Bishop Barron on Thomas Aquinas and the Argument from Motion 

+MrGrevy God is unmoving, he cannot change, he is pure act with no admixture of potentiality. This is what the arguments shows, that for an essentially ordered causal series to undergo any change there must be something of pure act, something with underived causal power. Something which is able to actualise potentialities in other things and yet have no potency of its own. To give a real world example,, the rock whose potential to move is actualised by a stick which is in turn actualised by a hand which is in turn actualised by the muscles which is then actualised by the nervous system which is then actualised by the neurons in the brain which is then actualised by the bio chemistry in the body which is then actualised by ... There is really only atomic structure and then quantum mechanics before we hit the deepest layer of the physical universe that we know of. Perhaps there are a few more layers we don't know about yet. To say that this type of series will go onto infinity will not explain anything. At this level there must be something which does not need to be actualised by something else but is just pure act itself. Something which is able to act of its own accord but has no potential to be moved by something else. If there is no God then what is the source of change since each item in the series has no power of its own to change the next in line and the line does not go on to infinity. If you take something away then the series stops. There must be something which is able to change other things but is unchangeable itself. This unchangeable changer is what sustains all the essentially ordered causal series we see around us.

+MrGrevy You said...*Problem one - you never demonstrated "god" exists.* The first way demonstrates that a being of pure act exists. On closer analysis as to what it means to be a being of pure act, entails a number of characteristics associated with the God of traditional western belief. You said...*Also begs the question, as your premises include the claim that the conclusion is true or (directly or indirectly) assume that the conclusion is true. So you fail there.* Specifically which premise and conclusion are you talking about? You said...*It shows no such thing, it simply claims it. And of course the special pleading- what caused "god" to move? You're arguing against your own premise.* There is no special pleading, God moving is not part of my argument. Nothing causes God to undergo any change because God has no potency to change, he is pure act. The argument shows, that for an essentially ordered causal series to undergo any change there must be something of pure act sustaining all the other items in the series, since they all have underived causal power. You said...*So therefore, we'll just use "god" to fill in the gap. Got it.* This argument is not 'God of the gaps' arguments at all, I am not attempting to posit a scientific explanation for phenomena that science has not yet accounted for. Regardless of what science finds out about those deeper aspects of matter has no bearing on the argument. The important thing to consider is that no item in the series has causal power of its own, it is derived from the item before it. An essentially ordered causal series, of its nature, must have a first member. Not merely the first that comes before the second and third etc or the first that happens to be at the head of the queue. Rather, a first cause is one having underived causal power in contrast to those which have their causal power in only a derivative way. All the later members of such a series exist at all only insofar as the earlier ones do, and those earlier ones only insofar as yet earlier ones do; but were there finally no first member of the series, there would be no series at all in the first place, because it is only the first member which is in the strict sense really doing or actualising anything. The later members are mere instruments, with no independent, actualising power of their own. You said...*What is a "pure act"?* Pure act means to have act without any potency. All contingent things can be seen as being a composite of act and potency. Act just refers to what the thing is now and potency refers to what it could be. So a rock for example would be hard, abrasive and roundish, this is how it is in act at the moment. But it also has the potential to be something else, it could be crushed into powder, or chiseled into a statue or it could just simply be moved form one place to another, these are its potentialities. One important point I want to make is that the rock can't make itself undergo any change, something else must make it change. In the example I gave of the rock moving because of the stick, the rock can't move itself, the potential to move must be actualised by something else and in this situation it was moved by the stick. This process happens throughout the universe where things undergo change. You said...*How do we know it's a thing and not a group of things?* The argument demonstrates that a being of pure act must exist. This being of pure act can only be one. In order for there to be more than two or more purely actual beings, there would have to be some way of distinguishing them, some feature that one of them had that the other lacked; and there just couldn't be any such feature. For to lack a feature is just to have an unrealised potentiality, and a purely actual being, by definition, has no unrealised potentialities. If we said for example that one purely actual being was more powerful than another, and that is what distinguished him from the other one, then we'd be saying in effect that the other purely actual being had failed to realise his potential for power as fully as the first had - which makes no sense given that we're talking about a purely actual being, with no potentialities of any sort. You said...*How did you conclude it is a "god" and not a magic leprechaun for example?* God is one, has eternal existence and is immaterial. The first way argument demonstrates that a being of pure act must exist. The paragraph above explains why there can only be one being which is pure act or one God. A being of pure actuality, lacking any potentiality whatsoever would also have to be immaterial, since to be a material thing entails changeability in various ways, which a purely actual being cannot be. A being of pure act would not come into existence or go out of existence because both of these things are instances of change and as we know something of pure act has no potentiality therefore cannot change from non existence to existence or existence to non existence but would simply exist always. You said...*Can you demonstrate such a thing exists or could exist?* The first way argument demonstrates that a being of pure act must exist. All of the items I have described in the series are composites of act and potency. No matter how many items you put into the series you still need an item before it to run the series. Therefore an item of an act/potency composition will not sustain the series. The sustaining cause can then only be either something of pure act or something of pure potency. Pure potency is only abstract, you cannot have something which is pure potency therefore the only possibility left is something of pure act. You said...*How did it get around the need for actualisation?* For something to change it must first have the potential for that change. Then something else which has the power to actualise this change must do the actualising. The thing changed, first has the potential to be changed and then, that potential then becomes actualised. The thing changed then has a new way of being in act. What was potential now has become actual. For something to change from potential to actual, it must first have potential, but a being of pure act has no potency so it cannot undergo any change and therefore not need to be actualised or even can be actualised since it already is pure act. To consider your question from another perspective. As I pointed out before, a being of pure act would not come into existence or go out of existence because both of these things are instances of change. Since essence is a type of potency and existence a type of act, a being of pure act cannot have its essence distinct from its act of existence. Therefore its essence must be identical to its existence. It then makes no sense to ask, does existence itself need actualising? I said...*If there is no God then what is the source of change?* You said...*If there's no council of 3 leprechauns, then what is the source of change?* All contingent things are a composite of act and potency. For change to occur a potency must be actualised by something else. This series cannot go on forever therefore the originator of the series must not be a composite of act and potency but some other combination. Pure potency does not exist so it must be, by a process of elimination, something of pure act. Three leprechans have nothing to do with explaining change. In light of this, your question makes no sense. I said...*There must be something which is able to change other things but is unchangeable itself. This unchangeable changer is what sustains all the essentially ordered causal series we see around us.* You said...*Another assertion, which you haven't supported. You do understand that assertions are not evidence, correct?* If the thing were changeable itself then it would be a composite of act and potency and therefore just another item in the whole series. But we already know that the series cannot have an infinite number of items in the series. Even if it did have an infinite number of items it would not explain how change is possible. Since this changer cannot have an act, potency configuration it must have some other configuration. Pure potency cannot exist without act because potency is just a potential for some change and only exists in relation with act. The only other possible configuration is something which is pure act. Something of pure act has no potency therefor is unchangeable. Based on reason, logic and the evidence of change we see around us, it can be said that there must be something of pure act which sustains all the essentially ordered causal series we see around us, if there were no being of pure act then no change would be possible. Change is real in our universe and given the distinction between act and potency, there must be a being of pure act.

