I absolutely love this video and *almost* 100% agree (99.9999) - all of this is moot if the PSR (or some version of the PSR) doesn't go through. Socrates defined reality thusly: to be is to do; but, Sartre defined it in the opposite direction. First, we need to decide which definition we are starting with and why. Essentialism? Existentialism? But, ultimately, whatever reason you give for one, you can give an equally valid reason for the other.
Here is a philosophical critique of Aquinas' Third Way as presented in this video: - The key premise that observable chains of causation must terminate in a non-contingent being is asserted without sufficient justification. - Dismissing actual infinite regresses as an explanatory possibility requires more defense as some philosophers argue they are metaphysically possible. - Equivocating between temporal causation and metaphysical grounding conflates distinct relations and muddles the reasoning. Not all dependence is causal. - The video presumes the universe must have an explanation for its existence, but this principle of sufficient reason remains controversial in philosophy. - Even if we accept a non-contingent ground is necessary, the argument does not establish this is the God of classical theism specifically rather than a more abstract necessity. - The presenter fails to consider and rebut potential objections to the key controversial premises that are required for the argument to work. Overall, this version of the Third Way relies on unsupported assertions regarding causal chains, total contingency, and the necessity of theism. It does not succeed as a deductive proof of God without addressing reasonable philosophical objections.
Here is a syllogistic representation of the problems with Aquinas' Third Way: Major Premise: All contingent beings require an external necessary being.\ Minor Premise: The universe contains contingent beings. Conclusion: Therefore, God (a necessary being) exists. Formalized: 1. All C are N 2. All U are C 3. All U are N Problems: - The major premise "All C are N" is not adequately supported and remains controversial. - The conclusion invalidly infers that this necessary being is specifically God. - Valid criticisms of the major premise, such as: 1. Not all C require N (e.g. infinite causal regresses are possible) 2. Even if N exists, it may not be God. Representing the argument syllogistically reveals that a controversial major premise is doing too much work, and the conclusion overreaches what can be validly inferred from the premises. It highlights unaddressed objections.
That isn't the argument. There is no "chains of causation that must terminate in a non-contingent being", and or certainly is not "the key premise" Starting at 1:00, he states specifically the argument "says much more than this" and at 1:20 it pertains to "how they exist HERE AND NOW, why they are actual." It seems you're confusing the contingency argument with a first cause argument, and they aren't the same. The rest of your critiques are absolutely an outflow of the misunderstanding of the argument all together, and that's why critiques of the principle of sufficient reason that are based on a complete misunderstanding of everything, aren't exactly useful. Again, this is NOT an argument that says, I had a mother, she had a mother.. the earth was formed by a second generation star, which was formed by a first generation star, which was caused by hydrogen molecules gravitational attraction...., which was caused by the big bang, and that can't all go on forever, therefore a necessary being (God) exists. While that is a perfectly defendable first cause argument, that is NOT this argument. If the Principle of Sufficient Reason is "controversial", then so are other metaphysical principles like "the external world outside my mind is real" and "the laws of mathematics are universal". If you accept the metaphysical grounding (which is perfectly rational to do), then you accept that this argument is a literal logical proof for God's existence. In this argument, a dependency absolutely does imply causation (a type of it), and he explains that as well, that even if contingent reality is eternal, it depends on something else. This is the root word of the word beCAUSE. And also the inference is absolutely the God of classical theism. Abstract objects (mathematical, ethical etc etc) don't cause anything. I'd try to understand the argument a little better (both philosophers and non) before offering a "critique". And this is merely a nine minute introduction. St Aquinas and the scholastics were the most famous in history for presenting every single criticism extremely fairly, the very best they could, and explaining why the refutations failed (some in history claimed they were so good in fact at representing the counter arguments that it caused them to have doubts about God's existence). That's exactly what they wanted however, a completely fair representation of all the arguments, their refutations, and why the arguments must be true. That is why you didn't see St Aquinas supporting other arguments though he thought they were probably sound, but he said they couldn't be absolutely proven. Those included the Ontological Argument, the Design Arguments, other Teleological Arguments (more primitive notions of fine tuning), first cause arguments, etc The argument is NOT "how did I, or planet earth, or the universe come to be here", but more accurately, "why is reality full of a bunch of things that can come to be here".
