Favourite proof of God : How do atheists/agnostics, Jews or even Muslims dispute the fulfillment of the ff scripture? A- Isaiah 49:6 worldwide popularity of Abrahamism B- Philippians 2:11 - Worldwide popularity of Christianity C- Luke 4:24 - persistence of Judaism D- Genesis 16:12 & Quran 5:51 - rise of Islam --- Elaboration : --- A&B Isaiah 49:6 & Philippians 2:11 - in particular that it happened despite 3 centuries of persecution? - 700BC - Isaiah claimed Abrahamism would become worldwide. - 1st century AD - Paul claimed Christianity would become worldwide. C Luke 4:24 ? Jesus continues to be rejected by Jews particularly by the State of Israel since 1948, explaining the continued existence of Judaism and hence Christianity is the ONLY ethnically unbiased religion. ( I think? Buddha was born in Nepal though? Idk. Lol. Maybe Buddha is like Jesus. ) - Israel doesn't celebrate Christmas religiously while - Buddhist Japan & Hindu India & some Muslim countries celebrate Christmas secularly - and even more so than for birthdays of Buddha, Krishna or Mohammed. D Genesis 16:12 & Quran 5:51 ? There's also stuff about Pharisees Sadducees w/c apply to Muslims ( see David Wood K8DnIm1FkF4 on Matthew 6:1-34 etc ) who fight against Jews & Christians ( Quran 5:51, Genesis 16:12 ) and the stuff about anti-Christ eg Daniel or Johannine texts w/c point to Mohammed as the anti-Christ. - Genesis 16:12 - Deuteronomy 4:2, 13:3, 18:20 - Daniel 9:27 - Psalm 14:1, 83:6, Psalm 120:5 - Isaiah 29:11-13 / Matthew 15:7-9.(but don't mind Isaiah 29:10 quoted in Romans 11:8) - Matthew 6:1-34 & Matthew 23:1-39 - Johannine texts - John 1:29, 8:44 (cf 8:58), 10:26 (cf 10:30), 1 John 2:22, 4:3, 2 John 1:7, Revelation 2:9, 3:9, 6:1-17, 22:18-19 - 2 Corinthians 11:3-4, Galatians 1:8 - Quran 5:51 D.1 Daniel 9:27? Both Jesus the Messiah & Mohammed the anti-Christ had a ministry for 7 years. - Jesus from 25AD baptism to 32AD crucifixion. - Mohammed from 622AD year zero to 629AD assassinated by Jewish prophetess Zaynab bint Al-Harith PBUHer w a poisoned lamb showing Islam's 3 main enemies Christianity feminism Judaism. (But the assassination of Mohammed took 3 years.) D.2 Revelation 6:1-17? Why does Palestine flag have ALL 3 COLOURS OF NAZI FLAG RED WHITE AND BLACK and then green favourite colour of ISLAM/MOHAMMED/ALLAH, and why are they the ALL 4 COLOURS of the 4 horsemen of the apocalypse?! Because Jesus is the Messiah and Mohammed is the anti-Christ?! --- More info: - Ha6uVGB-Mtw @@SPIRIT2019
@@matthewvelazquez2013Actually that says the exact same thing. His cat is in a state of potentiality (superpositions) and when observed only one is actualized. Heisenberg (at the time all educated people would have all been familiar with this) stated that his findings were a validation of Aristotelian potency. It's all hand in glove.
