One of the most famous collections of proofs of the existence of God comes to us from St. Thomas Aquinas. Follow Father Dan O'Reilly on Twitter: / frdanoreilly
While I'm here having fun, let me just say that I'm a Dawkins fan boy and I understand Aquinas quite well. Well enough to know that his five proofs are simply five fallacious arguments that explain nothing and prove nothing. You should read him and see for yourself. But you do have to remove your god-colored glasses first and apply some critical thinking skills.
I'm a Dawkins 'fan boy' too. That 'God' didn't chose to reveal himself until the past few moments of human evolution and existence and choose the myths and legends of a wandering Jewish tribe as his conduit is absurd in the extreme as well as being unfair to the Norse, the Celts, the Slavs, the Persians (actually the Jewish myths owe a lot to the Persians), the Mongols, the Han, the Thais the ancient and "isolated" Australian natives etc etc. Aquinas was an expert within a world of self-fulling prophesies and circular thinking - so what?
Why would anyone come here with a clear intention of insulting, degrading etc the contention of the video. Is there nothing else in life that can hold a person's attention any greater than to sit on video channels and criticise?
You mean like you are? I happened upon this quite by accident but I'll comment because ridiculous ideas invite ridicule. I also feel anyone who supports the catholic church is supporting the protection of child rapists. As a former catholic, I've requested that my old church excommunicate me so I can distance my self as far as possible from the hypocritical style of vatican justice. Anyone with a conscience should do the same.
If people would beilive in santa clouse, would you just let them to believe in something there is no proof of and that are listening to this invalid and easily disprooven arguments thinking that they finally proved gods exstance. I dont want to insult you but if you are not able to see whats wrong with this aguments, i cant help you
I read the comments and see people who barely passed their maths trying to outsmart Thomas Aquinas who based his arguments on Aristotle. If you think these arguments are stupid, it's your mind that's narrow. It takes more than a grade 12 degree to discredit two giants of philosophy.
if you where not closed minded and have read summa theologica and knew things about philosophy, theology, and in depth knowledge of science then you would realize these are very good arguments
YOUR INTELECT IS SUFFERING IF YOU BELIEVE IN THOSE ARGUMENTS! If you cant see whats wrong with them, i would suggest you to search up a bit on the internet and see they are stupid and can be easily disprooven. So dont think that if something supports your belifs is necesary right
@@eugengolubic2186 Ne smeta mi što vjeruju ljudi u bozanstva. Ali iritira me kada su im argumenti losi ili nisu dovoljno istrazili o zadanoj temi vec vjeruju onome sto su im drugi rekli. Ako netko kaze da ne zna odgovore na sva pitanja te da nemoze sa sigurnošću ( mislim 100%) znati da Bog postoji, ali da je ipak odlučio vjerovati jer mu pomaze u zivotu onda mi to ne smeta i podrzat cu ga. Ali ako mi netko kaze Bog postoji zato sto tako kaze biblija ili zato sto su mu tako rekli ili zato sto tako svi vjeruju bez da je on/ona samu/og sebe zapitali da li je to sve točno onda smatram kako imaju uski pogled na svijet. Osobno smatram da ljudi koji vjeruju u Boga bez da su ikada ispitali tu tvrdnju da Bog postoji nisu pravi vjernici i imaju uski pogled na svijet. Raspravljao sam ovo sa svojom profom iz vjeronauka, bio je zanimljiv sat😂
