I studied theoretical physics, then the philosophy underpinning it, which lead me to more or less the same argument regarding the nature of existent objects and how they relate to a potential existence, like a transcendent form. Which then pushed me toward an understanding of God and his singularity and centrality as a necessary fact of the physical world. If existence were based on the individual, then we could not share the same world. The fact that the world is shared by many conscious beings implies one conscious force for which we are within. We are in their perspective, not ours, that which is unchangeable but percieves itself and gives itself to itself, full love. In giving to itself, it creates for its own glory and loves without end, even to the ends of a cross. I personally just came into the church this year and it's amazing to me to find so many familiar thoughts in the history of the church and im eager to learn more. I'm definitely planning on reading this work by Saint Thomas Aquinas. Thank you for making this video.
@captainjackuniversal in order to refute this argument physists refer to the (unsupported) B theory of time which is crazier. I'm talking the idea that baby version of you is still kicking in your mother's womb
In case your story is meant to be an argument, let me offer a counter argument: The fact that there's conscious beings, by no way 'imply' there's some mysterious force behind it, and neither are you making an argument for it. The fact that there's drunk people in the park, does not imply there's some universal force of drunkness they are all being part of. -There could be, but it makes little sense to assume so.
@teokeitaanranta658 it was meant as mostly a story, not a precise argument. But riffing off your counter, my point more rests in that if, say, one person got drunk and then all others experienced the same drunkenness, it would imply some universal drunkenness. It's in some way a reference to philosophical zombies. If we assume others are not zombies, in what way do we share reality with them? If we presume to share the same reality, that would imply a greater context for us to be within. For if our own perceptions determined our realities, we would be nearly unintelligible to others acting as if we were drunk or worse. For me, I don't personally see an explanation of what time itself is outside of the emergent ordering of a self-referential system like consciousness; that a system of information which references itself has an emergent ordering as a static, which is how I see the nature of time. Studying physics, I was never satisfied by other understandings of time and that's where I landed. So, to bring this back around, if time is somehow tied to our brains referencing the past in the present then the fact that we experience the same world is what would imply to me a greater context, some origin of the ordering that we are all currently in, which would also need to be self reference, and thus share some resemblance with us. Given the complexity of the world, I would wager that the context is more complex than us or at least more capable. This is a soft argument, I am aware, but it was enough for me to soften my heart to Jesus.
@@phoenixsmith9433 Nice answer! There's indeed a lot we still don't know. I'm a big fan of this self-referential Gödel tier stuff, but I also think there can be natural solutions for self-reference paradoxes etc. Even if God existed, there could still be natural solutions for these, and that assumption is indeed more productive, than assuming it's mysterious and leaving it to be. Also, the fact how self-reference leads outside the subject of the self-reference, is not a fact about something bigger actually existing. It could be a fact about something bigger being generated in the process, just like the universe seem to be generating more of it as we speak.
As someone who used to be a Muslim that recently accepted Christ thanks for your work the production/editing and information in your videos are amazing
Not so difficult. In sum: how could nothing cause or create something? (It is just that Saint Thomas' sentences are long and complex with a lot of special expressions and terms which makes them hard to understand - but this is the essence of the quotes from him.) I note that there is a cosmological concept today the concept of Multiverse (a supposedly infnite number of finite Universes - practically a concept coming to the rescue of Atheism) which cannot avoid or evade this question above. In an infinity of possible time, all finite Universes should have come to the end by now but one, ours still exist. Therefore the Multiverse concept is false and our Universe has still had a begining - and then with a necessary outer cause - and it is also still remarkably "fine tuned". Therefore, the Universe needs a really existing outer cause (as "how could nothing cause or create something") and this outer cause cannot be material in nature or then it would not be "outer" to the material world. Thus the existence of the Unverse means there is an outer cause to it which cannot be material in nature - it can be supernatural (or spiritual) only. And then it is clear that there is a Creator to the Universe, God Almighty.
@@akostarkanyi825 appreciate your explanation! This is the main thing keeping me from being an atheist… classify myself as agnostic (raised Catholic). I guess my issue with every religion is that if God is infinite, how can man ever hope to understand god what god wants? I think it’s man that has created religion to try to understand God, but the problem is Is not gone, so how do we know we are on the right path to worshiping a God? How do we know God wants to be worshipped?
@@John-rd4cpyes. I am a protestant and that’s still heresy. Those guys, they call themselves oneness Pentecostals. they are just unitarians. By definition they are not a christian denomination, but a heretical sect.
It's quite the revolutionary idea considering that at Aquinas's time, conventional wisdom dictated that the universe was eternal and unchanging, meaning that the First Cause argument may not be the best argument to use, little did he know
@@TheoSkeptomai It's always a possibility something existed before the big bang, though based on what we know of physics, it would be the same to say that something happened before time itself, since time didn't physically exist before it, so it wouldn't work that way anyway But let's throw that out, if we take it that the universe does infinitely regress backwards, then we just run back into the problem of the first mover, to me it's just not logical
@sonofasalesman I have several issue to discuss. Do you realize that the concept of 'infinite regression' is paradoxical, and not in the manner you're describing, but in the fact that employing any concept with the irrational value of infinity necessarily leads to opposing truth values?
@@TheoSkeptomai I don't get what you mean with that last part, but yes I agree that infinitely going into the past is a paradox, which is why I don't believe it works that way. Reality is finite and thus has a finite beginning point
Moses said to God: Lo, I shall go to the children of Israel, and say to them: The God of your fathers hath sent me to you. If they should say to me: What is his name? what shall I say to them? God said to Moses: I AM WHO AM. He said: Thus shalt thou say to the children of Israel: HE WHO IS, hath sent me to you.
In all seriousness, Aquinas’ arguments are trash. The one in the video only functions within the bounds of Aquinas’ imagined rules of the universe, essence only exists in our minds. Substance is all we can prove. The idea of a substance that is identical to its essence is one that is literally a product of someone’s imagination. As for the rest of the argument, It simply strings along non-sequiturs.
While Aquinas’ metaphysical reasoning is clever and has influenced centuries of philosophy, atheists generally find it unconvincing because it relies on assumptions that either aren't necessary or don't hold up under scrutiny from modern perspectives on science, logic, and metaphysics. Just because something sounds profound doesn’t mean it accurately describes reality. Thomas Aquinas’ distinction between essence (what a thing is) and existence (that a thing is) is a metaphysical concept that may seem compelling on the surface. However, many modern philosophers, including atheists, reject the need for this distinction to explain reality. Instead of relying on metaphysical abstractions, they argue that we can explain existence without appealing to essences or divine beings. In other words, just because we can conceptually separate what something is from whether it exists doesn't mean this distinction implies a supernatural cause. HIs argument that there must be a being whose essence is identical to its existence (God) in order to stop an infinite regress of causes might sound neat, but it assumes that infinite regress is impossible or absurd. Many atheists and even some philosophers argue that there's no compelling reason why an infinite regress can't be possible. Just because it’s counterintuitive doesn’t make it logically impossible. He claims that a chain of causes cannot extend infinitely, which forces the conclusion of a "first cause" or "primary cause" that is self-existent. However, this argument is based on an assumption that causal chains need a starting point, but modern physics-especially quantum mechanics-suggests that causality might not always operate in the neat, linear way Aquinas describes. Some atheists argue that the universe could be self-contained, with no need for a first cause at all. This argument, and many similar ones, often boil down to "we don't understand how X could exist without a cause, so there must be a god." This is an appeal to ignorance (i.e., assuming that because we can’t fully explain something, God must be the answer). Atheists often argue that just because we don't have a full explanation of existence doesn't mean we should jump to supernatural conclusions. Science is constantly expanding our understanding of the universe, and gaps in knowledge aren't proof of divine intervention. Just because Aquinas could imagine a being whose essence is existence doesn’t mean such a being exists in reality. Many atheists would argue that this kind of metaphysical reasoning is simply a word game-just because we can create an abstract concept like "a being whose essence is existence" doesn’t mean such a thing exists outside our minds. Aquinas’ argument is built on a highly abstract philosophical framework that doesn’t necessarily map onto the physical world as we understand it today. The metaphysical categories Aquinas relies on (essence, quiddity, etc.) were constructed in a medieval context, but they don't align with modern scientific understandings of the universe. Atheists might argue that this framework is outdated and no longer useful for answering questions about existence.
Damn. That, again, was another enlightening and well-stated comment. I have learned so much from your comments over the past months. And unlike I, you always keep your composure. Well done. Please keep posting, my friend! Peace.
Honestly i agree, sometimes reading his work he said stuff like "there can't be an infinite amount of causes" and i just be like "why not? 🤨" and many times this exact type of thing. And also i only read the very beginning, yet sometimes defining God or something he uses the Bible's scripture, but didn't even explain yet why the Scripture is the truth so i just can't accept the words he said as true since idk if the scripture is the truth yet. Maybe he explains this later on probably
Unfortunately this atheist "counter"-argument doesn't work because if you admit infinity is possible then you also have to admit God, who is infinity itself as defined by Christian doctrine, can also exist. Just because atheists say infinite regress can be true doesn't magically rule out God's existence either. As God is infinite he could be infinitely causing his own existence and thus causing the existence of everything else infinitely. Atheists love to think they can debunk religion with science but the truth is science simply studies the material, not the immaterial, so it will never come to a point as to comprehend an immaterial infinite cause such as God.
