I hope you realize that there is no other video explaining the relationship between God and Artistotle theory on TH-cam that I could find. Neither in English nor French. I am not saying that there are not many out there but it's not common. Congratulations and many thanks !
In my opinion, it’s the best argument, but really convoluted and easy to strawman / misunderstand. Cosmological arguments like Kalam are easier to grasp, but more vulnerable to rebuttal.
@@DefenseofSanity I also like how Aquinas and Aristotle prove certain characteristics of God, rather than the Kalam argument, which simply proves that God exists.
This is such an important video and yet it only has 47k views while Mr. Beast videos where he is destroys a car has 1b views. What a society we live in.
I really appreciate this. I'm currently reading 5 proofs for the existence of God by Ed Faser and its lead me into classical theism. The Aristotelian proof is something I'm really trying to understand. It's tough given I've only familiarized myself with theistic personalism but this is really helpful in aiding me to grasp the Aristotelian proof.
@@ciararespect4296 random person on the internet "aristotle wrong because theist" Ancient greek philosipher proves the logical necessity of a supreme being, what a dummy
@@ciararespect4296 Too much definitive order for it all to happen simply by chance . If gravity alone doesn’t explain it ( meaning if the gravitational pull in the context off the entire cosmos was plus or minus even a tiny fraction in either direction ) we wouldn’t be here and neither would the cosmos. If our moon didn’t exist the Earth would posses much less in tides , have short days and nights , have no tilt , etc . Thus again we wouldn’t be here and neither would life - as we understand it . If Jupiter and Saturn didn’t act as a cosmic house vacuum ( sucking in dirty and disastrous asteroids , comets , etc ) life wouldn’t exist on Earth as it would have been hit infinitesimally by these objects . If Earth was any closer or further from our perfect Sun - again we wouldn’t be here. If you want to live now as if there is no God then you best hope this is the case in the afterlife for if he does ( and that he does to us but not to you ) then you will be judged accordingly. He has given you just a glimpse to understand he is in fact there and if you require more from him to validate himself he will require the same of you to validate your stance ( meaning at your trial in the metaphysical ) so you best be prepared to deliberate and accept his verdict.
The first member needs no cause as it is outside of cause and effect.Aristotle's Unmoved Mover is outside of existing and it's similar to Plato's the Good or Plotinus's the One.
I guess this is more on Fesser than you, but I don't know why this is not called the Avicennin argument. He's the one that first worked it out in abstract like this. Aristotle still got this out of his physics, not metaphysics. Even more so because Aristotle's God moves the heavenly spheres by being their final cause. He doesn't pump any power for them to continue moving, he's just the motivation they need to continue doing it. Matters become even more ironic when I consider that, as far as I know, there's no indication in Aristotle (like there is here) that the prime mover is the agent intellect. The former is just thought thinking itself, and it "performs its function" in the Physics by (as I said) being the final cause of the planets. The agent intellect is the "mind which thinks all universals," which is needed to explain how passive intellects, like us, can come to think of some universals sometimes but not always. So Aristotle's own system contains an example of substances distinguishable from each other by virtue of their different attributes, where these attributes are not any matter of potency. Simply put, neither the prime mover nor the agent intellect involve potency, they are both pure actors, and yet it is at least a metaphysical possibility that they are not the same substance.
It's funny how this is more aligned with Islamic thought than it is with Christianity, Avicenna's work literally discusses this in mathematical terms. He called it the unity of being.
unity of being or wahadut ul wajood was propogated by ibn arabi etc and avicenna also belived in eternity of the universe and god as sort of sustainer of universe that immensly critqued by al ghazal and ibn tayamiyah
@@quickk.7064 i said that about ibn arabi not ibn sina . ibn sinna believed in the eternity of the universe and god as a necessary existence that sustains the universe
As a bringer of life and harbinger of creativity God represents endless possibilities to transform our physical reality as well as ourselves. The key to endure so is not to let our ego take control over our own, but to acknowledge that He is the cause of the great things that we experience in our lives. In some hermetic excerpts God is known as The First Unique Cause which is compatible with His Alpha & Omega remark.
Hey. I think I have something to contribute to this argument. A lot of people get caught up on the concept of an infinite regress, saying that it might be possible. I think the most compelling example is that of the infinite chain of gears. According to physics, there is a finite amount of energy in the universe. An infinite regress of gears would imply an infinite amount of energy which isn’t true, at least from our understanding of physics. What do you think?
Bullshit.. You and nobody cannot escape, infinite regress.. Science doesn't disprove or prove infinite coz infinite is no useful topic in "scientific sense"..thar doesn't mean infinity exist.. Mathematical infinities and universe as infinity is still a topic but science have nothing to say as infinity cannot be experimently verified.. Universe might be infinite ..law of conservation of energy, states energy can neither be created nor be destroyed and cause in the chain of gears the energy output is only given after the last gear, it still is in infinite regress.. It's not about energy but of gear.. Now infinite regress depends on the premise of the argument.. Thus nor science or reality could do anything.. As if one claims everything that exist have a cause, regardless of infinity is real or not, infinite regress is formed.. It can only be breaked if the premise is false.. It about the argument.. And we don't know about universe or energy in conclusive.. It might be infinite or not.. We don't know
Why couldn't there be an infinite amount of energy spread across an infinite amount of space, time, and multiverses? What's preventing the universe to be caused by a multiverse, which itself had another cause, in an infinite regress? I don't like the idea of an infinite regress, but it's hard to rule out entirely.
0:56 omg I actually get to use this as a counterargument and not a silly thing to mess with kids! Q: Why does it rain? 1. It rains because there is condensed water vapor in the air. 2. There is condensed water vapor in the air because it evaporated from bodies of water. 3. It evaporated from bodies of water because the water flowed from its original point of the surface of the earth. 4. The water started there because that is where it rained. C: It rains because it rained. It should be apparent to the reader that even though this is actually not a circular argument, it still has the same problem of a circular argument: it doesn't converge/terminate when explaining the fundamental source of rain. Concluding that it is possible for it to have always rained should correctly sound absurd. We know that from incidental information technically outside of the argument. Hence, the original interpretation, while not as strong as the latter, is a sufficient argument.
There can be material - and an actualizer, one who directs the material to his will. They can both exist without potency, be purely actual and logically inescapable. That would explain matter and the abstract ideas as we currently conceive. There can also be two actualizers, one with power but lacks thought while the other with thought but lacks power, but both without potency, purely actual and logically inescapable.
I don't fully follow. Why can't there be more than one actus purus? "There would have to be some thing that one has that the other doesn't" Yes, like a different position in the "framework" of reality? Why isn't this possible?
Because it's ultimately redundant. What is one doing that requires another? If the two or more are exactly alike and carry the same will, and never conflict with each other, there would be no way to distinguish one from the other. They would ultimately be the same being. It's therefore completely unnecessary.
@@Cklert it's a weak argument and it has awful implications, the best argument for oneness is the one that goes like: if deity A and deity B existed, and there's a thing call it a human or whatever, if the god A said he'll move right, and the god B said left, then one of three things occur, 1- both orders occur thus breaking the law of con, none occur thus they aren't omnipotent, one order occurs, thus the other deity isn't omnipotent, thus he's not a god. and you'll maybe say what if they don't have conflicted orders? the respond is that i'm speaking out of possiblity, not an acutal occuring of a conflict, if there's a possiblity that A moves the being right, and B moves the being left, then this possiblity is an impossiblity, thus a contradiction which is logically impossible.
As a muslim i also can relate to this philosophy because i can find alot of things common between it and islam and also the sufi philosophy. It closely resembles it.
I agree with most of this video but everything after immaterial is flimsy. Morality and perfection are totally abstract human creations. And the definition of power doesn’t hold up. By the definition of power used, everyone and everything is all powerful because of the butterfly effect idea, every action exponentially changes the future from a reality when that action didn’t happen. The argument that the actus purus is somehow sentient I don’t agree with. For example, your grandparents did not create you, they created your parents who then created you. By that same logic, the actus purus created the beginning of the universe that eventually created humans that then made abstractions. So the actus purus isn’t necessarily rational. And all knowing is based on rationally, and even if the actus purus was rational, we aren’t aware of every effect we have. You sneezing could cause a war in fifty years, just because you caused something doesn’t mean you are aware of all the ways it shapes the world.
I enjoyed reading your comment. One thing to consider. Your parents did not create you, they facilitated the creation of you. There is linguistically a tiny difference but in reality a huge difference. As in, to put it crudely, by a man and a woman getting aroused and having sex with each other, this can not be called creation as they have no control over what gender the child will be, the eye colour etc. To say that giving birth is creation is akin to saying putting a seed in a plant pot and adding water is to create the plant, but of course, it is not, it is facilitating the creation of the plant.
So an electron is always in constant motion. What is the actualizer for electrons in motion. Also if the laws of nature is constant, then does it still need an actualizer since it never changed. Does the laws of nature have potency? Could an atheist argue that everything requires an actualizer except for fundamental particles which is just that way and never changes. Also could something actualize itself
My current thought process after watching this video is the Actus Purus is basically energy. One force that isn't caused, created, or destroyed, which everything stems from. If energy can't be created, then it has always been, and is timeless. I have changed my mind. Matter fits this as well. Energy and matter both fit under the same constraints, but there are two. I would say however that the two share no similarities. They are separate timeless entities which always exist undeniably. Both are actual and only gain potential from interaction with the other My mind isn't made up on anything but I feel close to something
@@sergeantslaughter5695 I do not believe the Actus Purus is those things, lets say the Actus Purus is god. He created humans to be perfect but as we know humans are imperfect, god made an error and if the human truly is god´s image this means that god isn't rational, all-knowing (since he doesn't know how to create a perfect being) or all-good. I could expand more on this if I had the time
@@lovynil I don't think any religion claims that God tried to make perfect beings in the sense that they cannot make mistakes. After all, we can't make moral decisions if we have no choice to do the right or wrong thing.
Actus Purus is in a sense the exact opposite of energy/matter. Energy/matter can be likened to pure potentiallity/prime matter. It can become anything. But matter/energy does not exist on it's own unless it's has a actuality/form - and then becomes something. Matter/energy also constantly changes and takes up new forms which is also opposite to unchangable Pure Act. Pure Act is a omnipotent being, sepreate from anything elese and causing everything else, not any pantheistic ground of being that everything is made out off. Matter/energy in themselves cannot cause anything because they do not have any act in themselves. Speaking of energy as something timeleless/eternal (althugh it can exist indefinetly, which is different) is misleading because it's metaphysical absurdity. You are looking at things from pantheistic point of view which can be described as exact opposite metaphysics of the one that Aristotle represents.
@@acreationofallah1610 No truth exists without a lie and lie is a perversion of the truth, therefore the truth has to exist before any lie can exist. So a lie does not exist in reality, only in our minds. Truth exists outside our minds and in reality.
Brother, may I use some fragments from this video for my video on Dr. Feser's arguments? The goal is to introduce the Russian audience to the argument from Dr. Feser's book. I'll definitely put your video as a reference and according to the copyright. Thanks
He says between 5:20 and 5:55 that "the actus purus is one". I didn't quite agree this MUST be the case. Does anybody know an argument or philosophy that proves this?
Are you confusing potentiality with potency here? Also, at 7:16 “to actualize potencies”, but I thought you said the “basis” had no potencies! And in order to act/actualize, it would need to have one, right?
@Actus Purus hey thanks for your response. I believe devoting two different terms with the word “potency” is unnecessary, since “passive potency” can just be called potency, and “active potency” could just be referred to as “actability/ability”. Sure, if the “basis” had no potency (passive) then that would entail that all of creation is infinitely old, since the “basis” is always actual with no potencies, and since the “basis” is infinite, it has actualized all of potencies in all things ever since (infinity). If creation wasn’t infinite, then it had to come into (actualized) into existence by the “basis”, and if that was the case, then the “basis” did undergo a change, from not creating to creating, and hence it had the potential to create then it actualized its own potential to perform the act of creation. I believe the statement “every passive potency requires an external actualizer” is applicable to all entities without a will, and thus not the “basis”, but he limited it to that statement. Thoughts?