Favourite proof of God: 1- Isaiah 49:6 worldwide popularity of Abrahamism 2- Philippians 2:11 - Worldwide popularity of Christianity 3- Luke 4:24 - persistence of Judaism 4- Genesis 16:12 - rise of Islam
How do atheists/agnostics, Jews or even Muslims dispute the fulfillment of the ff scripture? A- Isaiah 49:6 worldwide popularity of Abrahamism B- Philippians 2:11 - Worldwide popularity of Christianity C- Luke 4:24 - persistence of Judaism D- Genesis 16:12 & Quran 5:51 - rise of Islam --- Elaboration : --- A&B Isaiah 49:6 & Philippians 2:11 - in particular that it happened despite 3 centuries of persecution? - 700BC - Isaiah claimed Abrahamism would become worldwide. - 1st century AD - Paul claimed Christianity would become worldwide. C Luke 4:24 ? Jesus continues to be rejected by Jews particularly by the State of Israel since 1948, explaining the continued existence of Judaism and hence Christianity is the ONLY ethnically unbiased religion. ( I think? Buddha was born in Nepal though? Idk. Lol. Maybe Buddha is like Jesus. ) - Israel doesn't celebrate Christmas religiously while - Buddhist Japan & Hindu India & some Muslim countries celebrate Christmas secularly - and even more so than for birthdays of Buddha, Krishna or Mohammed. D Genesis 16:12 & Quran 5:51 ? There's also stuff about Pharisees Sadducees w/c apply to Muslims ( see David Wood K8DnIm1FkF4 on Matthew 6:1-34 etc ) who fight against Jews & Christians ( Quran 5:51, Genesis 16:12 ) and the stuff about anti-Christ eg Daniel or Johannine texts w/c point to Mohammed as the anti-Christ. - Genesis 16:12 - Deuteronomy 4:2, 13:3, 18:20 - Daniel 9:27 - Psalm 14:1, 83:6, Psalm 120:5 - Isaiah 29:11-13 / Matthew 15:7-9.(but don't mind Isaiah 29:10 quoted in Romans 11:8) - Matthew 6:1-34 & Matthew 23:1-39 - Johannine texts - John 1:29, 8:44 (cf 8:58), 10:26 (cf 10:30), 1 John 2:22, 4:3, 2 John 1:7, Revelation 2:9, 3:9, 6:1-17, 22:18-19 - 2 Corinthians 11:3-4, Galatians 1:8 - Quran 5:51 D.1 Daniel 9:27? Both Jesus the Messiah & Mohammed the anti-Christ had a ministry for 7 years. - Jesus from 25AD baptism to 32AD crucifixion. - Mohammed from 622AD year zero to 629AD assassinated by Jewish prophetess Zaynab bint Al-Harith PBUHer w a poisoned lamb showing Islam's 3 main enemies Christianity feminism Judaism. (But the assassination of Mohammed took 3 years.) D.2 Revelation 6:1-17? Why does Palestine flag have ALL 3 COLOURS OF NAZI FLAG RED WHITE AND BLACK and then green favourite colour of ISLAM/MOHAMMED/ALLAH, and why are they the ALL 4 COLOURS of the 4 horsemen of the apocalypse?! Because Jesus is the Messiah and Mohammed is the anti-Christ?! --- More info: - Ha6uVGB-Mtw
@@SanctusApologetics Can you make a video on Catholicism or something related? I left the Protestant church and I’m stuck between the two and Catholicism seems like it has veered from the early church like Protestants with some of the doctrines in Vatican 1 and 2. I like your videos and other catholic thinkers so I’m a bit stuck and would like to see how you would refute some of the arguments of orthodoxy against the Catholic Churches liberal doctrines etc Muslims worship the same God from Vatican 2 or why you believe orthodoxy to be false.
Generally after using arguments to prove the existence of God you have only a few options for different religions, namely Christianity Islam and Judaism. You just need the historical (for example) evidence to point to one of those
As a quick, powerful follow-up to the argument from motion, Exodus 3:13-15 is great. This is where God reveals His name to be "I AM", which perfectly aligns with the idea that God is pure actuality.
Can't based on this argument alone. This argument is meant to prove God exists (monotheism). You can look at reasons for the resurrection of Jesus, or just trust (faith) in His words etc, say over the other monotheistic religions. However, this argument doesn't get you to "therefore the Bible is true and Jesus is the Son of God".
This is good. I'm glad someone emphasized the "Per Se" casual chain distinction because I see it lacking in some of the "refutations" I see. I won't say I perfectly understand this stuff, but I have a better understanding of the argument from motion and the other 4 ways of Aquinas thanks to that Edward Feser book you recommended. I'll probably dive into the Summa at some point to get a greater understanding of this.
Why can't a thing actualize it self? I say it's possible Take me for instance: I have the potential to think about a subject I then can actualize that by thinking about the said subject I actualized my own potential So it is false to assume everything needs another thing to actualize its potential What do you guys think?