@@Enigmatic_philosopherThe only reason that its a "controversial premise" is because it absolutely proves God's existence. Let's look at the A-O contradictory statements Universal positive vs Particular negative: 1) All of contingent being requires necessary being. contra 2) Some of contingent being does not require necessary being. Or the universal contraries (both can be false, or t/f, but never both true) 1) All of contingent being requires necessary being. 2) No contingent being requires necessary being. If you support the first refutation (the contradiction) "Some of contingent being does not require necessary being" then you need to explain what does and doesn't. Is it universes and only universes? If you look at all the individual things in the universe, that are contingent, by merely adding them all together they become necessary? There's no good answer to that, and it sounds a lot like Special Pleading. Do elephants suddenly standing in my backyard fall into this "no cause or explanation" thing, or is it just universes? If it's just universes, we'll, how convenient. However, if it's the universal contrary that is your position "2) No contingent being requires necessary being.", then I doubt that any other philosopher or logician on earth would agree with you. By the very nature of anything existing at all, *something* must exist necessarily. Most opposition to the argument would claim that "being" itself is necessary, and being is all that there is. So, in this case the universe exists necessarily. However, we then go back to the same problem that I just explained with contradictory (All/Some aren't) statements. So, yes, the PSR is an extremely well founded metaphysical principle. Not liking the conclusion of a logical proof of God's existence does not serve as a "refutation" to that principle.
@@godfreydebouillon8807 - I did not confuse Aquinas' Third Way for a first cause argument. My critique was aimed at the key premise that all contingent beings require an external necessary being to explain their existence. - I grant that infinite regress may not provide a fully satisfying explanation. However, it remains a live possibility debated by philosophers, so cannot be dismissed outright. - The type of dependence I referred to is metaphysical, not merely causal. I contend Aquinas needs to further demonstrate this dependence entails causation from a necessary being. - The Principle of Sufficient Reason is not being rejected wholesale, but questioned in this specific application to infer theism. Controversial does not equate to false. - That abstract objects cannot cause contingent beings is irrelevant. My point was the conclusion only supports a necessary metaphysical ground, not necessarily the God of classical theism. - I did not claim the Third Way is invalid, but that key premises require more substantive defense to make it a sound deductive proof. Merely asserting "contingent beings require necessary being" is not enough. I contend that you have mischaracterized my critique as a basic misunderstanding, when in fact I am challenging the support for key controversial premises in Aquinas' reasoning. My goal was not to refute PSR entirely, but to highlight objections a deductive proof should address. I stand by my original arguments.
How would you respond to someone who posits that the Laws of Physics are in themselves necessary beings? Would that equate God to physical laws or is there a way to demonstrate the contingency of them?
@@whitevortex8323 I suppose that I mean something more like the 4 fundamental forces (electromagnetic, gravity, strong/weak nuclear) which at least function as secondary causes. Fire still causes warmth even if it has no will. It seems that everything materially observable in the universe can ultimately be attributed to these physical forces, other than the existence of the forces themselves. Why can we not conclude that they don't exist as actus purus and operate as the prime mover as a whole?
I believe it may be more accurate to say that God’s Being is “the same as” or “is identical with” His Essence. In my understanding, “Coming from” seems to indicate a type of progression and would be incompatible with our understanding of a simple God.
@notdonaldst Good clarification, as I don't mean to confuse people by having them think God is divisible and is one part essence and one part being. By "comes from," I simply meant that it is an essential principle of God to exist, just like it is an essential principle of a tree at work when the tree sprouts leaves. But God is completely identical with His essential principles, so you are correct when you say God's Being is identical with His Essence.
@PrimeTimePaulyRat It is an essential principle of each and every defined entity to exist. To exist literally means to "stand out from" any other defined entity. This does not suppose such an entity is a _reality._ Leprechauns can be differentiated from dragons. These two entities are not mistaken for one another and yet share the essential principle of existence. However, that does not ensure either of these entities are realities for neither are _observable._ This 'God' exists in the realm of imagination as a cognitive construct, but appears to not exist in the the realm of reality where such entities occur at a particular point in space (location) at a particular point in time and are _observable_ at such location and time. Do you agree?
@PrimeTimePaulyRat I forgot to add that I am open that this 'God' can possibly exist in another realm, known or not known, such as in a possible metaphysical, spiritual, or supernatural realm.