MrGrevy You said...*I was referring to your premise: “God is unmoving, he cannot change, he is pure act with no admixture of potentiality.” It's begging the question.* And the next sentence says...'This is what the arguments shows'.....The above statement was not a premise in the first way argument, it is the conclusion. I was clarifying a point you made about God. You said...'What moved god?' I pointed out that God does not change. You said...*You just stated “God” isn't part of the argument, then go on to refer to God being “pure act” as a result of your reasoning. Special pleading comes into play when one asks “What caused 'God' to move”* I never said 'God' was not part of the first way argument. I said that 'God changing' is not part of the first way argument. The reason why I say this is because God does not change. A God which can change is not part of the first way argument. This is why I don't ask, what caused God to move? You said...*Special pleading again. What caused the god, or prime mover, or the “first member” to move? You're trying to define something into existence.* God does not change or move but is the source of all other change we see around us. You said...*What is a "pure act"? Can you demonstrate this is a valid concept?* Pure act means to have act without any potency. The distinction between act and potency is they key to understanding how change is possible. All physical things can be seen as being a composite of act and potency. Act just refers to what the thing is now and potency refers to what it could be. Change is a real feature of the universe and cannot be coherently denied. Change can only be a real feature of the world if there is a real distinction in things between what they are in act and what they are in potency. To deny act would be to deny that a thing is as it is now and to deny potency would be to deny that there is any possibility of change and more specifically change which is repeatable, as occurs with scientific experiments. We affirm the distinction between act and potency given the success of science. You said...*You are saying “everything must have a cause, except a thing that does not have a cause” that is textbook special pleading.* I've never said everything must have a cause. This is actually a text book straw man argument. Only contingent things have a cause, things which begin to exist. God has no cause because God does not begin to exist. A being of pure act cannot begin to exist because this is a type of change and a being of pure act cannot change. You said...*How do you know “god is one”. What is this based on? Have we observed and tested god? Are you thinking this through?* A God which is limited is no God at all. To have the title 'God' you must have all the attributes of God to the infinite degree. On closer analysis you can see that there can only be one God. If there were more than one then each would be limited by not surpassing the other in power or knowledge or what have you. If God is the most powerful being for example then there cannot be two most powerful beings. There are other beings which are powerful, for example us, but there cannot be two or more most powerful beings. If you were to find two candidates for a possible god each being of equal power then neither would be god because they are limited by the power of the other. For to lack a feature is just to have an unrealised potentiality, and a purely actual being, by definition, has no unrealised potentialities. One must have more power, that is all power to fit the definition of God. This is not an opinion, I think this god and you think that god, it is a rational argument that there cannot be more than one all powerful God. You said...*You're saying “If I don't know what it is, it has to be God.* The conclusion does not claim ignorance so must be God. The conclusion says that a being of pure act is what sustains an essentially ordered causal series in motion. The originator of the series can not be a composite of act and potency, since these things only have derivative power, but must be some other combination. Pure potency does not exist without act so it must be, by a process of elimination, something of pure act.