@@oliverozvacic9216 ni ja ne volim kad ljudi vjeruju zato što je eto, igrom slučaja, "njihova baba vjerovala pa sad i oni moraju". Meni je to oduvijek bilo glupo i lažno zato sam proveo godine ispitivanja te sam se tek prije godinu i pol vratio katoličanstvu. Kao i mnogi laici, mislio sam kako je ovo bio Tomin pokušaj davanja koliko-toliko nekih razloga ljudima za vjerovati da se ne osjećaju beznadno, ali to pada u vodu budući da je Toma odbacio Anselmov ontološki argument i Kalam kozmološki argument koji je od Al Ghazalija "pokupio" Bonaventura. Ta dva argumenta su bili veoma favorizirani unutar Crkve te nema smisla od Tome odbaciti ih ako je bio pod nečijim patronom ili nastojati se umiliti drugima. Drugo, to nisu nikakvi, eto pokušaji, već pravi dokazi ukoliko su valjani i ukoliko imaju istinite premise. Čuo sam razne prigovore na njih i obično akademski filozofi znaju dati dobre prigovore sa kojima se treba nositi, manje upućeni nemaju za sad nikakvog uvjerljivog prigovora na pet puteva što se mene tiče. Svaka čast dečkima na pokušaju, ali jednostavno su promašili neke teme. Niti je Toma tvrdio da se "sve kreće" niti je bio protiv "beskonačnog regresa" barem ne što se tiče "per accidens". Toma je bio protiv "per se" bekonačnog regresa. To nije isto. Per accidens je kad učinak može postojati iako je njegov pokretač prestao postojati (npr. iako je djed umro, unuk i dalje živi te može imati potomke). Per se je kad jedan entitet hijerarhijski ovisi o drugome (npr. moja šalica je na stolu, stol je na podu itd. Ako maknemo stol, šalica nema gdje stajati.) Suma teologije je upravo to, suma, tj. sažetak, nije to namijenjeno opširnoj obrani, ali pod tim pitanjem u Sumi Toma nigdje ne kaže da je Bog kršćanski Bog. Jednostavno kaže da to svi zovemo Bogom (klasičnog teizma, dakle može biti kršćanstvo, židovstvo, islam ili deizam). Da Aristotel je drugačije zamišljao nepokretnog pokretača jer je bio poganin koji je živio u 4. st. pr. Kr., ali ne vidim zašto Toma ne smije prilagoditi Aristotelov argument da podupire Tomina vjerovanja. Ne samo to, Toma nigdje ne zagovara da se treba filozofski dokazati da je svemir imao početak jer nema ništa protiv per accidens regresa te tvrdi kako je vjerovanje u početak svemira stav vjere koja je zapisana u Bibliji i sadržana u ispovijedi Crkve (za razliku od Bonaventure koji je pokušao filozofski dokazati početak svemira). Dečki ne kažu ništa za Humeovo "pobijanje", ali sam upoznat sa time i filozofkinja Anscombe ga pobija. Ono što Kant želi reći jest da uzročnost spoznajemo iz iskustva, tj. iz empirijskog svijeta, ali ne vidim zašto ne slijedi da ne možemo primjeniti princip uzročnosti izvan empirijskog svijeta. Razlog zbog kojeg u iskustvu primjećujemo da stvari trebaju uzrok nisu samo zbog toga što ih iskušavamo, već zato jer su u mogućnosti tako dugo dok ne postaju zbiljske. Ne samo to, mi možemo naučiti nešto o pojedinom trokutu, ali kad spoznajemo to o pojedinom trokutu možemo takvo rezoniranje primjeniti na sve moguće trokute. Ovo nije "Bog praznina" argument i Akvinski piše protiv tog argumenta prije izlaganja samih argumenata, ali vjerujem da autori Tomu nisu ni otvorili. Dokaz iz uzročnosti jest sličan, ali nije isti te Toma opet ne govori ništa o kršćanskom Bogu. Glavni problem s "pobijanjem" trećeg dokaza jest taj da tvrde da ništa nije počelo postojati niti prestalo postojati što je apsurdno. Postoje četiri vrste uzroka: materijalni, formalni, pokretački i svrhoviti. Ako autori vjeruju kako nisu počeli postojati zanima me kako im je bilo u doba Francuske revolucije. Savršenost nije subjektivna i s mojeg stajališta se čini da Toma ne misli da bi bilo koji entitet mogao biti savršen. Savršeno biće je ono kojem ništa ne nedostaje ili koje ima atribute do maksimuma. Tako su znanje, moć i dobrota maksimalno gledano sveznajučnost, svemogućnost i moralna savršenost. Također, Bogu ništa ne nedostaje te je stoga savršen. Ono što peti dokaz želi istaknuti jest da se neinteligenta bića ponašaju prema nekoj inteligenciji, tj. slijede neku svrhu. Ukratko, da zaključim, postoje dobri prigovori na Akvinskog, ali ove dječurlije Tomi nisu ni dorasne, možda zato jer je Toma ipak u pravu ili ga jednostavno nisu čitali, tko zna, ono od čega mi se diže kosa na glavi je ono standardno novoateističko preseravanje u njihovom zaključku: npr. "Tisuće drugih objašnjenja može se umetnuti umjesto postojanja Boga i imala bi jednako smisla." Ne bi. Lijep pozdrav i nadam se da ste pohvatili što sam htio reći.