@Actus Purus Thanks for the clarification. I believe the term "purely actual" is quite vague; is it to mean that the entity has "no capacity/ability to be changed or affected?", (lack of passive potency as you put it?). And why did we split the nature of potentiality into two: "potential to cause/perform a change" and the "potential to be changed or affected"; at the end they're both potentials that exist within an entity. Moreover, the premise that the actus purus *must* lack any potency is flawed. 4:43 He limited the actualization of potencies to an external actualizer, which is not true, whether it be what you call "active" or "passive" (and this is what led him to that "no potency" conclusion). All entities with a *will* can exercise the act of actualizing their own potencies (to some extent) without requiring an external actualizer (eg: Humans have the potential to die, and once can suicide actualizing that potency). Things like matches, magnets, wood, etc. require an external actualizer to actualize their potencies since they don't have a will. Now it seems you're bounding the actus purus to the existence of the universe when you said: "some potential in the universe has not be actualized and thus does not exist. actus purus and the universe coexisted mutually, and when you said: " and thus the actus purus does not exist before creating it." which sounds like a logical contradiction; how can he not exist before creating it, but at the same time, he created it? Is his existence limited to the existence of the universe? Finally with regards to "changeability" from not-creating to creating, it seems that again, you bounded the term "change" within the universe, and thus no change exists outside of the universe which is not true. Change does not have to be temporal, the change from not-creating to creating is an intrinsic change, i.e., behavioral rather than temporal thus the actus purus had the potential to change
the only difference between essential and accidental causes is simultaneity. That is the only difference. There is no clear reason why you need an unmoved mover in the case of a temporally extended causal chain vs a simultaneous one.
So many contradictions in this video. For example, you said: "The Actus Purus has no potency", and therefore it's perfect. Then you said it's "All Good" because it's perfect and lacks nothing. But apparently it lacks potency as stated in your previous assertion. But with this logic, I could assert any belief. For example couldn't I equally assert: "Since there's no potency, it's eternally incomplete, weak and flawed" Or with your logic: "Since good is just the lack of evil, and since Actus Purus lacks nothing. Therefore it's pure evil." Also the idea that the Actus Purus has a rational mind because of cause and effect, jumps to the conclusion that there is a mind at all. There are so many contradictions and flawed arguments in this video. It seems like you've already assumed the outcome, that the universe must conform to your human expectations that there is a human-like mind that caused the universe. Then you've created a series of logical steps which don't actually work to support your assumptions. The problem with a "super mind" causing everything is that the mind would need certain attributes, such as thoughts, the ability to plan the universe, ability to reason, ability to create a purpose with specific goals, the ability to design things, the ability to judge good vs bad ideas, imagine things, remember things (have a memory), and the power to execute the plan, etc. All these attributes are not one thing, but many many complex interacting parts. If this mind perfectly planned out the universe then its memory alone is more complex than the universe with the ability to not only remember the locations of each particle throughout all time, but to also search, retrieve, and think about each detail. In other words, this mind is not a unified, uncaused default state or "prime mover" at all. Instead, it's a complex network of interacting parts much like a computer or a human mind that would logically require structured parts, energy, materials, time ... But what caused such a complex being to exist? An entity more complex, more perfect and more structured than the universe itself? It also sounds suspiciously very human. Is it possible a human has projected his own mind onto the universe because it "feels right" to relate socially and spiritually to this higher power? Rather than assert that all this complexity in the universe is caused by an even more complex being that has always existed, isn't it simpler to say that the universe has always existed? Looking at the beautifully designed DNA of the malaria protist that kills over 400,000 children and adults per year is enough for me to ask: "Is this really the best a perfect and good god could do? Is there a chance that god is less human, and more universe than our ancestors originally hoped?"
Is this the God of Deism? The same as Brahman, instead of a Personal God (Theism)? How can the Actus Purus have a will or be affected by us in any way? How can we have a relationship with this Being? How can this Being have any characteristics, attributes, personality?
Under Divine simplicity God is personal In the sense he has will, intellect ,loves and keeps everything and everyone in existence. That's basically it However because God is unchanging no we can't effect God in anyway whatsoever.
Potency IS an actual. You turned "actual" into an object, while it is just an adjective. Here is the logic, you say earth doesn't fall because electron repulsion, but it isn't so, earth doesn't fall because it is actually doesn't "fall" in such state, it is not "caused" by electron repulsion, electron repulsion is just another state, a specific conditions of things. So with earth in that state, and electron repulsion in that state, the state of "earth falling" simply doesn't exist (is not actual). So all things are actuals, they are actually in such state and there is no need for that imagined chain. That chain you imagined maybe comes from a misunderstanding of time, which you might imagine becomes a highway in which a scenario of causality comes into play. But it isn't so, in physics time is just changes of states. States of things change yes, but those changes are not hierarchical causality like the illustration you drew. Things are related to each other, and they all have states, but they don't cause each other, they just are. Such causality that you described is actually just an uneducated perspective (possibly comes from our brain to help us survive and navigate things), to describe how thing are related to each other, seemingly they depend on something else described by that vertical hierarchical relationship. But it is misleading. Study of physics don't see things this way.
The one thing flawed with this argument is that you claim the actus purus to be rational, for something to be rational it has to be conscious and self aware, but consciousness is the absence of self (what I mean by that is that where yourself exists, your consciousness and rationality doesnt, because yourself is a closed system and consciousness and rationality are open systems that are boundless, thus they are the absence of self) and the actus purus cant have anything abscent because it is perfect. So either the actus purus is not rational and all knowing, or the actus purus IS both rational and all knowing, but lacks self, which makes it imperfect.
I am not sure about the pure actuality inference We need to br consistent with the way we use the term actual Because we are talking about per se chain The first member must be able to produce motion Without a further actualizer to actualize its potential to cause motion In other words it has nonderived csusal power That's the sense in which we can call the first cause uactualized However we cannot go further and claim that it doesn't have any potentials at all For example it's potential to exist could have been actualized a finite time ago Yet it doesn't need a sustaining actualizer to sustain its existence While at the same time sustaining the existence of the members of the per se series
I understand this argument except the part where there has to be a stoping point. Can you please explain why there has to be a stopping poing and cant go on forever infinitely? This is the part which im trying to figure out for quite at while now but still don't understand why it cant go on forever infinitely. Thanks
I still don't understand why it can go on forever. Lets suppose there is a lamp hanging on the ceiling only because it being held up by the chain. The chain is holding up the lamp only because its be held up by the screws. The screws are are holding the chain up only because the screws are being held by the ceiling. The ceiling is holding the screws only because the ceiling is being held up by the walls. The walls are able to hold ceiling up only because its being supported by the floor and so forth. I understand that each member of the series is driving power from another but i dont understand why this series cant go on forever infinitely. Can you please explain more or give some examples please? Thanks
@Noah Charles so basically if there is an infinite series where every member drives power from another, no member would have power in itself . Correct me if im wrong please
@@kaleemazad5475 think of a chandelier, instead of hanging the chandelier to the ceiling you connect to a chord, then another chord, then another chord, and another and another. An infinite number of chords won't hang the chandelier.
@@kaleemazad5475 Exactly. Unless you have a first, independent and totally self-sufficient member in the series from which all other members derive their power (or actuality, to use the technical jargon), there would be no series in the first place. That's why there needs to be a first member because all the other members are dependent upon it to be in the particular place they are at that moment.
@Hinters yes. Of course it doesn't end there. The ceiling is attached to something and so it goes, but logically it needs a "first". Each part of the series only gets its causal power from the previous member of the series. Without a first member there is not causal power at all. Unlike a temporal or accidentally ordered series, this series logically requires a first member.
Yes i agree it cant be proved solely off this theory. However this theory hasn’t been disproven. Along with this I would encourage you to look up cosmological constants. Even atheist scientists who study this believe that the universe existing is so improbable that it looks like something organized it. The reason this theory stands is because it is impossible to disprove without admitting God had to create it. Our universe is so complex that it NEEDS a intelligent, all powerful, and internal being to create it. Let me know your thoughts
If one can believe that there is something in the chain that does not require a cause and can exist on its own then that "something" is called God in religion. Whether this universe is God or universe has a God.
Aristotle is considered only prepared to admit that God exists. But he didn't. So, the video is only a monotheistic claim and interpretation of Aristotle.
Re: the claim that there must be one actus purus - what if Actus Purus A had potency that could only be actualized by Actus Purus B and vice versa, forming a sort of interdependent relationship?
The aristotles proof has many problems when it comes to affirm a abrahamic god e.g abrahamic god has made things come into being but under the aristotles model world is eternal which creates another problem for this argument how something eternal brought temporal originations into existence.
Could you explain a little more why the series of changes cannot be an infinite regress? Is it because if there were an infinite regress of changes, would you be able to exist in a state of change at all?
If matter and energy are caused by quantum fields, which are caused by the structure of spacetime which is caused by something else, which is caused by something else ... (in an infinite regress) then it would be an infinite regress. I don't think there's anything preventing this, it's just that it is not satisfying to our human intellect / intuition.
Because it moreso presents a logical problem. That is, the magnitude of infinity. Infinity isn't simply a really big number. It is a continuous set. If an infinite amount of events or actions happend prior then we would actually have no way of pinpointing or reaching where we are right now. If it did end up being an infinite regress, it would actually change our understanding of how infinity works.
Let me take the example of God. God has all the power, all the goodness, all the knowledge 'by default'. He hasn't worked hard for it. It's like a 'free fund'. Similarly, we have consciousness/free will as a 'free fund'. Thoughts come and go in our mind. I myself don't know what thought will come into my mind, say after 5 minutes, 10 minutes etc. It's a 'free fund'.
This entire argument is based on presumption of contingency as popularly conceived by the likes of Leibniz. What if there is no such thing as contingency? I.e. the universe is one in existence and is it's own cause, or in philisophical terms, monism.
Right. Where's the part where he slips in Jesus? Why not Krishna or Shiva? (that's another story). The list of essences of the Actus Purus he shows has a flaw. He pulled "good" (as opposed to "evil" out of an ad hoc. Why not evil? If he doesn't have good, evil, and all flavors in between, then his "God" would be incomplete, and a God cannot be incomplete. What those qualities (One, and others), point to is Pure Consciousness "In-Itself", or what Shankara (788-820), called Brahman. This Substance matches Aristotle's God more than the notion of a Personal Creator like YHVH.
Someone sent me this video to convince me there is a god. I'm an atheist. I must say, I watched it twice, and I cannot stop thinking HOW MANY baseless assumptions the speaker is throwing at the end. I'm honestly shocked no one else is pointing it out. 😐 All those 'changeless, perfect, all-good, outside time' etc are assumptions. And I can clearly see the speaker is a believer, and that the whole 'argument' is a very elaborate attempt to justify the belief. There is absolutely NO reason for the catalyst of the universe and life to be anything close to what the video proposes. The beginning argument isn't good enough and it's weak because it excludes current scientific evidence, or acts as if there are no alternative solutions. 😕 Why couldn't the catalyst be 'imperfect', perfection is a human-made concept, same as 'good/bad' (there is little to no evidence that species other than us care about these things). The speaker assumes all those human made concepts can be slapped onto a catalyst and oh, how coincidental! They all point to a God, which the speaker and most viewers already believe in! 🙄 I, as an atheist, can tell you - this is a poor argument. You won't convince anyone who isn't already at least a partial believer with it. Just to take 'changeless' for an example - what about the heat death of the universe? If the current scientific model proposes as a pretty solid possibility the fact that all natural laws we currently live with will one day stop, simply naturally, then WHY are you assuming there is anything changeless? Why couldn't the original catalyst be now different? Because of a philosophical argument made by a guy who also believed arrows fly because the air behind them is pushing them (Aristotle)? 🙈😐 You won't find the actual truth about anything if you keep hoping that any and every piece of information you learn will point to a god. 😕 That just leads to astonishing levels of confirmation bias.