There is no evidence that you can't have infinite causes. IF true it doesn't even mean a god exists, it could just be a natural phenomenon that has nothing to do with a god, and even if it was a "god" there is no good reason to think it would be the christian god, or even that i would be one god, why not multiple gods ? It's self defeating (what was the cause for god ? If you don't think there should be a cause, why can't you accept that for the universe itself ?), also it assumes things that are true even though they aren't proven to be, and the conclusion has nothing to do with the development. In conclusion the argument even though it was probably mind blowing at the time with the poor education we had and the lack of knowledge compared to today, it is actually weak.

drakkeur if there is an infinite regress into the past, the present moment will never happen. Imagine there is an infinite number of dominos before it hits domino x, when will domino x fall? The answer is never. Therefore an infinite regress is absurd.

Pp

It looks beautiful m

Pp

That old Chardonnay trick!

Kevin Ganey narrow is the path

Kevin Ganey because, unfortunately, they hate Truth

For the harvest is huge but the reapers are few. Let's thank God for allowing us the plentyful grace to be a part of His holy plan. It's only his efforts of grace on us that makes us open to the truth, while the others choose not to. All praise be to God!

They are deeply deceived, and many are still seeking God even as they consider themselves atheists, so pray for them.

5 years after you posted this comment I still feel the need to answer, because the behavior of society hasn't changed in that regard: The majority of people doesn't feel the urge to seek for the truth or logical concepts. Rather it seeks to feel superior to others and in order to be able to do so, they ignore the opposing valuable insight and choose to use vulgar language, thinking their clear distaste regarding the opposition somehow makes their claim true. Their haughty behavior stems from a society that tells them everything they do is great. "Here have a price for just attending the sports event", "here get a better grade because your parents fought over it or the tests get easier" etc. The music, the television program, schools and home life support this vulgar and haughty behavior. So - why don't uneducated and vulgar people watch intellectually challenging videos? Because they don't want to change and actually challenge themselves.

It's the limits of analogy I think, Miguel. Our analogies tend to be temporal analogies.

o yes ddd

Do you have a definition for "fate" and isn't it the case that you potentially made your post (lol)?

Well, in a causal series subordinated per accidens, we just don't know. Thomas thinks there might be a first element in such a series, but we can't know it on purely philosophical grounds.

Thanks for the insightful reply. I think it may have been Anthony Kenny (Or F. Copleston?)I was reading when I found this quotation: "The most efficacious way to prove that God exists is on the supposition that the world is eternal." That, I take it, would yield an even stronger proof than supposing that the world had a beginning in time. I think this quotation is from the Summa Contra Gentiles, I, 13, 30.

Causes are not limited in the temporal/time axis. Time itself must have a cause. It's wrapped up with matter, energy, and space. They have a complicated interactions, the whole of science is dedicated to studying those interactions at various scales. The complicated nature is another way of saying it has potential, thus it requires actualization. Further, the universe is composite, it is made of different parts that must be assembled or knit together, a trait that requires an outside cause. If you read the first part of the Summa, St. Aquinas talks about how God must be purely simple(non-composite). There is no axis about which to change or delineate a different entity to disturb equilibrium. You have no string and no one to pluck it, you have nothing. But as there is something, we can see the divine will made the string, plucked it, and continues to give being to the whole length.

"...but we just have no intuition about the way things work outside the context of time." This is probably true; that why we actually have to think about it. Although a thing lacking intuition requires reasoning, it does not make it impossible and you have given us no reason to think it does. Regarding that, what do you mean by "outside" the universe and time? Nontemporal stuff? Great, then we agree. This "stuff" we call God. Thomas Aquinas goes on to describe exactly what the implications of nontemporal being are. Second "the universe" is the collection of all things, not a thing itself. It is not parsimonious to assume the universe is uncaused; it is irrational. Listen to the video again.

Thomas's proof from universal "motion" concerns the ontological movement from potency to act - and not solely the physical movement in space, or "local motion". There also is a scholastic distinction between primary and secondary causality - Thomas's talk of a "first cause" does not refer to the initial temporal causal agency in a continuous temporal series of discrete causes. Thomas's logic does not therefore require the universe to have had a temporal beginning, which he explicitly and repeatedly made clear is not the case.

buffgbob You think God is a person, not just stuff. There's nothing in this argument that implies such a person is necessary or even remotely plausible. The universe is a thing. It's the set of all things. That set is also a thing. The laws of causation apply to things in the set, not the set itself. At least, we have no reason to think they do.

Thomas Aquinas never argues that the universe needs a cause at all. It is a common mistake to think this. All the argument needs is, for example, a single tree blowing in the wind.

check it out: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-3ZkHv8iTJPo.html

That's true, if you ignore this video and Aquinas entirely. He says exactly what I describe in the video. The argument from motion is simply shoving away infinite regress without ACTUALLY addressing it. The fact that Barron thinks this is a logical argument is absurd. There's a reason why we only study these arguments in modern philosophy rather than acknowledging them as being correct or fluid arguments.

cellomon09 And the argument from motion continuously falls, so your point is moot. I have no need to refute that things require a mover, that would be your argument to prove buddy boy.

If Barron felt that way about infinite regresses, he wouldn't use an argument that contains an unwarranted infinite regress. There is ZERO logical recourse to argue that ANY infinite regress should exist in ANY logical sequence.