@@aliceinwonderland4395 The claim that "if you admit infinity, you must admit God" is a non-sequitur. Just because infinity is a concept we might apply in math or physics (such as infinite regress or the concept of infinity in cosmology) does not mean we must apply it to a supernatural entity like God. Infinity in mathematics or cosmology refers to specific concepts, like endless time, space, or quantities, not a sentient being. The argument tries to counter the idea of infinite regress by positing that God can infinitely cause his own existence. But this explanation raises a problem: if God's existence requires a cause, and he infinitely causes his own existence, this does not actually solve the issue of needing a first cause. It's more like saying "God is an exception," which is not a logical solution but an assertion. The atheist position would likely point out that if infinite regress is possible (in terms of the universe), there is no need for a supernatural being to intervene or create. The notion that God "infinitely causes his own existence" seems incoherent. If something must cause its own existence, then it presupposes that it existed to begin with to cause itself. This is a paradox. Which means that invoking God creates more questions than it answers, and concepts like self-causation tend to fall into the realm of illogical explanations. While science primarily studies the material world, the idea that it can't address the concept of God because God is immaterial presumes that there is a coherent definition of "immaterial" that matters for investigation. I could argue that anything that has no observable effects or interaction with the material world is indistinguishable from non-existence. If God interacts with the material world, this interaction should be scientifically detectable. If not, then the claim that God exists becomes an untestable hypothesis, which cannot be meaningfully supported or debunked. The idea of an infinite regress doesn't necessarily conflict with atheism. For example, some models of the universe, like certain interpretations of the multiverse, involve no beginning at all, and time is considered infinite. This doesn't necessitate a god but is simply a different interpretation of cosmological models. Infinity in naturalistic terms is a different kind of explanation, one based on observable principles rather than supernatural assumptions.
The problem would be to justify that this kind of analysis is the correct one, it seems to me that there are better ways to analyze the notion that we cannot determine whether a thing exist purely from its description, that don’t involve positing that essence as described here is a real thing or that existence is a property that essences can gain or lose. An alternative approach could involve analyzing this in terms of mental representations and empty references. In this framework, a representation that is identical to the thing it represents could only manifest as something akin to a self-referential proposition
So the argument goes like: “I assume the existence of one directional causation as a law of nature.” -Cool. But why tho? “Existence exists and is the first cause. Oh yeah and btw I decide to call it ‘being’ and ‘God’. “ -Okay... I decide to call it.. Bob. Then the voice in the video says: “Which we know is God”. -’know’ as knowledge, as justified true belief? Where’s the justification? Assuming things and attaching random names like ‘God’ is not a justification. It's like if I said: "We know it's Bob". “...primary cause, or being” -Well if it’s a being, it’s still a cause, so postulating it to be ‘being’ makes no explanatory difference, so ‘being’ can be cut out with Occam’s razor, in favor for simply 'cause'. ('being' is not necessary here).
"Man's essense is a rational animal" HARD disagree there, bud. Being rational as a human requires hard work, which the vast majority of people almost wholly neglect.
@marvalice3455 Does one need to accept an idea to be familiar with it? Is your position so perfect that if one carefully weighs the available evidence, and reaches a different conclusion, they MUST be irrational? Doesn't look like your working either at least, attacking me with playground level insults alone doesn't exactly portray you as particularly rational. Paraphrased, on the playground your point would be: "I'm rubber, you're glue".
@@Ni73sh4d3 framing rejected. I don't believe you are familiar with it. The way you frame your comment makes it obvious you either aren't familiar with it, or you are so intellectually sloppy that you may just as well not be familiar with it. You don't get the benefit of the doubt on this just because you want it. Your actions disqualify you.
Hope to not be rude, but that's a heresy you believe in Modalism is the heresy of believing that there's one God who just changes form, father son and holy spirit are just moods or shapeshifting in one person of god. You may not intentionally have believed that, but using the term 'form' is what modalism is.
@@bonbon__candy__1 that isn’t fair to claim he is a manifest heretic, he only told us one heretical belief and it was likely due to ignorance of the actual doctrine rather than thinking he knows better than the Church.
@@bonbon__candy__1the orthodox model is logically coherent you just have carnal understandings 1 being existing in 3 persons isn’t a hard concept to grasp I used to be Unitarian and the trinity isn’t hard when you read the bible and church fathers on it
I find it challenging to accept that an agnostic atheist, such as I, would be convinced by the arguments of Aquinas. Reading and examining his _Summa Theologiae_ is the major reason for me leaving the faith.
The essence of creation has existence as a component. Almost everything presented here is a nonsequitor and would prove aseity (and therefore God) contradictory. God as existence alone would negate Christian theology. Similarly for the protestations against infinite regress, of which there are more rigorous and formal arguments.
atheists have already extensively responded to this argument, see for example chapter seven of the book Existential Inertia and Classical Theistic Proofs. i think one author of the book is atheist, the other author is agnostic.
Im going to cover their objections in the future video for sure, many Thomist's have responded to them as well, your referring to Graham Oppy and Joe Schmidt.
Despite thousands of pages from Schmid, his arguments aren’t that sound. I refuted him in a paper for an undergrad philosophy class (I’m an engineer and never studied philosophy, rigorously).
@@SanctusApologetics i would encourage you to read the book itself, especially i think chapter 7, because lots of objections are responded to in there. even if you disagree with it, i believe its helpful to read and understand
I struggle to see how this isn’t just another lens through which to perceive, explain the argument from causation or maybe contingency Either way it is interesting and seems to reinforce his main 5 proofs
I still don`t quite understand why there must be a initial eternal cause instead of anifinite regress of causes. Is it because if there were an infinite regress of causes, there would not be a "now", a "present"?
Infinite regression is a paradox (logically true, realistically false - or vice-versa) and, therefore, is not a candidate premise for any argument concluding that the universe can not be an eternal realm. Those who try to do so are either dishonest or idiots.
@juanranger4214 Using an irrational number (infinity) in any context - infinite regression, infinite derivation, infinite division, etc is always paradoxical conclusions as it leads to opposing truth values. I can present an example if you are willing to answer a few straightforward questions.
@juanranger4214 I will begin with _infinite division._ If you understand the paradox in this example, I will continue to be on to _infinite regression._ My aim is to show that that infinite regression is not a suitable premise for arguing for the impossibility of an eternal cosmos (or universe). If I were to shoot an arrow at a target 10 meters away with sufficient force and accurate aim, will the arrow eventually reach its target? Yes or no.
It’s absolutely baffling that anyone considers this a strong argument. This is literally just “I am defining myself as correct” pretending to be serious thought. I’m also not particularly impressed by a devout theologian spending his entire life coming up with ways to prove what he already assumes to be true. Not a sincere argument, and likewise only people who already believe the same thing take it seriously.
Aquinas never presupposed God in his argument. In fact aquinas actually said that the only way you can prove god is via an a posteriori negation, where you observe the world around you first from effect to cause, and instead of making a positive claim of where x came from , you make a negative claim where X cannot come from. That's why aquinas criticized Anselms argument where just because you think of something doesn't mean it actually exists in the world.
@@appleonion5830 so the whole video….yeah I watched it already. Didn’t see it happen. Which is why I asked for specifics. So no thanking you happening when you didn’t actually help. Perhaps try again with specifics
in order for a thing to have a things essence identical to its existence, it must be pure act with no potency, The universe is not pure act and has potency, therefore the universes Essence is distinct from its existence
@@no3339 For a start off, you have no idea what I can conjure: obfuscation. But the fact remains, Aquinas is the big theist hero and yet, as I say, all he produced was pointless, unsustainable, obfuscation which is only relevant to people of the 13th century and, apparently, some theists of the 21st century who still live in the 13th century because that's where their education ends.
@@Lightbearer616 So basically you don't want to intellectually engage because you're incapable, so you shift the debate to being about the debate itself: "obfuscation." I offered a syllogism, but if you want to be a big wuss, go right ahead.
In sum: how could nothing cause or create something? (As Saint Thomas wrote: "There is no case known (neither is it, indeed, possible) in which a thing is found to be the efficient cause of itself; for so it would be prior to itself, which is impossible." Saint Thomas' sentences are long and complex with a lot of special expressions and terms which makes them hard to understand - but this is the essence of the quotes from him.) Thus it is necessary that the world has a really existing Creator, a First Cause, an Essence of Existence. I note that there is a cosmological concept today, the concept of Multiverse (a supposedly infnite number of finite Universes - practically a concept coming to the rescue of Atheism) which cannot avoid or evade this question above. In an infinity of possible time, all finite Universes should have come to the end by now - but one, ours still exist. Therefore the Multiverse concept is false and our Universe has still had a begining - and then with a necessary outer cause - and it is also still remarkably "fine tuned" (see 'Anthropic Principle'). Therefore, the Universe needs a really existing outer cause (as "how could nothing cause or create something") and this outer cause cannot be material in nature or then it would not be "outer" to the material world. Thus the existence of the Unverse means there is an outer cause to it which cannot be material in nature - it can be supernatural (or spiritual) only. And then it is clear that there is a Creator to the Universe, God Almighty. And besides all these what Saint Thomas wrote is more than a cosmological argument for God (the modern version of which is most well-known as the Kalam Argument). He also states that God is the essence of existence, the Primary Being.
There’s a lot there. Would you like to discuss and have a good conversation? Or are you more looking to post and not talk? Not tryin to sound rude, just asking clarification before I address/respond to your post.