In the Trinity we distinguish Father, Son, Holy Spirit. The Son's existence (though Eternal) is eternally generated by the Father, and likewise the Holy Spirit as it Procededs from the Father and Son. So how can we avoid saying the Son and Holy Spirit are not Permanent Composite Beings as their existence 'seems' to be dependent on the initial action of the Father (even if an eternal action)?
not an expert but i suspect permanent is not the same as eternal. and also are the Son or the Spirit separate beings? the Father is God, the Son is God, the Spirit is God, yet there is one God. God is beyond beings. his existance comes from his essence. so i guess the Son's existence comes from his essence, the Spirit likewise.
@@bandie9101 They have the same Nature, which is God-Nature, not share it (ie. not 1/3 God each, but fully God at once eternally). However they are 3 distinct Persons in the One GodHead. Like yourself I do distinguish between infinite and eternal; even in terms of time (ie. infinite time is different than being eternal); though most don't seem to understand the difference. I understand we use the term Persons in the Godhead to distinguish relatonship rather than difference in being. I guess this is more an exercise in deeper theological understanding where our concepts fail to understand the full mystery.
If that is so, God is not love? Why the Trinity exists it is because God is love: The Father is a lover, the Son is beloved and the Holy Spirit is the result between the love the Father and the Son. The essence of the the Trinity is equally one substance as God , Divine nature, entirely simple.
Essentialism is highly controversial. Most contemporary philosophers find it inadequate. Personally, even though I have highest regard for St. Thomas, I recommend Kant as a philosopher that can be followed for his account of knowledge, language and the external world that can be harmonized with modern science rather than Aristotle.
No, but there IS an Assignment. In your own words, define at least five major points raised in this presentation, with particular reference to how it may impact a person of a) profound spiritual faith and b) someone struggling to find any form of spiritual belief? [Min 5,000 words] by the 15th of this month. The rest of us have the time off! Good luck! 🤪
*a honest doubt:* why and how essences and existence are different? Once there's no thing outside existence - a.k.a: being, God - so, if essences exist they exist _inside_ being and they have already being So, _it seens_ that everything that has an essense shoud exist
As far as I understand it, you can think of something, aka, hold its essence in your mind, without that thing actually existing. I remember my favorite dog, Pharaoh, though he passed away years ago. Other dogs exist now, sure, but there aren't other "my dog Pharaoh" existing. My dog came into existence, and now no longer exists. What makes a dog a dog doesn't include the attribute "necessarily existing". That's one way I look at it.
Put another way: I think it's more correct to say "everything that has an essence should have existed at least at one point". If something never existed, we could never observe its essence. Everything we directly observe eventually ceases to exist as we understand it- though, that doesn't mean that those things don't, or never had, essences.
You're right that we observe things with essences as having existence; there's more to it, though. The essence of a thing, or what it is, is not the same thing in created beings as the fact it is existing. So for example - if we are to ask, "what is a unicorn", the response would not include in its definition "that it exists", for obvious reasons. Even if all things with an essence did exist, accounting for their essences and accounting for their existences are different considerations; asking "what is it" and "does it exist" are separate questions. If a being has its existence, it either has it from its essence, or it was given it from something outside it. In other words, existence is a gift to beings whose essences do not have it from its essence. If a being has existence from its essence, it necessarily exists, because for it not to exist would then be a contradiction; it's as though you would be saying "this thing which by definition exists, did not exist or no longer exists". Alright, so what would it take for something to be defined by the fact it exists? Could something include existence itself in its definition with the addition of something else? No, because existence itself is not self-limiting, so adding something to existence would then limit it, essences which are separate from existence would compose a being which has some kind of limited existence, not existence itself. This limited composite being cannot include in its definition existence itself, so the only kind of being whose definition has existence itself is the being which simply *is* existence itself; namely, God.
@@antoniomoyal I disagree. God is not the cause of Himself. As Aristotle put it, the thing we call God is the only uncaused cause. God simply IS and had eternally been IS; or existence itself. Existence and Essence are one and the same in God, eternally. This becomes harder for us to imagine because TIME is always a factor in our discursive reasoning. However TIME itself is a construct or created part of the reality we exist in and does not apply to God. So there is no such thing as 'before' or 'after' God.
God is the only uncaused cause, due to the fact that His essence is identical with His existence, so much so that He can be identified as “subsistent existence” itself. To be caused is to imply that given a being’s essence, their existence has not been explained. For example, the essence of a ball does not reveal wether or not the ball exists, and there is nothing in the ball that would logically demand it must be, and have its being in itself; rather the ball must necessarily be caused by something else that is already actual, for nothing can be the cause of itself, for then it would be prior to itself. So God’s essence is the explanation for why He exists, and therefore everything else whose essence and existence are distinct, must appeal to “subsistent existence” itself in a causal series ordered Per Se to explain how they currently possess being and how they can undergo change, ect.