Thanks for the comment. You actually commit a common but serious mistake when approaching Aristotle’s argument. This is NOT a cosmological argument. So every time you mention a “catalyst,” you miss the point. Aristotle is not proposing a catalyst at the beginning of time (he didn’t even believe time had a beginning). He is talking about the terminus of a causal chain essentially ordered. That doesn’t require any talk about the beginning of time or the universe. It has relevance to events happening here and now. You have therefore not engaged with the argument at all. Another problem with your assessment is that you accuse Aristotle of making assumptions when he’s making a logical demonstration, so nothing is to be assumed. There are premises based on observation (which you can dispute) and there is the conclusion that follows deductively from the premises (which you can dispute whether it really follows). What there isn’t are assumptions. To take one example, you say his arguments regarding changelessness are assumptive because scientists have suggested we are headed towards a “changeless” universe in heat death. But this is not changeless at all. Only mechanical motion would cease (not quantum vibrations or fluctuations). Plus, a universe in heat death is merely in equilibrium where decreases in entropy are statistically low but still very possible. So in theory, you could still get spontaneous mechanical motion in such a universe where entropy decreases locally against statistical odds. The natural laws do not stop, and this is a misunderstanding of what heat death is. You could say some of the laws appear to stop, but physicists do not believe physical laws would literally stop. (Indeed, it’s those very laws that make entropy reach a maximum and stay there.) Yes, Aristotle had some silly scientific views. He was living centuries before a theory of momentum could be developed. However, his theory was accepted for centuries, and it led to the development of the correct concept of momentum. So, Aristotle can really be credited with starting the serious inquiry into why things continue to move “on their own”. In any case, this is part of his inductive (scientific) work, not his deductive (philosophical) work, so it’s unfair to discount one based on the other. Quite literally a logical fallacy (Person A was wrong about Thing X, therefore A must be wrong about Thing Y as well.) The final part of the video is admittedly rushed and highly summarized. I don’t blame you for finding this part to be unfounded or full of assumptions. However, the main point of the video is to establish the Actus Purus, which is done prior to that final volley of conclusions. I assure you no assumptions are made behind those final conclusions. Aristotle and Aquinas even develop a concept of what “good” is based on bare, observable reality (thereby solving the ought-is problem). These are analytical philosophers, so nothing is taken for granted and nothing is sloppily assumed. Everything must be proved either by uncontested observation or by logical deduction.
@@DefenseofSanity I appreciate that you put a lot of thought into your faith, you clearly care a lot. My issue here is that, the way I see it - you are, in fact, trying to explain reality. All this philosophical stuff seems like a very obvious attempt to get at what reality is like - does it include a god or not? It's a huge statement. And I'm saying 'catalyst' because god believers typically care about god being the reason everything exists. Whether it's theism or deism- you guys believe a deity of some kind made things happen. 🤷🏼♀️ Anything else would be kinda pointless, because if not looking for an explanation of reality - why would you even care if there's a creator or not? Just live your life. So my point is, as someone who believes the universe, and everything in it, or outside of it - can be explained very comfortably without a deity - that you cannot explain reality with philosophy. Especially when actual real information exists and you don't have to get abstract to understand it. For you to 'prove' there is a god, any god, there is SO MUCH actual evidence you'd have to present. 'Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence', you may have encountered that saying. 😕 Would you honestly look at your argument and say that's 'extraordinary evidence'? If I presented the same stuff to you but the outcome was 'that's why there isn't a god', would you be convinced? Or would you HEAVILY pick it apart? Sure, I'm only one human who happens to be an atheist, and from your comments most of your public is already christian. But even just I am not remotely convinced...the only people who like this argument seem to be already believers...so it's hardly actual evidence then, by the looks of it. It's just confirming what you guys already believe or want to believe. 😐🤷🏼♀️ Contrary to popular religious belief, atheists aren't satanists, or people who love sin and wanna bathe in it, or who hate God. In fact, if there was actually convincing, sufficient evidence that couldn't be explained by something else or dismantled by reading a history book - why wouldn't I believe in a God? 🤷🏼♀️ If that was reality, I'd jump right in! As it stands, however, no Christians, or muslims, or even Hindus I've ever met - have had any particularly convincing arguments. By a mile. 😐🙁 I am sorry, but what you've presented isn't actually evidence. It's more like a thought experiment but even then you're leaping in quite a few places. If the only people who tell you 'good job!' are mostly people who already believe what you believe, that may be a red flag. 😕🤷🏼♀️
@@KAl-vf1dz I don’t deny that I’m concerned with reality; that’s actually what philosophy is. You seem to have a negative view towards philosophy. Philosophy is just the pursuit of truth. Technically, science is a branch of philosophy because it aims at truth, using a method called inductive reasoning (the idea that you can abstract governing principles after observing many particular examples in natural reality). To be clear, I do believe that God created (was the catalyst of) the universe. However, that is unrelated to this argument, so it’s just not relevant to bring up under this topic. This is a deductive argument, so it’s not appropriate to talk about evidence. For example, mathematics is deductive too. You could certainly provide evidence that 1+1=2, but mathematics doesn’t require evidence because it is a more basic order of knowledge - pure reason. Aristotle’s argument is this way too. He argues that causal chains essentially ordered cannot regress infinitely because that would lead to the absurd conclusion that nothing ultimately imparts causal power to any given causal chain, or that causal chains impart causal power to themselves. Aristotle therefore concludes (by reductio ad absurdum) that this fact logically necessitates that all essentially ordered causal chains must terminate with a prime member (hierarchical, not temporal) that imparts causal power without itself being contingent on a prior member. This type of argument has the same weight as a mathematical proof, and to defeat it, you have to show which of the premises are incorrect or how the conclusion does not follow from the premises. You say that the argument is “leaping in quite a few places,” but you haven’t really shown that to be the case. I rebutted one example you offered about changelessness, and that wasn’t even part of the core argument (just a logical implication of the core argument).
@@DefenseofSanity The reason I didn't try to tackle the actual Aristotle argument is because I didn't see it as necessary. It seemed ok on the surface, my issue was with final 'leaps' where you asserted all those qualities and then said 'it's basically what we call God'. That was my problem. 🤷🏼♀️ Even if the Aristotle's argument was bulletproof, which it apparently isn't (I found a very long analysis of it and I'd rather send you the link, as otherwise copy-pasting would be absurdly long, it's the first reply of the question but you can look at everything as the topic clearly concerns you. And yes, the analysis includes how religious people may view the argument at the end. philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/6388/is-infinite-regress-of-causation-possible-is-infinite-regress-of-causation-nece), my atheist mind would stop at a certain point. When it says 'things cannot regress infinitely' (which I disagree with anyway) I'd say 'Alright, then maybe we haven't found the original point yet, and that's ok - maybe science will help, or maybe we'll never know' and I'm ok with that. At absolutely no point does my brain go 'ohh, look at all those possible qualities the original point may have, that MUST mean there's a God!'🤓 Are you able to understand my point? My problem with the argument you're presenting? 😕 Those are the leaps I'm talking about - from an assertion that things can't regress forever apparently, to - 'and we can call that God, basically.' There are steps missing there, even if you've tried to create them. Not for your mind, perhaps, but for a mind who doesn't believe in a God already. 🙈 And I do have a problem with philosophy in the present day. I understand it's historical significance and that it was a catalyst for scientific reasoning, but what I also know is that historically, for several centuries, philosophers purposefully did not conduct experiments to test their ideas because it was deemed 'physical labour', and only slaves had to do that. I know this may seem off topic, but it isn't quite. A lot of that ancient culture refused to test claims because it was seen as 'yucky', and society didn't really progress much until slavery stopped and people started tinkering with the environment again. So ancient philosophy was seen as 'rich people's' noble pastime, and people thought they were doing the best job possible by just observing and thinking hard. 🤷🏼♀️ Yes, that did give us some good stuff, but also we have been able to fill a lot of the gaps with experiments, the very thing most philosophers didn't really like doing. So when you look at a person from a particular culture and time creating a claim, to be as accurate as possible in interpreting them you also need to understand their context. And if you spot obvious flaws in the context, you may also take the arguments with a grain of salt. 😕
@@KAl-vf1dz The article you shared commits the same, sad mistake of confusing essentially ordered causal chains with temporally ordered causal chains. In other words, by thinking of these causal chains as a series that occurs sequentially in time, you’ve completely misunderstood what Aristotle is talking about and therefore all criticisms about infinite regress are straw men, attacking something that Aristotle never claimed! (I make this clear in the very first sentences of my video.) Aristotle agrees that a temporally ordered series can regress infinitely (which I actually argue in the first minute of my video), so the article you shared is in agreement with him there and does not refute the argument at all. Aristotle says essentially ordered (hierarchical) series cannot regress infinitely, and your article fails to address that type of series. In other words, I have not seen one single objection from you that actually engages with Aristotle’s argument here. The attributes concluded about the prime mover are not possibilities or probabilities, but logical necessities. We can be 100% certain about these attributes because they follow deductively from premises. (Just as when I sum 1 and 1, the number 2 is not a probability of what the answer must be like. It literally is the answer, and we can know that with certainty in mathematics.) The “leaps” at the end can be deductively established. Let me know where you see a “leap” and I can connect the dots to help you see the argument.
It took one of the smartest (Aristotle) from the smartest civilization (greece) to describe what the jews had heard from a men who was not sharp at speaking and humble (Moses.) What other civilization other than Israel had such idea without being that smart?
Here is my counter... Firstly, what does it mean by change is pretty confusing as if u are mixing different types of arguments based on Aristotle exists like unmoved mover, uncaused cause etc.. 1)change if meant as - something turns into a different thing - then it doesn't exist.. A match stick light up by something doesn't changes atomically in a sense new atoms are formed or destroyed, instead it's property is replaced but the actual match stick which existed still exist in different places in different ways.. If change is meant to be something of being from one property of an object to another.. It might exist.. As u said all change need a changer.. But next u said this is not the case.. As u end up in a first unchanged changer or unmoved mover.. The whole argument breaks down, premise that change or motion of objects need something external to change it . Thus open the door for being uncaused cause or unchanged changer for everything that exist.. How the hell did u escaped infinite regress?..u just committed a special pleading fallacy there.. And there is no explanation of why infinite regress isn't possible.. Now my point.. *Everything that exist doesn't have a creator.. *as something cannot come from nothing, something that exists always exists... * everything that exist have property.. * property as it "exist" cannot be created and will always exist.. * properties are by definition inherent and cannot be destroyed (above premise) * Motion is a property that exist and is an inherent property ,as everything moves and something which doesn't have the property of motion will not move even if force is applied.. * as matter and everything in this world have the ability to move, thus it's an inherent property, as nothing new can be created or added to a thing which doesn't have the property of reaction factor to that addition of change * nothing in this world we know is actually in a state of rest Conclusion : therefore matter inherently can move and be a mover as it possess the motion as a property and it always moves as there is no state of rest.. So primer mover if u accept is universe itself.. There is no need for another external immaterial agent.. Motion as a property can be changed with anything aslong as it is empirically verified and logically consistent.. No God needed again
anyone who claims infinte regress is possible is deluded. Existence is proof for the impossiblity of infinite regress. Everything within the universe, and therefore the body itself is contingent. Nothing within the realm of existence has the propensity to come about by itself. Your contention to the argument posed in this video is extremely lacking and you've demonstrated you did not understand the proposition.
Why is the active purus good and rational all knowing etc ? You're just putting human characteristics in it? The words aren't good enough to explain It's not a deductive argument
Up, down, sideways. Black, gray, white. Birth, life, death. Hot, cold, middle. Past, present, future. Water: ice, liquid, vapor. A 3 legged stool has parts, but is still a stool. Anything like the above can have 3 parts yet be unified without contradiction. Follow Isa. The prophet could not breathe life into a clay bird, nor raise anyone from the dead.
