Another part of a video series from Wordonfire.org. Bishop Barron will be commenting on subjects from modern day culture. For more visit www.wordonfire.org/
I teach a course in a Catholic University that discusses the various ways in which Science, Culture, and Religion have influenced each other from Aristotle to the present day. We are currently discussing Aquinas's grand synthesis of Catholic theology and Aristotle's philosophy. Your comments here are really helpful - thank you for taking the time to post them.
Yet "fair-minded" Protestants ought not forget the "Church's" exclusivity stated by the Council of Trent...."there is no salvation outside the Catholic Church." This pervasive Triumphalism throughout Catholic thought feeds its systemic false pride, and sets up its own clergy for great falls. I know why I am a Protestant.
Father, I came across your video's and can't stop watching them. WOW. They are fantastic. I have been emailing them to a lot of friends and relatives. I want to thank you for doing this. It has made me so happy and given me so much peace. keep them coming.
I have always been Catholic, but Father Barron, by the grace of God you have given me a sense of the reality of God through the contingency concept. God is not an item in the world! God is not one true, good, loving and just thing, God is il Puro atto di Essere stessa. God is Being itself! That is why the universe should exist at all!
It has been said that "if I am free, then God does not exist". But I will turn that right around and say that I am free because of God. God by is very nature is Freedom itself, in which I find my deepest freedom. Their would be no free human beings if it wasn't for that reality who is "to be" itself.
St. Thomas Aquinas is, personally, one of my favorite saints. He is a very inspiring theologian and writer. The oldest university in Asia is named after him.
University of Sto. Tomas in Manila, Philippines, or to call it properly, "The Pontifical and Royal University of Santo Tomas, the Catholic University of the Philippines". But funny enough, it was only granted its autonomy I think centuries after its establishment.
I used to go there for checkup but because of this pandemic, I am not able to. The doctors and nurses there are professional and take a good care of you. I used to attend mass there also
We use philosophical criteria. Nature of the act, motive, intention, consequences, etc. And for justice, take a good long look at Plato's Republic: it is dedicated to the adjudication of precisely this question.
@butternutsquashist Thomas indeed loved science; but he didn't reduce all knowledge to science. He knew that there are other intellectual disciplines, including mathematics, philosophy, and theology, which follow their own methods but which are no less rational than the sciences. And he would not--as you do--drive a wedge between faith and reason; and he did indeed think that God's existence can be proven through arguments from contingency.
Thank you for this, Fr. Barron! I watched it about two years ago, and it spurred me to reconsider God and Catholicism seriously. (I had lapsed into something of a lazy agnosticism, though I was raised Catholic.) Since then, I've been studying Thomism on my own with great vigor, and I must say that this system of thought has completely changed my whole life in many respects, especially my views on morality and metaphysics. Your video played a huge part in my eager return to the Church. God bless!
Have you checked out the Thomistic Institute TH-cam channel? Bishop Barron is who got me interested in St. Thomas Aquinas and the channel I mentioned is excellent. God Bless.
He doesn't assume it; he proves it, precisely through the use of the categories of potency and act. To move, on Aquinas's reading, means to make the transition from potency to act. To be moved, a thing must be in potency and to cause motion, a thing must be in act. Therefore we can conclude that nothing can move itself, since nothing can be, simultaneously, in potency and act in the same respect.
Another great video! I just received the next installment of the pivotal players. I can’t wait to see them and to read my Word on Fire Bible! The fire for truth is contagious. I Praise God for all Word on Fire and Bishop Barron have done.
Thank you Fr. Barron and for your book on Thomas Aquinas which I was able to read recently. The adventure has started. I also believe that the words of Thomas Aquinas can speak to us in the 21st century. New Atheism spends much of its effort in mocking religion yet God still stretches His hand out to them in peace. Joy of our faith can help heal. Courage to show this joy through words and action in our daily lives can inspire people to (re)connect with Christ. This is our vocation.
Sure I did. I told you that the suppression of a first cause entails the suppression of all subsequent causes and hence the negation of the contingent event right in front of us. I think I added something like "the multiplication of zero even by infinity never adds up to anything but zero."
My science education (archeology, Paleoanthropology, evolution, geology as well as physics and biology), in college, deepened my faith in God and my sense of awe in His creation.
