, technically there is something that causes the magnet’s attraction ability, the structure of the electrons of its atoms. Motion in philosophy doesn’t just mean physical movement, it means change in general(there needs to be a reason for why this thing was given the property of magnetism).
@charles21137 the source of change of the magnets attracting each other is found within the nature of the magnets. Namely, the magnetic and electric field. The point of the example of the magnets is to show that what is in motion is put in motion by another does not mean that the source of change is found outside of the things that change. The burden of proof to prove that the Aristotlean notion that what changes is inherently causally inert is on the defender of the first way since it is possible that the source of change is found within the things that change.
@ (This argument goes into Duns Scotus, not Thomas Aquinas) The nature of something can either come from a)itself, b)nothing, c)something else. It is important here to note that this isn’t talking about motion, but what gives something its nature in an essential sense. The nature of a magnet cannot come from itself(in other words, the reason for the magnetic nature of something can’t be the magnetic nature itself). The reason for this is simple, the giving of nature would be a per se series of causes, because each member in the chain requires the member before it to give its causal power, meaning it would need an end(ask if I need to explain this part further). Its nature can’t be from nothing, as nothing isn’t a cause(it is nothing). So its nature had to come from something else. I trust that you can figure the rest out on your own, you seem pretty bright.
If your existence is dependent, are you even God?
The concept of a “prime mover” (or as i like to call them: not-weh) actually was created in Ancient Greece in the document Metaphysics. Where our boy, Not-Weh, intentionally or unintentionally kicked off the creation of the universe.
Objective truth exists
There must be an eternal, unchanging source of objective truth, otherwise it is not objectively true
The universe began to exist, so it cannot be the eternal, unchanging source
Therefore, the source of objective truth came from something greater than the universe
Abstract, objective truths cannot cause anything to exist on their own
Therefore a mind, or some type of cognitive agent, caused the universe to exist, which is itself the eternal, unchanging source of objective truth
The problem with TA's logic, is that he assumes that there can only be one universe observable by man. If an infinite number can exist, just undetectable by man, there is no problem.
We LDS scratch our heads regarding the traditional Trinity. These 3 beings have existed for eternity and all o a sudden, one of them gets an idea to create a physical universe. Why? They decide to create man. Why? They decide to create Hell and destine the vast majority of mankind to be sent there to burn for all eternity rather than just destroying the souls of those that don't love them as much as they want. Why did this divine committee do all of this?
There are no 3 beings. There are 3 persons, sharing the One Divine essence. None is independently existing or created. There is a Greek distinction between Person/Being you can look into, but to simplify the Being of God (3 Persons) is far higher and greater than the Being of Man (1 Person per Man)
@@GamerDragoniteES Sorry, but 3 beings sharing a divine essence comes from Greek/Pagan philosophy and not the Bible. Essence is only mentioned once in the Bible (2 Pet. 1:4) where it says believers will partake of the same essence that God has for themselves.
3 Beings making up one God is not in the Bible. The Holy Ghost is never called God and Jesus referred to the Father as the only true God (Jn. 17:3) and the Father, Christ, and Paul refer to Christ to the Father as the God of Christ (Heb. 1:8,9, Jn. 20:17, and Eph. 1:2,3, and 17...plus others).
The Creeds are a mix of scripture and pagan Greek philosophy. They teach another Jesus and another Gospel.
@Chris_in_Idaho god is fully each of them. Not three seperate beings making up one. Suggesting all powerful god can't body have another body or form is absurd.
@@mrsirdr8644 Until you address the verses and logic I put forth above, your claims fall on deaf ears.
1. The universe must originate ex nihilo in being without natural cause, because no natural explanation can be causally prior to the very existence of the natural world. Therefore, the cause of the universe is outside of space and time (timeless, therefore changeless, and spaceless) as well as immaterial and enormously powerful, in bringing spacetime and its contents into existence.
2. Even if positing a plurality of causes prior to the origin of the universe, the causal chain must terminate in a cause which is absolutely first and uncaused, otherwise an infinite regress of causes would arise, which Craig and Sinclair argue is impossible.
3. Occam's Razor maintains that unicity of the First Cause should be assumed in the absence of specific reasons to believe that there is more than one causeless cause.
4. Agent causation, or volitional action, is the only ontological condition in which an effect can arise in the absence of prior determining conditions. Therefore, only personal, free agency can account for the origin of a first temporal effect from a changeless cause.