I think of that in this way: Your thoughts have the potential to exist. Said thoughts come from previous experiences: potential intrusive thoughts are actualized by a set of circumstances, potential willful thoughts are actualized by you.
Hey, I’ve been thinking about an objection that you might want to consider addressing in one of your future videos. It actually comes from Alex O'Connor during his discussion with Dr. Edward Feser. While it’s not directly against the First Way, it challenges the concept of potency: P.1: A cup of coffee can potentially have an infinite number of distinct temperatures (e.g., 90°C, 90.1°C, 90.11°C, etc.). P.2: If there are an infinite number of potential properties in the cup of coffee, then the collection of those potential properties is really infinite. P.3: A really infinite collection cannot exist in reality (since actual infinites do not exist). Conclusion: Therefore, the concept of potentiality must be false because it would imply the existence of a really infinite collection of potential properties. One important clarification: when I use the term "actual infinite," I don’t mean it in the Thomistic sense of actuality. Instead, I’m referring to an infinite number of potential properties (e.g., temperatures) existing in potentiality. If you don't understand the argument maybe check out Alex O'Connor's video with Edward Feser. It's at chapter "The Infinity Problem". Thanks.
@@jakxes3758 I’m familiar with it, now I’m not a follower of Fesers analytical tradition, but he did give a good response in regards to this question. Basically we have no issue with saying “infinite” potentials exist in a thing because well their not actual, because their merely potential they are not in a “full mode of being” and therefore it is not a real infinite set of actuals.
@@truthovertea Check out my recent video on the Trinity, where I cover that. And no, the argument from motion necessitates that the being which is pure act is simple.
@@THEBOULDER-u7whe is always thinking about the same thing , itself , this is what establishes the relation of the Father and the Son , since he is Infinite, he sees everything
isnt moving from potency to act a form of change? so wouldnt that make this definition of change circular? why should this view of change be accepted over any other? why is per se motion in virtue of a primary mover and not in virtue simply of prior movers? how is it deduced that essentially ordered chains require a primary mover? why cant a primary mover have potentials for accidental features? could god not exist in amorphous time without change? does your inference to divine simplicity rely on de ente argument?
1. Moving from potency to act is indeed change, but it's not circular. Aquinas defines change as the actualization of potential, which describes the process rather than merely restating it. It's a fundamental principle, not derived from other concepts. "Motion is nothing else than the reduction of something from potentiality to actuality." (Summa Theologica, I, Q.2, A.3) 2. This view of change should be accepted because it accurately describes observed phenomena and provides a coherent metaphysical framework. It explains how things can both persist and change, resolving the ancient problem of change raised by Parmenides and Heraclitus. "Everything which is moved acquires something by its motion, and attains to what it had not attained previously." (Summa Theologica, I, Q.9, A.1) 3. Per se motion requires a primary mover because an infinite regress of movers would negate the possibility of motion. Each secondary mover depends on the primary mover for its causal power, forming an essentially ordered series. "It is necessary to arrive at a first mover, put in motion by no other." (Summa Theologica, I, Q.2, A.3) 4. Essentially ordered chains require a primary mover because each member in the chain derives its causal power from the previous one. Without a primary source, there would be no power to transmit through the chain. "If there be no first cause among efficient causes, there will be no ultimate, nor any intermediate cause." (Summa Theologica, I, Q.2, A.3) 5. A primary mover can't have potentials for accidental features because it would then require an external actualizer, contradicting its primacy. The primary mover must be pure actuality to avoid infinite regress. "The first being must of necessity be in act, and in no way in potentiality." (Summa Theologica, I, Q.3, A.1) 6. God couldn't exist in amorphous time without change because time itself is a measure of change. God, being immutable and eternal, transcends time. His existence is not temporal but eternal. "God is not in time, but is above time, as holding all time in His power." (Summa Theologica, I, Q.10, A.2) 7a. Aquinas's argument for divine simplicity doesn't solely rely on the de ente argument, but it's a significant component. The de ente argument establishes God as pure existence (ipsum esse subsistens), which implies simplicity. "God is the same as His essence or nature." (Summa Theologica, I, Q.3, A.3) 7b. The second argument for divine simplicity stems from God's perfection and primacy. As the first cause and most perfect being, God can't have parts or potentiality, which would imply dependency or imperfection. "Every composite is posterior to its component parts, and is dependent on them; but God is the first being." (Summa Theologica, I, Q.3, A.7)
As you understand it well. Could you answer these two questions? 1. Does God not have free will, otherwise wouldn't He have had the potential to have done otherwise? 2. How does God think, wouldn't that require the actualization of a thought in his mind?