Another great talk on aquinas. that was really relevant to my believes and Truths related to faith, reason and science. This is great. I seek to continue studying aquinas theology through the Thomastic Institute and continue to help people through my aquinas theology reflections and related experience and motivation to live a moral life of my highest calling and to help all like-minded people I can with their needs and give them reassurance In their faith and potential.
But you have to be much more specific. The major categories that Thomas was using were potency and act. These are metaphysical terms, not physical or scientific terms, in the modern sense. Therefore, I don't see how the development of the empirical sciences affects them in any way. Show me precisely how Thomas got the "wrong answers" through his proof.
@Mrmentalmadness123 I mean truths having to do with God and God's dealings with the world. The ground for these claims is metaphysical, psychological, and historical. The problem is that you're using "evidence" in such a narrow, restricted sense, designating basically physical traces and the results of experiments.
I couldn't agree more. So show me precisely where you think the argument from contingency is untruthful. I've answered every objection you've raised so far.
I am not a Christian but I found this talk to be wonderfully clear and insightful. I always wondered what “Christian philosophy“ might mean as the two words seemed mutually exclusive. But that wasn’t the case listening to this man.
Good video. It's great to see how even an academic interest in religion (such as researching Aquinas) could evolve into receiving a long lasting spiritual consolation (in Fr. Barron's case, the assurance that God exists...something which even the most devout saints have struggled with).
It doesn't. To know is to bring one's mind correctly into conformity with reality. I'm just quarreling with your assertion that knowledge is limited to scientific knowledge. I'm arguing that poetry, literature, intuition, and philosophy can render real knowledge. Science cannot pronounce on the nature of the good or what makes something beautiful or what constitutes a just society or why there is something rather than nothing.
just to let you know, in fact a few months after Fr Barron was appointed as rector to the seminary, there was a seminar held on the campus that addressed that issue...about priests and religious who are addicts; whether food, drugs, alcohol, etc. It was well-done and informative. There's a supportive network for clergy and religious if they find themselves unable to care for themselves, no matter the cause.
All he is endeavoring to prove is that a first unmoved mover exists. I would argue that he has successfully done that. It then takes him hundreds of more pages and dozens of more arguments to demonstrate that this prime mover has all of the characteristics that we associate with God.
When you know and truly understand that 2 + 2 = 4, you have stepped out of a purely empirical world. You have grasped a time and space transcending truth.
Especially once you understand that 2 + 2 = 100 as well (when counting in a binary numeral system instead of a decimal numeral system). It's why next to Thomas I'm very appreciative of Plato who argued that becoming better at mathematics is a good way to prepare for philosophy.
@symplythebest No. It's based upon a rational argument. Contingent things can be explained only through recourse, finally, to some reality which is not contingent, which exists through the power of its own essence. This is what Catholic theology means by "God."
3) This is because I respect your opinions, they have helped clarify a lot for me and they have helped me stick to the faith in moments of doubt. Thank you, God bless
I agree with you: science is the best way to know the fucntioning of the empirical world. But science has nothing to say about the nature of the good, the nature of the beautiful, what constitutes a just society, how to determine the difference between moral and immoral acts. Come on: you can't limit everything to the sciences, no matter how successful they have been within their limited purview.
@Mrmentalmadness123 No it can't! Not to a degree of certitude. There is always a dimension of belief in anything we claim to know. The same is true in regard to religious claims. We come to know them through a combination of faith and reason.
This is a fantastic video. I have always wondered why there is a need to claim that science disproves God. I see science as the study of God's work (in the physical). I admit, Fr. Barron, that I do some Catholic apologetics. You're one of my resources.
Not a real argument in sight, I'm afraid. And there is nothing "silly" about the mathematical comparison. No matter how many contingent causes you string together--even to infinity--they don't add up to a real explanation, since each one depends on a previous cause. Suppress the first cause and you suppress the others. Please answer that point. Otherwise, John, you're just blowing smoke.
In my towns' central library they have the 3 volume edition of the Summa Theologica, it's incredible . I like the way Aquinas introduces an article, such as 'God is Perfect' or 'God is not compossed of matter' and then gives the strongest objections agaisnt these points, before refuting them. It's something we could learn a good deal from today, The proper way to conduct dialogue & critiques is to take on your opponents strongest arguments & thinkers not their weakest ones.
You're missing the point. Multiply contingent causes all you want, they're still contingent causes. Which is another way of saying that they don't explain anything.