Agreed, great video. Wondering if you know of any videos where Fr. Barron explains more in depth first principles? He references some of them briefly here (contradiction, causality, sufficient reason) but I'd like to hear him treat them specifically. I know he could do it so well.. :)

Okay. Your argument is very well structured. It's well stated, and it seems solid. But when I read it over a few times, I could tell there was something wrong with it, and I put together a few good refutations which didn't have any problem showing that your conclusion was false, but no matter what I did I couldn't get it to sound quite right in driving the point home.... At first I couldn't tell why, but then I noticed it, and I think you're gonna feel pretty silly when I tell you what it is. I'm going to take this slow, not because I'm insulting your intelligence or because I think you won't grasp it, I just want to take time to verbally appreciate how uniquely your argument has failed. I don't mean that to say that it's just an awful argument or that "you're an idiot" or anything, but it is a truly unique way in which it failed. Hear me out: Your assumptions are valid, your understanding of the initial position seems accurate. Now, that being said, there are a few *minor* holes in your rebuttal, that when addressed, might make you go "Oh, okay, but my point still stands...." but there's still that one big elephant in the room, and I'm getting to that. So I started in on those little holes. The first is that "P3" was an argument from personal incredulity. Never mind the fact that this is what needed to be demonstrated. (Argument from Incredulity is the same as argument from ignorance; so in this you assumed your conclusion, later to excuse this by something which was never part of the inition position, but we'll get to that too.) P3 was not an argument from incredulity to begin with. If you read the Summa, Aquinas gives a better explaination of what Bishop Barron was asserting with the "french" analogy. Which is to say that because of the "potential" nature of Matter and Energy, "actual" change can only be given to them by something else which already possesses "actuality": You can only learn French from somone who knows french or a book that contains it. Heat transfer is another good example of this; things do not heat up without the influence of things that are *already* hot, or exposure to reactions which have *already* generated heat, and such reactions do not take place without the influence of other objects that *already* possess the form and properties necessary to create such reactions, and so forth all the way back until... when? This is where P3 comes in. If things cannot be "actualized" except by some extrinsic force which has been actualized already, then without a "First unmoved mover", -- which intrinsically possesses all "actuality", and is complete in its actualization without needing to first be "actualized" by any extrinsic force -- nothing would change or move (that is, move from potential to actualization) at all. Since we know things do change and move, such an unmoved mover must exist. This alone would refute your argument, even if it had not assumed its conclusion, but it goes yet deeper, so bear with me. And please stifle the urge to argue what I've said until you've read to the end, had a breath, and let it fully sink in. You did excuse this "argument from incredulity" that you assumed it to be, by later saying that because the universe is only 13.7 billion years old, we must conclude that he was right in saying there is a first cause (the beginning of the universe), even if he was wrong in assuming *why* it must be there. I'll refute this now as well. The Argument from Motion actually goes beyond the beginnings of our universe. As a thought experiment you can include this to better understand the point: if you were to assume, (not that we do assume this, but even if we did assume), that our universe is a simulation inside another universe, and that universe was a simulation inside *another* universe, and trace such levels of entropy back infinitely, the Argument from Motion posits that even this chain must have begun with one, unchanged, ultimate first mover that is not dependant upon any other extrinsic force, or any other higher universe. Somewhere, as far back as all existence goes, that chain ends with the First Mover, unchaged, possessing all actuality and realization, which it imparts in turn to all other things either directly or through causal chains as described. And this is what we call God. So that renders both the Planck Epoch, and the beginning of our universe irrelevant to the Argument from Motion all together, but even *this* does not fully show the unique way in which your argument failed... Are you ready for it? Before you read this... I want you to put out of your head everything else I just said. Assume that I'm an idiot, that nothing I said is valid, and that your point still completely stands in spite of it. Assume you're right. I say this to put out all other arguments, and all other refutes which are swirling in your head to give you a clear and unbiased platform to look at the massive problem I'm about to show you. Whatever you just imagined saying to me. Okay, assume you're right, and I concede. Now let's take this back to your main crux, which is that the Argument from Motion is an Argument from ignorance, because anything which took place before the Planck Epoch simply cannot be proven or disproven, so it assumes too much at all. Correct? Okay... now are you ready to feel really dumb?.... Your entire argument is structured backwards. An argument from ignorance is one based on an assumption that is held as true only because it cannot be proven false. (e.g.: I posit that the wierd noise I heard was caused by a ghost, because I assume ghosts exist, and I assume that because you cannot prove otherwise.) So your position that the unprovability of the events in the Planck Epoch have anything to do with the Argument From Motion, immediately collapses when you realize that the argument from motion makes no assumptions about the past at all, much less any that only hold credibility because of one's inability to *disprove* them. It is the polar opposite in fact. The only assumption taken for granted in the Argument From Motion is entirely based in the present, which all people can observe and is universally proven beyond the slightest doubt. Namely: "Things move and change". Please take a moment to settle your cognitive dissonance.... So, if your only rebuttal was that the Argument from Motion makes an assumption only because the negative cannot be proven, and you see that such is not the case at all, then you must concede that the Argument from Motion is true in light of your rebuttal being so blatantly false. I'm not sure how you got the argument so perfectly turned around in your head after demonstrating a nearly perfect understanding of the initial position. But when I realized what the big flaw in your argument was, it was as though I had been staring at an airplane, with the distict knowledge that there was no way it could fly, but I was unable to make out why... The wings were there, the engines were there, the tail-fin, the cockpit, etc..... everything seemed to be in place..... Then I took a step back and realized that the engines were mounted backwards.