1. The "prime mover" theory relies on a theory that has yet to actually be demonstrated. We don't know that everything requires a cause. And the issue with the "prime mover" theory is that if everything that exists needs a cause, then what caused God? 2. The "first cause" theory is literally the same as the "prime mover" theory. 3. There's no reason to assume the universe needs some sort of force to hold existence together. And it's impossible for something that exists to cease to exist. Because something ceases to exist, it's removed from existence, meaning that it had never existed in the first place. 4. Not only is the concept of perfection a human construct, perfection is subjective. And depending on the religion, God certainly is not perfect. 5. The argument from design is invalid because in order to determine design, you have to compare it to something that is not design (natural). It's impossible to determine that the universe is designed if everything was designed. If everything was designed, nothing was designed. And claiming that any differences would make it so that human life couldn't exist is fallacious to begin with. The universe doesn't perfectly fit human life. Human life perfectly fits this universe. And the reason for that is because we are a product of this universe. If things were different, human life may not exist. But the key word there is "human". There could still be life that evolved and rose to a level of intelligence that would be roughly equal to humans. Simply put, the universe doesn't revolve around humanities existence. Humans are just a product of the universe. The 5 ways of Thomas Aquinas does nothing to prove the existence of any deity, let alone an intelligent benevolent one.
We all had parents, and they had parents, and their parents had parents. Somewhere, some how the first parents came from some thing. FROM GOD! Not just a coincidence of organic material attaching itself out of nothing. God is our holy creator. St. Thomas explains it very well and logically.
We don't need to know how god got here, if we found technological equipment on Mars and it wasn't ours, the logical explanation would be aliens put it there. We don't need to understand how the aliens are here or where they came from. To me, it's more insane to say the universe was nothing, there was nothing, then suddenly there was something, for no reason. And the universe did start, everything has a start somewhere.
That's a little stiff. The summa theologica is super long! Though it was for beginner. Maybe people should comment on this if they have read the five ways, understand per se causation and per accidens causation, and well as having read Aquinas' works on reason and faith, and understand the fine tuning argument.
All 5 of the arguments include a repetitive flaw... the desired conclusion, is force inserted as part of the premise, and as an exception to the rules. So, an example of forcing a god into a desired conclusion is to obscure the characteristics of your god into one or several of your premises, as the one exception to the premises, forcing the desired perspective or conclusion; meaning everything else in the universe must obey the law(s) of the premises, but the exception in the desired conclusion. P1: Everything has an actuator. P2; This can't go on forever or infinitely. P3: There must be an absolute actuator or starter... Thus Con: The absolute actuator is god. Premise 1 established an unbreakable, all inclusive boundary. Premise 2 gave permission to break Premise 1. Premise 3 limited the option to the desired conclusion, and the conclusion fit the desired perspective. P1: There is no argument that can prove a god's existence. P2: There is no argument that can prove a god's inexistence... Thus CON: It is pointless to argue about a conclusion to a god's existence or inexistence. EJSTFUA!