@@39knightsaristotle says 'uncaused' referring to the efficient, external cause. But the formal cause is what makes something be what it is, so God is his own formal cause. Why does an electron has the electrical charge it has? Because it is an electron. Why does God exist? Because he is God. Because he is the ipsum esse subsistens. Formal cause.
@@antoniomoyal I am not so sure God is the cause of His own existence as He is the cause of our existence. God could no more 'think' or 'will' Himself into existence as He could 'will' Himself into non-existence. God simply IS and can never not exist. In this way I don't think the word 'cause' can apply to God. If there was such a thing as Absolute Nothingness; then the same would apply. It would be a state and not a cause of it's own state; it would simply be 'nothingness' or an uncaused-cause. It would be an uncaused nothingness which by its very nature becomes the cause of nothingness for any other possibility of being. That is why saying God is the 'cause' of Himself (even if you say He eternally causes Himself) would in some sense place God within the created order and not above it as in classical theism.
Argument for the existence of God formula: find something for God to do, argue only God could do it, so God must exist. This argument: give god everything to do. But what if things could simply exist without some other things keeping them in existence? Makes sense to me.
But you exist because the electromagnetic forces in your atoms keep you together. Gravity keeps you on Earth and thus you can breathe. Food form outside your body keeps you alive, etc. So no.
"....could simply exist without some other things keeping them in existence?..." 1) It could not simply exist! and 2) How would it stay in existence? What is this "existence" you write of?
@@11kravitzn Only Nothing can come from Nothing. If everything imaginable could exist of its own accord then it would at all times. Before you existed as a real being, just exactly what of you willed yourself into existence??? What you say does not make any sense in the least. If you have some thought or idea that Absolute Nothingness (non-existence) can do anything or be the cause of anything; then your definition of 'Nothingness' id different than mine.
@mcpj6726 Correct. I am not making an argument. I am exposing a fallacy in the one introduced in the video. Does the argument introduced in the video commit the fallacy of Speacial Pleading? Yes or no.
@@Theo_Skeptomai No, it does not. The argument for God's self-sufficiency is separate from the argument from contingency. A feature of being that does not flow from its essence must come from another agent, for that is the only other option (unless we argue that something can come from nothing). The essence of a triangle is its three-sidedness. If a geometric figure does not have three sides, then it isn't a triangle. A triangle _necessarily_ has three sides. Thus, something _essential_ to being (its essence) is what _must_ exist if it is part of its essence. If existence were the essence of a thing, then it would necessarily exist. Since we observe things that go out of existence (e.g., woolly mammoths), we know that existence isn't the essence of such things. Consequently, the only thing that exists necessarily is something whose essence is to exist. Existence being the essence of a thing thus explains said thing's self-sufficiency.
![CAMPปลิ้น | EP.83[2/2] ประสบการณ์ขนหัวลุกจากตำนานวงการผี!](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/T_kFecQw7Ds/mqdefault.jpg)
Lol my head was spinning! I’ll get it though, I have to watch it again. Thank you for your awesome videos!
Nice video, made me understand it and English is my third language lol.
God bless!
We're so glad to hear it! Thanks for taking the time to watch and comment. May the Lord bless you!
Excellent! Very clear, concise, and instructive.
We're so glad to hear it! Thanks for taking the time to watch and comment. May the Lord bless you!
@@ThomisticInstituteI’m curious if you guys have a response to the argument I previously posted elsewhere in the comments?
Argument from Contingency like I have never heard it before. Thank you so darn much Thomistic Institute. Awesone job Fr. James.
You're very welcome -- so glad to hear the video helped! Thanks for taking the time to watch and comment. May the Lord bless you!
That was a whole existencial crisis about living beings and life as we know, what an excelent class, i learn a lot because of this video.
Amazing, god save our souls! ❤️
We're glad you enjoyed the video! Thanks for taking the time to watch and comment. May the Lord bless you!
Brillant as always. You provide such good subject matter for evangelisation
i see.. so that is efficient cause..thank you Fr. Brent. This is really clear and concise
You're welcome! Thanks for taking the time to watch and comment. May the Lord bless you!
I love it!!
