I remember hearing that Aquinas's arguments require understanding the medieval distinctions between different forms of causality: _per accidens_ and _per se_. And it is perfectly conceivable to think that there was a father to a father which also had a father, ad infinitum. The difference is that there needed to be cause to begin the existence/being of the entire chain (per se), and Aquinas's argument was regarding the first cause of existence/being itself (per accidens).
Correct. You can imagine infinite chain in Aristotelian sense where one being is cause by another, but since Aquinas regards God as the cause of all that is (Being), not just as causation that once happened and its over (example: birth), but in every possible sense, and all the time, that chain is in time. Since chain in time can not be infinite, there must be a being that is the cause of that chain - and that is God. To explain it in a easier way, there can be a chain where there was a father to a father which also had a father etc. as it is in Aristotelian example, with eternal world and prime mover. In Aquinas philosophy we can use imperfect analogy of a chain with power plant (as the prime mover and source of all Being). In that chain we have power plant that produces electricity, which goes trough power line, which powers TV. Since that chain is in time, if you remove any of the elements, especially the prime source, electric power cease to exist - the chain crushes.
@@sircopperfield7420 I don't understand why finiteness of time is assumed here. It is perfectly conceivable to assume time is infinite (as well as space). There is no metaphysical reason for time to be finite. And the big bang is not proof finiteness, as it all it states is that in period in time matter was very highly ordered and very close to each other. It could be that that was the "beginning" of spacetime, it might not.
@@GingerGames You are right once again, Aquinas himself said that we, philosophically, can not know for sure if the world is created in eternity (eternal world of Aristotle) or ex nihilo (Biblical creation). Prime mover is required in both cases, of course.
Your explanations really help me -- especially when you draw them out! This is an instance where seeing you draw it would have helped my brain process the argument structure! (Am also drawing myself but wanted to share that, as a teaching tool, it's been effective for me with your videos!)
Always a pleasure to watch lectures about the pinnacle of philosophy, given to us by the likes of Aristotle and St. Thomas. Incredibly refined and standing to reason.
Hey Daniel, I'm currently reading Ed Feser's "The Last Superstition", and he makes the claim that when Aquinas speaks of a First Cause, he isn't speaking about the thing at the beginning of time that created the universe. In fact, Aquinas makes no claim as to whether the universe had a beginning or if it always existed. Rather, he makes a distinction between - a cause *per accidens* (a father begetting a son who begets a son who begets a son; if the first father dies, his death has no effect on whether or not his son can produce a child) vs - a cause *per se* (the classic a rock is moved by a stick that's moved by a hand. The movement is *immediately* affecting the stick which is immediately affecting the rock.) The idea is that the First Way refers to causes per se. If I hold my hand up and move it to the right, what's allowing that to happen is something in act that causes the change in my hand from potentially to the right to actually to the right, namely my arm muscle. What causes my arm muscle from potentially twitching to actually twitching is something that's already in act, namely motor neurons. and etc and etc. all the way down to where God is that "thing" that's always in actuality (or is it my soul? how does free will come into this?). Aquinas isn't speaking on causes going further and further backwards into the past. He is speaking on causes going further and further downwards in the present, where God is the foundation of it all! But of course, this is from a secondhand source. I need to have a glance at the Summa sometime, but I'm backlogged on my reading list.
Is the argument of simplicity (regarding gods properties - omnipotence etc.) the same as the one Swinburne mentions? I only his version, but Thomas' argument seems to go in the same direction. And thank you for the uploads in the past days, makes the curfew much more bearable ;)
When you explain the first way, it seems that you are explaining it in a linear series of causes, when it is actually a hierarchical series of causes which Aquinas is talking about. That is a very important distinction since he himself did not think we can show there to be a first temporal beginning.
What do you think of this objection to the first way: The first way is sound. If the first way is sound, then God is pure act. If God is pure act, then God is intrinsically and extrinsically changeless. If God is intrinsically and extrinsically changeless, then his actions are intrinsically and extrinsically changeless. If his actions are intrinsically and extrinsically changeless, then God’s act of creating and sustaining the universe is intrinsically and extrinsically changeless. If God’s act of creating and sustaining the universe is intrinsically and extrinsically changeless, then the universe is intrinsically and extrinsically changeless. If the universe is intrinsically and extrinsically changeless, then the A theory of time is false. If the A theory of time is false, then the first premise of the first way is false. If the first premise of the first way is false, then the first way is false. Therefore, the first way is false
Hume 'No-one has witnessed what caused the cause'. If God is outside of space and time why is Aquinas using time in a linear sense? Are sense impressions enough?
I reject the 4th premise. If it cannot continue to go back and back without knowing an objective cause then the correct position is to simply say "we do not know". Otherwise he is fallaciously engaging in the arguement from ignorance.
I remember hearing that Aquinas's arguments require understanding the medieval distinctions between different forms of causality: _per accidens_ and _per se_. And it is perfectly conceivable to think that there was a father to a father which also had a father, ad infinitum. The difference is that there needed to be cause to begin the existence/being of the entire chain (per se), and Aquinas's argument was regarding the first cause of existence/being itself (per accidens).