@@glenliesegang233 Careful now, you're dangerously treading toward Partialism with analogy. God is not made of parts. If a stool loses one or two of it's legs, it will start to stand funny. It will be less of a stool than it was previously. However, the Trinity proclaims that each Person in the Trinity is fully God, yet are distinguished. The Father is fully God, and does not need the Son or the Holy Spirit to remain God. As is the Son, as is the Holy Spirit. Usually, I don't recommend people to make analogies, because usually they aren't good representations of the Mystery of the Trinity. But your examples on Time and color, aren't bad that I don't see an immediate problem.
@@Cklert we think in earthly dimensions, and minds create categories and claim the category to be what exists. I wish I could help atheists grasp that when they create an image of "God" in order to have something to reject, if their image is NOT reflective of His true nature, they are not actually rejecting Him as a Being. A stool can be said to have parts, but it is no longer a stool when separated. My point. Yet Jordan Peterson, deist or not, for me, nails it when he says that we each come to a discussion about the question of the existence of God with different meanings of "God" and ,"to exist."
@@kylemyers971 ok, but, at least for me, the argument proves that there must be an unactualized actualizer in regard to it's existence; which is that there must be a being which existence wasn't actualized ( didn't go from potency to act ). But it doesn't proof that this unactualized actualizer doesn't have other potntials for change; for example can't this being move itself? the potency to be at point X is actualized by the being itself ( more or less like us humans ). Sow, maybe I am just not understanding some part of the argumentation, but it is not clear for now.
It's very simple. Humans have evolved in a way which makes our minds search for an anthropomorphic entity to account for phenomenon. We are instinctually driven to assign meanings to things and phenomenon and search for intent, when oftentimes there isn't one. We think everything is caused by a prior thing that has intent. And that is the problem, because to search for an explanation when there is none only gives you more questions.
The universe would then have to be all powerful and intelligent. This means that it has to be able to create life. Look into the cosmological constant. Scientists who study this even the atheist ones believe that the universe is so complex that it looks like a power organized it. Yes even the atheist ones think this, please look it up. Along with this, the second law of thermodynamics states that things deteriorate over time. This means that the universe should have self destructed thousands of years ago. The fact that life is so improbable and complexly made points to a need for God being all powerful and intelligent. The universe alone cannot do that. Please let me know your thoughts!
No potency at all, for many reasons. Suffice it to say if there was any potency in God, that would imply something external to him could actualize it. There is no such thing as unactualizable potential. That’s the same thing as saying non-potential potential. So no matter how you cut it, potential in God results in logical contradiction.
@@DefenseofSanity i understand the part where there has to be an unactualized actualizer. But cant it have a potentially as long as it doesn't get actualized? Maybe the potential never gets actualized in god and still remains unactualized.
So you escape from one absurd which is Infinity to another wich is something without a cause. Man life is just absurd ,it's like a blind person trying to understand colors.
Nope you clearly have 0 grasp on the basics of the argument. Firstly, in regards to the hierarchical casual series, even if it were to stretch to infinity, the casual series by itself would still be casually inert, as all its members derive its causal power only in a derivative sense, thus just as all particular bricks in a wall are red, when put together into a wall, the wall is going to be red. Secondly, that which is of pure act is that which is of without cause, necessarily, by virtue of being pure act. Recall the principle of causality which states “that which potency is actualised, is actualised by that which is already actual”, that which is of pure act (and thus no potency) is necessarily that which has no cause, because it is not possible, even in principle, and in no way a violation of the principle, as it’s sufficient reason is to be found in itself. To ask what caused that which pure act (God)? Is basically to ask “what moved that which is unmoved?” An idiotic statement at best. You, like all other atheists, have grasp a total of 0 of the basics of the arguments, and yet are completely confident in your assessment. And the objections, like all other atheists on TH-cam, are based on caricatures and a complete lack of competence to grasp just even the BASICS of the argument. Invincible ignorance.
@@affinity1746 "You, like all other atheists, have grasp a total of 0 of the basics of the arguments" - I do and its massively flawed. Explain, in this causal link, how *physical* objects influencing *physical* objects can be initiated by a non-physical object.
@@lewis72, your question, which is an interesting one, can be solved by affirming the position called idealism. Non-physical objects are minds (like you) and some ideas (like the taste of an apple) and physical objects are other ideas (like the idea of a table in your mind; physical meaning describable by mathematical terms). Ideas that have shape, etc., in your mind are physical since they can be described mathematically (that's what physical means). Since minds and ideas are of the same nature there's no problem as to how the non-physical can influence and initiate physical objects. Nonetheless all theists are idealists so that's nothing new.
@@dazedmaestro1223 But is affirming the position called idealism valid ? The 'mind' is merely a description of something physical. It has no autonomy. Same as the taste of an apple or the idea of a table.
Simple argument for God, the unmoved mover or the UNcaused cause is the finitude of past time. The latter is a religiously neutral fact but with profound religious implications.
"And potencies don't exist without any external actualizes" Is this making an argument that (newtons law?) nothing can change without external forces applies here. I don't think we can necessary follow physics here. Why cant the 1st member be an actual that can change itself?
Newton’s law is a description of how reality behaves. It’s not a metaphysical claim. According to special relativity, objects in an inertial frame of reference (not accelerating) aren’t even really moving in any objective sense. Only from a non-inertial frame can you say they are moving, and inertial frames take privilege in quantum physics. So the actual rule on a more accurate understanding of physics is that things not moving (from an inertial frame) won’t move unless moved by another …
@@DefenseofSanity i guess i should ask how can you claim the actus purus cant be the actualizer for itself and provide itself potency. I dont think this impacts the causality chain or anything really, but its what ive been pondering for a couple hours here hahahaha
Good questions. Aristotle addresses these in Physics VIII.5 (available online for free). Basically, you can’t have potency and its act in the same being, or the potency would always be actual. Usually when people suggest this, they are thinking of a being with parts, and the potency is in one part with the act in another. Aristotle says the part with the act is basically itself an external actual, which gives rise to the potency in the other part. For example, when you walk, this isn’t strictly speaking a case of self-motion. It’s certain parts of your body with motive power moving the rest. And those parts that move the rest are themselves moved by muscles, moved by myosin bending, moved by proteins unfolding, etc. The ONLY way to stop this regress is to have a member that can move things without being moved. Since change is just potencies being reduced to act, ultimately this thing must simply lack potency. Another way to put it: its existence or functioning can’t be conditioned on something prior. There must be a first. This is related to the epistemic regress problem, and philosophers generally have no problem concluding truths that don’t need proving in that regard. It’s worth noting that quantum physics has only strengthened the idea of potencies, with Werner Heisenberg literally citing them as a good way to speak of waveform probabilities. A waveform has many possible solutions, none of which is fully true or false until it is collapsed into a discrete value. This is just potencies reduced to act. Potencies exist as a range of possible outcomes and they collapse into act by another.
@@pratiswar5977 Romans 1 : 20 ============= So, when we study or observed the creation of God, what can we learned and found..? All God's creation and works tells something about HIM( creator)! The( or any of God's handmade) Creation are all made of or having/ contained 1) Positivity (+)or Negativity(-) 2) Masculinity or Femininity 3) Pistil or Ovule in plants 4) Yang or Yin... GOD'S POSITIVITY AND NEGATIVITY, GOD'S MASCULINITY AND FEMININITY, GOD'S YANG AND YIN.. 👉GOD IS THE HARMONIOUS AND ORIGINAL BEING/ BODY OF ENERGY ((( PRE ENERGY + E= MC2 ))) , OF POSITIVITY AND NEGATIVITY! ============= Another observation is that all of God' s creation have in common like, 1) Have invisible nature or character = A)Internal invisible Mind and B) External visible body/ form ============= What else ? So , this tells us or reveal to us about their origin, their Maker/ Creator 😂 Yes?? God hss also these natures and characters.. God created Humans in His own Image and Likeness. .Humans are only man and woman, male and female, masculinity and femininity!! We call God our Heavenly Father to Emphasizing His masculine Nature or call God our Parents (harmonious both male/ Female). ------------------------- Why the Universe is full of a PAIR system ?? It is for the purposed of fulfilling/ experiencing Love!!❤😂.. =============
I hope you realize that there is no other video explaining the relationship between God and Artistotle theory on TH-cam that I could find. Neither in English nor French. I am not saying that there are not many out there but it's not common. Congratulations and many thanks !
That’s honestly really sad. TH-cam needs more Aristotle.
Very interesting. Who is the author? How do I find more videos or docs from him?
Ed Feser does great content on this kind of Aristotelian philosophy
Over 2000 years ago Aristotle was figuring out the nature of reality wow
Thanks for this explanation, I've been struggling to understand actus purus for a while and this cleared it up, keep up the good work.
In my opinion, it’s the best argument, but really convoluted and easy to strawman / misunderstand. Cosmological arguments like Kalam are easier to grasp, but more vulnerable to rebuttal.
@@DefenseofSanity I also like how Aquinas and Aristotle prove certain characteristics of God, rather than the Kalam argument, which simply proves that God exists.
It’s so much better. Aristotle’s metaphysics also leads to a comprehensive development of morality, politics, natural science, etc. It’s fantastic.
@@DefenseofSanityjust another human construct, proves nothing, nice try though 😂😂
You’re an absolute badass, you couldn’t have made it more concise yet more accurate at the same time. A m d g bro
Credit to Dr. Ed Feser for writing such a concise and accurate book, which I used as reference.
@@DefenseofSanity Do you believe Christianity is more credible than Islam? Islam is predicated on Oneness. Christianity on Threeness.
Does Islam teach that God or Allah is exactly the actus purus as described in my video?
@@DefenseofSanity Pretty much, yes
If “pretty much” implies that something about the actus purus does not apply to God as Muslims understand, what is it?
God bless you!
Great video! I imagine it takes a lot of courage & humility to stand up for the Faith in the internet like this. Thank you for doing it.
i feel smart because i understood everything in this video
WRONG!!
The video I have been searching for !!!!!!!
Happy you found it helpful.
Defense of Sanity please make more
Brilliant
This is such an important video and yet it only has 47k views while Mr. Beast videos where he is destroys a car has 1b views. What a society we live in.
Defense of sanity I took my post down after I watch your whole video it was a great video I Impressed of your knowledge God Bless
I really appreciate this. I'm currently reading 5 proofs for the existence of God by Ed Faser and its lead me into classical theism. The Aristotelian proof is something I'm really trying to understand. It's tough given I've only familiarized myself with theistic personalism but this is really helpful in aiding me to grasp the Aristotelian proof.
Im confused at how you reached to that “all good” conclusion, if someone elaborates it would really help
God is real. Everything was designed . Amazing video
Nope it's all confirmation bias by Aristotle
@@ciararespect4296 random person on the internet "aristotle wrong because theist"
Ancient greek philosipher proves the logical necessity of a supreme being, what a dummy
@@ciararespect4296 Nope its proven by Nature and Science
@@ciararespect4296 Too much definitive order for it all to happen simply by chance . If gravity alone doesn’t explain it ( meaning if the gravitational pull in the context off the entire cosmos was plus or minus even a tiny fraction in either direction ) we wouldn’t be here and neither would the cosmos. If our moon didn’t exist the Earth would posses much less in tides , have short days and nights , have no tilt , etc . Thus again we wouldn’t be here and neither would life - as we understand it . If Jupiter and Saturn didn’t act as a cosmic house vacuum ( sucking in dirty and disastrous asteroids , comets , etc ) life wouldn’t exist on Earth as it would have been hit infinitesimally by these objects . If Earth was any closer or further from our perfect Sun - again we wouldn’t be here. If you want to live now as if there is no God then you best hope this is the case in the afterlife for if he does ( and that he does to us but not to you ) then you will be judged accordingly. He has given you just a glimpse to understand he is in fact there and if you require more from him to validate himself he will require the same of you to validate your stance ( meaning at your trial in the metaphysical ) so you best be prepared to deliberate and accept his verdict.