I absolutely love this video and *almost* 100% agree (99.9999) - all of this is moot if the PSR (or some version of the PSR) doesn't go through. Socrates defined reality thusly: to be is to do; but, Sartre defined it in the opposite direction. First, we need to decide which definition we are starting with and why. Essentialism? Existentialism? But, ultimately, whatever reason you give for one, you can give an equally valid reason for the other.
What's PSR?
Here is a philosophical critique of Aquinas' Third Way as presented in this video:
- The key premise that observable chains of causation must terminate in a non-contingent being is asserted without sufficient justification.
- Dismissing actual infinite regresses as an explanatory possibility requires more defense as some philosophers argue they are metaphysically possible.
- Equivocating between temporal causation and metaphysical grounding conflates distinct relations and muddles the reasoning. Not all dependence is causal.
- The video presumes the universe must have an explanation for its existence, but this principle of sufficient reason remains controversial in philosophy.
- Even if we accept a non-contingent ground is necessary, the argument does not establish this is the God of classical theism specifically rather than a more abstract necessity.
- The presenter fails to consider and rebut potential objections to the key controversial premises that are required for the argument to work.
Overall, this version of the Third Way relies on unsupported assertions regarding causal chains, total contingency, and the necessity of theism. It does not succeed as a deductive proof of God without addressing reasonable philosophical objections.
Here is a syllogistic representation of the problems with Aquinas' Third Way:
Major Premise: All contingent beings require an external necessary being.\
Minor Premise: The universe contains contingent beings.
Conclusion: Therefore, God (a necessary being) exists.
Formalized:
1. All C are N
2. All U are C
3. All U are N
Problems:
- The major premise "All C are N" is not adequately supported and remains controversial.
- The conclusion invalidly infers that this necessary being is specifically God.
- Valid criticisms of the major premise, such as:
1. Not all C require N (e.g. infinite causal regresses are possible)
2. Even if N exists, it may not be God.
Representing the argument syllogistically reveals that a controversial major premise is doing too much work, and the conclusion overreaches what can be validly inferred from the premises. It highlights unaddressed objections.
That isn't the argument. There is no "chains of causation that must terminate in a non-contingent being", and or certainly is not "the key premise"
Starting at 1:00, he states specifically the argument "says much more than this" and at 1:20 it pertains to "how they exist HERE AND NOW, why they are actual."
It seems you're confusing the contingency argument with a first cause argument, and they aren't the same.
The rest of your critiques are absolutely an outflow of the misunderstanding of the argument all together, and that's why critiques of the principle of sufficient reason that are based on a complete misunderstanding of everything, aren't exactly useful.
Again, this is NOT an argument that says, I had a mother, she had a mother.. the earth was formed by a second generation star, which was formed by a first generation star, which was caused by hydrogen molecules gravitational attraction...., which was caused by the big bang, and that can't all go on forever, therefore a necessary being (God) exists. While that is a perfectly defendable first cause argument, that is NOT this argument.
If the Principle of Sufficient Reason is "controversial", then so are other metaphysical principles like "the external world outside my mind is real" and "the laws of mathematics are universal". If you accept the metaphysical grounding (which is perfectly rational to do), then you accept that this argument is a literal logical proof for God's existence.
In this argument, a dependency absolutely does imply causation (a type of it), and he explains that as well, that even if contingent reality is eternal, it depends on something else. This is the root word of the word beCAUSE.
And also the inference is absolutely the God of classical theism. Abstract objects (mathematical, ethical etc etc) don't cause anything.
I'd try to understand the argument a little better (both philosophers and non) before offering a "critique". And this is merely a nine minute introduction. St Aquinas and the scholastics were the most famous in history for presenting every single criticism extremely fairly, the very best they could, and explaining why the refutations failed (some in history claimed they were so good in fact at representing the counter arguments that it caused them to have doubts about God's existence).
That's exactly what they wanted however, a completely fair representation of all the arguments, their refutations, and why the arguments must be true.
That is why you didn't see St Aquinas supporting other arguments though he thought they were probably sound, but he said they couldn't be absolutely proven. Those included the Ontological Argument, the Design Arguments, other Teleological Arguments (more primitive notions of fine tuning), first cause arguments, etc
The argument is NOT "how did I, or planet earth, or the universe come to be here", but more accurately, "why is reality full of a bunch of things that can come to be here".
@@Enigmatic_philosopherThe only reason that its a "controversial premise" is because it absolutely proves God's existence.