@@JScholastic 1. i think my problem is aquinas gives an account of change which uses change 2. what about other accounts of change which rely less on other metaphysical and ontological commitments? would they not be better to adopt? 3. from what i understand, per se chains are essentially derivation of relevant causal power from previous members, but i dont think i share the intuition this has to end at a primary source 4. from my intuitions, each derivation of relevant causal power can be explained, in part, by a previous member. now if we extend this to infinity, we have an explanation of all the members. 5. why would it require those potentials to be actualised? why could the primary not be the primary of one per se chain but a secondary of another? 6. but amorphous (non-metric) time where there is no objective passage of time may not necessitate change in the way regular time does (i presume I am incorrect on this because i do not know about time) 7. i think im confusing de ente with neoplatonic proof for some reason 7. why would parts entail dependency or perfection?
@@ChristLovesYouSoMuch maybe god could have sourcehood freewill god exists in a timeless present (in thomism), so thought as a process (act to potency) would be rejected, but God can still have thoughts within his mind or through the minds of his creation
If what is in motion is put in motion by another then every thought i have is brought about by something outside of myself. So libertarian free will is not real. So how do you answer the problem of evil without blaming human free will?
@@metatron4890 God actualizes our potential to exist and to think based our free will. You realize that secondary causes still have the ability to direct causality.
@SanctusApologetics Libertarian free will states that the source of our thoughts are from ourselves and nothing outside of ourselves. If anything outside of the self causes the self to think then Libertarian free will is false.
@@metatron4890 I would reject such a notion of free will, or I wouldn’t affirm your conception of it. God keeps our rational soul in existence, this does not contradict our ability to choose what we do, he just keeps it in existence. Secondary causality still has causal power, there’s no issue here with free will.
@SanctusApologetics The power to do otherwise and the self being the only source of our actions are the two necessary conditions for free will. Anything else isn't libertarian free will. These aren't made-up standards by me.
![“อ.เบียร์ คนตื่นธรรม” มาตามคำเรียกร้อง แหกศาสตร์ฮวงจุ้ย เตือนสติอย่างมงาย | แฉ 7 พ.ย. 67 [1/3]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/5fc4S3xBNfc/mqdefault.jpg)
I’ve covered this topic before, but I wanted to make a better formulation of it, more consistent to the classical Thomist tradition.
Hey Sanctus, what chant did you use for the intro of your early videos?
Favourite proof of God : How do atheists/agnostics, Jews or even Muslims dispute the fulfillment of the ff scripture?
A- Isaiah 49:6 worldwide popularity of Abrahamism
B- Philippians 2:11 - Worldwide popularity of Christianity
C- Luke 4:24 - persistence of Judaism
D- Genesis 16:12 & Quran 5:51 - rise of Islam
---
Elaboration :
---
A&B
Isaiah 49:6 & Philippians 2:11 - in particular that it happened despite 3 centuries of persecution?
- 700BC - Isaiah claimed Abrahamism would become worldwide.
- 1st century AD - Paul claimed Christianity would become worldwide.
C
Luke 4:24 ?
Jesus continues to be rejected by Jews particularly by the State of Israel since 1948, explaining the continued existence of Judaism and hence Christianity is the ONLY ethnically unbiased religion.
( I think? Buddha was born in Nepal though? Idk. Lol. Maybe Buddha is like Jesus. )
- Israel doesn't celebrate Christmas religiously while
- Buddhist Japan & Hindu India & some Muslim countries celebrate Christmas secularly
- and even more so than for birthdays of Buddha, Krishna or Mohammed.