Fantastic! When is your apology for bridging the gap between theism & Jesus happening? I’m chomping at the bit here!
The first member needs no cause as it is outside of cause and effect.Aristotle's Unmoved Mover is outside of existing and it's similar to Plato's the Good or Plotinus's the One.
You just did a great job describing The One of Plotinus.
Socrates "How can there be divine knowledge without a divine knower?" 🤯
Awesome work, dude.
I guess this is more on Fesser than you, but I don't know why this is not called the Avicennin argument. He's the one that first worked it out in abstract like this. Aristotle still got this out of his physics, not metaphysics.
Even more so because Aristotle's God moves the heavenly spheres by being their final cause. He doesn't pump any power for them to continue moving, he's just the motivation they need to continue doing it.
Matters become even more ironic when I consider that, as far as I know, there's no indication in Aristotle (like there is here) that the prime mover is the agent intellect.
The former is just thought thinking itself, and it "performs its function" in the Physics by (as I said) being the final cause of the planets. The agent intellect is the "mind which thinks all universals," which is needed to explain how passive intellects, like us, can come to think of some universals sometimes but not always.
So Aristotle's own system contains an example of substances distinguishable from each other by virtue of their different attributes, where these attributes are not any matter of potency. Simply put, neither the prime mover nor the agent intellect involve potency, they are both pure actors, and yet it is at least a metaphysical possibility that they are not the same substance.
It's funny how this is more aligned with Islamic thought than it is with Christianity, Avicenna's work literally discusses this in mathematical terms. He called it the unity of being.
I think you don’t understand the trinity at all
unity of being or wahadut ul wajood was propogated by ibn arabi etc and avicenna also belived in eternity of the universe and god as sort of sustainer of universe that immensly critqued by al ghazal and ibn tayamiyah
avicenna wasn't a panentheist.
@@quickk.7064 i said that about ibn arabi not ibn sina . ibn sinna believed in the eternity of the universe and god as a necessary existence that sustains the universe
It aligns more with Hinduism Vedanta
As a bringer of life and harbinger of creativity God represents endless possibilities to transform our physical reality as well as ourselves. The key to endure so is not to let our ego take control over our own, but to acknowledge that He is the cause of the great things that we experience in our lives.
In some hermetic excerpts God is known as The First Unique Cause which is compatible with His Alpha & Omega remark.
I am grateful for this video
Hey. I think I have something to contribute to this argument. A lot of people get caught up on the concept of an infinite regress, saying that it might be possible. I think the most compelling example is that of the infinite chain of gears. According to physics, there is a finite amount of energy in the universe. An infinite regress of gears would imply an infinite amount of energy which isn’t true, at least from our understanding of physics. What do you think?
Bullshit.. You and nobody cannot escape, infinite regress.. Science doesn't disprove or prove infinite coz infinite is no useful topic in "scientific sense"..thar doesn't mean infinity exist.. Mathematical infinities and universe as infinity is still a topic but science have nothing to say as infinity cannot be experimently verified..
Universe might be infinite ..law of conservation of energy, states energy can neither be created nor be destroyed and cause in the chain of gears the energy output is only given after the last gear, it still is in infinite regress.. It's not about energy but of gear..
Now infinite regress depends on the premise of the argument.. Thus nor science or reality could do anything.. As if one claims everything that exist have a cause, regardless of infinity is real or not, infinite regress is formed.. It can only be breaked if the premise is false.. It about the argument.. And we don't know about universe or energy in conclusive.. It might be infinite or not.. We don't know
Why couldn't there be an infinite amount of energy spread across an infinite amount of space, time, and multiverses? What's preventing the universe to be caused by a multiverse, which itself had another cause, in an infinite regress? I don't like the idea of an infinite regress, but it's hard to rule out entirely.
0:56
omg I actually get to use this as a counterargument and not a silly thing to mess with kids!
Q: Why does it rain?
1. It rains because there is condensed water vapor in the air.
2. There is condensed water vapor in the air because it evaporated from bodies of water.
3. It evaporated from bodies of water because the water flowed from its original point of the surface of the earth.
4. The water started there because that is where it rained.
C: It rains because it rained.
It should be apparent to the reader that even though this is actually not a circular argument, it still has the same problem of a circular argument: it doesn't converge/terminate when explaining the fundamental source of rain. Concluding that it is possible for it to have always rained should correctly sound absurd. We know that from incidental information technically outside of the argument. Hence, the original interpretation, while not as strong as the latter, is a sufficient argument.
Thank you for the video. It hit a homerun in my mind.
There can be material - and an actualizer, one who directs the material to his will. They can both exist without potency, be purely actual and logically inescapable. That would explain matter and the abstract ideas as we currently conceive.
There can also be two actualizers, one with power but lacks thought while the other with thought but lacks power, but both without potency, purely actual and logically inescapable.
You saved me to fail my Aristotle and Platon class. Thank you, thank you, thank you!
Haha what class are you taking?
You literally understood this?
@@aadeshsingh6113 Yeah
I don't fully follow. Why can't there be more than one actus purus?
"There would have to be some thing that one has that the other doesn't"
Yes, like a different position in the "framework" of reality? Why isn't this possible?
Because it's ultimately redundant. What is one doing that requires another?
If the two or more are exactly alike and carry the same will, and never conflict with each other, there would be no way to distinguish one from the other. They would ultimately be the same being. It's therefore completely unnecessary.
@@Cklert it's a weak argument and it has awful implications, the best argument for oneness is the one that goes like: if deity A and deity B existed, and there's a thing call it a human or whatever, if the god A said he'll move right, and the god B said left, then one of three things occur, 1- both orders occur thus breaking the law of con, none occur thus they aren't omnipotent, one order occurs, thus the other deity isn't omnipotent, thus he's not a god.
and you'll maybe say what if they don't have conflicted orders?
the respond is that i'm speaking out of possiblity, not an acutal occuring of a conflict, if there's a possiblity that A moves the being right, and B moves the being left, then this possiblity is an impossiblity, thus a contradiction which is logically impossible.
As a muslim i also can relate to this philosophy because i can find alot of things common between it and islam and also the sufi philosophy. It closely resembles it.
I agree with most of this video but everything after immaterial is flimsy. Morality and perfection are totally abstract human creations. And the definition of power doesn’t hold up. By the definition of power used, everyone and everything is all powerful because of the butterfly effect idea, every action exponentially changes the future from a reality when that action didn’t happen. The argument that the actus purus is somehow sentient I don’t agree with. For example, your grandparents did not create you, they created your parents who then created you. By that same logic, the actus purus created the beginning of the universe that eventually created humans that then made abstractions. So the actus purus isn’t necessarily rational. And all knowing is based on rationally, and even if the actus purus was rational, we aren’t aware of every effect we have. You sneezing could cause a war in fifty years, just because you caused something doesn’t mean you are aware of all the ways it shapes the world.
Good point!! You gave me a new angle of thought about God.
I enjoyed reading your comment. One thing to consider. Your parents did not create you, they facilitated the creation of you. There is linguistically a tiny difference but in reality a huge difference. As in, to put it crudely, by a man and a woman getting aroused and having sex with each other, this can not be called creation as they have no control over what gender the child will be, the eye colour etc. To say that giving birth is creation is akin to saying putting a seed in a plant pot and adding water is to create the plant, but of course, it is not, it is facilitating the creation of the plant.
I've been looking for answers and I must add this to my collection. 🧐
Morality a human construct? This requires evidence for that claim
We know Morality isn’t just created because it’s universal. Same a math it’s universal. It’s something we discover and understand not create
As a thomas what would your response be to why can't things persist?
Bravo! This video is a masterpiece!
So an electron is always in constant motion. What is the actualizer for electrons in motion. Also if the laws of nature is constant, then does it still need an actualizer since it never changed. Does the laws of nature have potency? Could an atheist argue that everything requires an actualizer except for fundamental particles which is just that way and never changes. Also could something actualize itself
This just amazed me like nothing else in a long time… Glory to God!
Socrates "So for you to know there is no God, you must be a god." 🤯
proof that love exists
Nice. Love your vids dude
Why can't an unactualized actualizar have potentials? What if it has potentials that never get actualized. It will still be unactualized
My current thought process after watching this video is the Actus Purus is basically energy. One force that isn't caused, created, or destroyed, which everything stems from. If energy can't be created, then it has always been, and is timeless.
I have changed my mind. Matter fits this as well. Energy and matter both fit under the same constraints, but there are two. I would say however that the two share no similarities. They are separate timeless entities which always exist undeniably. Both are actual and only gain potential from interaction with the other
My mind isn't made up on anything but I feel close to something
Remember, the actus purus is rational, all-knowing and all-good as well. Matter and energy are none of those things.
@@sergeantslaughter5695 I do not believe the Actus Purus is those things, lets say the Actus Purus is god. He created humans to be perfect but as we know humans are imperfect, god made an error and if the human truly is god´s image this means that god isn't rational, all-knowing (since he doesn't know how to create a perfect being) or all-good. I could expand more on this if I had the time
@@lovynil I don't think any religion claims that God tried to make perfect beings in the sense that they cannot make mistakes. After all, we can't make moral decisions if we have no choice to do the right or wrong thing.
Actus Purus is in a sense the exact opposite of energy/matter. Energy/matter can be likened to pure potentiallity/prime matter. It can become anything. But matter/energy does not exist on it's own unless it's has a actuality/form - and then becomes something. Matter/energy also constantly changes and takes up new forms which is also opposite to unchangable Pure Act. Pure Act is a omnipotent being, sepreate from anything elese and causing everything else, not any pantheistic ground of being that everything is made out off. Matter/energy in themselves cannot cause anything because they do not have any act in themselves. Speaking of energy as something timeleless/eternal (althugh it can exist indefinetly, which is different) is misleading because it's metaphysical absurdity. You are looking at things from pantheistic point of view which can be described as exact opposite metaphysics of the one that Aristotle represents.
I don’t follow the argument for actus purus being one. Why does differentiability require potency? Elaboration would be much appreciated.
“A liar’s speech is deficient of truth” but honesty could be described as speech deficient of lies
Does lie exist by itself?
@@acreationofallah1610 No, because Our King Allah created Good and Evil
@@acreationofallah1610 No truth exists without a lie and lie is a perversion of the truth, therefore the truth has to exist before any lie can exist.
So a lie does not exist in reality, only in our minds. Truth exists outside our minds and in reality.
Had Aristotle knew and learn the Abrahamic faith he would surely be a great Christian and Church father and corrected his mistakes
Brother, may I use some fragments from this video for my video on Dr. Feser's arguments? The goal is to introduce the Russian audience to the argument from Dr. Feser's book. I'll definitely put your video as a reference and according to the copyright.
Thanks
Use however you want. Don’t worry.
@@DefenseofSanity
Thanks. God bless you!
Smart guy, that Aristotle.😏
He says between 5:20 and 5:55 that "the actus purus is one". I didn't quite agree this MUST be the case. Does anybody know an argument or philosophy that proves this?
I'm curious to know as well, since it's not provided at all.
Which program did you use to create the video?
PowerPoint, exported as a video, cut and spliced in any basic video editor.
@@DefenseofSanity
Greatly appreciate it. The content is wunderbar, btw
Are you confusing potentiality with potency here? Also, at 7:16 “to actualize potencies”, but I thought you said the “basis” had no potencies! And in order to act/actualize, it would need to have one, right?