Correct. You can imagine infinite chain in Aristotelian sense where one being is cause by another, but since Aquinas regards God as the cause of all that is (Being), not just as causation that once happened and its over (example: birth), but in every possible sense, and all the time, that chain is in time. Since chain in time can not be infinite, there must be a being that is the cause of that chain - and that is God.
To explain it in a easier way, there can be a chain where there was a father to a father which also had a father etc. as it is in Aristotelian example, with eternal world and prime mover.
In Aquinas philosophy we can use imperfect analogy of a chain with power plant (as the prime mover and source of all Being). In that chain we have power plant that produces electricity, which goes trough power line, which powers TV. Since that chain is in time, if you remove any of the elements, especially the prime source, electric power cease to exist - the chain crushes.
@@sircopperfield7420 I don't understand why finiteness of time is assumed here. It is perfectly conceivable to assume time is infinite (as well as space). There is no metaphysical reason for time to be finite.
And the big bang is not proof finiteness, as it all it states is that in period in time matter was very highly ordered and very close to each other. It could be that that was the "beginning" of spacetime, it might not.
@@GingerGames You are right once again, Aquinas himself said that we, philosophically, can not know for sure if the world is created in eternity (eternal world of Aristotle) or ex nihilo (Biblical creation).
Prime mover is required in both cases, of course.
@@sircopperfield7420 Thank you for clearing things up :)
Hi sir; will it be possible for you to make a bookshelf tour of your personal library?
I second this
Yes, me too!
Maybe a list of books for a depper medieval philosophy dive?
Great lecture! Hope that there will be lectures on Aquinas's ethics.
Your explanations really help me -- especially when you draw them out! This is an instance where seeing you draw it would have helped my brain process the argument structure! (Am also drawing myself but wanted to share that, as a teaching tool, it's been effective for me with your videos!)
Always a pleasure to watch lectures about the pinnacle of philosophy, given to us by the likes of Aristotle and St. Thomas. Incredibly refined and standing to reason.
Thank you very much for this.
Thanks You for the videos. I'm catholic and a lot of other videos start with what sounds like a hagiography of St. Thomas.
Thank you sir.
Hey Daniel,
I'm currently reading Ed Feser's "The Last Superstition", and he makes the claim that when Aquinas speaks of a First Cause, he isn't speaking about the thing at the beginning of time that created the universe. In fact, Aquinas makes no claim as to whether the universe had a beginning or if it always existed. Rather, he makes a distinction between
- a cause *per accidens* (a father begetting a son who begets a son who begets a son; if the first father dies, his death has no effect on whether or not his son can produce a child)
vs
- a cause *per se* (the classic a rock is moved by a stick that's moved by a hand. The movement is *immediately* affecting the stick which is immediately affecting the rock.)
The idea is that the First Way refers to causes per se. If I hold my hand up and move it to the right, what's allowing that to happen is something in act that causes the change in my hand from potentially to the right to actually to the right, namely my arm muscle. What causes my arm muscle from potentially twitching to actually twitching is something that's already in act, namely motor neurons. and etc and etc. all the way down to where God is that "thing" that's always in actuality (or is it my soul? how does free will come into this?).
Aquinas isn't speaking on causes going further and further backwards into the past. He is speaking on causes going further and further downwards in the present, where God is the foundation of it all!
But of course, this is from a secondhand source. I need to have a glance at the Summa sometime, but I'm backlogged on my reading list.
Is the argument of simplicity (regarding gods properties - omnipotence etc.) the same as the one Swinburne mentions? I only his version, but Thomas' argument seems to go in the same direction.
And thank you for the uploads in the past days, makes the curfew much more bearable ;)
When you explain the first way, it seems that you are explaining it in a linear series of causes, when it is actually a hierarchical series of causes which Aquinas is talking about. That is a very important distinction since he himself did not think we can show there to be a first temporal beginning.
What do you think of this objection to the first way:
The first way is sound.
If the first way is sound, then God is pure act.
If God is pure act, then God is intrinsically and extrinsically changeless.
If God is intrinsically and extrinsically changeless, then his actions are intrinsically and extrinsically changeless.
If his actions are intrinsically and extrinsically changeless, then God’s act of creating and sustaining the universe is intrinsically and extrinsically changeless.
If God’s act of creating and sustaining the universe is intrinsically and extrinsically changeless, then the universe is intrinsically and extrinsically changeless.
If the universe is intrinsically and extrinsically changeless, then the A theory of time is false.
If the A theory of time is false, then the first premise of the first way is false.
If the first premise of the first way is false, then the first way is false.
Therefore, the first way is false
Hume 'No-one has witnessed what caused the cause'.
If God is outside of space and time why is Aquinas using time in a linear sense? Are sense impressions enough?
I reject the 4th premise. If it cannot continue to go back and back without knowing an objective cause then the correct position is to simply say "we do not know". Otherwise he is fallaciously engaging in the arguement from ignorance.
Elucidating!
God existence is not that complicated , just open your eyes and look around. this dude thinks hes a Newton or Einstein.