Let's look at the A-O contradictory statements Universal positive vs Particular negative:
1) All of contingent being requires necessary being.
contra
2) Some of contingent being does not require necessary being.
Or the universal contraries (both can be false, or t/f, but never both true)
1) All of contingent being requires necessary being.
2) No contingent being requires necessary being.
If you support the first refutation (the contradiction) "Some of contingent being does not require necessary being" then you need to explain what does and doesn't. Is it universes and only universes? If you look at all the individual things in the universe, that are contingent, by merely adding them all together they become necessary? There's no good answer to that, and it sounds a lot like Special Pleading. Do elephants suddenly standing in my backyard fall into this "no cause or explanation" thing, or is it just universes? If it's just universes, we'll, how convenient.
However, if it's the universal contrary that is your position "2) No contingent being requires necessary being.", then I doubt that any other philosopher or logician on earth would agree with you. By the very nature of anything existing at all, *something* must exist necessarily. Most opposition to the argument would claim that "being" itself is necessary, and being is all that there is. So, in this case the universe exists necessarily. However, we then go back to the same problem that I just explained with contradictory (All/Some aren't) statements.
So, yes, the PSR is an extremely well founded metaphysical principle. Not liking the conclusion of a logical proof of God's existence does not serve as a "refutation" to that principle.
@@godfreydebouillon8807
- I did not confuse Aquinas' Third Way for a first cause argument. My critique was aimed at the key premise that all contingent beings require an external necessary being to explain their existence.
- I grant that infinite regress may not provide a fully satisfying explanation. However, it remains a live possibility debated by philosophers, so cannot be dismissed outright.
- The type of dependence I referred to is metaphysical, not merely causal. I contend Aquinas needs to further demonstrate this dependence entails causation from a necessary being.
- The Principle of Sufficient Reason is not being rejected wholesale, but questioned in this specific application to infer theism. Controversial does not equate to false.
- That abstract objects cannot cause contingent beings is irrelevant. My point was the conclusion only supports a necessary metaphysical ground, not necessarily the God of classical theism.
- I did not claim the Third Way is invalid, but that key premises require more substantive defense to make it a sound deductive proof. Merely asserting "contingent beings require necessary being" is not enough.
I contend that you have mischaracterized my critique as a basic misunderstanding, when in fact I am challenging the support for key controversial premises in Aquinas' reasoning. My goal was not to refute PSR entirely, but to highlight objections a deductive proof should address. I stand by my original arguments.
How would you respond to someone who posits that the Laws of Physics are in themselves necessary beings? Would that equate God to physical laws or is there a way to demonstrate the contingency of them?
the law's of physics don't have an ontological existence and are incapable of causing or willing what we see in the universe.
@@whitevortex8323 I suppose that I mean something more like the 4 fundamental forces (electromagnetic, gravity, strong/weak nuclear) which at least function as secondary causes. Fire still causes warmth even if it has no will. It seems that everything materially observable in the universe can ultimately be attributed to these physical forces, other than the existence of the forces themselves. Why can we not conclude that they don't exist as actus purus and operate as the prime mover as a whole?
This means that, unlike composite beings, God's Being comes from the very Essence of God.
That is such a wonderful tautology!!
I believe it may be more accurate to say that God’s Being is “the same as” or “is identical with” His Essence. In my understanding, “Coming from” seems to indicate a type of progression and would be incompatible with our understanding of a simple God.
@notdonaldst Good clarification, as I don't mean to confuse people by having them think God is divisible and is one part essence and one part being. By "comes from," I simply meant that it is an essential principle of God to exist, just like it is an essential principle of a tree at work when the tree sprouts leaves. But God is completely identical with His essential principles, so you are correct when you say God's Being is identical with His Essence.
@PrimeTimePaulyRat It is an essential principle of each and every defined entity to exist. To exist literally means to "stand out from" any other defined entity. This does not suppose such an entity is a _reality._
Leprechauns can be differentiated from dragons. These two entities are not mistaken for one another and yet share the essential principle of existence. However, that does not ensure either of these entities are realities for neither are _observable._
This 'God' exists in the realm of imagination as a cognitive construct, but appears to not exist in the the realm of reality where such entities occur at a particular point in space (location) at a particular point in time and are _observable_ at such location and time.
Do you agree?
@PrimeTimePaulyRat I forgot to add that I am open that this 'God' can possibly exist in another realm, known or not known, such as in a possible metaphysical, spiritual, or supernatural realm.