@@akostarkanyi825 you’re welcome. Good respectful adult conversation had become a lost art and I wish it could make a come back. Let me know if I start to fail. There’s a lot to cover/discuss so I’m just gonna start with something and we can go from there is that’s okay. Please let me know what you agree/don’t and if I missed something and all that. I think a problem I often see theists do(not saying you just talking in general here) is they think it’s either from their god or from nothing. Yes? Which I think is a false assumption and choices as there are other possibilities and I don’t know why they ignore them unless it’s on purpose?
@@therick363 What Saint Thomas wrote eseentially means that God is the Essence of Existence. So, what is there outside of God, then? What do you mean by other possibilities?
@@akostarkanyi825 energy, cosmos, nature. Those are a few possibilities. I think an issue I’ve encountered from the arguments of saint Thomas is they feel very special pleading
I can't figure out whether Thomas Aquinas is talking about a being whose essence is its existence in particular or existence in general. Both don't seem to work. If he's talking about its existence in particular, then the whole part about the uniqueness of this being falls by the wayside. Thomas invokes this necessary being to put an end to the infinite regress of causes, but for this we don't need a being that would only be its existence, only a being that would be, among other things, its existence. In fact, several beings being their existence and something else can be used. We can, for example, imagine a Platonic system with an infinite number of Forms, containing their own existence, causing everything else. Or the same with fundamental physical principles. If it is a being that is existence in general, then it follows that this “being” (the term “being” loses its value here) is unique, admitting that existence in general cannot be shared. But this raises the problem of the relationship between the existence of this being and that of other beings. Thomas says: “Nor is it necessary, if we say that God is existence alone, for us to fall into the error of those who say that God is universal existence whereby each and every thing formally exists. For the existence which God is, is such that no addition can be made to it. Whence by virtue of its purity it is an existence distinct from every existence.” (De Ente et Essensia, 90), which refutes this option. Indeed, it's hard to imagine the existence of beings being distinct from that of God, if God is the whole existence itself. In any case, this does not refute atheism. To be an atheist is not to disbelieve in necessary beings, but to disbelieve in gods. To say that there is some necessary principle in the world is not contradictory with atheism; on the contrary, many people seem to accept it.
This is deep. Atheists' brains can't fathom such a meta...a one-dimensional animal will forever refute a square is just an imagined reality. ZEUS is their prison bars, they'll never get away from him.
“This does not refute atheism” “To be an atheist is not to disbelieve in necessary beings” “To say that there is some necessary principle in the world is not contradictory with atheism” Oh the irony!! Listening to militant atheists pontificating about “TRUTH” and prevaricating about “NECESSARY BEINGS” whilst subscribing to the belief that we are all nothing more substantive than ULTIMATELY MEANINGLESS, HOLLOW AND SOULLESS APES WHO SHARE HALF THEIR DNA WITH A POTATO IS PRICELESS!! Furthermore, listening to strictly reductive materialists, atheists or philosophical naturalists pontificating about ultimate “TRUTH” and “NECESSARY PRINCIPLES” whilst subscribing to the belief that we are all nothing more substantive than ultimately meaningless HOLLOW AND SOULLESS, OVERGROWN AMOEBAS WITH ILLUSIONS OF GRANDEUR is as entertaining as watching someone trying to thrash the front of his car with the branch of a tree in order to BEAT IT INTO SUBMISSION! It's very Monty Python like at times and very Basil Fawlty like at times! But without the comedy value. CRINGE ATHEISM in full effect!!
@@georgedoyle2487some atheists are like that sure. Just as some theists are like that too and have the full cringe effect. Can you agree it goes both ways? And not for all of each?
@@therick363 “the full cringe effect. Can you agree it goes both ways? And not for all of each?” Sorry but you clearly demonstrate your ignorance of two millennia of scholarship on the subject as this has been one of the basic tenets of Christianity for two millennia!! According to the literary genius G.K. Chesterton…. “The Christian admits that the universe is manifold and even miscellaneous, just as a sane man knows that he is complex. The sane man knows that he has a touch of the beast, a touch of the devil, a touch of the saint, a touch of the citizen. The really sane man knows that he has a touch of the madman. But the materialist's world is quite simple and solid, just as the madman is quite sure he is sane. The materialist is sure that history has been simply and solely a chain of causation, just as the interesting person before mentioned is quite sure that he is simply and solely a chicken. Materialists and madmen never have doubts.” (G.K. Chesterton).
@@coolservantjesusswag2936 Let me copy my comment: So the argument goes like: “I assume the existence of one directional causation as a law of nature.” -Cool. But why tho? “Existence exists and is the first cause. Oh yeah and btw I decide to call it ‘being’ and ‘God’. “ -Okay... I decide to call it.. Bob. Then the voice in the video says: “Which we know is God”. -’know’ as knowledge, as justified true belief? Where’s the justification? Assuming things and attaching random names like ‘God’ is not a justification. It's like if I said: "We know it's Bob". “...primary cause, or being” -Well if it’s a being, it’s still a cause, so postulating it to be ‘being’ makes no explanatory difference, so ‘being’ can be cut out with Occam’s razor, in favor for simply 'cause'. ('being' is not necessary here).
Separating what a thing is (essence) from the fact that it exists doesn’t prove God. It’s like saying unicorns have an essence because we can define them, but that doesn’t make them real. Aquinas’s leap from ‘things have essence’ to ‘God exists’ is a giant non-sequitur. Also Saying infinite regress is ‘absurd’ is itself absurd. By that logic, concepts like an infinitely divisible circle or the number pi should be paradoxical too. And if an infinite chain of causes is ‘nonsensical,’ then what about an infinite God? If infinity breaks the rules for the universe, it breaks them for God as well. You can’t use the ‘it’s a mystery’ card for God and then reject the idea of an infinite regress. Claiming that God is ‘existence itself’ and has divine attributes like immutability and eternity is just armchair speculation. Complexity in the universe doesn’t mean there’s a cosmic puppet master behind it. That’s like saying because a snowflake is intricate, there must be an invisible fairy snowflake artist. Aquinas’s argument is an old-school philosophical exercise that doesn’t refute atheism. It just raises more questions than answers. Why can’t the universe itself be the ‘necessary being’? Or some yet-undiscovered natural principle? Simply asserting ‘God did it’ isn’t an explanation. It’s a way to stop asking questions.
Aquinas explained the difference between a potential infinity i.e things that can be potentially divide into infinity, vs actual infinity. Potential infinites like the number of digits in pi or cutting a cake in half continuously doesn't violate anything. whereas actual infinites are Mathematically, scientifically and metaphysically impossible due to the contradictions that arises from them. Also the main reason that the universe can't be a necessary being is due to the fact that it has a mix of act and potency and its a particular thing. The universe does not have the ability to house universal concepts as they're immaterial themselves, (there's no mass for justice or the half-life of the number 1) and requires a transcendent mind to house these universals.
@@marrth649 Interesting…. points you've brought up! May I ask, what you mean actual infinities are mathematically impossible due to contradictions, like what are these contradictions? have we ever witnessed these? And also by the same logic (and mentioned in my comment before already), does it mean an infinite being like God is a paradox as well? Aquinas as you mentioned explained that infinity is metaphysically impossible so why does it not apply to God? Also, why should something that is "necessary" not have any potential for change or be a specific, individual thing and why has it to be constant and unchanging?
@@AurumTheFool-k8e You raised some good questions. One reason why actual infinities are considered impossible in math is that they often involve contradictions, such as adding or subtracting a finite value from something infinite. An popular example of this is Hilbert’s Hotel, but Suppose you have an infinite number of apples, and I have an infinite number of even-numbered apples. Technically, your basket should be bigger, because the set of all numbers (odd and even) is larger than just the even numbers. However, since both are infinite, they are actually the same size. To resolve this paradox, we have to distinguish between different types of infinities. Aquinas would say that your basket is potentially bigger, but is actually the same size as mine, something can be potentially bigger but not actually bigger at the same time and in the same respect. In terms of witnessing actual infinities, scientists have concluded that they are impossible. For example, if there were an infinite number of causes before the universe, the amount of friction that would have built up would prevent any further events from occurring, effectively stopping time . But since time still moves, this suggests there has been a finite number of causes, not an infinitenumber. I also want to add that the universe cannot cause itself, as this would violate Newton's law of inertia and imply that the universe is a perpetual motion machine, which is ruled out by the laws of thermodynamics. The reason God doesn’t fall under this limitation is that these infinities apply only to quantities or accidents of a substance, such as energy or mass. God, however, has no accidents, which means no imperfections can be attributed to Him like mass as he's immaterial.
Another thing that survives from all scientific scrutiny and problems, is "magical everything-solver 9000" -which also happens to be invisible unicorn. There's by definition no problem with this explanation, because it's everything-solver. If there's something it cannot solve, then the everything-solver is not everything-solver and that's a contradiction, therefore, the magical everything-solver 9000 unicorn exist.
@@teokeitaanranta658 But a unicorn has a finite nature and a mix of potency and act. The acts that a unicorn can do is limited to what it can do and the unicorn is not able to sustain all of existence. You need a unmoved mover that is not itself moved with no potency.
