Aquinas' Argument For God Explained
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 4 ต.ค. 2024
- This video explains Catholic theologian Thomas Aquinas' most distinctive argument for God, the Argument from Essence and Existence.
Have questions? You can reach me at thomascahillquestions@gmail.com.
I'm gonna follow you as long as you continue to grow.
To the people commenting that Aquinas’ second way is based on supposedly outmoded Aristotelian metaphysics that have been disproven by modern science, which tells us that matter can neither be created nor destroyed, and therefore, (it is inferred) the universe always has been and did not need anything to create it-you’re missing the point. According to law of the conservation of *mass*, *mass* can neither be created nor be destroyed. But *matter* is not *mass*. In fact, matter (unlike mass) *can* be destroyed-which is why the eventual heat death of the universe is a thing (at least according to our current understanding of science, which is what we should be reasonably adhering to at this time, until we are given reason to do otherwise). In other words, all the mass in the universe eventually will be so dispersed that there will be no life, no energy-the universe will be, in a sense, dead, and as far as science can tell us, there is no way for it to come back to life, so to speak. Now, the universe somehow got all its mass arranged in a way so that it led to our present state of affairs (the same that will eventually lead to beat death), but the fact that there appears to be no way for the universe to recover from heat death would suggest that it was not responsible for the aforesaid arrangement of mass. We are this left with having to posit something outside of the universe as being responsible for it.
Great theistic argument, can’t wait for science to disprove it in the future!
This isn’t correct. Matter is just concentrated energy and the law of conservation of energy says that total energy remains the same in an isolated system. Also, there are mathematical models that have a big bang occurring from the heat death of the universe, so it could definitely be responsible for itself in that sense. And even if it’s not, there are other models that have non-agent based causation that seem far more plausible than positing an intelligent agent behind everything
The more pressing problem is that the Greek word for matter [ὕλη] does not refer to matter in the normal way we conceive it. The Greeks did not have the word “materia”, which the Latin signifies more broadly. Aristotles use of ὕλη is a technical term that literally translates to “wood”. And he is simply talking about the accidents produced by the substance, and the material substance itself which takes a form. He is not talking about matter that somehow denies the laws of thermodynamics lmao.
These are the same people that think Aristotle’s word for change [κίνησις] means local change (when this is merely one kind of change or motion). He is talking about change that occurs when a potency changes into act. It does not contradict Newtonian laws lol. So, the basic point is: NONE OF WHAT THEY ARE SAYING IS RELEVANT 😂
Run that by Shawn Carroll
Good video, keep doing them
This sounds pretty much exactly identical to St. Gregory Palamas essence energy distinction.
The Big secret is Palamas and Aquinas are really saying the same thing, as they’re both following St. Maximus, St. John of Damascus, St. Augustine and the Cappadocians.
@@bman5257 That’s what it seems like after endless doom scrolling it’s the same thing lol it’s a shame that it caused schism
@@antonioalas4814 The schism wasn’t over Palamism. It was over the Filioque and the Papacy
Well that’s true, Palamas was also anti- papacy
@@bman5257 Good thing you mentioned St. Agstine, which is an orthodox saint but was also a filioquist
Thomas, how did you rule out something you are not aware of as being the explanation for the origin of our universe?
This video isn't really talking about the "origin" of the universe. Instead, it starts with the observation that everything we see around us has a fundamental division between "what it is" and the fact "that it is" (essence vs. existence), and that this is only possible if there's something who's essence just is existence.
This whole argument does not make any sense to a Buddhist. I'm very confused about the whole thing, sounds very foreign. It will likely convince only people that are already sold to the idea.
As a follower of Sanatana Dharma (or a "Hindu"), I've managed to come to understand these arguments. I should point you to Dr. Edward Feser's books, especially his Five Proofs of the Existence of God, which explain it in depth.
Agreed, I would highly recommend Feser's work.
Why? I think his explanation was pretty clear. Thinks exist, things are created and destroyed, who makes that to happen? Who gives being to all things at every momment? Who establishes, creates and sustains everything in existence? Why things even exists and are the way they are?