Comment for traction
Thanks for taking the time to watch and comment. May the Lord bless you!
In the Trinity we distinguish Father, Son, Holy Spirit. The Son's existence (though Eternal) is eternally generated by the Father, and likewise the Holy Spirit as it Procededs from the Father and Son. So how can we avoid saying the Son and Holy Spirit are not Permanent Composite Beings as their existence 'seems' to be dependent on the initial action of the Father (even if an eternal action)?
not an expert but i suspect permanent is not the same as eternal. and also are the Son or the Spirit separate beings? the Father is God, the Son is God, the Spirit is God, yet there is one God. God is beyond beings. his existance comes from his essence. so i guess the Son's existence comes from his essence, the Spirit likewise.
@@bandie9101 They have the same Nature, which is God-Nature, not share it (ie. not 1/3 God each, but fully God at once eternally). However they are 3 distinct Persons in the One GodHead. Like yourself I do distinguish between infinite and eternal; even in terms of time (ie. infinite time is different than being eternal); though most don't seem to understand the difference.
I understand we use the term Persons in the Godhead to distinguish relatonship rather than difference in being. I guess this is more an exercise in deeper theological understanding where our concepts fail to understand the full mystery.
If that is so, God is not love? Why the Trinity exists it is because God is love: The Father is a lover, the Son is beloved and the Holy Spirit is the result between the love the Father and the Son. The essence of the the Trinity is equally one substance as God , Divine nature, entirely simple.
Essentialism is highly controversial. Most contemporary philosophers find it inadequate. Personally, even though I have highest regard for St. Thomas, I recommend Kant as a philosopher that can be followed for his account of knowledge, language and the external world that can be harmonized with modern science rather than Aristotle.
Is there going to be a quiz on this? :(
No, but there IS an Assignment. In your own words, define at least five major points raised in this presentation, with particular reference to how it may impact a person of a) profound spiritual faith and b) someone struggling to find any form of spiritual belief? [Min 5,000 words] by the 15th of this month. The rest of us have the time off! Good luck! 🤪
@@mmmail1969 LOL!!!
Haha!! 😂
*a honest doubt:* why and how essences and existence are different? Once there's no thing outside existence - a.k.a: being, God - so, if essences exist they exist _inside_ being and they have already being
So, _it seens_ that everything that has an essense shoud exist
As far as I understand it, you can think of something, aka, hold its essence in your mind, without that thing actually existing. I remember my favorite dog, Pharaoh, though he passed away years ago. Other dogs exist now, sure, but there aren't other "my dog Pharaoh" existing. My dog came into existence, and now no longer exists. What makes a dog a dog doesn't include the attribute "necessarily existing". That's one way I look at it.
Put another way: I think it's more correct to say "everything that has an essence should have existed at least at one point". If something never existed, we could never observe its essence.
Everything we directly observe eventually ceases to exist as we understand it- though, that doesn't mean that those things don't, or never had, essences.
@samuelnicacio4621 Unicorns have an essence, but have never existed.
@@samuelnicacio4621 Your Pharaoh still exists...to God! That's what matters. A new Heaven and new Earth won't surely be barron and lifeless!
You're right that we observe things with essences as having existence; there's more to it, though. The essence of a thing, or what it is, is not the same thing in created beings as the fact it is existing.
So for example - if we are to ask, "what is a unicorn", the response would not include in its definition "that it exists", for obvious reasons. Even if all things with an essence did exist, accounting for their essences and accounting for their existences are different considerations; asking "what is it" and "does it exist" are separate questions. If a being has its existence, it either has it from its essence, or it was given it from something outside it. In other words, existence is a gift to beings whose essences do not have it from its essence. If a being has existence from its essence, it necessarily exists, because for it not to exist would then be a contradiction; it's as though you would be saying "this thing which by definition exists, did not exist or no longer exists".
Alright, so what would it take for something to be defined by the fact it exists? Could something include existence itself in its definition with the addition of something else? No, because existence itself is not self-limiting, so adding something to existence would then limit it, essences which are separate from existence would compose a being which has some kind of limited existence, not existence itself. This limited composite being cannot include in its definition existence itself, so the only kind of being whose definition has existence itself is the being which simply *is* existence itself; namely, God.
But God does not need a cause. Or if he did, would it be himself?
Yes, God is his own cause. He is a form, and thus the causal form of himself.