5. There are two conceivable categories of objects with the potential to be uncaused, spaceless, timeless and immaterial:
Minds (in some conceptions of mind-body dualism) may be characterized as immaterial and spatially unextended, with the potential to be unembodied, timeless, changeless and beginningless.
Abstract objects, such as the set of natural numbers, may be described as non-spatial and non-temporal, but do not sit in causal relationships and are therefore causally ineffective.
Based upon analysis of the information above, Craig concludes:
"... an uncaused, personal Creator of the universe exists, who sans the universe is beginningless, changeless, immaterial, timeless, spaceless and enormously powerful."
He notes the theological implications of this union of properties:
"... our whole universe was caused to exist by something beyond it and greater than it. For it is no secret that one of the most important conceptions of what theists mean by 'God' is Creator of heaven and earth."
How can there be contingent objects when things are what they are? I've yet to observe anything that can be what it isn't.
Those "box cars" are actually flat cars with intermodal containers (semi-truck trailers detached from their wheels on them.
You aren't wrong about your argument, however the impossibility of an infinite sequence of causes is actually the SECOND way of St. Thomas. The first way is a lot less intuitive for the modern reader than it seems at first.
When he speaks of motion requiring a mover, he does not mean that there was a second motion before a first motion which started the first motion, but instead he means that if there is a first motion happening right now, then there is a mover moving it right now, like how if I pick up a book and move it, my hand, the mover, is moving the book at the same time. He is saying that in this kind of sequence there must be a first mover, which moves everything. The first moved object was believed by many to be the outermost celestial sphere, which they thought contained the fixed stars, but this could not move itself since nothing can move itself, so God was the mover of it.
That means that in this understanding and motion could be traced, in theory, not BACK a chain of movers, but UP a chain of movers through the planets and celestial spheres, and up to God, all happening at the same time. This was largely Aristotelian in origin, and is one of the hardest to make match up with any modern understanding of motion. Book 4 of Aristotle's Physics talks a lot about this kind of thing, as well as parts of the metaphysics, and let me tell ya, to the modern ear it sounds batshit insane at first. I think there is a lot more to it than pure insanity, but from a Newtonian background that's the way it sounds.
To be totally honest, I don't fully understand this myself, but if the motion argument cannot just be a cause argument, because he immediately follows it with a cause argument.
As Johann Georg Hamann once said metaphysics and history are the tests of true religion. Only Christianity meets both.
aquinas really prefired the mormons
"How do you avoid infinite regress?"
"I declare by fiat that it doesn't apply to God."
"Can't argue with that."
Other way around evidently: It isn't that God is necessarily the Unmoved Mover, it is that the Unmoved Mover is what we would call God. Being God does not automatically make you the Unmoved Mover, rather being the Unmoved Mover is what makes you God.
The Summa Theologica goes into greater depths rooting the Unmoved Mover to being the god of Abraham, Jacob, and Issac, and you can read it there if you're interested. The source material explains it better than anyone you'll find in TH-cam comments.
Kinda cool that science today backs up Aquinas logic. People of all faiths believe there was a beginning!
W Divine simplicity
Thats actually a point for mormonism. It isnt an explaination, but they make the problem with the infinite chain of causes part of their religion. Simply throwing the excuse "theres one unmoved mover" is like putting a shield "is broken, can't be repaired" on a car instead of fixing it and call it a solution
No they'd have to answer the unmoved mover argument and they can't
@Doc-Holliday1851 it's their religion, so its their descision which unanswerable questions they claim to answer and which not. Mormons don't tend to be violent so who is he or anybody to attack a faith?
Yeah so I’ve studied Mormon philosophy extensively. This leads Mormonism to be more like Buddhism, theistic Taoism, or Jainism, where God is bound by the laws of the universe. I personally like this idea but I can see why most Christians don’t.
Hey i just wanted to ask about Orthodox Christianity in general, I'm an eastern Orthodox and want to know what are your thoughts on my denomination
@@Darkseidsolosfiction me personally, yall are chill
@@Showastatism4life 🤝
It's almost like Thomas Aquinas was a genius and Joseph Smith was a charlatan with an incredibly active imagination...
saw the thumbnail and thought, "it's the infinite regress isn't it?"
PLEASE MAKE VIDEO ON ST POPE ATHANASIUS OF ALXANDRERIA HE EXPLANED IT IN SIMALLERWAY
Loving this channel, but now I am waiting to see him roast my man John Westley. Grew up a Methodist, let's see how strong that style of foundation on God is according to Testify.