This is all fine and in fact it can work with atheism and imo it works better. This existence is basically the universe. This eliminates the problem of existence itself having to be intelligent which makes no sense because intelligence derives from experience and since this being is the first cause it can not have experience in order to be intelligent. Another problem is the question is this thing bound by time? If no then how can it create anything, since apologists arguing against science usually like to say there needs to be a before and after creation. If it is bound by time and also eternal, then you can go infinitely back in time before the creation therefore the creation can not happen as was demonstrated with the moon, earth, sun orbit argument in this video, in that analogy we need a first cause and in the problem of infinity before creation we need a beginning. Also, I suppose you are arguing for Christianity here and since you mentioned that this being needs to be immutable and never changing you have the problem of God changing his mind and attitude (from the Bible), like after the flood. Also God is experiencing emotions which would be impossible since to experience hate means to not experience many other emotions, same is true for love or regret etc. and since God experiences many of these emotions then we can easily say that he does in fact change. Also, you said (or Aquinas did) that there can only be one being whose essence is it's existence and that straightforward deletes the trinity, or at least makes you reinterpret it.
" Existence is basically the universe " No, the universe can't be Existence because universe has potency within it that makes it distinct from the universes Essence. "Intelligence requires experience" Human Intelligences require an intellect and will and an image to understand particulars, but humans can understand immaterial universal ideas such as the laws of logic or mathematics, which both exist in particulars and outside particulars, since the universe is a particular kind of thing with universal qualities, these universals have to come from a mind that instantiate these particulars."Is it bound by time?" No, god is pure act and no potency, and because of that God is not bounded by time or space. when it comes to God appearing to change his mind, it's speaking of God analogously, like I might say this cat is healthy and this plant is healthy, both predicates of "healthy" aren't exactly the same with both the cat and the plant, but they aren't completely different either. The same applies to God. I hope this helps
I love the atheist cope, not actually bringing a valid rebuttal but an accusation of Aquinas being faulty or erred with absolutely no demonstration why that is
1. For the existence of a god, one would simply need verifiable evidence of it, not mythological stories originating from ancient Judeau. 2. Aquinas' argument is a presupposition that such a being exists. 3. Once again, this is an argumentative video making a philosophical case, but presenting no evidence for your god. Do better.
Aquinas never presupposed God in his argument. In fact aquinas actually said that the only way you can prove god is via an a posteriori negation, where you observe the world around you first from effect to cause, and instead of making a positive claim of where x came from , you make a negative claim where X cannot come from. That's why aquinas criticized Anselms argument where just because you think of something doesn't mean it actually exists in the world.
You genuinely have no idea what you're talking about 1. What do you mean by evidence? It seems here that you're presupposing that empirical evidence is the only kind of evidence, which is untenable and impossible to prove. And literally no one here is using the Bible to prove the existence of God. This alone shows that you have no intellectual integrity. 2. The argument is basic deduction. If the premises are true, and the form is valid, then the conclusion must be true. You can disagree with the conclusion of an argument, but if you do you should also point out which premises you take issue with. 3. Logical arguments are evidence by definition.
Aquinas assumed one-way causation and he assumed it's a law of nature. Then he assumed infinite regress is bad. Then he deduced first cause from these assumptions and bunch of essence-metaphysics. Then he arbitrarily named it 'God' and 'being'.
@@teokeitaanranta658 Aquinas affirmed that linear infinite regresses were possible, just like the other guy you have no idea what you're talking about.
Aquinas didn't refute atheism. Atheism is a POSITION and, therefore, can not be refuted. Only assertions and arguments can be refuted - such as each of the Five Ways.
@wesleyr9469 There is no such thing as an "atheistic worldview." Only individuals possess worldviews. WVs are _individualistic_ (no two persons share the same one), _accumulative_ (expand over time), and _dynamic_ (evolve with each new significant experience).
@wesleyr9469 What would be an example of an atheistic argument? The reason I ask is that I don't have any need to present any argument to justify my position of atheism. It is already rationally justified.
@@TheoSkeptomai How is it rationally justified? Rational says creation needs creator. But atheist says creation needs no creator. That non living can bring life. Outside the fact morality is subjective. But morality in the atheist world is often determind by who has the power. Thus if I have the power to say r*pe is correct. Who are you to say I am wrong? You are just another human flesh that happen to live in my current period of time. If I am a muderer do not judge me. For who are you to judge? If I like to smoke and live how I want who are you to judge.
@@TheoSkeptomai Outside of your ignorance to say Atheism is justify but then alot of atheist would say we are evolved animals but evolves or not I am still an animals so I can personally come to home and take what I want? Why would I be wrong? Because you say so? Is that not what animals do? All I am is just a more intelligent animal. Why should live to be a good person when I can just be a tyrant? Or maybe you will say your country Law? But I can name another country that allow atrocities? Your worldview brings depraviting and free for all.
De Ente et Essentia is way too deep for atheists to grasp-Aquinas’ exploration of existence and essence operates on a level of metaphysical thought that simply goes over their heads.
Seems like a waste of his time then. Theists already believe. They don't need to be convinced. And its useless for atheists too if they can't understand it.
@@SireJaxs I do actually have arguments. But the OP needs to show better manners. Also, no I don’t have insults, I simply reversed what the OP said back at him. Did you call the OP out? If not then you don’t get to try to call me out especially when all I did was show him how he was being.
![[TH] 2024 PMGC League | Survival Stage วันที่ 1 | PUBG MOBILE Global Championship](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/FVFT-PFwU80/mqdefault.jpg)
I studied theoretical physics, then the philosophy underpinning it, which lead me to more or less the same argument regarding the nature of existent objects and how they relate to a potential existence, like a transcendent form. Which then pushed me toward an understanding of God and his singularity and centrality as a necessary fact of the physical world.
If existence were based on the individual, then we could not share the same world. The fact that the world is shared by many conscious beings implies one conscious force for which we are within. We are in their perspective, not ours, that which is unchangeable but percieves itself and gives itself to itself, full love. In giving to itself, it creates for its own glory and loves without end, even to the ends of a cross.
I personally just came into the church this year and it's amazing to me to find so many familiar thoughts in the history of the church and im eager to learn more. I'm definitely planning on reading this work by Saint Thomas Aquinas. Thank you for making this video.
talking snake and talking donkey, yea physicist right
@captainjackuniversal in order to refute this argument physists refer to the (unsupported) B theory of time which is crazier. I'm talking the idea that baby version of you is still kicking in your mother's womb
In case your story is meant to be an argument, let me offer a counter argument: The fact that there's conscious beings, by no way 'imply' there's some mysterious force behind it, and neither are you making an argument for it. The fact that there's drunk people in the park, does not imply there's some universal force of drunkness they are all being part of. -There could be, but it makes little sense to assume so.
@teokeitaanranta658 it was meant as mostly a story, not a precise argument.
But riffing off your counter, my point more rests in that if, say, one person got drunk and then all others experienced the same drunkenness, it would imply some universal drunkenness.
It's in some way a reference to philosophical zombies. If we assume others are not zombies, in what way do we share reality with them? If we presume to share the same reality, that would imply a greater context for us to be within. For if our own perceptions determined our realities, we would be nearly unintelligible to others acting as if we were drunk or worse.
For me, I don't personally see an explanation of what time itself is outside of the emergent ordering of a self-referential system like consciousness; that a system of information which references itself has an emergent ordering as a static, which is how I see the nature of time. Studying physics, I was never satisfied by other understandings of time and that's where I landed. So, to bring this back around, if time is somehow tied to our brains referencing the past in the present then the fact that we experience the same world is what would imply to me a greater context, some origin of the ordering that we are all currently in, which would also need to be self reference, and thus share some resemblance with us. Given the complexity of the world, I would wager that the context is more complex than us or at least more capable. This is a soft argument, I am aware, but it was enough for me to soften my heart to Jesus.
@@phoenixsmith9433 Nice answer! There's indeed a lot we still don't know. I'm a big fan of this self-referential Gödel tier stuff, but I also think there can be natural solutions for self-reference paradoxes etc. Even if God existed, there could still be natural solutions for these, and that assumption is indeed more productive, than assuming it's mysterious and leaving it to be. Also, the fact how self-reference leads outside the subject of the self-reference, is not a fact about something bigger actually existing. It could be a fact about something bigger being generated in the process, just like the universe seem to be generating more of it as we speak.
As someone who used to be a Muslim that recently accepted Christ thanks for your work the production/editing and information in your videos are amazing
God doesn't do monkey tricks, i.e becoming a human who does look like a monkey
God bless!
Amen
Real
So… Did aquinas use his brain when writing this argument?
@@void_ling cope and seethe
@@void_ling cope
Those were the longest 10 minutes in my entire TH-cam life. I downloaded the video so I'll have something to think about during the next 10 years.
Not so difficult. In sum: how could nothing cause or create something? (It is just that Saint Thomas' sentences are long and complex with a lot of special expressions and terms which makes them hard to understand - but this is the essence of the quotes from him.) I note that there is a cosmological concept today the concept of Multiverse (a supposedly infnite number of finite Universes - practically a concept coming to the rescue of Atheism) which cannot avoid or evade this question above. In an infinity of possible time, all finite Universes should have come to the end by now but one, ours still exist. Therefore the Multiverse concept is false and our Universe has still had a begining - and then with a necessary outer cause - and it is also still remarkably "fine tuned". Therefore, the Universe needs a really existing outer cause (as "how could nothing cause or create something") and this outer cause cannot be material in nature or then it would not be "outer" to the material world. Thus the existence of the Unverse means there is an outer cause to it which cannot be material in nature - it can be supernatural (or spiritual) only. And then it is clear that there is a Creator to the Universe, God Almighty.
its a bad argument. learn logic.
@@DeconvertedMan ?