I wonder had Thomas Aquainis lived in the 21st Century where Science tho' not answering ALL questions, has indeed opened up a better understanding of causality as how to The Universe and fundamental principles apply would be STILL had written these SAME 5 Reasons? Quantum Physics was as unheard of then as the idea the Earth was Round and in fact revolved AROUND the Sun, etc..etc.. Would he still have been so devout and answered his 5 Reasons for God's Existence: "Because of God" as the answer? ... Honestly...I don't believe so because he WAS indeed smarter than that. He probably would have been a particle physicist, or astronomer for NASA. These near 1,000 year old "Reasons" written when such medical "treatments" as BLEEDING were prescribed for diseases believed to be a scurge sent from God etc.etc..are "no longer required" to explain The Origin of Life and The Universe and have in fact had the opposite effect on not only myself but countless others. Why? ...because Science has proven them wrong. I'm no Neil deGrass Tyson but here's a few such corrections to "The 5": The Universe is NOT perfectly designed for human life AND as far as we can tell we may in fact be alone. The Universe is a cold and desolate place, where life faces an insurmountable struggle to survive. Via Quantum Physics it's been shown that something CAN indeed come from NOTHING...and the proverbial "First Thrower of The Light Switch" is in fact.. NOT required. The constants of the universe may in fact have loopholes and are NOT nessecarily "set in stone" as it were...again Quantum Mechanics comes into play with its ENTANGLEMENT PRINCIPLE (Google it). Also...the Universe appears to be INCREASING in speed as opposed to slowing down. Dark Energy it is theorized is PUSHING galaxies away FASTER as opposed to them slowing down and tho it may take TRILLIONS of years (with a T) ..entropy WILL eventually kick in and the Stars will simply burn out leaving a black void...Until the next Big Bang or ..not to sound TOO Science Fiction but it has been theorized OUR descendents or another Civilization that EVOLVED elsewhere and is capable of such a thing...pushes the "RED BUTTON" thus creating ANOTHER Big Bang.. And tho any entity capable of such technology would seem as such to us a "God" of Religious believe would NOT be required. No one REALLY knows...but to say simply..."Because of God" is to invite more disdain for such beliefs. Tho Einstein DIDN'T believe in a PERSONAL God but one more akin to the Beauty of Nature, he famously said: “Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.”
Life is more simple than we think. We don't understand or have not discovered many mysteries and perhaps never will. That does not mean that there are gods up there. In fact, faiths are a necessity or even a weakness. But it is in some ways a little arrogant. The need of an eternal life, not accepting ones end. The need to feel special and loved and to feel that we are here for a reason. Even though many people die without any apparent mission. Let's not forget the feeling that you are above everyone who does not believe in your god, and who will burn in hell for not accepting the holy spirit. The reality is that, while everyone defends their gods and faiths and discredits the gods and faiths of others, human kind is looking for evidence of life outside earth. If our destiny permits this, it will change the perspective, and it'll open a window to our next level of evolution.
your'e calling us arrogant........... your an atheist, and weather you like it or not, atheism is also a religion. A religion full of arrogance, and your god is yourself. you say that God doesn't exist because you believe instead in your own power of mind, thought and your own reasoning, and hone these against the existence of God. you think that this is too ridiculous because apparently you are the on that measures ridiculousness. stop this arrogance.
By the way how come Catholics and Christians never talk about Brother Ockham (as in Ockham's razor)? He was also a medieval priest (like Aquinas) and wrote about the same topic but did not rely on Aristotelian forms (since completely disproven and abandoned by everyone but the Catholic Church).
look up a youtube video called Faith and Reason 2-16 for a full explanation of why the first proof is much more than "just a begining". The video is fairly long, but it seems you are looking for a thorough explanation, so if that is what you want you should check it out.