@Actus Purus hey thanks for your response. I believe devoting two different terms with the word “potency” is unnecessary, since “passive potency” can just be called potency, and “active potency” could just be referred to as “actability/ability”. Sure, if the “basis” had no potency (passive) then that would entail that all of creation is infinitely old, since the “basis” is always actual with no potencies, and since the “basis” is infinite, it has actualized all of potencies in all things ever since (infinity). If creation wasn’t infinite, then it had to come into (actualized) into existence by the “basis”, and if that was the case, then the “basis” did undergo a change, from not creating to creating, and hence it had the potential to create then it actualized its own potential to perform the act of creation. I believe the statement “every passive potency requires an external actualizer” is applicable to all entities without a will, and thus not the “basis”, but he limited it to that statement. Thoughts?
@Actus Purus Thanks for the clarification. I believe the term "purely actual" is quite vague; is it to mean that the entity has "no capacity/ability to be changed or affected?", (lack of passive potency as you put it?). And why did we split the nature of potentiality into two: "potential to cause/perform a change" and the "potential to be changed or affected"; at the end they're both potentials that exist within an entity. Moreover, the premise that the actus purus *must* lack any potency is flawed. 4:43 He limited the actualization of potencies to an external actualizer, which is not true, whether it be what you call "active" or "passive" (and this is what led him to that "no potency" conclusion). All entities with a *will* can exercise the act of actualizing their own potencies (to some extent) without requiring an external actualizer (eg: Humans have the potential to die, and once can suicide actualizing that potency). Things like matches, magnets, wood, etc. require an external actualizer to actualize their potencies since they don't have a will.
Now it seems you're bounding the actus purus to the existence of the universe when you said: "some potential in the universe has not be actualized and thus does not exist. actus purus and the universe coexisted mutually, and when you said: " and thus the actus purus does not exist before creating it." which sounds like a logical contradiction; how can he not exist before creating it, but at the same time, he created it? Is his existence limited to the existence of the universe?
Finally with regards to "changeability" from not-creating to creating, it seems that again, you bounded the term "change" within the universe, and thus no change exists outside of the universe which is not true. Change does not have to be temporal, the change from not-creating to creating is an intrinsic change, i.e., behavioral rather than temporal thus the actus purus had the potential to change
the only difference between essential and accidental causes is simultaneity. That is the only difference. There is no clear reason why you need an unmoved mover in the case of a temporally extended causal chain vs a simultaneous one.
Even space is empty but scientist still considered space is as a thing.
So many contradictions in this video. For example, you said:
"The Actus Purus has no potency", and therefore it's perfect.
Then you said it's "All Good" because it's perfect and lacks nothing.
But apparently it lacks potency as stated in your previous assertion.
But with this logic, I could assert any belief.
For example couldn't I equally assert:
"Since there's no potency, it's eternally incomplete, weak and flawed"
Or with your logic:
"Since good is just the lack of evil, and since Actus Purus lacks nothing. Therefore it's pure evil."
Also the idea that the Actus Purus has a rational mind because of cause and effect, jumps to the conclusion that there is a mind at all.
There are so many contradictions and flawed arguments in this video.
It seems like you've already assumed the outcome, that the universe must conform to your human expectations that there is a human-like mind that caused the universe.
Then you've created a series of logical steps which don't actually work to support your assumptions.
The problem with a "super mind" causing everything is that the mind would need certain attributes, such as thoughts, the ability to plan the universe, ability to reason, ability to create a purpose with specific goals, the ability to design things, the ability to judge good vs bad ideas, imagine things, remember things (have a memory), and the power to execute the plan, etc.
All these attributes are not one thing, but many many complex interacting parts. If this mind perfectly planned out the universe then its memory alone is more complex than the universe with the ability to not only remember the locations of each particle throughout all time, but to also search, retrieve, and think about each detail.
In other words, this mind is not a unified, uncaused default state or "prime mover" at all. Instead, it's a complex network of interacting parts much like a computer or a human mind that would logically require structured parts, energy, materials, time ...
But what caused such a complex being to exist? An entity more complex, more perfect and more structured than the universe itself?
It also sounds suspiciously very human. Is it possible a human has projected his own mind onto the universe because it "feels right" to relate socially and spiritually to this higher power?
Rather than assert that all this complexity in the universe is caused by an even more complex being that has always existed, isn't it simpler to say that the universe has always existed?
Looking at the beautifully designed DNA of the malaria protist that kills over 400,000 children and adults per year is enough for me to ask:
"Is this really the best a perfect and good god could do? Is there a chance that god is less human, and more universe than our ancestors originally hoped?"
Thank you so much u legend!
Is this the God of Deism? The same as Brahman, instead of a Personal God (Theism)?
How can the Actus Purus have a will or be affected by us in any way? How can we have a relationship with this Being? How can this Being have any characteristics, attributes, personality?
Under Divine simplicity
God is personal In the sense he has will, intellect ,loves and keeps everything and everyone in existence. That's basically it
However because God is unchanging no we can't effect God in anyway whatsoever.
Brahman is a personal God ; Shankara misinterpreted the Vedas.
Whow very good video, just how Thomas Aquinas would put it
Potency IS an actual. You turned "actual" into an object, while it is just an adjective.
Here is the logic, you say earth doesn't fall because electron repulsion, but it isn't so, earth doesn't fall because it is actually doesn't "fall" in such state, it is not "caused" by electron repulsion, electron repulsion is just another state, a specific conditions of things. So with earth in that state, and electron repulsion in that state, the state of "earth falling" simply doesn't exist (is not actual). So all things are actuals, they are actually in such state and there is no need for that imagined chain.
That chain you imagined maybe comes from a misunderstanding of time, which you might imagine becomes a highway in which a scenario of causality comes into play. But it isn't so, in physics time is just changes of states. States of things change yes, but those changes are not hierarchical causality like the illustration you drew.
Things are related to each other, and they all have states, but they don't cause each other, they just are. Such causality that you described is actually just an uneducated perspective (possibly comes from our brain to help us survive and navigate things), to describe how thing are related to each other, seemingly they depend on something else described by that vertical hierarchical relationship. But it is misleading. Study of physics don't see things this way.
This is exactly what I was saying. The prime mover argument is just a misunderstanding of how things work in reality.
@@GodlessCommie yeah, that "misunderstanding" is unfortunately the major perspective people share. The majority of people don't study physics.
You should question your existence, not God's.
The one thing flawed with this argument is that you claim the actus purus to be rational, for something to be rational it has to be conscious and self aware, but consciousness is the absence of self (what I mean by that is that where yourself exists, your consciousness and rationality doesnt, because yourself is a closed system and consciousness and rationality are open systems that are boundless, thus they are the absence of self) and the actus purus cant have anything abscent because it is perfect. So either the actus purus is not rational and all knowing, or the actus purus IS both rational and all knowing, but lacks self, which makes it imperfect.
I am not sure about the pure actuality inference
We need to br consistent with the way we use the term actual
Because we are talking about per se chain
The first member must be able to produce motion
Without a further actualizer to actualize its potential to cause motion
In other words it has nonderived csusal power
That's the sense in which we can call the first cause uactualized
However we cannot go further and claim that it doesn't have any potentials at all
For example it's potential to exist could have been actualized a finite time ago
Yet it doesn't need a sustaining actualizer to sustain its existence
While at the same time sustaining the existence of the members of the per se series
Which religion can help a person against abuse and being manipulated and brainwashed? How about just being positive and kind to others?
Christianity lmao. Being positive and kind is kind of the memo
really good! thank you
So, a thinking mind can only create God or a consciousness can only create God. It all comes to the "Cogito, ergo sum".
I understand this argument except the part where there has to be a stoping point. Can you please explain why there has to be a stopping poing and cant go on forever infinitely? This is the part which im trying to figure out for quite at while now but still don't understand why it cant go on forever infinitely. Thanks
I still don't understand why it can go on forever. Lets suppose there is a lamp hanging on the ceiling only because it being held up by the chain. The chain is holding up the lamp only because its be held up by the screws. The screws are are holding the chain up only because the screws are being held by the ceiling. The ceiling is holding the screws only because the ceiling is being held up by the walls. The walls are able to hold ceiling up only because its being supported by the floor and so forth. I understand that each member of the series is driving power from another but i dont understand why this series cant go on forever infinitely. Can you please explain more or give some examples please? Thanks
@Noah Charles so basically
if there is an infinite series where every member drives power from another, no member would have power in itself . Correct me if im wrong please
@@kaleemazad5475 think of a chandelier, instead of hanging the chandelier to the ceiling you connect to a chord, then another chord, then another chord, and another and another. An infinite number of chords won't hang the chandelier.
@@kaleemazad5475 Exactly. Unless you have a first, independent and totally self-sufficient member in the series from which all other members derive their power (or actuality, to use the technical jargon), there would be no series in the first place. That's why there needs to be a first member because all the other members are dependent upon it to be in the particular place they are at that moment.
@Hinters yes. Of course it doesn't end there. The ceiling is attached to something and so it goes, but logically it needs a "first". Each part of the series only gets its causal power from the previous member of the series. Without a first member there is not causal power at all. Unlike a temporal or accidentally ordered series, this series logically requires a first member.
please open a lbry channel. Better than You Tube. Decentralised, no adds and crypto tips
God cannot be proved by technical theory....And you can't conceive God fully with your knowledge who Created everything...
Yes i agree it cant be proved solely off this theory. However this theory hasn’t been disproven.
Along with this I would encourage you to look up cosmological constants. Even atheist scientists who study this believe that the universe existing is so improbable that it looks like something organized it. The reason this theory stands is because it is impossible to disprove without admitting God had to create it. Our universe is so complex that it NEEDS a intelligent, all powerful, and internal being to create it.
Let me know your thoughts
I'm with it. I like your arguments and would love to debate with you.
If one can believe that there is something in the chain that does not require a cause and can exist on its own then that "something" is called God in religion. Whether this universe is God or universe has a God.
Aristotle is considered only prepared to admit that God exists. But he didn't. So, the video is only a monotheistic claim and interpretation of Aristotle.
Re: the claim that there must be one actus purus - what if Actus Purus A had potency that could only be actualized by Actus Purus B and vice versa, forming a sort of interdependent relationship?
Kind of like electro magnetic waves depend on each others oscillations? I don’t see why this couldn’t be argued but idk
The aristotles proof has many problems when it comes to affirm a abrahamic god e.g abrahamic god has made things come into being but under the aristotles model world is eternal which creates another problem for this argument how something eternal brought temporal originations into existence.
What do yo mean “problems when it comes to affirm a abrahamic God” ?
@@Firelord2nd According to abrahamic religions God created the universe but according to Aristotle the universe is eternal
@knowledgedesk1653 Yeah, but the argument more relys on the prime mover argument
Could you explain a little more why the series of changes cannot be an infinite regress? Is it because if there were an infinite regress of changes, would you be able to exist in a state of change at all?
If matter and energy are caused by quantum fields, which are caused by the structure of spacetime which is caused by something else, which is caused by something else ... (in an infinite regress) then it would be an infinite regress. I don't think there's anything preventing this, it's just that it is not satisfying to our human intellect / intuition.
Because it moreso presents a logical problem. That is, the magnitude of infinity. Infinity isn't simply a really big number. It is a continuous set.
If an infinite amount of events or actions happend prior then we would actually have no way of pinpointing or reaching where we are right now.
If it did end up being an infinite regress, it would actually change our understanding of how infinity works.
Allah lasts....
Please keep uploading brotheeer
The octus purus isn't sentient so no need to worship it🤔
He is rational, all knowing, cause of all things so he is sentient or beyond sentient
W @@knowledgedesk1653
Bro i am lost. I couldnt follow u
Let me take the example of God.
God has all the power, all the goodness, all the knowledge 'by default'. He hasn't worked hard for it. It's like a 'free fund'.
Similarly, we have consciousness/free will as a 'free fund'. Thoughts come and go in our mind. I myself don't know what thought will come into my mind, say after 5 minutes, 10 minutes etc. It's a 'free fund'.
This entire argument is based on presumption of contingency as popularly conceived by the likes of Leibniz. What if there is no such thing as contingency? I.e. the universe is one in existence and is it's own cause, or in philisophical terms, monism.
How can we show from these conclusions that the actus Perus is all-loving?