@@akostarkanyi825 Aquinas's arguments are all bad ones. Broken logic and some incorrect statements we know to be so due to science.
@@akostarkanyi825 appreciate your explanation! This is the main thing keeping me from being an atheist… classify myself as agnostic (raised Catholic).
I guess my issue with every religion is that if God is infinite, how can man ever hope to understand god what god wants? I think it’s man that has created religion to try to understand God, but the problem is Is not gone, so how do we know we are on the right path to worshiping a God? How do we know God wants to be worshipped?
Glory to the Holy Trinity! May all bow to Christ!
I heard a Pentecostal say that God is one and God is not three. Is that Heresy in the Catholic Church?
@@John-rd4cpIf they espouse God as being one in essence but not three in persons. Then they are heretics
@@John-rd4cppentecostal is heresy
@@John-rd4cp Yes. That's a "oneness" Pentecostal. They are unitarians who only believe in Jesus and not the Father & Holy Spirit.
@@John-rd4cpyes. I am a protestant and that’s still heresy. Those guys, they call themselves oneness Pentecostals. they are just unitarians. By definition they are not a christian denomination, but a heretical sect.
This is the video I've been waiting for ☺
God bless you 🙏
Uzbek Catholic? Very rare lol
W username
Exodus 3:14 RSVCI
[14] God said to Moses, “I AM WHO I AM.” And he said, “Say this to the people of Israel, ‘I AM has sent me to you.’ ”
Verse goes so hard.
It's quite the revolutionary idea considering that at Aquinas's time, conventional wisdom dictated that the universe was eternal and unchanging, meaning that the First Cause argument may not be the best argument to use, little did he know
Have you eliminated the possibility of our cosmos (if not universe) being an eternal realm?
@@TheoSkeptomai It's always a possibility something existed before the big bang, though based on what we know of physics, it would be the same to say that something happened before time itself, since time didn't physically exist before it, so it wouldn't work that way anyway
But let's throw that out, if we take it that the universe does infinitely regress backwards, then we just run back into the problem of the first mover, to me it's just not logical
@sonofasalesman I have several issue to discuss.
Do you realize that the concept of 'infinite regression' is paradoxical, and not in the manner you're describing, but in the fact that employing any concept with the irrational value of infinity necessarily leads to opposing truth values?
@@TheoSkeptomai I don't get what you mean with that last part, but yes I agree that infinitely going into the past is a paradox, which is why I don't believe it works that way. Reality is finite and thus has a finite beginning point
@@sonofasalesman I disagree.
Thomas Aquinas > Atheism
How’s that?
@@therick363cause Aquinas is based
@@Alex-pg9es based? Sorry could you elaborate what you mean by that? Not trying to be difficult here. Trying to understand.
@@Alex-pg9es Based? Based on what?
@@KaapoKallio Bro, you are messing up. Go shower!
i used this argument before , i didn't know it was st Aquinas approuved , life is Good
broken argument is broken.
@@DeconvertedMan very broken indeed , i can now make people doubt existence out of their hatred of the word God
@@planteruines5619 pttttttttt lol what?
Another Sanctus video,another Banger
Moses said to God: Lo, I shall go to the children of Israel, and say to them: The God of your fathers hath sent me to you. If they should say to me: What is his name? what shall I say to them?
God said to Moses: I AM WHO AM. He said: Thus shalt thou say to the children of Israel: HE WHO IS, hath sent me to you.
this is some quality content, been watching for a while and haven’t commented but this deserves more attention. God bless!
Powerful argument!
Raised Catholic,currently agnostic, but I’m open to listening!
Many such cases, dont worry I was like this now here I am
love the vids will definitely check out the merch
Amazing video. This is incredibly helpful for those questioning their faith, as well as those who want to strengthen their faith❤🙏
I can hear modern atheism now. We are smarter and know so much more than the men of old.
Matt Dilamonkey is just the smartest person to ever exist.
@@Autismunleashedhe got grilled by a 12 year old on his show
@@ohhellno8759 did he really? Do you know where to find that?
@@Autismunleashed just look up “Matt dillahunty vs 12 year old” lol
In all seriousness, Aquinas’ arguments are trash. The one in the video only functions within the bounds of Aquinas’ imagined rules of the universe, essence only exists in our minds. Substance is all we can prove. The idea of a substance that is identical to its essence is one that is literally a product of someone’s imagination. As for the rest of the argument, It simply strings along non-sequiturs.
amazing! thank you very much for the awesome explanation.
my copy of the summa is coming in a few days, not a christan at all but cant wait
get a bible before getting the summas?
@@jixzoo read the bible tens of times already lol
@@maorschool9096 I highly doubt you did but I’ll just pretend like I believe you. Do you have at least 2-3 years of philosophy under your belt?
While Aquinas’ metaphysical reasoning is clever and has influenced centuries of philosophy, atheists generally find it unconvincing because it relies on assumptions that either aren't necessary or don't hold up under scrutiny from modern perspectives on science, logic, and metaphysics. Just because something sounds profound doesn’t mean it accurately describes reality.
Thomas Aquinas’ distinction between essence (what a thing is) and existence (that a thing is) is a metaphysical concept that may seem compelling on the surface. However, many modern philosophers, including atheists, reject the need for this distinction to explain reality. Instead of relying on metaphysical abstractions, they argue that we can explain existence without appealing to essences or divine beings. In other words, just because we can conceptually separate what something is from whether it exists doesn't mean this distinction implies a supernatural cause.
HIs argument that there must be a being whose essence is identical to its existence (God) in order to stop an infinite regress of causes might sound neat, but it assumes that infinite regress is impossible or absurd. Many atheists and even some philosophers argue that there's no compelling reason why an infinite regress can't be possible. Just because it’s counterintuitive doesn’t make it logically impossible.
He claims that a chain of causes cannot extend infinitely, which forces the conclusion of a "first cause" or "primary cause" that is self-existent. However, this argument is based on an assumption that causal chains need a starting point, but modern physics-especially quantum mechanics-suggests that causality might not always operate in the neat, linear way Aquinas describes. Some atheists argue that the universe could be self-contained, with no need for a first cause at all.
This argument, and many similar ones, often boil down to "we don't understand how X could exist without a cause, so there must be a god." This is an appeal to ignorance (i.e., assuming that because we can’t fully explain something, God must be the answer). Atheists often argue that just because we don't have a full explanation of existence doesn't mean we should jump to supernatural conclusions. Science is constantly expanding our understanding of the universe, and gaps in knowledge aren't proof of divine intervention.
Just because Aquinas could imagine a being whose essence is existence doesn’t mean such a being exists in reality. Many atheists would argue that this kind of metaphysical reasoning is simply a word game-just because we can create an abstract concept like "a being whose essence is existence" doesn’t mean such a thing exists outside our minds.
Aquinas’ argument is built on a highly abstract philosophical framework that doesn’t necessarily map onto the physical world as we understand it today. The metaphysical categories Aquinas relies on (essence, quiddity, etc.) were constructed in a medieval context, but they don't align with modern scientific understandings of the universe. Atheists might argue that this framework is outdated and no longer useful for answering questions about existence.
Damn. That, again, was another enlightening and well-stated comment. I have learned so much from your comments over the past months. And unlike I, you always keep your composure. Well done.
Please keep posting, my friend! Peace.
Honestly i agree, sometimes reading his work he said stuff like "there can't be an infinite amount of causes" and i just be like "why not? 🤨" and many times this exact type of thing.
And also i only read the very beginning, yet sometimes defining God or something he uses the Bible's scripture, but didn't even explain yet why the Scripture is the truth so i just can't accept the words he said as true since idk if the scripture is the truth yet. Maybe he explains this later on probably
Unfortunately this atheist "counter"-argument doesn't work because if you admit infinity is possible then you also have to admit God, who is infinity itself as defined by Christian doctrine, can also exist.
Just because atheists say infinite regress can be true doesn't magically rule out God's existence either. As God is infinite he could be infinitely causing his own existence and thus causing the existence of everything else infinitely. Atheists love to think they can debunk religion with science but the truth is science simply studies the material, not the immaterial, so it will never come to a point as to comprehend an immaterial infinite cause such as God.
@aliceinwonderland4395 Are you willing to answer some straightforward questions concerning your comment?
@@aliceinwonderland4395 The claim that "if you admit infinity, you must admit God" is a non-sequitur. Just because infinity is a concept we might apply in math or physics (such as infinite regress or the concept of infinity in cosmology) does not mean we must apply it to a supernatural entity like God. Infinity in mathematics or cosmology refers to specific concepts, like endless time, space, or quantities, not a sentient being.
The argument tries to counter the idea of infinite regress by positing that God can infinitely cause his own existence. But this explanation raises a problem: if God's existence requires a cause, and he infinitely causes his own existence, this does not actually solve the issue of needing a first cause. It's more like saying "God is an exception," which is not a logical solution but an assertion. The atheist position would likely point out that if infinite regress is possible (in terms of the universe), there is no need for a supernatural being to intervene or create.
The notion that God "infinitely causes his own existence" seems incoherent. If something must cause its own existence, then it presupposes that it existed to begin with to cause itself. This is a paradox. Which means that invoking God creates more questions than it answers, and concepts like self-causation tend to fall into the realm of illogical explanations.
While science primarily studies the material world, the idea that it can't address the concept of God because God is immaterial presumes that there is a coherent definition of "immaterial" that matters for investigation. I could argue that anything that has no observable effects or interaction with the material world is indistinguishable from non-existence. If God interacts with the material world, this interaction should be scientifically detectable. If not, then the claim that God exists becomes an untestable hypothesis, which cannot be meaningfully supported or debunked.