Brick Wall, These proofs only reflect that we can use our sense of reason to determine the existence of what we call God. However, they are not meant to tell who He is. If I may suggest. Read the Bible, that being the New and Old Testament. Do so slowly and meditatively, and pray for understanding, pray for enlightenment and pray for an open heart and mind. I understand looking at the size of a Bible can be very intimidating. Start with the Gospel of Mark. The reason being, Mark is 16 chapters, if you read two chapters a day, in eight days you have read the entire book known as the Gospel Mark. It is a foreseeable goal and a good place to start. I pray that God's Spirit comes down upon you and aids you in finding the answers to your questions. May the Lord bless you, keep you, and sustain you in His grace. Amen.
The majority of arguments against Aquinas's "proofs", which he himself thought off as insufficient, seem to come from people who: 1. are total ignorant of early Philosophy. (Aristotle, Plato...) How arrogant needs someone to be, to dispute someone else's lifetime of experience, after taking 5 minutes of time to watch a video on youtube? Modern Science is the child of philosophy and can not replace philosophy in all areas. 2. have wrong premises. This is not a scientific argument, it is an argument based on logic. Like someone who would ask where 2+2=4. The question is wrong. But Logic, nowadays seem to have been swallowed by the relativism of the post modern world. Furthermore, these arguments are not intended to be used to "convert" people. Rather Aquinas was seeking the truth, like philosophers normally would do, weather Christian, Muslim, Atheist or whatsoever. (Again it is not the same category as math or physics)
I like how this guys says Physics, Physics, Physics. You cannot cherry pick Science, scientific fact is fact. With that being said you cannot use physics to try to support your argument but ignore the 99% of Science/Physics that destroys your faith. Also he has no right to be talking about the 2nd law of Thermodynamics, without fully understanding what it is and what entropy is.
the summary in my view of the only half-decent argument in this video is that the universe needed a beginning, "according to science," so he starts using a scientific premise and scientific basis for his argument, he then says that god was this beginning, however im assuming that he's assuming that god didnt have a beginning, and is eternal. By effectively saying thaat god didnt need a beginning he has destroyed his own scientific premise by putting god above the same laws of nature he holds the universe to. also, what is more likely to have happened... an expanding, yet relatively simple (in terms of the small number of initial elements hydrogen etc) universe apparently coming from nothing/something we havent yet discovered, or an extremely complicated sentient being coming from nothing. i would personally advocate the former.
BannerBoy360 "By effectively saying thaat god didnt need a beginning he has destroyed his own scientific premise by putting god above the same laws of nature he holds the universe to." Why would a supernatural being be held to natural laws?
***** not directly, but he's saying "physics says everything (universe) needs a beginning" as if he's confirming that a truth.. then says "there must be a beginner" but thats just adding another layer to the reverse infinity that your talking about, he's selcting certain things to be held to natural laws and not others, after he's referred to it. It is implied.
BannerBoy360 Right. Natural things, like the universe, are held to the laws of nature. Super natural things, like God, are not. But, look, the reason God does not require a beginning is because God's essence is existence. That means God exists necessarily. To say God had a beginning contradicts the idea that God exists necessarily.
Philosophy is the rational investigation of truth. Everyday we must fight to learn a little more about the universe around us. Its why we are still here.
LOL there is nothing more entertaining than seeing a bunch comments from RU-vidrs trying to discredit two giants of philosophy - Thomas Aquinas who based his arguments on Aristotle.
Yea most of these comments state that the arguments are bad because science or made up stuff and don't provide any detailed proofs. Aquinas' arguments are extremely robust and difficult to take down. Honestly one would have to write a book to try and begin to attack Aquinas or Aristotle.
People just don't know. None of us know anything. i can't argue with anyone about philosophy/science/physics because i know nothing about them. But what i do know is that God is real, not because of philosophy/science/physics or i just think he is there. God is real and he want to talk and show you things. God is real and will be active in your life if you let him. He is so close and will give you experiences that science/philosophy/physics cant explain nor can you or i or anyone in this world ever ever ever understand. Most people are deceived and don't realize it.
1. The unmoved mover was the singularity. 2. Why does the beginning necessarily have to be god? That's a huge jump in logic I could list reasons why the other arguments aren't good arguments, but all of them have the same answer. Why does the answer have to be god? It doesn't.