Earl Minime You could have saved yourself a lot of time and effort by looking up the difference between per se causal series and per accidens causal series. Nothing about a per se causal chain requires forces to propagate instantaneously. It only requires that there exists no time when the rock is moved by the hand, but the hand isn't moving the rock.

Correct, but the latter concept is really only relevant once the former is accepted as a premise.

1) An oscillating universe (with current evidence, that seems unlikely) still precludes the idea that this oscillation was set in motion. Stephen Hawking attempted an explanation for the universe involving a similar mechanism - called 'Vacuum state fluctuation', but was unable to dismiss the necessity for primordial mover, by his own admission. The argument of Aquinas is that anything that acts has been acted upon and oscillations are no different. Like a oscillating spring, something needs to set it off. 2) Darwinism isn't wrong in that regard because Darwin speaks of Pre-sentient species. It is also quite a dark way of looking at the process of evolution - Darwin suggests that a superior-adapted organism will out-breed an inferior one - the inferior animal, still genetically near-identical at the point of branching, does not suffer any more physical trauma than it normally would. Its legacy is also carried out in the descendant species. I find Darwinism does motivate us to fulfill the call to steward creation, however. Humans have the ideal adaptation - a mind - and with this mind we can discern the intelligibility of the universe, and know God. If another sentient species could arise from nature, one that can know God, then it is our duty to protect all organisms in this hope. If there are no sentient species in the universe, nobody can know good, recognize beauty and so on, and so in that regard Darwinism indeed compels us to protect life.

Could evolution explain morality? Well, there seems to be a Darwinian advantage to altruism in many cases. There's plenty of examples of it in animals (and occationally in humans). Chimps groom each other, warn each other of enemies, hunt collectively. Many creatures will do anything in their power to protect their offspring. Wasps will sacrifice themselves to protect their nest. Darwin gives hundreds of examples in "Origin of Species". Nobody believes that the beasties have our sense of love & compassion but I think it's probable that these behaviors are the precursors of what we call morality.

Tin Man Probable precursors? Maybe. But the "Darwinian advantage" really has no way to bridge the gap between IS and OUGHT. I don't think anyone can really argue that bugs and animals have an obligation to help each other flourish or achieve a maximum state of well-being. As humans, we do (or should; that is why it's so shocking to witness a person getting beat up and yet no one comes to that person's aid).

Dan Rogers Agreed. If we're all busy robbing, raping and killing each other we're less likely to survive and produce offspring. Keep that up and the tribe goes extinct. Thus "Thou shall not murder" and "Thou shall not steal" make good Darwinian sense. Paradoxically, the ultimate source of altruism & morality is good old-fashioned pragmatic self-interest. The Golden Rule sums it up beautifully.

+don q "A question I would pose is: what answer can be provided for the possibility of an infinite cyclical universe?" Infinite cyclical universes probably can't exist. This is due to the second law of thermodynamics which says that the entropy, or disorder, of an energetically closed system will inevitably increase over time. For example, an ornate brick mansion is highly ordered, whereas a pile of bricks strewn across the ground is more disordered. And brick dust, scattered by wind and water after the bricks themselves have deteriorated, is even more disordered. Left on its own, a system - even a bubble universe - will naturally become more disordered. We don’t often see a brick mansion spontaneously reassembling itself from dispersed dust. If our universe has been here forever and is a single size, it would have succumbed to the second law and the universe would be a disordered blur instead of the structure we have today. For more check this out: discovermagazine.com/2013/september/13-starting-point

Well, I think it's a mistake to separate the ideas in the first place. Science project s merely a process by which we methodically learn about the world around us. It doesn't need to be separate from religion.

Bob C yes, I agree with u because as a catholic I believe that faith and reason are not meant to be separate, they work together to give us a fuller and better understanding of the world around us.

@@chriscorrigan7304 my mom always used to tell me: " use the brain God gave you!"

@@TheDesertRat31 Then why does the catholic church so adamantly oppose certain aspects of science?

@@alt8791 such as?

Jesus From Hyrule if He has high energy and not infinite energy, He is limited by something. Then He would not be God.