The idea of an infinite regress doesn't necessarily conflict with atheism. For example, some models of the universe, like certain interpretations of the multiverse, involve no beginning at all, and time is considered infinite. This doesn't necessitate a god but is simply a different interpretation of cosmological models. Infinity in naturalistic terms is a different kind of explanation, one based on observable principles rather than supernatural assumptions.
Very good video
The problem would be to justify that this kind of analysis is the correct one, it seems to me that there are better ways to analyze the notion that we cannot determine whether a thing exist purely from its description, that don’t involve positing that essence as described here is a real thing or that existence is a property that essences can gain or lose.
An alternative approach could involve analyzing this in terms of mental representations and empty references. In this framework, a representation that is identical to the thing it represents could only manifest as something akin to a self-referential proposition
No need to refute it. It's self refuting.
Why's that smart guy
How is atheism self refuting?
But if he didn't refute it, I'd never have learned what the word "quiddity" meant
So the argument goes like:
“I assume the existence of one directional causation as a law of nature.” -Cool. But why tho?
“Existence exists and is the first cause. Oh yeah and btw I decide to call it ‘being’ and ‘God’. “ -Okay... I decide to call it.. Bob.
Then the voice in the video says: “Which we know is God”. -’know’ as knowledge, as justified true belief? Where’s the justification? Assuming things and attaching random names like ‘God’ is not a justification. It's like if I said: "We know it's Bob".
“...primary cause, or being” -Well if it’s a being, it’s still a cause, so postulating it to be ‘being’ makes no explanatory difference, so ‘being’ can be cut out with Occam’s razor, in favor for simply 'cause'. ('being' is not necessary here).
@@teokeitaanranta658 Watch the video again, you missed a lot
@@SanctusApologetics Are you talking about the word-game essence mumbojumbo?
De ente is my favourite argument for Gods existence!
"Man's essense is a rational animal"
HARD disagree there, bud. Being rational as a human requires hard work, which the vast majority of people almost wholly neglect.
And you clearly aren't putting in that work.
If you aren't even familiar with an idea this basic, you have no chance of arguing anything here
@marvalice3455 Does one need to accept an idea to be familiar with it? Is your position so perfect that if one carefully weighs the available evidence, and reaches a different conclusion, they MUST be irrational?
Doesn't look like your working either at least, attacking me with playground level insults alone doesn't exactly portray you as particularly rational. Paraphrased, on the playground your point would be: "I'm rubber, you're glue".
you're not that guy pal
@@Ni73sh4d3 framing rejected. I don't believe you are familiar with it. The way you frame your comment makes it obvious you either aren't familiar with it, or you are so intellectually sloppy that you may just as well not be familiar with it.
You don't get the benefit of the doubt on this just because you want it. Your actions disqualify you.
No one refuted atheism
And i refute Jesus !
@@sebozz2046 Reality refuted Atheism 🤣😆
I refute you! (nothing personal)
yep
God doesn't do monkey tricks, i.e becoming a human who does look like a monkey
@@Loveistheirwholehapphow did reality refute atheism?
@@therick363 look around.
My head is spinning but I believe in God in three forms.
Hope to not be rude, but that's a heresy you believe in
Modalism is the heresy of believing that there's one God who just changes form, father son and holy spirit are just moods or shapeshifting in one person of god.
You may not intentionally have believed that, but using the term 'form' is what modalism is.
@@TaintedTechnicalTips This is so funny to me honestly, they rejected every possible interpretation of the trinity that is logically coherent.
@@bonbon__candy__1 that isn’t fair to claim he is a manifest heretic, he only told us one heretical belief and it was likely due to ignorance of the actual doctrine rather than thinking he knows better than the Church.
@@bonbon__candy__1the orthodox model is logically coherent you just have carnal understandings 1 being existing in 3 persons isn’t a hard concept to grasp I used to be Unitarian and the trinity isn’t hard when you read the bible and church fathers on it
@@maxinjic2796 That sounds like modalism
y'all i used to be atheist, then agnostic, then finally theist and bro Thomas Aquinas is my hero i hope he'll also lead me to a religion someday
I pray that you are lead to Christ Jesus the Lord. May he continue to guide you
Aquinas proved nothing.
@@bonbon__candy__1 your comprehension level is prolly limited to second grade bru that's why
@@leaguixxx9736 Typical cope 🥱
I find it challenging to accept that an agnostic atheist, such as I, would be convinced by the arguments of Aquinas. Reading and examining his _Summa Theologiae_ is the major reason for me leaving the faith.
Bro cooked unbelievably hard in this video 😎
How so? Done refute atheism?
The essence of creation has existence as a component. Almost everything presented here is a nonsequitor and would prove aseity (and therefore God) contradictory. God as existence alone would negate Christian theology. Similarly for the protestations against infinite regress, of which there are more rigorous and formal arguments.
Damn Thomas Aquinas was smart I never thought of anything like that
Great video brother ❤
atheists have already extensively responded to this argument, see for example chapter seven of the book Existential Inertia and Classical Theistic Proofs. i think one author of the book is atheist, the other author is agnostic.
Im going to cover their objections in the future video for sure, many Thomist's have responded to them as well, your referring to Graham Oppy and Joe Schmidt.
Despite thousands of pages from Schmid, his arguments aren’t that sound. I refuted him in a paper for an undergrad philosophy class (I’m an engineer and never studied philosophy, rigorously).
@@no3339where?
@@no3339 sure buddy lmao
@@SanctusApologetics i would encourage you to read the book itself, especially i think chapter 7, because lots of objections are responded to in there. even if you disagree with it, i believe its helpful to read and understand
You can prove anything when you allowed to leap further than superman
I struggle to see how this isn’t just another lens through which to perceive, explain the argument from causation or maybe contingency
Either way it is interesting and seems to reinforce his main 5 proofs
Very good
Use the length of this video to time your cold shower.
You sound kinda like Classical Theist but with a better mic and less congestion from cat allergies
*Joe Schmid enters chat*
Where is this question? Suma?
I still don`t quite understand why there must be a initial eternal cause instead of anifinite regress of causes.
Is it because if there were an infinite regress of causes, there would not be a "now", a "present"?
Infinite regression is a paradox (logically true, realistically false - or vice-versa) and, therefore, is not a candidate premise for any argument concluding that the universe can not be an eternal realm. Those who try to do so are either dishonest or idiots.
@@TheoSkeptomai why is it a paradox?
@juanranger4214 Using an irrational number (infinity) in any context - infinite regression, infinite derivation, infinite division, etc is always paradoxical conclusions as it leads to opposing truth values. I can present an example if you are willing to answer a few straightforward questions.
@@TheoSkeptomai go ahead!
@juanranger4214 I will begin with _infinite division._ If you understand the paradox in this example, I will continue to be on to _infinite regression._ My aim is to show that that infinite regression is not a suitable premise for arguing for the impossibility of an eternal cosmos (or universe).
If I were to shoot an arrow at a target 10 meters away with sufficient force and accurate aim, will the arrow eventually reach its target? Yes or no.
Based
I feel brainless
It’s absolutely baffling that anyone considers this a strong argument. This is literally just “I am defining myself as correct” pretending to be serious thought. I’m also not particularly impressed by a devout theologian spending his entire life coming up with ways to prove what he already assumes to be true. Not a sincere argument, and likewise only people who already believe the same thing take it seriously.
Aquinas never presupposed God in his argument. In fact aquinas actually said that the only way you can prove god is via an a posteriori negation, where you observe the world around you first from effect to cause, and instead of making a positive claim of where x came from , you make a negative claim where X cannot come from. That's why aquinas criticized Anselms argument where just because you think of something doesn't mean it actually exists in the world.
Can someone please tell me when and how he refuted atheism?
Starts at 0:00, ends at 10:10
Thank me later
It’s a weird “refutation” if you could even say that
@@appleonion5830 so the whole video….yeah I watched it already. Didn’t see it happen. Which is why I asked for specifics.
So no thanking you happening when you didn’t actually help. Perhaps try again with specifics
@@Theleaver5088 so it’s not just me ?
@@therick363 yeah
Great video.
the only thing that is identical to existence is the universe.
in order for a thing to have a things essence identical to its existence, it must be pure act with no potency, The universe is not pure act and has potency, therefore the universes Essence is distinct from its existence
@@marrth649 i didnt't mention essence at all
@@sravasaksitam but that's what aquinas talks about, as for every created thing its essence is distinct from its existence
@@marrth649 There is no such thing as essence.
@@sravasaksitam but the sentence you said has an essence
May st thomas aquinas pray for us 🙏
Wonderful video thank you and may God bless you
Yes, this is obfuscation without proving anything sustainable.
Do you want a syllogism then, since you’re incapable of conjuring one yourself?
@@no3339 For a start off, you have no idea what I can conjure: obfuscation. But the fact remains, Aquinas is the big theist hero and yet, as I say, all he produced was pointless, unsustainable, obfuscation which is only relevant to people of the 13th century and, apparently, some theists of the 21st century who still live in the 13th century because that's where their education ends.
@@Lightbearer616 So basically you don't want to intellectually engage because you're incapable, so you shift the debate to being about the debate itself: "obfuscation." I offered a syllogism, but if you want to be a big wuss, go right ahead.