Prospector Nick It's not like Aquinas goes on to devote hundreds of pages to answering the question "Why does it have to be God?" after demonstrating its existence...
I get a kick out of the way Prospector Nick says the 'singularity' is the answer as if anyone could explain what a 'singularity' is; or if it was any kind of explanation anyway. May as well say 'pink unicorn' as say 'singularity'. They are both equally understood by science.
"Faith and reason are like two wings on which the human spirit rises to the contemplation of truth; and God has placed in the human heart a desire to know the truth-in a word, to know himself-so that, by knowing and loving God, men and women may also come to the fullness of truth about themselves" - Pope John Paul II on Faith & Reason
I would love to be famous and rich. Live in a big mansion. Have my own jet. Rule the world even ! If I could prove God actually exists to everybody, I believe I would become famous and rich. My plan is to think really hard, make a video and put it on RU-vid. That should do it.
At least Catholics aren't creationists based on this. However, to base one's world view and life on the concept of "it can't be explained by science so it MUST be God" seems silly to me.
If you read Thomas Aquinas 5 ways, he does touch on the characteristics of God base of what we observe in the universe (like how we can logically explain the characteristics of historical figures base on their works or historical information). If you compare the God Thomas Aquinas described to the other ancient gods, you will see they are very different. Also, you will see how those gods can't exist base on what we know about the universe (just like how Thomas Aquinas observe the universe and put together his 5 ways. Do you know the characteristics of the other gods?
I really don't think this guy should be the example of Aquinas's approval of compatibility of religion and reason (science). It is obvious Dan here does not understand what Entropy is, and he is spreading false information. Actually, Dan O'Reilly himself...providing his example of how the universe is not showing signs of breaking down, is THE PERFECT example of entropy because he is allowing people to believe in false information by which most likely these people who believe in Dan O'Reilly's word will pass this on..and there you have it! An Entropic example of people in chaos due to the falsely given information.
The scientists that proposed the theories Fr. Orielly alludes to concerning the Argument from Motion, Guth and Vilenkin, are both agnostic/atheists. See "50 Renowned Academics Speaking About God (Part 1)" at min 4 on RU-vid where Guth talks about his religious beliefs. Christianity is so wrong.
Arguments from causation and motion seem like special pleading fallacy, and the teleological argument has been thoroughly debunked. Also, relativity states that if a sequence of events is observed while moving faster than the speed of light relative to the event, effects will occur before the cause, in contradiction with the argument from causation. Any thoughts on this?
Arguments from causation and motion are hardly special pleading. Nothing can cause itself and motion is more so going from potentiality to actuality. Anyway, they are not special pleading because they make an argument that if everything required something prior to exist, then nothing would exist. NOT everything has a cause. Therefore, something, an uncaused causer, must exist. It is a bit of a leap to then assume said uncaused causer is God, but such a thing must still exist. If that makes sense....
@@davitz77 Nicely put. However, I don't see why it is 'a bit of a leap' to assume the uncaused causer is God. Isn't it just a case of changing the label (from 'Uncaused Causer' to 'God')?
Your first argument is incorrect. Aquinas is not saying that the universe has a beginning. Rather he is saying that events happening in the here and now must be caused by God. I am a Muslim, and from one believer to another, please do look into the proofs more closely. Thanks.