@Actus Purus Perfect
Whoa, thank you
Right. Where's the part where he slips in Jesus? Why not Krishna or Shiva? (that's another story). The list of essences of the Actus Purus he shows has a flaw. He pulled "good" (as opposed to "evil" out of an ad hoc. Why not evil? If he doesn't have good, evil, and all flavors in between, then his "God" would be incomplete, and a God cannot be incomplete. What those qualities (One, and others), point to is Pure Consciousness "In-Itself", or what Shankara (788-820), called Brahman. This Substance matches Aristotle's God more than the notion of a Personal Creator like YHVH.
Someone sent me this video to convince me there is a god. I'm an atheist. I must say, I watched it twice, and I cannot stop thinking HOW MANY baseless assumptions the speaker is throwing at the end. I'm honestly shocked no one else is pointing it out. 😐 All those 'changeless, perfect, all-good, outside time' etc are assumptions. And I can clearly see the speaker is a believer, and that the whole 'argument' is a very elaborate attempt to justify the belief. There is absolutely NO reason for the catalyst of the universe and life to be anything close to what the video proposes. The beginning argument isn't good enough and it's weak because it excludes current scientific evidence, or acts as if there are no alternative solutions. 😕 Why couldn't the catalyst be 'imperfect', perfection is a human-made concept, same as 'good/bad' (there is little to no evidence that species other than us care about these things). The speaker assumes all those human made concepts can be slapped onto a catalyst and oh, how coincidental! They all point to a God, which the speaker and most viewers already believe in! 🙄 I, as an atheist, can tell you - this is a poor argument. You won't convince anyone who isn't already at least a partial believer with it.
Just to take 'changeless' for an example - what about the heat death of the universe? If the current scientific model proposes as a pretty solid possibility the fact that all natural laws we currently live with will one day stop, simply naturally, then WHY are you assuming there is anything changeless? Why couldn't the original catalyst be now different? Because of a philosophical argument made by a guy who also believed arrows fly because the air behind them is pushing them (Aristotle)? 🙈😐
You won't find the actual truth about anything if you keep hoping that any and every piece of information you learn will point to a god. 😕 That just leads to astonishing levels of confirmation bias.
Thanks for the comment. You actually commit a common but serious mistake when approaching Aristotle’s argument. This is NOT a cosmological argument. So every time you mention a “catalyst,” you miss the point. Aristotle is not proposing a catalyst at the beginning of time (he didn’t even believe time had a beginning). He is talking about the terminus of a causal chain essentially ordered. That doesn’t require any talk about the beginning of time or the universe. It has relevance to events happening here and now. You have therefore not engaged with the argument at all.
Another problem with your assessment is that you accuse Aristotle of making assumptions when he’s making a logical demonstration, so nothing is to be assumed. There are premises based on observation (which you can dispute) and there is the conclusion that follows deductively from the premises (which you can dispute whether it really follows). What there isn’t are assumptions. To take one example, you say his arguments regarding changelessness are assumptive because scientists have suggested we are headed towards a “changeless” universe in heat death. But this is not changeless at all. Only mechanical motion would cease (not quantum vibrations or fluctuations). Plus, a universe in heat death is merely in equilibrium where decreases in entropy are statistically low but still very possible. So in theory, you could still get spontaneous mechanical motion in such a universe where entropy decreases locally against statistical odds. The natural laws do not stop, and this is a misunderstanding of what heat death is. You could say some of the laws appear to stop, but physicists do not believe physical laws would literally stop. (Indeed, it’s those very laws that make entropy reach a maximum and stay there.)
Yes, Aristotle had some silly scientific views. He was living centuries before a theory of momentum could be developed. However, his theory was accepted for centuries, and it led to the development of the correct concept of momentum. So, Aristotle can really be credited with starting the serious inquiry into why things continue to move “on their own”. In any case, this is part of his inductive (scientific) work, not his deductive (philosophical) work, so it’s unfair to discount one based on the other. Quite literally a logical fallacy (Person A was wrong about Thing X, therefore A must be wrong about Thing Y as well.)
The final part of the video is admittedly rushed and highly summarized. I don’t blame you for finding this part to be unfounded or full of assumptions. However, the main point of the video is to establish the Actus Purus, which is done prior to that final volley of conclusions. I assure you no assumptions are made behind those final conclusions. Aristotle and Aquinas even develop a concept of what “good” is based on bare, observable reality (thereby solving the ought-is problem). These are analytical philosophers, so nothing is taken for granted and nothing is sloppily assumed. Everything must be proved either by uncontested observation or by logical deduction.
@@DefenseofSanity I appreciate that you put a lot of thought into your faith, you clearly care a lot.
My issue here is that, the way I see it - you are, in fact, trying to explain reality. All this philosophical stuff seems like a very obvious attempt to get at what reality is like - does it include a god or not? It's a huge statement. And I'm saying 'catalyst' because god believers typically care about god being the reason everything exists. Whether it's theism or deism- you guys believe a deity of some kind made things happen. 🤷🏼♀️ Anything else would be kinda pointless, because if not looking for an explanation of reality - why would you even care if there's a creator or not? Just live your life.
So my point is, as someone who believes the universe, and everything in it, or outside of it - can be explained very comfortably without a deity - that you cannot explain reality with philosophy. Especially when actual real information exists and you don't have to get abstract to understand it. For you to 'prove' there is a god, any god, there is SO MUCH actual evidence you'd have to present. 'Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence', you may have encountered that saying. 😕 Would you honestly look at your argument and say that's 'extraordinary evidence'? If I presented the same stuff to you but the outcome was 'that's why there isn't a god', would you be convinced? Or would you HEAVILY pick it apart?
Sure, I'm only one human who happens to be an atheist, and from your comments most of your public is already christian. But even just I am not remotely convinced...the only people who like this argument seem to be already believers...so it's hardly actual evidence then, by the looks of it. It's just confirming what you guys already believe or want to believe. 😐🤷🏼♀️
Contrary to popular religious belief, atheists aren't satanists, or people who love sin and wanna bathe in it, or who hate God. In fact, if there was actually convincing, sufficient evidence that couldn't be explained by something else or dismantled by reading a history book - why wouldn't I believe in a God? 🤷🏼♀️ If that was reality, I'd jump right in! As it stands, however, no Christians, or muslims, or even Hindus I've ever met - have had any particularly convincing arguments. By a mile. 😐🙁 I am sorry, but what you've presented isn't actually evidence. It's more like a thought experiment but even then you're leaping in quite a few places. If the only people who tell you 'good job!' are mostly people who already believe what you believe, that may be a red flag. 😕🤷🏼♀️
@@KAl-vf1dz I don’t deny that I’m concerned with reality; that’s actually what philosophy is. You seem to have a negative view towards philosophy. Philosophy is just the pursuit of truth. Technically, science is a branch of philosophy because it aims at truth, using a method called inductive reasoning (the idea that you can abstract governing principles after observing many particular examples in natural reality).
To be clear, I do believe that God created (was the catalyst of) the universe. However, that is unrelated to this argument, so it’s just not relevant to bring up under this topic.
This is a deductive argument, so it’s not appropriate to talk about evidence. For example, mathematics is deductive too. You could certainly provide evidence that 1+1=2, but mathematics doesn’t require evidence because it is a more basic order of knowledge - pure reason.
Aristotle’s argument is this way too. He argues that causal chains essentially ordered cannot regress infinitely because that would lead to the absurd conclusion that nothing ultimately imparts causal power to any given causal chain, or that causal chains impart causal power to themselves. Aristotle therefore concludes (by reductio ad absurdum) that this fact logically necessitates that all essentially ordered causal chains must terminate with a prime member (hierarchical, not temporal) that imparts causal power without itself being contingent on a prior member. This type of argument has the same weight as a mathematical proof, and to defeat it, you have to show which of the premises are incorrect or how the conclusion does not follow from the premises.
You say that the argument is “leaping in quite a few places,” but you haven’t really shown that to be the case. I rebutted one example you offered about changelessness, and that wasn’t even part of the core argument (just a logical implication of the core argument).
@@DefenseofSanity The reason I didn't try to tackle the actual Aristotle argument is because I didn't see it as necessary. It seemed ok on the surface, my issue was with final 'leaps' where you asserted all those qualities and then said 'it's basically what we call God'. That was my problem. 🤷🏼♀️
Even if the Aristotle's argument was bulletproof, which it apparently isn't (I found a very long analysis of it and I'd rather send you the link, as otherwise copy-pasting would be absurdly long, it's the first reply of the question but you can look at everything as the topic clearly concerns you. And yes, the analysis includes how religious people may view the argument at the end. philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/6388/is-infinite-regress-of-causation-possible-is-infinite-regress-of-causation-nece), my atheist mind would stop at a certain point. When it says 'things cannot regress infinitely' (which I disagree with anyway) I'd say 'Alright, then maybe we haven't found the original point yet, and that's ok - maybe science will help, or maybe we'll never know' and I'm ok with that. At absolutely no point does my brain go 'ohh, look at all those possible qualities the original point may have, that MUST mean there's a God!'🤓
Are you able to understand my point? My problem with the argument you're presenting? 😕 Those are the leaps I'm talking about - from an assertion that things can't regress forever apparently, to - 'and we can call that God, basically.' There are steps missing there, even if you've tried to create them. Not for your mind, perhaps, but for a mind who doesn't believe in a God already. 🙈
And I do have a problem with philosophy in the present day. I understand it's historical significance and that it was a catalyst for scientific reasoning, but what I also know is that historically, for several centuries, philosophers purposefully did not conduct experiments to test their ideas because it was deemed 'physical labour', and only slaves had to do that. I know this may seem off topic, but it isn't quite. A lot of that ancient culture refused to test claims because it was seen as 'yucky', and society didn't really progress much until slavery stopped and people started tinkering with the environment again. So ancient philosophy was seen as 'rich people's' noble pastime, and people thought they were doing the best job possible by just observing and thinking hard. 🤷🏼♀️ Yes, that did give us some good stuff, but also we have been able to fill a lot of the gaps with experiments, the very thing most philosophers didn't really like doing. So when you look at a person from a particular culture and time creating a claim, to be as accurate as possible in interpreting them you also need to understand their context. And if you spot obvious flaws in the context, you may also take the arguments with a grain of salt. 😕
@@KAl-vf1dz
The article you shared commits the same, sad mistake of confusing essentially ordered causal chains with temporally ordered causal chains. In other words, by thinking of these causal chains as a series that occurs sequentially in time, you’ve completely misunderstood what Aristotle is talking about and therefore all criticisms about infinite regress are straw men, attacking something that Aristotle never claimed! (I make this clear in the very first sentences of my video.)
Aristotle agrees that a temporally ordered series can regress infinitely (which I actually argue in the first minute of my video), so the article you shared is in agreement with him there and does not refute the argument at all. Aristotle says essentially ordered (hierarchical) series cannot regress infinitely, and your article fails to address that type of series. In other words, I have not seen one single objection from you that actually engages with Aristotle’s argument here.
The attributes concluded about the prime mover are not possibilities or probabilities, but logical necessities. We can be 100% certain about these attributes because they follow deductively from premises. (Just as when I sum 1 and 1, the number 2 is not a probability of what the answer must be like. It literally is the answer, and we can know that with certainty in mathematics.) The “leaps” at the end can be deductively established. Let me know where you see a “leap” and I can connect the dots to help you see the argument.
It took one of the smartest (Aristotle) from the smartest civilization (greece) to describe what the jews had heard from a men who was not sharp at speaking and humble (Moses.) What other civilization other than Israel had such idea without being that smart?
Then the Actus Purus is not Yahweh, the God described in the Bible. Is a very different being, specially if you read the Old Testament.
auctus purus is such a chad
Reminds me of the Boltzmann's brain theory
Here is my counter...
Firstly, what does it mean by change is pretty confusing as if u are mixing different types of arguments based on Aristotle exists like unmoved mover, uncaused cause etc..