Hey again :) Yes they can be forgiven as long as you're sorry for them and have the intention of confessing them. God knows the heart. And no one says who goes to hell or who doesn't, we can't know this. Fr Barron even speaks about that subject. So I don't know what happens to other souls, I won't until the Last Judgement
It's not a matter of time but of ontology. There can't be an infinite regress of conditioned causes, precisely because the suppression of a first cause implies the negation of the entire line of subsequent causes. To say that an infinite series of dependent causes adequately explains a present state of affairs is a bit like saying that 1,000,000 X zero is anything but zero.
Well of course God forgives sin, but he chooses to do so through the instrumentality of priests. The wisdom of this is grounded in the fact that we are not angels! We have bodies as well as souls, and therefore it is very important that forgiveness is given in a concrete and interpersonal way.
Well, then you're conceding the point! Sure, the chain of contingent causes can be as long as you want--as long as it ends with a prime mover or first cause. God can and does use as many secondary causes as he wants, but you can't say that the chain is infinite, for that would remove a first element, which removes all explanatory value.
But you haven't shown it! With Thomas Aquinas, I say that an infinite regress of contingent causes finally explains nothing. That's why we have to posit some unconditioned or non-contingent ground of contingency.
Oh give me a break! I referenced the unity of truth in order to show how Aquinas overcomes any split between faith and reason. Religious truth is one, but it is participated in to varying degrees by the many religions. It's not an either/or proposition. There are many aspects of Buddhism, Hinduism, Judaism, etc. that are true.
@butternutsquashist Thanks! Faith and reason proceed from the same source, which is the intense desire to see the truth. But some truths, the highest truths in fact, are given more than discovered. That's the basic difference, it seems to me.
That's not a question of "caused causes" at all. Space can be divided up indefinitely, as can time. But none of that has a thing to do with the particular type of causal series I'm talking about.
Oh Robert, as I've explained to you again and again and again: "causality" has NO MEANING WHATEVER without the existence of space-time. And asking "Why is there something rather than nothing?" is precisely the same as asking: "What sound does purple make?" No wonder contemporary philosophers don't buy scholasticism, besides the fact that Tommy himself advocated the extermination of anyone who did not agree with the Roman church.
The rest of the first part of the Summa is Thomas's demonstration that the prime mover (properly and fully understood) truly is the God spoken of in the Bible. The argument itself can't bear all of this weight. But I'm gathering from your remarks that you find no logical problem with the demonstration in itself.
Sure gravity moves the golf ball. Now what constitutes gravity? What are the conditions for its possibility? What explains it adequately? We look for other causes. What can't go on indefinitely is that process. We have to come finally to a self-explaining explanatory cause. That's what I mean by "God."
In our own time, we're trying to act like creator, in a multitude of scientific research. Yet for immediate gratification, there is and will be consequence for human society to bear. Wish more people would understand this...
Thank you so much for your videos. I have learned so much about my faith. One request: please specify the difference between adult and embryonic stem cell research. One is morally wrong, the other is not, and I think it adds to the confusion surrounding this topic if we continue to refer to them both by the same name.
Well he is indeed proving that God exists, but you have to have the patience to read beyond the demonstration itself in order to get this. Tell me, precisely, where the argument is invalid. Just a few postings ago, you were sighing in disbelief that I was making this argument, but you haven't even come close to answering it in a coherent way.
you're just talking about the biological processes that accompany our subjective appropriation of the beautiful. But that doesn't begin to address the properly philosophical question of what the beautiful is in itself, objectively. What I find amusing is that I'm supposed to be the dogmatist and you are clinging so tenaciously to your empiricist dogma!
@symplythebest I think that the argument for a non-contingent ground of contingency is logically valid, and you've given me no reason to think otherwise. Show me precisely why this argument fails.
@grunderlyme God made the world out of sheer love, out of the desire to share his life and goodness. But don't read this as "neediness" in the ordinary sense. Rather, bonum diffisivum sui (goodness is diffusive of itself). God's exuberance and joy are so intense that they naturally bubble over.
@Mrmentalmadness123 Honestly, how would you feel if I offered crude caricatures of scientific theories and then, on the basis of those caricatures, rejected all science as silly? Wouldn't you tell me to get a little better education in the sciences? I'm just saying that your question was not a good one, since it was predicated on such an inadequate sense of what religion really is.
Jesus to Peter: "Whatever you declare bound on earth shall be bound in heaven; whatever you declare loosed on earth shall be loosed in heaven." And Jesus to all his disciples: "If you forgive men's sins, they are forgiven; if you hold them bound, they are held bound."