Whether God is infinite? Objection 1. It seems that God is not infinite. For everything infinite is imperfect, as the Philosopher says; because it has parts and matter, as is said in Phys. iii. But God is most perfect; therefore He is not infinite. Objection 2. Further, according to the Philosopher (Phys. i), finite and infinite belong to quantity. But there is no quantity in God, for He is not a body, as was shown above (I:3:1). Therefore it does not belong to Him to be infinite. Objection 3. Further, what is here in such a way as not to be elsewhere, is finite according to place. Therefore that which is a thing in such a way as not to be another thing, is finite according to substance. But God is this, and not another; for He is not a stone or wood. Therefore God is not infinite in substance. On the contrary, Damascene says (De Fide Orth. i, 4) that "God is infinite and eternal, and boundless." I answer that, All the ancient philosophers attribute infinitude to the first principle, as is said (Phys. iii), and with reason; for they considered that things flow forth infinitely from the first principle. But because some erred concerning the nature of the first principle, as a consequence they erred also concerning its infinity; forasmuch as they asserted that matter was the first principle; consequently they attributed to the first principle a material infinity to the effect that some infinite body was the first principle of things. We must consider therefore that a thing is called infinite because it is not finite. Now matter is in a way made finite by form, and the form by matter. Matter indeed is made finite by form, inasmuch as matter, before it receives its form, is in potentiality to many forms; but on receiving a form, it is terminated by that one. Again, form is made finite by matter, inasmuch as form, considered in itself, is common to many; but when received in matter, the form is determined to this one particular thing. Now matter is perfected by the form by which it is made finite; therefore infinite as attributed to matter, has the nature of something imperfect; for it is as it were formless matter. On the other hand, form is not made perfect by matter, but rather is contracted by matter; and hence the infinite, regarded on the part of the form not determined by matter, has the nature of something perfect. Now being is the most formal of all things, as appears from what is shown above (I:4:1 Objection 3). Since therefore the divine being is not a being received in anything, but He is His own subsistent being as was shown above (I:3:4), it is clear that God Himself is infinite and perfect. From this appears the Reply to the First Objection. Reply to Objection 2. Quantity is terminated by its form, which can be seen in the fact that a figure which consists in quantity terminated, is a kind of quantitative form. Hence the infinite of quantity is the infinite of matter; such a kind of infinite cannot be attributed to God; as was said above, in this article. Reply to Objection 3. The fact that the being of God is self-subsisting, not received in any other, and is thus called infinite, shows Him to be distinguished from all other beings, and all others to be apart from Him. Even so, were there such a thing as a self-subsisting whiteness, the very fact that it did not exist in anything else, would make it distinct from every other whiteness existing in a subject.

Nope. The universe is marked thru and thru by contingency. God is non-contingent.

Rex Juglandorum well I don’t know the exact answer but looking at it from a scientific view point you could say god put the universe into motion.

@@jacksonforck2705 That's more deistic-sounding: god sets it going and then doesn't need to do anything. Aristotelians hold that the mover is acting all the time, at every moment of motion. And it is from this which all motion derives its action. So they'd say, look at a hand moving a ball and trace back the actualization of potentials. The first thing in this series is god, they say. Ok, but what's the second? What is he moving?

No, you've misconstrued the metaphysical principle. The maxim is that all contingent things and states of affairs require an explanation. This leads to a consideration of chains of causality, which must conduce finally to some first element. This first element is, by definition, not a contingent state of affairs and hence does not require an explanation.

Hi Robbert, thank you for the clarification. According to the Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy, the principal of sufficient reason states that “everything must have a reason, cause, or ground”. However, I’m happy to work with the more nuanced definition that you provided. If it is the case that non-contingent things don’t require an explanation, and if an infinite chain of causation could be non-contingent, then it follows that such a thing wouldn’t necessarily require an explanation. Maybe you’d object that an infinite chain of causation would be contingent by its very nature. That, it seems to me, would be a fallacy of composition. Just because the constituent elements of the chain are contingent upon each other doesn’t mean that the chain as a whole is contingent upon something else. So I don’t see how it’s a valid objection to say that it violates the principal of sufficient reason. The reason you provided for thinking that it’s impossible for a chain of causation to go on indefinitely is that “If I suppress the first element in that chain then there’s no subsequent movers. If there are no subsequent movers then there’s no motion.” (3:46) What “first element” are you referring to? Wouldn’t there be no “first element” in an infinite chain? Though I disagree with you on some things but I’ve been really enjoying your insights into various topics. Keep up the good videos.

@@chad969 right there is no first element in an infinite regress. So what are your remaining choices since the infinite regress doesn't lead to a first mover?

​@@danielhinz3880 By "remaining choices" do you mean remaining explanations for why the infinite chain exists? If so, I would reference what Bishop Barron pointed out earlier, which is that non-contingent things don't require an explanation. Some would argue that because the elements of the chain are contingent upon one another, therefore the chain as a whole must be contingent. As I pointed out in my last comment, this would be a composition fallacy. It seems to me that if an infinite causal chain were to exist, it would have to be uncaused, since if it were caused to exist that would require that it have some point of origin in the past. If a chain of causation has an origin then clearly it's not infinite. So in the same way that a theist could say that there's no explanation or reason for why God exists instead of not existing, someone of a secular mindset could say that there's no explanation for why the infinite chain exists. Or the agnostic/atheist could say that perhaps the chain of causation is not infinite and that it does have an explanation, but that for all we know it's explained by some unknown natural thing that we just don't have investigative access to. That's a different conversation though.

@@chad969 no notbwhy the infinite chain exists, but besides the infinite chain, since it's already been shown and admitted that an infinite chain doesn't and can't get a first. So the other options are?

No... That's not quite right

it is another argument - further along in the Summa Theologiae

There is no special pleading here. The principle that nothing moves itself is not arbitrary. It follows from the nature of motion as the transition from potency to act. Whatever is being moved is potential, while that which causes the motion is in act, since nothing gives what it doesn't have. Since nothing can be simultaneously and in the same respect both potential and actual, nothing can move itself. Similarly, the claim that an infinite regress is impossible is hardly arbitrary. An infinite causal series is one in which there is no first element; but if we eliminate the first mover, we eliminate, necessarily, all subsequent movers and hence, finally, the motion that we see in front of us.