I have heard these things before. But where is the information?
-Where does it say that there is an infinite line of gods- with no beginning point?
( It is sad that Mormons want us to believe in the Book Of Mormon by faith- and feelings- ALONE. Then when one joins their church, one is discouraged to research the religion any-more.)
The thing is mormons believe mankind can become like our Heavenly Father more than we know anything about our Father in Heaven ever being like us. It's supposedly loosely based on the gospel of John where Christ says he does nothing but what He hath seen the Father do. The infinite regression isn't doctrine for this reason but rather just a refutation of ex nihilo as a Calvinist tradition.
Also, if the uncaused God exists, and I am certain with 99.9%, I am certain with 99.9%. If there would be another one, total chance multiplies down. So more chain links you have worst is the chance, with infinite gods your chance of being right about all of them approaches zero.
We should be calling him St. Thomas, Aquinas means he was from Aquino. It’s not a last name.
Here’s another one you might like, from St. John of Damascus:
“-…things which are changeable must definitely be created. Created beings have certainly been created by something. *But the creator must be uncreated, for, if he has been created, then he has certainly been created by someone else - and so on until we arrive at something which has not been created.* Therefore, the creator is an uncreated and entirely unchangeable being. And what else would that be but God?”
And also:
“That [God] is without a body is obvious, for how could a body contain that which is limitless, boundless, formless, impalpable, invisible, simple, and uncompounded? How could it be immutable, if it were circumscribed and subject to change?”
From ‘The Orthodox Faith’, in chapters 3 & 4
Yea, your whole comment is pretty ignorant.
First, We don't believe God, Jesus Christ or that we are created beings. D&C 93:29 “Man was also in the beginning with God. *Intelligence, or the light of truth, was not created or made, neither indeed can be.”* I think it is safe to say that God, Jesus and us have intelligence so therefore He couldn’t have been created in our theology. Also in Abraham 3:18 “Howbeit that he made the greater star; as, also, if there be two spirits, and one shall be more intelligent than the other, yet these two spirits, *notwithstanding one is more intelligent than the other, have no beginning; they existed before, they shall have no end, they shall exist after, for they are gnolaum, or eternal.”* So there are 2 of our own scriptures that completely contradict the idea of God and Jesus being a created being and saying that He has always existed, same as us.
Joseph Smith even says in the King Follet discourse “The mind or the intelligence which man possesses is co-equal [co-eternal] with God himself. … The intelligence of spirits had no beginning, neither will it have an end. That is good logic. That which has a beginning may have an end. There never was a time when there were not spirits; for they are co-equal [co-eternal] with our Father in heaven. ” But hey, why actually know what you are talking about when criticizing a religion?
Your second point is a huge contradiction with scripture and your own false beliefs of God. Jesus Christ is one of the 3 personages of God and scripture tells us that He has a body. We know the tomb was empty and Jesus himself says “See my hands and my feet, that it is I myself. Touch me, and see. *For a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see that I have”* (Luke 24:39). Therefore, God would have to have body parts or you would have to say Jesus isn’t God. I with you luck in somehow not contradicting what scripture says and still holding to your point.
While infinite regression of gods was no doubt widely believed and taught in the days of Orson Pratt, the truth is, Mormonism has no systematic theology that stipulates whether there is in fact an infinite chain of divine beings or an uncaused first cause.
Doctrine and Covenants 121:
28. A time to come in the which nothing shall be withheld, whether there be one God or many gods, they shall be manifest. 29. All thrones and dominions, principalities, and powers shall be revealed and set forth upon all who have endured valiantly for the gospel of Jesus Christ.
In our faith, the number and nature of the divine hosts is something yet to be revealed to us until the millennium.
So, while many in the church accept the idea and as problematic as it may be, even to some faithful members, it ain't doctrine and never was. So, Mormonism's God? Not quite, my friend.
Will you make a discord server Testify?
No too much work and too distracting
@@TestifyApologeticsDon’t you have discord ?
According to the Sinai bible Joseph smith is sitting at the right hand of God
It's like that idea that the world is on top of a giant turtle that walks around on a bigger turtle that walks around on an even bigger turtle that walks around on an even bigger turtle that walks around on a... you get it.
angelic doctor on top
Aquinas just had massive lag.
0:37
Bro included Hindus and Buddhists as examples of infinite regression 💀