@TheFutureengineer20 .....If you haven't already, you might want to check any entry in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy online dealing with Aristotle's Metaphysics. Thomism is just Aristotle interpreted through Aquinas, as you probably know. Stanford Philosophy is awesome. I strongly recommend it.
Honestly this is such a beautiful video. I’m losing it everywhere. 😩
I teach a course in a Catholic University that discusses the various ways in which Science, Culture, and Religion have influenced each other from Aristotle to the present day. We are currently discussing Aquinas's grand synthesis of Catholic theology and Aristotle's philosophy. Your comments here are really helpful - thank you for taking the time to post them.
God bless you for that! Please keep me in prayer.
One can see how excited Bishop Robert Barron is when talking about St Thomas
The Bishop articulates a major reason this Protestant is very much attracted to Catholicism.
Benjamin Larkey God bless you in your journey.
Benjamin Larkey come home brother
Come Home hermano, blessings (:
Yet "fair-minded" Protestants ought not forget the "Church's" exclusivity stated by the Council of Trent...."there is no salvation outside the Catholic Church." This pervasive Triumphalism throughout Catholic thought feeds its systemic false pride, and sets up its own clergy for great falls. I know why I am a Protestant.
@@lobsterbobable You know that there are pastors that abused children?
Father, I came across your video's and can't stop watching them. WOW. They are fantastic. I have been emailing them to a lot of friends and relatives. I want to thank you for doing this. It has made me so happy and given me so much peace. keep them coming.
I have always been Catholic, but Father Barron, by the grace of God you have given me a sense of the reality of God through the contingency concept. God is not an item in the world! God is not one true, good, loving and just thing, God is il Puro atto di Essere stessa. God is Being itself! That is why the universe should exist at all!
Amen!
It has been said that "if I am free, then God does not exist". But I will turn that right around and say that I am free because of God. God by is very nature is Freedom itself, in which I find my deepest freedom. Their would be no free human beings if it wasn't for that reality who is "to be" itself.
David Viscuso exactly what I was saying and the human race wouldn't exist without god or at very least we would been slaves..
@@lobsterbobable I missed read vicuso, off course I do believe in God he created man and everything .
@@Yankees94
Are you pantheistic?
St. Thomas Aquinas is, personally, one of my favorite saints. He is a very inspiring theologian and writer. The oldest university in Asia is named after him.
University of Sto. Tomas in Manila, Philippines, or to call it properly, "The Pontifical and Royal University of Santo Tomas, the Catholic University of the Philippines". But funny enough, it was only granted its autonomy I think centuries after its establishment.
I used to go there for checkup but because of this pandemic, I am not able to. The doctors and nurses there are professional and take a good care of you. I used to attend mass there also
He was a pagan
@@TheGuiltsOfUsno, no he isn't you heretic
We use philosophical criteria. Nature of the act, motive, intention, consequences, etc. And for justice, take a good long look at Plato's Republic: it is dedicated to the adjudication of precisely this question.
Father Barron I cant stop watching your videos! They are so awesome. I really liked your contingency concept. It really moved me.
@butternutsquashist Thomas indeed loved science; but he didn't reduce all knowledge to science. He knew that there are other intellectual disciplines, including mathematics, philosophy, and theology, which follow their own methods but which are no less rational than the sciences. And he would not--as you do--drive a wedge between faith and reason; and he did indeed think that God's existence can be proven through arguments from contingency.
what a gift Bishop Robert Barron is 🙏
Thank you for this, Fr. Barron! I watched it about two years ago, and it spurred me to reconsider God and Catholicism seriously. (I had lapsed into something of a lazy agnosticism, though I was raised Catholic.) Since then, I've been studying Thomism on my own with great vigor, and I must say that this system of thought has completely changed my whole life in many respects, especially my views on morality and metaphysics. Your video played a huge part in my eager return to the Church. God bless!
Have you checked out the Thomistic Institute TH-cam channel? Bishop Barron is who got me interested in St. Thomas Aquinas and the channel I mentioned is excellent. God Bless.
He doesn't assume it; he proves it, precisely through the use of the categories of potency and act. To move, on Aquinas's reading, means to make the transition from potency to act. To be moved, a thing must be in potency and to cause motion, a thing must be in act. Therefore we can conclude that nothing can move itself, since nothing can be, simultaneously, in potency and act in the same respect.
Bishop Barron has inspired me to study....