D
Genesis 16:12 & Quran 5:51 ?
There's also stuff about Pharisees Sadducees w/c apply to Muslims ( see David Wood K8DnIm1FkF4 on Matthew 6:1-34 etc ) who fight against Jews & Christians ( Quran 5:51, Genesis 16:12 ) and the stuff about anti-Christ eg Daniel or Johannine texts w/c point to Mohammed as the anti-Christ.
- Genesis 16:12
- Deuteronomy 4:2, 13:3, 18:20
- Daniel 9:27
- Psalm 14:1, 83:6, Psalm 120:5
- Isaiah 29:11-13 / Matthew 15:7-9.(but don't mind Isaiah 29:10 quoted in Romans 11:8)
- Matthew 6:1-34 & Matthew 23:1-39
- Johannine texts - John 1:29, 8:44 (cf 8:58), 10:26 (cf 10:30), 1 John 2:22, 4:3, 2 John 1:7, Revelation 2:9, 3:9, 6:1-17, 22:18-19
- 2 Corinthians 11:3-4, Galatians 1:8
- Quran 5:51
D.1
Daniel 9:27?
Both Jesus the Messiah & Mohammed the anti-Christ had a ministry for 7 years.
- Jesus from 25AD baptism to 32AD crucifixion.
- Mohammed from 622AD year zero to 629AD assassinated by Jewish prophetess Zaynab bint Al-Harith PBUHer w a poisoned lamb showing Islam's 3 main enemies Christianity feminism Judaism. (But the assassination of Mohammed took 3 years.)
D.2
Revelation 6:1-17?
Why does Palestine flag have ALL 3 COLOURS OF NAZI FLAG RED WHITE AND BLACK and then green favourite colour of ISLAM/MOHAMMED/ALLAH, and why are they the ALL 4 COLOURS of the 4 horsemen of the apocalypse?! Because Jesus is the Messiah and Mohammed is the anti-Christ?!
---
More info:
- Ha6uVGB-Mtw
@@SPIRIT2019
@@nicbentulan Why are you pinging me? Lol. I mean, I don't see why some of this would prove Scripture's reliability, but I think generally it's okay.
@@SPIRIT2019 thanks. I ping to attract more discussion.
A viewer can not be simultaneously actually subscribed and potentially subscribed to Sanctus.
If one has the potential to subscribe; and he subscribes, he actualises the potential of subscribing. As was established before
Schrodinger's Subscriber begs to differ.
@@FlemishCatholicHi Flemish
@@logicus.thomistica hello maan
@@matthewvelazquez2013Actually that says the exact same thing. His cat is in a state of potentiality (superpositions) and when observed only one is actualized.
Heisenberg (at the time all educated people would have all been familiar with this) stated that his findings were a validation of Aristotelian potency. It's all hand in glove.
Potentially I liked this video… now actually I have liked this video😎
The fact that the 'Orthodox' don't like Aquinas is astonishing. Prolly cause he refutes them, but how could one not just eat this up! Thanks Sanctus.
They prefer wearing yamakas and blaspheming the virgin mary
We can agree with Aquinas as long as it doesn't contradict our theology. St. Gennadios Scholarios reconciled Aquinas' teachings with Orthodoxy
@@marcomaterazzi2434St. Gennadios work is so obscure for English speakers.
out of topic but i just love the pieces you use in the background of your videos
Really love this channel
Favourite proof of God: 1- Isaiah 49:6 worldwide popularity of Abrahamism
2- Philippians 2:11 - Worldwide popularity of Christianity
3- Luke 4:24 - persistence of Judaism
4- Genesis 16:12 - rise of Islam
How do atheists/agnostics, Jews or even Muslims dispute the fulfillment of the ff scripture?
A- Isaiah 49:6 worldwide popularity of Abrahamism
B- Philippians 2:11 - Worldwide popularity of Christianity
C- Luke 4:24 - persistence of Judaism
D- Genesis 16:12 & Quran 5:51 - rise of Islam
---
Elaboration :
---
A&B
Isaiah 49:6 & Philippians 2:11 - in particular that it happened despite 3 centuries of persecution?