@@antoniomoyal I disagree. God is not the cause of Himself. As Aristotle put it, the thing we call God is the only uncaused cause. God simply IS and had eternally been IS; or existence itself. Existence and Essence are one and the same in God, eternally. This becomes harder for us to imagine because TIME is always a factor in our discursive reasoning. However TIME itself is a construct or created part of the reality we exist in and does not apply to God. So there is no such thing as 'before' or 'after' God.
God is the only uncaused cause, due to the fact that His essence is identical with His existence, so much so that He can be identified as “subsistent existence” itself. To be caused is to imply that given a being’s essence, their existence has not been explained. For example, the essence of a ball does not reveal wether or not the ball exists, and there is nothing in the ball that would logically demand it must be, and have its being in itself; rather the ball must necessarily be caused by something else that is already actual, for nothing can be the cause of itself, for then it would be prior to itself. So God’s essence is the explanation for why He exists, and therefore everything else whose essence and existence are distinct, must appeal to “subsistent existence” itself in a causal series ordered Per Se to explain how they currently possess being and how they can undergo change, ect.
@@39knightsaristotle says 'uncaused' referring to the efficient, external cause. But the formal cause is what makes something be what it is, so God is his own formal cause.
Why does an electron has the electrical charge it has? Because it is an electron.
Why does God exist? Because he is God. Because he is the ipsum esse subsistens. Formal cause.
@@antoniomoyal I am not so sure God is the cause of His own existence as He is the cause of our existence. God could no more 'think' or 'will' Himself into existence as He could 'will' Himself into non-existence. God simply IS and can never not exist. In this way I don't think the word 'cause' can apply to God.
If there was such a thing as Absolute Nothingness; then the same would apply. It would be a state and not a cause of it's own state; it would simply be 'nothingness' or an uncaused-cause. It would be an uncaused nothingness which by its very nature becomes the cause of nothingness for any other possibility of being.
That is why saying God is the 'cause' of Himself (even if you say He eternally causes Himself) would in some sense place God within the created order and not above it as in classical theism.
The use of "existence" is an enormous danger for essentialism. Definitely, this explanation should never be given in English.
Why?
But why? Would it be better in Latin or Spanish? Why??? dont leave us hangin
Argument for the existence of God formula: find something for God to do, argue only God could do it, so God must exist.
This argument: give god everything to do.
But what if things could simply exist without some other things keeping them in existence? Makes sense to me.
But you exist because the electromagnetic forces in your atoms keep you together. Gravity keeps you on Earth and thus you can breathe. Food form outside your body keeps you alive, etc.
So no.
"....could simply exist without some other things keeping them in existence?..." 1) It could not simply exist! and 2) How would it stay in existence? What is this "existence" you write of?
@@mmmail1969 1) yuh huh
2) why would it not stay in existence? Why is not existing a default?
@@11kravitzn Only Nothing can come from Nothing. If everything imaginable could exist of its own accord then it would at all times. Before you existed as a real being, just exactly what of you willed yourself into existence??? What you say does not make any sense in the least. If you have some thought or idea that Absolute Nothingness (non-existence) can do anything or be the cause of anything; then your definition of 'Nothingness' id different than mine.
@@39knights That's a different argument. This argument is about things existing here and now, not things coming into existence.
This is a fallacious argument of Special Pleading, and therefore, is not a sound argument.
This is an assertion not addressing any point made in the video, and therefore, not an argument at all.
@mcpj6726 Correct. I am not making an argument. I am exposing a fallacy in the one introduced in the video.
Does the argument introduced in the video commit the fallacy of Speacial Pleading? Yes or no.
@@Theo_Skeptomai No, it does not. The argument for God's self-sufficiency is separate from the argument from contingency. A feature of being that does not flow from its essence must come from another agent, for that is the only other option (unless we argue that something can come from nothing). The essence of a triangle is its three-sidedness. If a geometric figure does not have three sides, then it isn't a triangle. A triangle _necessarily_ has three sides. Thus, something _essential_ to being (its essence) is what _must_ exist if it is part of its essence. If existence were the essence of a thing, then it would necessarily exist. Since we observe things that go out of existence (e.g., woolly mammoths), we know that existence isn't the essence of such things. Consequently, the only thing that exists necessarily is something whose essence is to exist. Existence being the essence of a thing thus explains said thing's self-sufficiency.
@@davidcoleman5860 What is the 1st premise of this particular contingency argument?
@@Theo_Skeptomai Contingent beings need a cause.