Another great video! I just received the next installment of the pivotal players. I can’t wait to see them and to read my Word on Fire Bible! The fire for truth is contagious. I Praise God for all Word on Fire and Bishop Barron have done.
thanks for sharing Fr. Robert Barron
I admire your love for St Thomas Aquinas.... He has definitely been instrumental to set God's Word on Fire in your life.
Many thanks for this lucid summary and personal testimony. Just wonderful to listen to. Blessings. GG
For my entire young life I have unknowingly followed the theological and Philosophical footsteps of the great St. Thomas Aquinas.
I'm truly blessed to have the namesake of such an amazing theologian and saint of the Church! Thomas Aquinas, pray for us :)
Thank you Bishop Barron
Father Barron, I'm sure you'll be glad to hear that I am taking "Thomas" as my confirmation name, as an ode to him
Thank you Fr. Barron and for your book on Thomas Aquinas which I was able to read recently. The adventure has started. I also believe that the words of Thomas Aquinas can speak to us in the 21st century. New Atheism spends much of its effort in mocking religion yet God still stretches His hand out to them in peace. Joy of our faith can help heal. Courage to show this joy through words and action in our daily lives can inspire people to (re)connect with Christ. This is our vocation.
Sure I did. I told you that the suppression of a first cause entails the suppression of all subsequent causes and hence the negation of the contingent event right in front of us. I think I added something like "the multiplication of zero even by infinity never adds up to anything but zero."
Fr. Barron is great!
My science education (archeology, Paleoanthropology, evolution, geology as well as physics and biology), in college, deepened my faith in God and my sense of awe in His creation.
You are so enlightened ......wish everyone was such 👍
Another great talk on aquinas. that was really relevant to my believes and Truths related to faith, reason and science. This is great. I seek to continue studying aquinas theology through the Thomastic Institute and continue to help people through my aquinas theology reflections and related experience and motivation to live a moral life of my highest calling and to help all like-minded people I can with their needs and give them reassurance In their faith and potential.
Well said. What a great man and great philosopher and theologian was St Thomas Aquinas. It must have a moment of profound joy to be at his grave.
Thank you again. I do enjoy my understanding being stretched.
But you have to be much more specific. The major categories that Thomas was using were potency and act. These are metaphysical terms, not physical or scientific terms, in the modern sense. Therefore, I don't see how the development of the empirical sciences affects them in any way. Show me precisely how Thomas got the "wrong answers" through his proof.
ive been an amateur astronomer and never separated the 2 The stars declare the glory of God i love when kids look thru my telescope go oooooooooo wow
this is one of my favorite videos.
Oh come on, John! I answered you over and over again.
@Mrmentalmadness123 I mean truths having to do with God and God's dealings with the world. The ground for these claims is metaphysical, psychological, and historical. The problem is that you're using "evidence" in such a narrow, restricted sense, designating basically physical traces and the results of experiments.
Really appreciate this video.
I couldn't agree more. So show me precisely where you think the argument from contingency is untruthful. I've answered every objection you've raised so far.
I am not a Christian but I found this talk to be wonderfully clear and insightful. I always wondered what “Christian philosophy“ might mean as the two words seemed mutually exclusive. But that wasn’t the case listening to this man.
Many of the wonderful O.P.s at 505 Washington Boulevard would be heartened by your dedication and love of St. Thomas Aquinas.
Go Friars! '76
What city ?
@@PInk77W1 Oak Park, IL just west of downtown Chicago
@@TheGodzirruh ok thx.
Good video. It's great to see how even an academic interest in religion (such as researching Aquinas) could evolve into receiving a long lasting spiritual consolation (in Fr. Barron's case, the assurance that God exists...something which even the most devout saints have struggled with).
Thank you. Beautiful Bishop Barron.❣️🇩🇰🇺🇸🦅
That was an amazing video! I really gained even more respect for St. Thomas.
Wonderful.....thank you so much💕💖
It doesn't. To know is to bring one's mind correctly into conformity with reality. I'm just quarreling with your assertion that knowledge is limited to scientific knowledge. I'm arguing that poetry, literature, intuition, and philosophy can render real knowledge. Science cannot pronounce on the nature of the good or what makes something beautiful or what constitutes a just society or why there is something rather than nothing.