- 700BC - Isaiah claimed Abrahamism would become worldwide.
- 1st century AD - Paul claimed Christianity would become worldwide.
C
Luke 4:24 ?
Jesus continues to be rejected by Jews particularly by the State of Israel since 1948, explaining the continued existence of Judaism and hence Christianity is the ONLY ethnically unbiased religion.
( I think? Buddha was born in Nepal though? Idk. Lol. Maybe Buddha is like Jesus. )
- Israel doesn't celebrate Christmas religiously while
- Buddhist Japan & Hindu India & some Muslim countries celebrate Christmas secularly
- and even more so than for birthdays of Buddha, Krishna or Mohammed.
D
Genesis 16:12 & Quran 5:51 ?
There's also stuff about Pharisees Sadducees w/c apply to Muslims ( see David Wood K8DnIm1FkF4 on Matthew 6:1-34 etc ) who fight against Jews & Christians ( Quran 5:51, Genesis 16:12 ) and the stuff about anti-Christ eg Daniel or Johannine texts w/c point to Mohammed as the anti-Christ.
- Genesis 16:12
- Deuteronomy 4:2, 13:3, 18:20
- Daniel 9:27
- Psalm 14:1, 83:6, Psalm 120:5
- Isaiah 29:11-13 / Matthew 15:7-9.(but don't mind Isaiah 29:10 quoted in Romans 11:8)
- Matthew 6:1-34 & Matthew 23:1-39
- Johannine texts - John 1:29, 8:44 (cf 8:58), 10:26 (cf 10:30), 1 John 2:22, 4:3, 2 John 1:7, Revelation 2:9, 3:9, 6:1-17, 22:18-19
- 2 Corinthians 11:3-4, Galatians 1:8
- Quran 5:51
D.1
Daniel 9:27?
Both Jesus the Messiah & Mohammed the anti-Christ had a ministry for 7 years.
- Jesus from 25AD baptism to 32AD crucifixion.
- Mohammed from 622AD year zero to 629AD assassinated by Jewish prophetess Zaynab bint Al-Harith PBUHer w a poisoned lamb showing Islam's 3 main enemies Christianity feminism Judaism. (But the assassination of Mohammed took 3 years.)
D.2
Revelation 6:1-17?
Why does Palestine flag have ALL 3 COLOURS OF NAZI FLAG RED WHITE AND BLACK and then green favourite colour of ISLAM/MOHAMMED/ALLAH, and why are they the ALL 4 COLOURS of the 4 horsemen of the apocalypse?! Because Jesus is the Messiah and Mohammed is the anti-Christ?!
---
More info:
- Ha6uVGB-Mtw
The good editing put my sub into motion
This channel represents Thomism very well
@@CriticalThomist thank you!
Greatest Argument for God’s existence.
I agree.
@@SanctusApologeticsAre you a Catholic or Orthodox?
@@darealkezz806 Catholic
@@SanctusApologetics Can you make a video on Catholicism or something related? I left the Protestant church and I’m stuck between the two and Catholicism seems like it has veered from the early church like Protestants with some of the doctrines in Vatican 1 and 2. I like your videos and other catholic thinkers so I’m a bit stuck and would like to see how you would refute some of the arguments of orthodoxy against the Catholic Churches liberal doctrines etc Muslims worship the same God from Vatican 2 or why you believe orthodoxy to be false.
Definitely up there. I love TAG so much though. @SanctusApologetics you should make a video on that some time
Glory to God! I am currently in the process of converting to the catholic church
My new favorite channel - it’s great to see content like this
I love this argument, now how can I argue that this God is the God of the Bible?
Generally after using arguments to prove the existence of God you have only a few options for different religions, namely Christianity Islam and Judaism. You just need the historical (for example) evidence to point to one of those
As a quick, powerful follow-up to the argument from motion, Exodus 3:13-15 is great. This is where God reveals His name to be "I AM", which perfectly aligns with the idea that God is pure actuality.
Can't based on this argument alone. This argument is meant to prove God exists (monotheism). You can look at reasons for the resurrection of Jesus, or just trust (faith) in His words etc, say over the other monotheistic religions. However, this argument doesn't get you to "therefore the Bible is true and Jesus is the Son of God".