This was hard to follow because I think it is confused. You describe "essence" as an abstract description and "existence" as a concrete instantiation. Then you want to explore what "puts those together," which is where it gets confused. It is the humans issuing descriptions and then attempting to match them to instances in the material world that binds them together. Your claim that your parents combined your essence and existence does not work, and patently so as your parents did not know your essence before you existed. There are many essences we can discuss, but usually we're interested in only those that match some instance in the world. I assume by "holds essence and existence together" you mean a successful match between essence and material. This is done by the interpreters you interact with. Those interpreters are material, or as you would say they "have existence."
If the question is about why there are abstractions/essence that we can successfully match to the material world, then I'm afraid that's a much more convoluted discussion. We've made a lot of progress, but ultimately it's still a mystery as to how a human might recognize you. If the question is simply why is there a material world, we still don't know and probably never will.
Note that positing God doesn't offer anything, except perhaps some psychological comfort.
In order for me to believe that a mind created our universe, do I need to understand what you are talking about...because I have no clue what you are saying.
The method of arriving at the traits of god seems nonsensical. Even if granting that all these attributes are "types of existence" then so are their opposites.
If they must be all power as it is a type of existence they must surely also be all weak as that is a type of existence. Same goes for intelligence with ignorance and even the matter one.
You say it must be immaterial as to be material is to limit ones existence but same as with the rest material is a type of existence.
If this purely existent entity exists then they must contain within themselves all things that exist. That includes matter and time.
And to preemptively respond to a suspected criticism of the first few examples.
Weakness is not just a lack of strength.
Ignorance is not just a lack of intellect.
Imagine a perfectly average human in all aspects. To describe this person as strong would be inaccurate as it implies that they are stronger than the average which defies the premise. Likewise to call them weak would be wrong as it would imply they are weaker than the average. The same applies to intelligence and ignorance.
Therefore, we can conclude these traits are not simply the lack of an attribute but a distinct attribute that so happens to be mutually exclusive with their opposite.
If I'm understanding the concept correctly, Aquinas isn't taking into account the fact that matter cannot be destroyed or created. From what we can tell, everything that exists now has always existed in different shapes and forms. He's beginning from the incorrect implication that there was ever a time when nothing existed.
Yeah, Christian apologetics are ridden with fallacies like that. It seems that most of them were written with Aristotles theory of substance in mind, which, begs more questions than it answers.
@@void_ling Why do they feel the need to split things into 2 categories?
Um.... No. Matter cannot be created nor destroyed is physics. God is not limited to our observerable physics. From Him everything is. God cannot be created nor destroyed, not matter. God can create and destroy matter.
@@christopherdowns2430 I’m trying to stick to evidence that can be found in nature. The existence of God is confirmed by your theory that he exists outside of the observable universe. Impossible to prove.
Many people's ideas are just assumptions or assumptions.
Jesus said himself he is the way the truth the life. Yet he was crucified. So explaining from ur church fathers is waste of time.
Aquinas wasn't a Church Father. He was a Catholic philosopher. I'm offering a philosophic argument for why God exists.
@@Thomas-Cahill sure am sure Jesus was a great philosopher. Big difference. Lastly the logos of john was not like the Greek stoics l believe, just to clarify the difference from Greek philosophical thought
Thing vs existence was fine until we learned that matter is in essence energy tied into knots. So matter is existence. This is word banter and represents how men tried to learn about things before science. Modern science destroyed all this. So in the modern view the material universe created all that exists.
Aquinas didn't come up with most of this stuff. You need to study the Muslim and Jewish philosophers he got his ideas from. Ibn Sina, Al Ghazali, Ibn Rushd and Maimonides..
No thank you
@@timcahill8902 you can always stay ignorant!
This is semi true. While Avicenna helped develop St. Thomas’s notion of esse, he did not, help as much as Diogenes or Boethius is certain respects such as the distinction between esse creatum and esse purus, as well as the denial of intrinsic formal causation. It is well known that St. Thomas is a major proponent of Aristotle, and argued extensively AGAINST the Arabs (such as their rejection of the intellectus possibiliis), but there was equally an influence from the Neo-Platonists.
@@rileypare7946 Thomas is only a proponent of Aristotle because of the work done before him by the Muslims and the Jews. He borrowed more from Ibn Rushd and Maimonides than he did from Ibn Sina. Ibn Sina was still arguing for a Neo Platonic version of God while it was Maimonides and Ibn Rushd that made a clean break towards Aristotle. It was these two who influenced Aquinas. Give credit where credit is due.
Saint Thomas Aquinas perfected aristotelian thought and corrected the many errors of the infidels