2:53 - 3:05
Thank you. More people need to understand this.
just to let you know, in fact a few months after Fr Barron was appointed as rector to the seminary, there was a seminar held on the campus that addressed that issue...about priests and religious who are addicts; whether food, drugs, alcohol, etc. It was well-done and informative. There's a supportive network for clergy and religious if they find themselves unable to care for themselves, no matter the cause.
Excellent my thoughts on the great master exactly!!
All he is endeavoring to prove is that a first unmoved mover exists. I would argue that he has successfully done that. It then takes him hundreds of more pages and dozens of more arguments to demonstrate that this prime mover has all of the characteristics that we associate with God.
I already said that priests don't forgive sins; only God does. But he does so through the instrumentality of the priest.
When you know and truly understand that 2 + 2 = 4, you have stepped out of a purely empirical world. You have grasped a time and space transcending truth.
Especially once you understand that 2 + 2 = 100 as well (when counting in a binary numeral system instead of a decimal numeral system). It's why next to Thomas I'm very appreciative of Plato who argued that becoming better at mathematics is a good way to prepare for philosophy.
@symplythebest No. It's based upon a rational argument. Contingent things can be explained only through recourse, finally, to some reality which is not contingent, which exists through the power of its own essence. This is what Catholic theology means by "God."
3) This is because I respect your opinions, they have helped clarify a lot for me and they have helped me stick to the faith in moments of doubt.
Thank you, God bless
Thanks so much for that elaboration.
Robert Barron is a gift in a dark world
I chose him as my confirmation Saint for all the same reasons addressed here, especially concerning science.
I agree with you: science is the best way to know the fucntioning of the empirical world. But science has nothing to say about the nature of the good, the nature of the beautiful, what constitutes a just society, how to determine the difference between moral and immoral acts. Come on: you can't limit everything to the sciences, no matter how successful they have been within their limited purview.
@Mrmentalmadness123 No it can't! Not to a degree of certitude. There is always a dimension of belief in anything we claim to know. The same is true in regard to religious claims. We come to know them through a combination of faith and reason.
This is a fantastic video. I have always wondered why there is a need to claim that science disproves God. I see science as the study of God's work (in the physical).
I admit, Fr. Barron, that I do some Catholic apologetics. You're one of my resources.
Amen and Amen Bishop Barron.
Yes!
Not a real argument in sight, I'm afraid. And there is nothing "silly" about the mathematical comparison. No matter how many contingent causes you string together--even to infinity--they don't add up to a real explanation, since each one depends on a previous cause. Suppress the first cause and you suppress the others. Please answer that point. Otherwise, John, you're just blowing smoke.
I bought myself a notepad just right now and I'm taking notes of all of your videos.
In my towns' central library they have the 3 volume edition of the Summa Theologica, it's incredible . I like the way Aquinas introduces an article, such as 'God is Perfect' or 'God is not compossed of matter' and then gives the strongest objections agaisnt these points, before refuting them. It's something we could learn a good deal from today, The proper way to conduct dialogue & critiques is to take on your opponents strongest arguments & thinkers not their weakest ones.
Saint Thomas Aquinas, please pray for us, poor sinners...
You're missing the point. Multiply contingent causes all you want, they're still contingent causes. Which is another way of saying that they don't explain anything.
Hey again :)
Yes they can be forgiven as long as you're sorry for them and have the intention of confessing them. God knows the heart. And no one says who goes to hell or who doesn't, we can't know this. Fr Barron even speaks about that subject. So I don't know what happens to other souls, I won't until the Last Judgement
It's not a matter of time but of ontology. There can't be an infinite regress of conditioned causes, precisely because the suppression of a first cause implies the negation of the entire line of subsequent causes. To say that an infinite series of dependent causes adequately explains a present state of affairs is a bit like saying that 1,000,000 X zero is anything but zero.
Brilliant and relevant
Great video!
3:52 The unicity of truth. Good line!
Well of course God forgives sin, but he chooses to do so through the instrumentality of priests. The wisdom of this is grounded in the fact that we are not angels! We have bodies as well as souls, and therefore it is very important that forgiveness is given in a concrete and interpersonal way.
@Stitchman3875 Look in question 75 of the third part of the Summa theologiae.
Watching this in 2022!❤️
i love ST A those who have the understanding of faith no explanation is needed those that dont no explanation is possible
Well, then you're conceding the point! Sure, the chain of contingent causes can be as long as you want--as long as it ends with a prime mover or first cause. God can and does use as many secondary causes as he wants, but you can't say that the chain is infinite, for that would remove a first element, which removes all explanatory value.