I just picked up the summa 😊
My fav argument is #3!
W Breakdown 🔥
Great video as always!
This is good. I'm glad someone emphasized the "Per Se" casual chain distinction because I see it lacking in some of the "refutations" I see.
I won't say I perfectly understand this stuff, but I have a better understanding of the argument from motion and the other 4 ways of Aquinas thanks to that Edward Feser book you recommended. I'll probably dive into the Summa at some point to get a greater understanding of this.
Based
Simply wonderful
Very interesting. 10/10
Very good
Why can't a thing actualize it self? I say it's possible
Take me for instance:
I have the potential to think about a subject
I then can actualize that by thinking about the said subject
I actualized my own potential
So it is false to assume everything needs another thing to actualize its potential
What do you guys think?
I think of that in this way:
Your thoughts have the potential to exist. Said thoughts come from previous experiences: potential intrusive thoughts are actualized by a set of circumstances, potential willful thoughts are actualized by you.
Hey, I’ve been thinking about an objection that you might want to consider addressing in one of your future videos. It actually comes from Alex O'Connor during his discussion with Dr. Edward Feser. While it’s not directly against the First Way, it challenges the concept of potency:
P.1: A cup of coffee can potentially have an infinite number of distinct temperatures (e.g., 90°C, 90.1°C, 90.11°C, etc.).
P.2: If there are an infinite number of potential properties in the cup of coffee, then the collection of those potential properties is really infinite.
P.3: A really infinite collection cannot exist in reality (since actual infinites do not exist).
Conclusion: Therefore, the concept of potentiality must be false because it would imply the existence of a really infinite collection of potential properties.
One important clarification: when I use the term "actual infinite," I don’t mean it in the Thomistic sense of actuality. Instead, I’m referring to an infinite number of potential properties (e.g., temperatures) existing in potentiality.
If you don't understand the argument maybe check out Alex O'Connor's video with Edward Feser. It's at chapter "The Infinity Problem".
Thanks.
@@jakxes3758 I’m familiar with it, now I’m not a follower of Fesers analytical tradition, but he did give a good response in regards to this question. Basically we have no issue with saying “infinite” potentials exist in a thing because well their not actual, because their merely potential they are not in a “full mode of being” and therefore it is not a real infinite set of actuals.
Thomistic Disputations made a good response to this.
🔥
Is there a way to defend the AFM without DDS? I have a hard time with DDS, seems very hard to overcome modal collapse or even work with the Trinity.
@@truthovertea Check out my recent video on the Trinity, where I cover that. And no, the argument from motion necessitates that the being which is pure act is simple.
@ Thanks for the response, I will definitely check that out. Any resources on responses to the modal collapse objection?
@ philpapers.org/rec/TOMCTM
Excuse me, THE BOULDER has a question. Would the process of God thinking (or changing of mental states) be God undergoing change?
No
It’s one singular, eternal act
@@FlemishCatholic THE BOULDER is not very philosophically intelligent and would like a bit more elaboration
@@THEBOULDER-u7whe is always thinking about the same thing , itself , this is what establishes the relation of the Father and the Son , since he is Infinite, he sees everything
Song(s)?
Sanctus posting results in me actualizing my potential to click
My money has motion
clean video
isnt moving from potency to act a form of change? so wouldnt that make this definition of change circular?
why should this view of change be accepted over any other?
why is per se motion in virtue of a primary mover and not in virtue simply of prior movers?
how is it deduced that essentially ordered chains require a primary mover?
why cant a primary mover have potentials for accidental features?
could god not exist in amorphous time without change?
does your inference to divine simplicity rely on de ente argument?
1. Moving from potency to act is indeed change, but it's not circular. Aquinas defines change as the actualization of potential, which describes the process rather than merely restating it. It's a fundamental principle, not derived from other concepts.
"Motion is nothing else than the reduction of something from potentiality to actuality." (Summa Theologica, I, Q.2, A.3)
2. This view of change should be accepted because it accurately describes observed phenomena and provides a coherent metaphysical framework. It explains how things can both persist and change, resolving the ancient problem of change raised by Parmenides and Heraclitus.