Comment for algorithm boost. Keep fighting the good fight! 🎉❤✝️🗡️
You can’t refute atheism.
I don’t believe in the existence of a gif or gods. You can’t refute my non belief
According to the SEP atheism should be defined as the belief in the nonexistence of gods
This didn’t deal with the arguments by the way
@@Link25 athiesm is lack of belief, not belief
@@captainjackuniversal That would be agnosticism. Why are you guys so afraid of propositional attitudes?
@@Link25 agnosticism is having no knowledge, they dont deny nor accept any belief...how did you pass 1st grade?
In sum: how could nothing cause or create something? (As Saint Thomas wrote: "There is no case known (neither is it, indeed, possible) in which a thing is found to be the efficient cause of itself; for so it would be prior to itself, which is impossible." Saint Thomas' sentences are long and complex with a lot of special expressions and terms which makes them hard to understand - but this is the essence of the quotes from him.) Thus it is necessary that the world has a really existing Creator, a First Cause, an Essence of Existence. I note that there is a cosmological concept today, the concept of Multiverse (a supposedly infnite number of finite Universes - practically a concept coming to the rescue of Atheism) which cannot avoid or evade this question above. In an infinity of possible time, all finite Universes should have come to the end by now - but one, ours still exist. Therefore the Multiverse concept is false and our Universe has still had a begining - and then with a necessary outer cause - and it is also still remarkably "fine tuned" (see 'Anthropic Principle'). Therefore, the Universe needs a really existing outer cause (as "how could nothing cause or create something") and this outer cause cannot be material in nature or then it would not be "outer" to the material world. Thus the existence of the Unverse means there is an outer cause to it which cannot be material in nature - it can be supernatural (or spiritual) only. And then it is clear that there is a Creator to the Universe, God Almighty. And besides all these what Saint Thomas wrote is more than a cosmological argument for God (the modern version of which is most well-known as the Kalam Argument). He also states that God is the essence of existence, the Primary Being.
There’s a lot there. Would you like to discuss and have a good conversation? Or are you more looking to post and not talk? Not tryin to sound rude, just asking clarification before I address/respond to your post.
@@therick363 Thank you for yor politeness! I am ready for arguments.
@@akostarkanyi825 you’re welcome. Good respectful adult conversation had become a lost art and I wish it could make a come back. Let me know if I start to fail.
There’s a lot to cover/discuss so I’m just gonna start with something and we can go from there is that’s okay. Please let me know what you agree/don’t and if I missed something and all that.
I think a problem I often see theists do(not saying you just talking in general here) is they think it’s either from their god or from nothing. Yes?
Which I think is a false assumption and choices as there are other possibilities and I don’t know why they ignore them unless it’s on purpose?
@@therick363 What Saint Thomas wrote eseentially means that God is the Essence of Existence. So, what is there outside of God, then? What do you mean by other possibilities?
@@akostarkanyi825 energy, cosmos, nature. Those are a few possibilities.
I think an issue I’ve encountered from the arguments of saint Thomas is they feel very special pleading
I can't figure out whether Thomas Aquinas is talking about a being whose essence is its existence in particular or existence in general. Both don't seem to work. If he's talking about its existence in particular, then the whole part about the uniqueness of this being falls by the wayside. Thomas invokes this necessary being to put an end to the infinite regress of causes, but for this we don't need a being that would only be its existence, only a being that would be, among other things, its existence. In fact, several beings being their existence and something else can be used. We can, for example, imagine a Platonic system with an infinite number of Forms, containing their own existence, causing everything else. Or the same with fundamental physical principles.
If it is a being that is existence in general, then it follows that this “being” (the term “being” loses its value here) is unique, admitting that existence in general cannot be shared. But this raises the problem of the relationship between the existence of this being and that of other beings. Thomas says: “Nor is it necessary, if we say that God is existence alone, for us to fall into the error of those who say that God is universal existence whereby each and every thing formally exists. For the existence which God is, is such that no addition can be made to it. Whence by virtue of its purity it is an existence distinct from every existence.” (De Ente et Essensia, 90), which refutes this option. Indeed, it's hard to imagine the existence of beings being distinct from that of God, if God is the whole existence itself.
In any case, this does not refute atheism. To be an atheist is not to disbelieve in necessary beings, but to disbelieve in gods. To say that there is some necessary principle in the world is not contradictory with atheism; on the contrary, many people seem to accept it.
This is deep. Atheists' brains can't fathom such a meta...a one-dimensional animal will forever refute a square is just an imagined reality.
ZEUS is their prison bars, they'll never get away from him.
“This does not refute atheism”
“To be an atheist is not to disbelieve in necessary beings”
“To say that there is some necessary principle in the world is not contradictory with atheism”
Oh the irony!! Listening to militant atheists pontificating about “TRUTH” and prevaricating about “NECESSARY BEINGS” whilst subscribing to the belief that we are all nothing more substantive than ULTIMATELY MEANINGLESS, HOLLOW AND SOULLESS APES WHO SHARE HALF THEIR DNA WITH A POTATO IS PRICELESS!!
Furthermore, listening to strictly reductive materialists, atheists or philosophical naturalists pontificating about ultimate “TRUTH” and “NECESSARY PRINCIPLES” whilst subscribing to the belief that we are all nothing more substantive than ultimately meaningless HOLLOW AND SOULLESS, OVERGROWN AMOEBAS WITH ILLUSIONS OF GRANDEUR is as entertaining as watching someone trying to thrash the front of his car with the branch of a tree in order to BEAT IT INTO SUBMISSION!
It's very Monty Python like at times and very Basil Fawlty like at times! But without the comedy value.
CRINGE ATHEISM in full effect!!
@@timkhan3238_this is deep. Atheists brains can’t fathom such a …._
Man you went right to the condescending huh? Is that the best from you?
@@georgedoyle2487some atheists are like that sure. Just as some theists are like that too and have the full cringe effect. Can you agree it goes both ways? And not for all of each?
@@therick363
“the full cringe effect. Can you agree it goes both ways? And not for all of each?”
Sorry but you clearly demonstrate your ignorance of two millennia of scholarship on the subject as this has been one of the basic tenets of Christianity for two millennia!!
According to the literary genius G.K. Chesterton….
“The Christian admits that the universe is manifold and even miscellaneous, just as a sane man knows that he is complex. The sane man knows that he has a touch of the beast, a touch of the devil, a touch of the saint, a touch of the citizen. The really sane man knows that he has a touch of the madman. But the materialist's world is quite simple and solid, just as the madman is quite sure he is sane. The materialist is sure that history has been simply and solely a chain of causation, just as the interesting person before mentioned is quite sure that he is simply and solely a chicken. Materialists and madmen never have doubts.” (G.K. Chesterton).
How Thomas Aquinas refuted Atheism: He didn't
Explain…
Just say you don’t understand lol
@@coolservantjesusswag2936 Let me copy my comment: So the argument goes like:
“I assume the existence of one directional causation as a law of nature.” -Cool. But why tho?
“Existence exists and is the first cause. Oh yeah and btw I decide to call it ‘being’ and ‘God’. “ -Okay... I decide to call it.. Bob.
Then the voice in the video says: “Which we know is God”. -’know’ as knowledge, as justified true belief? Where’s the justification? Assuming things and attaching random names like ‘God’ is not a justification. It's like if I said: "We know it's Bob".
“...primary cause, or being” -Well if it’s a being, it’s still a cause, so postulating it to be ‘being’ makes no explanatory difference, so ‘being’ can be cut out with Occam’s razor, in favor for simply 'cause'. ('being' is not necessary here).
@@waterenthusiast4721 Look at my quick analysis that breaks down the relevant parts and demonstrates he certainly didn't refute atheism.
@@teokeitaanranta658 i'd be happy to do a debate with you properly about this because this isn't a proper response. just rambling
W
No such thing as essence
Glory to God
First time I can actually understand the video, im improving 🙏
You mean to say "How Thomas made really bad arguments"
Lies he didnt refuted atheism! Because God does not acts how i want!!!
Separating what a thing is (essence) from the fact that it exists doesn’t prove God. It’s like saying unicorns have an essence because we can define them, but that doesn’t make them real. Aquinas’s leap from ‘things have essence’ to ‘God exists’ is a giant non-sequitur.
Also Saying infinite regress is ‘absurd’ is itself absurd. By that logic, concepts like an infinitely divisible circle or the number pi should be paradoxical too. And if an infinite chain of causes is ‘nonsensical,’ then what about an infinite God? If infinity breaks the rules for the universe, it breaks them for God as well. You can’t use the ‘it’s a mystery’ card for God and then reject the idea of an infinite regress.
Claiming that God is ‘existence itself’ and has divine attributes like immutability and eternity is just armchair speculation. Complexity in the universe doesn’t mean there’s a cosmic puppet master behind it. That’s like saying because a snowflake is intricate, there must be an invisible fairy snowflake artist.
Aquinas’s argument is an old-school philosophical exercise that doesn’t refute atheism. It just raises more questions than answers. Why can’t the universe itself be the ‘necessary being’? Or some yet-undiscovered natural principle? Simply asserting ‘God did it’ isn’t an explanation. It’s a way to stop asking questions.
Aquinas explained the difference between a potential infinity i.e things that can be potentially divide into infinity, vs actual infinity. Potential infinites like the number of digits in pi or cutting a cake in half continuously doesn't violate anything. whereas actual infinites are Mathematically, scientifically and metaphysically impossible due to the contradictions that arises from them.