1)change if meant as - something turns into a different thing - then it doesn't exist.. A match stick light up by something doesn't changes atomically in a sense new atoms are formed or destroyed, instead it's property is replaced but the actual match stick which existed still exist in different places in different ways..
If change is meant to be something of being from one property of an object to another.. It might exist..
As u said all change need a changer.. But next u said this is not the case..
As u end up in a first unchanged changer or unmoved mover.. The whole argument breaks down, premise that change or motion of objects need something external to change it . Thus open the door for being uncaused cause or unchanged changer for everything that exist..
How the hell did u escaped infinite regress?..u just committed a special pleading fallacy there.. And there is no explanation of why infinite regress isn't possible..
Now my point..
*Everything that exist doesn't have a creator..
*as something cannot come from nothing, something that exists always exists...
* everything that exist have property..
* property as it "exist" cannot be created and will always exist..
* properties are by definition inherent and cannot be destroyed (above premise)
* Motion is a property that exist and is an inherent property ,as everything moves and something which doesn't have the property of motion will not move even if force is applied..
* as matter and everything in this world have the ability to move, thus it's an inherent property, as nothing new can be created or added to a thing which doesn't have the property of reaction factor to that addition of change
* nothing in this world we know is actually in a state of rest
Conclusion : therefore matter inherently can move and be a mover as it possess the motion as a property and it always moves as there is no state of rest..
So primer mover if u accept is universe itself.. There is no need for another external immaterial agent..
Motion as a property can be changed with anything aslong as it is empirically verified and logically consistent..
No God needed again
anyone who claims infinte regress is possible is deluded. Existence is proof for the impossiblity of infinite regress.
Everything within the universe, and therefore the body itself is contingent.
Nothing within the realm of existence has the propensity to come about by itself.
Your contention to the argument posed in this video is extremely lacking and you've demonstrated you did not understand the proposition.
@@miko67W
Why is the active purus good and rational all knowing etc ? You're just putting human characteristics in it? The words aren't good enough to explain
It's not a deductive argument
If any thing it proves Christianity WRONG ,
Cause God all mighty is ONE
And god as defined in Christianity is TRINITY !
Up, down, sideways. Black, gray, white. Birth, life, death. Hot, cold, middle. Past, present, future.
Water: ice, liquid, vapor. A 3 legged stool has parts, but is still a stool.
Anything like the above can have 3 parts yet be unified without contradiction.
Follow Isa. The prophet could not breathe life into a clay bird, nor raise anyone from the dead.
@@glenliesegang233 Careful now, you're dangerously treading toward Partialism with analogy. God is not made of parts. If a stool loses one or two of it's legs, it will start to stand funny. It will be less of a stool than it was previously.
However, the Trinity proclaims that each Person in the Trinity is fully God, yet are distinguished. The Father is fully God, and does not need the Son or the Holy Spirit to remain God. As is the Son, as is the Holy Spirit.
Usually, I don't recommend people to make analogies, because usually they aren't good representations of the Mystery of the Trinity. But your examples on Time and color, aren't bad that I don't see an immediate problem.
"I and the Father are one.” John 10:30
@@Cklert we think in earthly dimensions, and minds create categories and claim the category to be what exists.
I wish I could help atheists grasp that when they create an image of "God" in order to have something to reject, if their image is NOT reflective of His true nature, they are not actually rejecting Him as a Being.
A stool can be said to have parts, but it is no longer a stool when separated. My point.
Yet Jordan Peterson, deist or not, for me, nails it when he says that we each come to a discussion about the question of the existence of God with different meanings of "God" and ,"to exist."
@duckynado8781 No. If anything I'm reaffirming the Nicene Creed.
The egg came before the chicken.
Nah
2 chains.. one that goes back infinitely (per accidens) & another that does not (per se).. now ignore the first that relates to humanity and voila!
Turtles all the way down
İt is deduvtive to say poteintal because otherwise it says something both actual and poteintal contradicttion
I don't understand how the actus purus doesn't have any potency. can't this entity change itself?
Having no potency means it is perfect and lacks nothing, so what can it change to?
@@kylemyers971 ok, but, at least for me, the argument proves that there must be an unactualized actualizer in regard to it's existence; which is that there must be a being which existence wasn't actualized ( didn't go from potency to act ).
But it doesn't proof that this unactualized actualizer doesn't have other potntials for change; for example can't this being move itself? the potency to be at point X is actualized by the being itself ( more or less like us humans ).
Sow, maybe I am just not understanding some part of the argumentation, but it is not clear for now.
What if someone believes that the universe is eternal/has always existed and that the whole universe itself is the pure unactualized actulizer?
It's very simple. Humans have evolved in a way which makes our minds search for an anthropomorphic entity to account for phenomenon. We are instinctually driven to assign meanings to things and phenomenon and search for intent, when oftentimes there isn't one. We think everything is caused by a prior thing that has intent. And that is the problem, because to search for an explanation when there is none only gives you more questions.
The universe would then have to be all powerful and intelligent. This means that it has to be able to create life. Look into the cosmological constant. Scientists who study this even the atheist ones believe that the universe is so complex that it looks like a power organized it. Yes even the atheist ones think this, please look it up. Along with this, the second law of thermodynamics states that things deteriorate over time. This means that the universe should have self destructed thousands of years ago. The fact that life is so improbable and complexly made points to a need for God being all powerful and intelligent. The universe alone cannot do that.
Please let me know your thoughts!
Can the unactualized actulizer have potentials that dont get actulized?
No potency at all, for many reasons. Suffice it to say if there was any potency in God, that would imply something external to him could actualize it. There is no such thing as unactualizable potential. That’s the same thing as saying non-potential potential. So no matter how you cut it, potential in God results in logical contradiction.
@@DefenseofSanity i understand the part where there has to be an unactualized actualizer. But cant it have a potentially as long as it doesn't get actualized? Maybe the potential never gets actualized in god and still remains unactualized.
Where is the it's notes in pdf
I understood about 12.3 percent of this video
So you escape from one absurd which is Infinity to another wich is something without a cause. Man life is just absurd ,it's like a blind person trying to understand colors.
So you need eyes 😂
Nope you clearly have 0 grasp on the basics of the argument.
Firstly, in regards to the hierarchical casual series, even if it were to stretch to infinity, the casual series by itself would still be casually inert, as all its members derive its causal power only in a derivative sense, thus just as all particular bricks in a wall are red, when put together into a wall, the wall is going to be red.
Secondly, that which is of pure act is that which is of without cause, necessarily, by virtue of being pure act. Recall the principle of causality which states “that which potency is actualised, is actualised by that which is already actual”, that which is of pure act (and thus no potency) is necessarily that which has no cause, because it is not possible, even in principle, and in no way a violation of the principle, as it’s sufficient reason is to be found in itself. To ask what caused that which pure act (God)? Is basically to ask “what moved that which is unmoved?” An idiotic statement at best.
You, like all other atheists, have grasp a total of 0 of the basics of the arguments, and yet are completely confident in your assessment.
And the objections, like all other atheists on TH-cam, are based on caricatures and a complete lack of competence to grasp just even the BASICS of the argument.
Invincible ignorance.
@@affinity1746
"You, like all other atheists, have grasp a total of 0 of the basics of the arguments"
- I do and its massively flawed.
Explain, in this causal link, how *physical* objects influencing *physical* objects can be initiated by a non-physical object.
@@lewis72, your question, which is an interesting one, can be solved by affirming the position called idealism. Non-physical objects are minds (like you) and some ideas (like the taste of an apple) and physical objects are other ideas (like the idea of a table in your mind; physical meaning describable by mathematical terms). Ideas that have shape, etc., in your mind are physical since they can be described mathematically (that's what physical means). Since minds and ideas are of the same nature there's no problem as to how the non-physical can influence and initiate physical objects. Nonetheless all theists are idealists so that's nothing new.
@@dazedmaestro1223
But is affirming the position called idealism valid ?
The 'mind' is merely a description of something physical. It has no autonomy. Same as the taste of an apple or the idea of a table.
Simple argument for God, the unmoved mover or the UNcaused cause is the finitude of past time. The latter is a religiously neutral fact but with profound religious implications.
Aristotle was a polytheist. So the proof of god then also applies to Polytheism.
Aristotle was a monotheist, not a polytheist.
@@floydthomas4195yup
"And potencies don't exist without any external actualizes" Is this making an argument that (newtons law?) nothing can change without external forces applies here. I don't think we can necessary follow physics here. Why cant the 1st member be an actual that can change itself?
Newton’s law is a description of how reality behaves. It’s not a metaphysical claim. According to special relativity, objects in an inertial frame of reference (not accelerating) aren’t even really moving in any objective sense. Only from a non-inertial frame can you say they are moving, and inertial frames take privilege in quantum physics. So the actual rule on a more accurate understanding of physics is that things not moving (from an inertial frame) won’t move unless moved by another …
@@DefenseofSanity i guess i should ask how can you claim the actus purus cant be the actualizer for itself and provide itself potency. I dont think this impacts the causality chain or anything really, but its what ive been pondering for a couple hours here hahahaha
i dont think the 1st member has to lack potency
and i dont think potency must have external actualizers to exist
Good questions. Aristotle addresses these in Physics VIII.5 (available online for free). Basically, you can’t have potency and its act in the same being, or the potency would always be actual. Usually when people suggest this, they are thinking of a being with parts, and the potency is in one part with the act in another. Aristotle says the part with the act is basically itself an external actual, which gives rise to the potency in the other part. For example, when you walk, this isn’t strictly speaking a case of self-motion. It’s certain parts of your body with motive power moving the rest. And those parts that move the rest are themselves moved by muscles, moved by myosin bending, moved by proteins unfolding, etc. The ONLY way to stop this regress is to have a member that can move things without being moved. Since change is just potencies being reduced to act, ultimately this thing must simply lack potency. Another way to put it: its existence or functioning can’t be conditioned on something prior. There must be a first. This is related to the epistemic regress problem, and philosophers generally have no problem concluding truths that don’t need proving in that regard.
It’s worth noting that quantum physics has only strengthened the idea of potencies, with Werner Heisenberg literally citing them as a good way to speak of waveform probabilities. A waveform has many possible solutions, none of which is fully true or false until it is collapsed into a discrete value. This is just potencies reduced to act. Potencies exist as a range of possible outcomes and they collapse into act by another.
Does the Actus Purus have consciousness?
Yes, because God is all knowing and we are conscious, in fact he (God) has a greater consciousness than we do.
@@Firelord2nd How can God have gender? God is an entity if it exists. Not in human form.
@@pratiswar5977
Romans 1 : 20
=============
So, when we study or observed the creation of God, what can we learned and found..?
All God's creation and works tells something about HIM( creator)!
The( or any of God's handmade) Creation are all made of or having/ contained
1) Positivity (+)or Negativity(-)
2) Masculinity or Femininity
3) Pistil or Ovule in plants
4) Yang or Yin...
GOD'S POSITIVITY AND NEGATIVITY, GOD'S MASCULINITY AND FEMININITY, GOD'S YANG AND YIN..
👉GOD IS THE HARMONIOUS AND ORIGINAL BEING/ BODY OF ENERGY ((( PRE ENERGY + E= MC2 )))
, OF POSITIVITY AND NEGATIVITY!
=============
Another observation is that all of God' s creation have in common like,
1) Have invisible nature or character =
A)Internal invisible Mind and
B) External visible body/ form
=============
What else ?
So , this tells us or reveal to us about their origin, their Maker/ Creator 😂 Yes??
God hss also these natures and characters..
God created Humans in His own Image and Likeness.
.Humans are only man and woman, male and female, masculinity and femininity!! We call God our Heavenly Father to Emphasizing His masculine Nature or call God our Parents
(harmonious both male/ Female).
-------------------------
Why the Universe is full of a PAIR system ?? It is for the purposed of fulfilling/ experiencing Love!!❤😂..
=============
actus purus 🗣