But you haven't shown it! With Thomas Aquinas, I say that an infinite regress of contingent causes finally explains nothing. That's why we have to posit some unconditioned or non-contingent ground of contingency.
Oh give me a break! I referenced the unity of truth in order to show how Aquinas overcomes any split between faith and reason. Religious truth is one, but it is participated in to varying degrees by the many religions. It's not an either/or proposition. There are many aspects of Buddhism, Hinduism, Judaism, etc. that are true.
G.K. Chesterton's book on Aquinas. Or for a more technical approach, F.C. Copleston's introduction.
@butternutsquashist Thanks! Faith and reason proceed from the same source, which is the intense desire to see the truth. But some truths, the highest truths in fact, are given more than discovered. That's the basic difference, it seems to me.
Father Barron - any chance you could do a video on Saint Anthony of Padua too? Would be most grateful
That's not a question of "caused causes" at all. Space can be divided up indefinitely, as can time. But none of that has a thing to do with the particular type of causal series I'm talking about.
Oh Robert, as I've explained to you again and again and again: "causality" has NO MEANING WHATEVER without the existence of space-time. And asking "Why is there something rather than nothing?" is precisely the same as asking: "What sound does purple make?" No wonder contemporary philosophers don't buy scholasticism, besides the fact that Tommy himself advocated the extermination of anyone who did not agree with the Roman church.
The rest of the first part of the Summa is Thomas's demonstration that the prime mover (properly and fully understood) truly is the God spoken of in the Bible. The argument itself can't bear all of this weight. But I'm gathering from your remarks that you find no logical problem with the demonstration in itself.
Sure gravity moves the golf ball. Now what constitutes gravity? What are the conditions for its possibility? What explains it adequately? We look for other causes. What can't go on indefinitely is that process. We have to come finally to a self-explaining explanatory cause. That's what I mean by "God."
In our own time, we're trying to act like creator, in a multitude of scientific research. Yet for immediate gratification, there is and will be consequence for human society to bear. Wish more people would understand this...
@VanessaTexasGal Well friend, you have to read the rest of the Summa! The arguments are just the beginning.
Thank you so much for your videos. I have learned so much about my faith.
One request: please specify the difference between adult and embryonic stem cell research. One is morally wrong, the other is not, and I think it adds to the confusion surrounding this topic if we continue to refer to them both by the same name.
nicely done
Well he is indeed proving that God exists, but you have to have the patience to read beyond the demonstration itself in order to get this. Tell me, precisely, where the argument is invalid. Just a few postings ago, you were sighing in disbelief that I was making this argument, but you haven't even come close to answering it in a coherent way.
Well, you better be ready to have a really good argument!
Because knowledge is not limited to the sciences!!!! Do you ever read poetry or history or philosophy?
you're just talking about the biological processes that accompany our subjective appropriation of the beautiful. But that doesn't begin to address the properly philosophical question of what the beautiful is in itself, objectively. What I find amusing is that I'm supposed to be the dogmatist and you are clinging so tenaciously to your empiricist dogma!
@symplythebest I think that the argument for a non-contingent ground of contingency is logically valid, and you've given me no reason to think otherwise. Show me precisely why this argument fails.
@grunderlyme God made the world out of sheer love, out of the desire to share his life and goodness. But don't read this as "neediness" in the ordinary sense. Rather, bonum diffisivum sui (goodness is diffusive of itself). God's exuberance and joy are so intense that they naturally bubble over.
Try my book Thomas Aquinas: Spiritual Master.
awesome.
@Mrmentalmadness123 Honestly, how would you feel if I offered crude caricatures of scientific theories and then, on the basis of those caricatures, rejected all science as silly? Wouldn't you tell me to get a little better education in the sciences? I'm just saying that your question was not a good one, since it was predicated on such an inadequate sense of what religion really is.
Jesus to Peter: "Whatever you declare bound on earth shall be bound in heaven; whatever you declare loosed on earth shall be loosed in heaven." And Jesus to all his disciples: "If you forgive men's sins, they are forgiven; if you hold them bound, they are held bound."
@TheFutureengineer20 .....If you haven't already, you might want to check any entry in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy online dealing with Aristotle's Metaphysics. Thomism is just Aristotle interpreted through Aquinas, as you probably know. Stanford Philosophy is awesome. I strongly recommend it.
And it's his feast day! St. Thomas Aquinas, pray for us.