"Everything which is moved acquires something by its motion, and attains to what it had not attained previously." (Summa Theologica, I, Q.9, A.1)
3. Per se motion requires a primary mover because an infinite regress of movers would negate the possibility of motion. Each secondary mover depends on the primary mover for its causal power, forming an essentially ordered series.
"It is necessary to arrive at a first mover, put in motion by no other." (Summa Theologica, I, Q.2, A.3)
4. Essentially ordered chains require a primary mover because each member in the chain derives its causal power from the previous one. Without a primary source, there would be no power to transmit through the chain.
"If there be no first cause among efficient causes, there will be no ultimate, nor any intermediate cause." (Summa Theologica, I, Q.2, A.3)
5. A primary mover can't have potentials for accidental features because it would then require an external actualizer, contradicting its primacy. The primary mover must be pure actuality to avoid infinite regress.
"The first being must of necessity be in act, and in no way in potentiality." (Summa Theologica, I, Q.3, A.1)
6. God couldn't exist in amorphous time without change because time itself is a measure of change. God, being immutable and eternal, transcends time. His existence is not temporal but eternal.
"God is not in time, but is above time, as holding all time in His power." (Summa Theologica, I, Q.10, A.2)
7a. Aquinas's argument for divine simplicity doesn't solely rely on the de ente argument, but it's a significant component. The de ente argument establishes God as pure existence (ipsum esse subsistens), which implies simplicity.
"God is the same as His essence or nature." (Summa Theologica, I, Q.3, A.3)
7b. The second argument for divine simplicity stems from God's perfection and primacy. As the first cause and most perfect being, God can't have parts or potentiality, which would imply dependency or imperfection.
"Every composite is posterior to its component parts, and is dependent on them; but God is the first being." (Summa Theologica, I, Q.3, A.7)
As you understand it well. Could you answer these two questions? 1. Does God not have free will, otherwise wouldn't He have had the potential to have done otherwise? 2. How does God think, wouldn't that require the actualization of a thought in his mind?
@@JScholastic 1. i think my problem is aquinas gives an account of change which uses change
2. what about other accounts of change which rely less on other metaphysical and ontological commitments? would they not be better to adopt?
3. from what i understand, per se chains are essentially derivation of relevant causal power from previous members, but i dont think i share the intuition this has to end at a primary source
4. from my intuitions, each derivation of relevant causal power can be explained, in part, by a previous member. now if we extend this to infinity, we have an explanation of all the members.
5. why would it require those potentials to be actualised? why could the primary not be the primary of one per se chain but a secondary of another?
6. but amorphous (non-metric) time where there is no objective passage of time may not necessitate change in the way regular time does (i presume I am incorrect on this because i do not know about time)
7. i think im confusing de ente with neoplatonic proof for some reason
7. why would parts entail dependency or perfection?
@@ChristLovesYouSoMuch maybe god could have sourcehood freewill
god exists in a timeless present (in thomism), so thought as a process (act to potency) would be rejected, but God can still have thoughts within his mind or through the minds of his creation
Thank you.
If what is in motion is put in motion by another then every thought i have is brought about by something outside of myself. So libertarian free will is not real. So how do you answer the problem of evil without blaming human free will?
@@metatron4890 God actualizes our potential to exist and to think based our free will. You realize that secondary causes still have the ability to direct causality.
@SanctusApologetics Libertarian free will states that the source of our thoughts are from ourselves and nothing outside of ourselves. If anything outside of the self causes the self to think then Libertarian free will is false.
@@metatron4890 I would reject such a notion of free will, or I wouldn’t affirm your conception of it. God keeps our rational soul in existence, this does not contradict our ability to choose what we do, he just keeps it in existence. Secondary causality still has causal power, there’s no issue here with free will.
@SanctusApologetics The power to do otherwise and the self being the only source of our actions are the two necessary conditions for free will. Anything else isn't libertarian free will. These aren't made-up standards by me.
@@metatron4890 I hold to free will without a doubt, but libertarian free will or the form of it that you presented, I reject.
You look like a motion