Also the main reason that the universe can't be a necessary being is due to the fact that it has a mix of act and potency and its a particular thing. The universe does not have the ability to house universal concepts as they're immaterial themselves, (there's no mass for justice or the half-life of the number 1) and requires a transcendent mind to house these universals.
@@marrth649 Interesting…. points you've brought up! May I ask, what you mean actual infinities are mathematically impossible due to contradictions, like what are these contradictions? have we ever witnessed these? And also by the same logic (and mentioned in my comment before already), does it mean an infinite being like God is a paradox as well? Aquinas as you mentioned explained that infinity is metaphysically impossible so why does it not apply to God?
Also, why should something that is "necessary" not have any potential for change or be a specific, individual thing and why has it to be constant and unchanging?
@@AurumTheFool-k8e You raised some good questions. One reason why actual infinities are considered impossible in math is that they often involve contradictions, such as adding or subtracting a finite value from something infinite. An popular example of this is Hilbert’s Hotel, but Suppose you have an infinite number of apples, and I have an infinite number of even-numbered apples. Technically, your basket should be bigger, because the set of all numbers (odd and even) is larger than just the even numbers. However, since both are infinite, they are actually the same size. To resolve this paradox, we have to distinguish between different types of infinities. Aquinas would say that your basket is potentially bigger, but is actually the same size as mine, something can be potentially bigger but not actually bigger at the same time and in the same respect.
In terms of witnessing actual infinities, scientists have concluded that they are impossible. For example, if there were an infinite number of causes before the universe, the amount of friction that would have built up would prevent any further events from occurring, effectively stopping time . But since time still moves, this suggests there has been a finite number of causes, not an infinitenumber. I also want to add that the universe cannot cause itself, as this would violate Newton's law of inertia and imply that the universe is a perpetual motion machine, which is ruled out by the laws of thermodynamics.
The reason God doesn’t fall under this limitation is that these infinities apply only to quantities or accidents of a substance, such as energy or mass. God, however, has no accidents, which means no imperfections can be attributed to Him like mass as he's immaterial.
Another thing that survives from all scientific scrutiny and problems, is "magical everything-solver 9000" -which also happens to be invisible unicorn. There's by definition no problem with this explanation, because it's everything-solver. If there's something it cannot solve, then the everything-solver is not everything-solver and that's a contradiction, therefore, the magical everything-solver 9000 unicorn exist.
@@teokeitaanranta658 But a unicorn has a finite nature and a mix of potency and act. The acts that a unicorn can do is limited to what it can do and the unicorn is not able to sustain all of existence. You need a unmoved mover that is not itself moved with no potency.
This is all fine and in fact it can work with atheism and imo it works better. This existence is basically the universe. This eliminates the problem of existence itself having to be intelligent which makes no sense because intelligence derives from experience and since this being is the first cause it can not have experience in order to be intelligent. Another problem is the question is this thing bound by time? If no then how can it create anything, since apologists arguing against science usually like to say there needs to be a before and after creation. If it is bound by time and also eternal, then you can go infinitely back in time before the creation therefore the creation can not happen as was demonstrated with the moon, earth, sun orbit argument in this video, in that analogy we need a first cause and in the problem of infinity before creation we need a beginning. Also, I suppose you are arguing for Christianity here and since you mentioned that this being needs to be immutable and never changing you have the problem of God changing his mind and attitude (from the Bible), like after the flood. Also God is experiencing emotions which would be impossible since to experience hate means to not experience many other emotions, same is true for love or regret etc. and since God experiences many of these emotions then we can easily say that he does in fact change. Also, you said (or Aquinas did) that there can only be one being whose essence is it's existence and that straightforward deletes the trinity, or at least makes you reinterpret it.
" Existence is basically the universe " No, the universe can't be Existence because universe has potency within it that makes it distinct from the universes Essence. "Intelligence requires experience" Human Intelligences require an intellect and will and an image to understand particulars, but humans can understand immaterial universal ideas such as the laws of logic or mathematics, which both exist in particulars and outside particulars, since the universe is a particular kind of thing with universal qualities, these universals have to come from a mind that instantiate these particulars."Is it bound by time?" No, god is pure act and no potency, and because of that God is not bounded by time or space. when it comes to God appearing to change his mind, it's speaking of God analogously, like I might say this cat is healthy and this plant is healthy, both predicates of "healthy" aren't exactly the same with both the cat and the plant, but they aren't completely different either. The same applies to God. I hope this helps
For the life of me I can’t comprehend why people respect Aquinas. All of his arguments can be debunked by a 5th grader high off of glue.
Idolatry leads to blindness
people who are idolizing Aquinas are just too blind to notice it
What arguments do you think disprove his?
@@brittoncain5090 Which of his arguments do you think the strongest?
@@void_ling I'd like you to answer my question.
@@brittoncain5090 I need to know what argument to dismantle. I’m not going to go through all of them. I figure I should steel man him.
I love the atheist cope, not actually bringing a valid rebuttal but an accusation of Aquinas being faulty or erred with absolutely no demonstration why that is
1. For the existence of a god, one would simply need verifiable evidence of it, not mythological stories originating from ancient Judeau.
2. Aquinas' argument is a presupposition that such a being exists.
3. Once again, this is an argumentative video making a philosophical case, but presenting no evidence for your god. Do better.
Aquinas never presupposed God in his argument. In fact aquinas actually said that the only way you can prove god is via an a posteriori negation, where you observe the world around you first from effect to cause, and instead of making a positive claim of where x came from , you make a negative claim where X cannot come from. That's why aquinas criticized Anselms argument where just because you think of something doesn't mean it actually exists in the world.
You genuinely have no idea what you're talking about
1. What do you mean by evidence? It seems here that you're presupposing that empirical evidence is the only kind of evidence, which is untenable and impossible to prove. And literally no one here is using the Bible to prove the existence of God. This alone shows that you have no intellectual integrity.
2. The argument is basic deduction. If the premises are true, and the form is valid, then the conclusion must be true. You can disagree with the conclusion of an argument, but if you do you should also point out which premises you take issue with.
3. Logical arguments are evidence by definition.
Aquinas assumed one-way causation and he assumed it's a law of nature. Then he assumed infinite regress is bad. Then he deduced first cause from these assumptions and bunch of essence-metaphysics. Then he arbitrarily named it 'God' and 'being'.
@@teokeitaanranta658 Aquinas affirmed that linear infinite regresses were possible, just like the other guy you have no idea what you're talking about.
@@Link25 No, he did not. Source: Quinque Viae. -He argues: If there's no first cause, then nothing would exist.
Aquinas didn't refute atheism. Atheism is a POSITION and, therefore, can not be refuted. Only assertions and arguments can be refuted - such as each of the Five Ways.
doesn't take much brainpower to understand that his refutation applies to the atheistic worldview and/or arguments.
@wesleyr9469 There is no such thing as an "atheistic worldview." Only individuals possess worldviews.
WVs are _individualistic_ (no two persons share the same one), _accumulative_ (expand over time), and _dynamic_ (evolve with each new significant experience).
@wesleyr9469 What would be an example of an atheistic argument? The reason I ask is that I don't have any need to present any argument to justify my position of atheism. It is already rationally justified.
@@TheoSkeptomai How is it rationally justified?
Rational says creation needs creator.
But atheist says creation needs no creator. That non living can bring life.
Outside the fact morality is subjective. But morality in the atheist world is often determind by who has the power.
Thus if I have the power to say r*pe is correct. Who are you to say I am wrong?
You are just another human flesh that happen to live in my current period of time.
If I am a muderer do not judge me. For who are you to judge?
If I like to smoke and live how I want who are you to judge.
@@TheoSkeptomai Outside of your ignorance to say Atheism is justify but then alot of atheist would say we are evolved animals but evolves or not I am still an animals so I can personally come to home and take what I want? Why would I be wrong? Because you say so? Is that not what animals do? All I am is just a more intelligent animal.
Why should live to be a good person when I can just be a tyrant?
Or maybe you will say your country Law? But I can name another country that allow atrocities?
Your worldview brings depraviting and free for all.
Aquinas refuted nothing, and he certainly did not prove the existence of a sky daddy from ancient Jewish fairytales.
Would you like to give some proof of there being no God?
@@Itgetslonleyontheailsesection5 Burden of proof is on you.
@bonbon_nextlevel I didn't make a claim lol.
@@Itgetslonleyontheailsesection5 Neither did I, I simply stated that Aquinas did not prove anything.
@Itgetslonleyontheailsesection5 Do you assert that the god of Christianity is a _reality?_
❤❤❤
Also please share and subscribe @Quranmistakes
De Ente et Essentia is way too deep for atheists to grasp-Aquinas’ exploration of existence and essence operates on a level of metaphysical thought that simply goes over their heads.
Seems like a waste of his time then. Theists already believe. They don't need to be convinced. And its useless for atheists too if they can't understand it.
So all you have is condescending huh? Seems like that went over your head there.
Why don’t you try again but like a mature respectful adult?
@@therick363 Interesting, you have no arguement and only insults.
@@SireJaxs I do actually have arguments. But the OP needs to show better manners.
Also, no I don’t have insults, I simply reversed what the OP said back at him. Did you call the OP out? If not then you don’t get to try to call me out especially when all I did was show him how he was being.
@@therick363it’s weird how he’s saying you’re just insulting when you’re calling him out the commentator condescendingly attitude towards atheists
just ordered Summa Theologica and Summa Contra Gentiles🫡
W