Bishop Robert Barron interesting point, however, can the Big Bang and cosmic expansion not be regarded as the first mover, as they set into motion the movement of the subatomic particles that make up our universe?

Bishop Robert Barron with what I understand about the argument, it should work equally well for that, if we assume that the Big Bang is the unmoved mover (or uncaused causer from the argument from causation, as the two revolve around the same principle)

@@alt8791 No. Precisely as a "bang," the Big Bang is a contingent state of affairs. It was a massive change--and so the question poses itself: what caused it?

Bishop Robert Barron so perhaps an unseen force caused the Big Bang that was not in itself caused. This does not guarantee that said force/entity still exists, is sentient, and, if it is both, that it actually cares about us. It seems like a pretty big step to go from this unseen entity of which nothing about it is known to assuming that it is a sentient being that cares deeply about are lives, and to endorse this assumption so fully that people will center their entire lives around it. Can you explain how this works?

Good question. As humans our spirits are intrinsically linked to our bodies. We experience the world through our senses, which are affected by our bodies. A sound brain experiences the senses lucidly. An unsound brain does so in a confused manner. The brain's activity doesn't cause us, but it does affect our ability to function well on the physical level. Death is the separation of the spirit from the body. If the brain is truly dead (and therefore, the body too), the spirit has left the brain (and the body). After that, the spirit goes to its final place: Heaven (and for most people Purgatory on the way) or Hell. When Jesus returns, He will re-compose our bodies as glorified versions--that is the Resurrection of the Body. After this each person will either be in Heaven or Hell as body and soul for eternity.

Dear friend, search for this William Lane Craig video on RU-vid, please: "William Lane Craig: Materialistic Reductionism, Mind & Consciousness". It seems to me it effectively addresses your doubts, showing the distinction between brain and consciousness. Peace be with you

This intrinsic relationship between our body and soul is a truth that everyone recognizes at least to some extent. This is what makes the thought of death so unnerving, and at times so confusing to us. Because of emotional highs and lows, we can sometimes error into believing that the physical deterioration of our bodies means our souls cease to exist - but this is not true, and we can see this with sound logic starting with morality. Here is an example: A moral truth states that raping someone is wrong. This is a fact, and we know it to be true. But this cannot be proven in a physical way, so we don't know this because of a physical brain. This tells us that there is more to our intellect and will than what a physical brain offers. From a philosophical point, we can look at Aristotle stating "The soul is the cause and source of the living body" and go from there. now because you are catholic (so I assume you believe in what the Bible teaches), it may be more helpful for you to start with divine revelation, which states that humans are made in God's image and likeness (see Genesis). The life God gives us is forever - He never takes back what He's given. Death is only a temporary separation of the body (our physical substance) and our soul (our intellect and will).

Blake Denenny

Cause and effect are theorized to break down once you pass the speed of light. So, if I were traveling at 2c and observed an arrow being fired at a target and hitting the bull's-eye, I would see the arrow hit the bull's-eye, and then be fired. Cause and effect, or causality, is linked to the speed of light. Real mind-breaking stuff.

@@alt8791 Let's not confuse epistemology with ontology. What you SEE is not always the same as what IS.

no - human beings are changing

I would suggest looking into the rest of Aquinas' work, because he delves in to those topics as well and has very good explanations. He uses not Only faith, but faith and reason together. The Summa Theologica is great, but It can be a bit difficult to understand.

Thanks! I'll take a look.

Which actually doesn't in any way prove god exists though. It, at most, proves an effect exists, which in effect, now creates an infinite regress. Not an answer, but a paradox.

nice

+Nasser Alanazi but did they mention that they took it from Aristotle's Prime Mover? :)

+Nasser Alanazi Aquinas never read Kalam, to my knowledge. But if he did, he would thoroughly disagree with him on many things.

+blablabubles But would Aquinas disagree on the argument that Nasser Alanazi mentions? I hope I don't sound critical, I don't have much knowledge on Kalam and Aquinas so I would like to know more. Tones are never conveyed well through RU-vid comments so please don't take it the wrong way. Thanks

GL S thanks for the civilized question, it can often be hard to find on the internet. Yes, Aquinas would disagree with Kalam, as Kalam's argument was unique among the various presentations of the cosmological argument as it relied upon there being a finite amount of past time (i.e that there was a temporal beginning to the universe) and thus Kalam needed to try and provide multiple proves for for the impossibility of an infinite regress of past events and that there is only a finite quantity of past events. While Aquinas was addimant that it was impossible to prove that the universe had a beginning and his arguments intentioanlly avoid relying on such a contention.

+Mat Hunt what about the argument relies on newtonian physics (which did not exist when St. Thomas was around)?

+blablabubles That it must terminate to get a first cause. This isn't the case when you have quantum physics. You have uncaused movement.

Mat Hunt Wrong! there are no uncaused movements in quantum physics, just indeterminate effects. Give me one example in quantum physics where a cause is lacking in an effect.

+blablabubles I suggest you actually read a book on quantum physics.

Mat Hunt i have, many.

Self propagating? I thought it came from things like stars, fires or flashlights. However, light cannot be God if it can change, however it could have it's power imparted to it by God. It'd be like if you're in the darkest corner of space, and then light just appeared without anything else acting on the molecules around you in space. They just lit themselves up. That's possible of course, within a composite, but something inside the molecules must interact with something else inside the molecules to produce the effect. God comes into play at the very first step, that He imparts the power for things to change others (molecules or whatever is below that on the ladder of fundamental physical reality). God, on the other hand is completely changeless.

@@thegreatcornholio7255 Good points. To our perception, light originates somewhere at some time. I would argue that this is an artifact of our time-bound senses. By virtue of its traveling at light speed, a photon "experiences" no passage of time. Light is, in this sense, outside of time, timeless, and thus changeless, which, as you say, is one of the key properties of God.

He is unmoved which means His existence is unconditional

@@McRingil So then thomas aquinas argument falls to itself. Like i said. There can be no infinite regress. Or is god the exception? In which case aquinas argument collapses under its own weight.

@@JoCoMoreno there can be no infinite regress so the non-contingent being ends it. Wheres the contradiction boi.

@@JoCoMoreno you seem to think there's some sort of infinite regress within God. There isn't.

@@McRingil Are you kidding "boi"? Either youre too ignorant to understand the counter argument or you just ignore it. If theres no infinite regress then when did this being begin? Or are you simply cherry picking who can be noncontingent and who cant. Sounds pretty convenient to me. My earth creating leprechaun is also noncontingent. And saying the being is non contingent is a claim that requires evidence within itself. What is a "noncontingent being"? Elaborate and provide evidence for this being. Otherwise what are you arguing for? An assertion with no backup?

As I've mentioned in response to another, string theory gives us very good evidence that things "outside the universe" are just as intelligible as things within in it. Hence, the idea that things external from the universe are unknowable does not stand up to scientific scrutiny, not that this argument requires any sort of material proof. Also, given Quantum Mechanics relates the functions of waves and particles, all laws of physics "apply to matter".

Who said anything about the Big Bang? If you think this argument is an argument for the origin of the universe, think again. Aquinas rejected that argument.

ThoseTolerableNoobs You'll have to forgive me, I'm not very educated in this area and I'm only going off of what I know. Could there still not be matter in other dimensions that don't behave like matter does in the universe as we know it? I just feel as though there is not enough evidence to make the claim that there is a god. But please don't mistake my words for being hostile. I am subscribed to this channel but I am an atheist, I enjoy his work and I like his approach, and I like to view things from as many sides as I can to give everything a fair shot. I am not your enemy, I am just genuinely trying to reach the truth, and so far atheism is where it has brought me. But I have no problem with the concept of god, I just don't want to believe in something that doesn't make sense to me. I hope you understand.

Why is it that materialists are willing to ask any question imaginable, but when it comes to the origins of the universe, they simply say "We don't know", I think we do know, some of us are just to afraid to admit it. Admitting it requires admitting our inferiority. Admitting that there is a God requires relinquishing the idea of the self as God. That is the hardest thing for humans to do.

Icepick I don't understand your question...I can ask any question imaginable, and many of those answers would be "I don't know."

Not so! The principle is not that all things are moved by something but that all things that are in motion are being moved by another. The prime mover is not in motion.

Bishop Robert Barron how do you know the prime mover is not in motion? This seems like circular reasoning.

@@FindleyOcean Not at all. The existence of the prime mover is the conclusion of an argument, not something arbitrarily posited. An endless appeal to moved movers is repugnant to the principle of sufficient explanation; therefore, there must finally exist some reality which actualizes without itself being actualized. That's how I know the prime mover is not in motion.

Bishop Robert Barron no one has ever observed something that is not in motion, so we don’t even know if that is possible. I know you don’t think you are begging the question, but in my opinion you are. We simply don’t know how everything began. Time could be past eternal. You are violating Occam’s Razor by postulating this “unmoved mover” and attributing qualities to it. What are your thoughts on this quote from D’Holbach? “Why, O theologians! do you presume to inquire into the impenetrable mysteries of a being, whom you consider inconceivable to the human mind? You are the blasphemers, when you imagine that a being, perfect according to you, could be guilty of such cruelty towards creatures whom he has made out of nothing. Confess, your ignorance of a creating God; and cease meddling with mysteries, which are repugnant to Common Sense.”

FindleyOcean I’m not “postulating” it; I’m arguing for it. Show me precisely where you think my argument fails.

Secondly, it's well known in quantum field theory that particles have self interaction, showing that movers CAN move themselves.

Mat Hunt Although we know that on the "quantum scale that atoms have no well defined position or momentum," we also see a beginning to the very fabric of space-time and matter (c.f. Borde-Guth-Vilenkin, Hawkins, Mithani). Can there be any quantum activity without a space-time framework?

Greg S Yes, theoretically. However your point is somewhat of a red herring.

Mat Hunt No Mat, I'm quite positive there must be some form of time-space framework. Though different from what we normally experience. Try to think about it this way, if we take time completely out of the picture, there cannot be any (physical) activity whatsoever. On the other hand, if there is (physical) activity, even minimal, then there is time. Activity is synonymous with change. In change there is a before and after change. Hence time. Time can be seen as a measure of activity, movement, change

MarcoMCMLXXXIII Let me educate you further. The self-interactions of some particles on themselves do not require an input from spacetime. As for quantum gravity without spacetime? Certainly, the idea that the spacetime state of no spacetime, matter or radiation for one. The theorem you mentioned is for classical gravity only.