Aquinas unsuccessfully tried to take the Aristotelian premises and convert their use to "prove" that there had to be a first cause, and an efficient first cause. The easy way to disprove this presupposition is to ask "what caused the first cause?" This has never been answered and undercuts all propositions thereafter. Aquinas also took Aristotelian premises and mixed them with a Platonic first mover. Internally inconsistent, or at least that is what the Greeks would have argued about their philosophy. Aquinas was reacting to the 13th century "Averroism" which showed that there is a truth from reason, and a "truth" from religion, but that they were not the same truth. This is the beginning of Atheism by many accounts, and Aquinas failed to disprove this theory. There is nothing known to the study of physics in the 20th Century that supports anything that Aquinas wrote, contrary to the statement by the priest. Religion is a totalitarian system of control. Hamas and most terrorist organizations build hospitals and carry on charitable works. Atheists do not hate Christianity, they just object to the religious stopping scientific advancement, and using the mythical and false suppositions of their irrational faith to dictate to others while they make the unbelievably arrogant claim that they, and not others, know the will and thoughts of "God", and stating that those who do not believe lack humility. Causation does not prove God. Entropy is shown all over the Universe. String theory supposes many multiple universes. There does not have to be a "meta god" to explain the existence of the universe. In fact the existence of the universe as we can observe it points to randomness and violence, not perfection. Creationism and design are fallacies with no basis in reason or observable, verifiable evidence.
At least you no me of course this is just a human body but I'd prefer to not shake things up and scare you all I'm just here keeping this body alive it has bin a nice gift & sacrifice so he didn't need to listen to you all through anger for no reason granted he is still here but I kept him away from death hey sacrifice was to grant me Control to prevent him from killing himself I forgot to mention I can control as much as I want but I'd rather just Watch my sacrifice to you the smarter you become the more stronger your mind will be with this sed just keep in mind you can become capable of using telekinesis and speaking through mind do the speaking through mind portion requires others to be as smart otherwise they will hear you but they'll just think it's their mind thinking you got to think things through I should just say that is where you once were at least till this planet's magnetic field was being reversed resetting all of your minds again hell after so much progress you will be wondering why you bothered working on your muscle mass when your brain has more potential skill than muscle it self but don't stop working on your muscle mass at least until you actually do become your next for them again to ensure your safety till then I also forgot to mention there are different levels of God hood no matter how much God you become there will always be a God above you your power level will not exceed the one at grants it to you
I dont understand why something as simple as a spoon requires a designer/manufacturer ,an intelligent being to make it come to existence and yet some believe no one is responsible for our existence. Do you know with all the tech we have we still cant make intelligent machines like us, imagine the sophistication of a human being! did you look at the skeleton , or the sequence of your DNA? do you know how many nerve cells are in your body? how can anybody think there is no intelligent designer behind this?! i mean wow! why do people remain in denial?
I agree. I wonder if the problem lies in the concept of God. If we define God in any way, which we can't, then we've already created problems in the understanding.
I appreciate your belief and respect your faith. that being said, this is a great video showing logical fallacies in action. No reason to be offended or insulted: if your faith is strong, nothing I say will touch your beliefs.
What is the difference between god, unicorn and a tooth faerie? Maybe just people who believe in unicorns do not firce their rules over the others, and do not abuse children.
if god was the the almighty perfection there would be no need for us and since we were made and we are present. that means god needed us for a purpose so wouldn't that mean that our all mighty god once perfect created us for necessity which would mean that our perfect god is imperfect and if there is an imperfect god then we can a agree that he isn't much of a god? some one please correct me if I'm mistaken
LOL...please say that this is satire because you given no proof of a devine creator, as even I can see the flaws in each point, tho I rather a smarter person then I go over how and why those points are as I am not the best at explaining things.
This is incredible. I'm putting together a presentation on the 5 ways for my bible study group, and this video explains the ways more clearly in less than 5 minutes, than I've been able to do in 30 during my prep sessions. Great job!
i am catholic and i can mount a far better argument to prove Gods existance than this. this man is misusing the texts of thomas. those texts are for a different meaning other than to prove his Gods existence i can agree more the atheists that this is complete rubish....
Belief in God is one thing. But how can a rational person believe that Aquinas proved anything? Sad very very sad. We need to stop dumbing down our Priests by teaching them more real physics and a lot less Aristotelian metaphysics. It's the 21st boys, you got let the wrong ideas of the 13th century as well as the wrong ideas from the 4th century BC. St. Thomas says, St. Thomas says, St. Thomas says doesn't make it sooooo!
Ah, but he did not make the claim (yet) that this Prime Mover (aka God) was the christian God now did he? And how is this a "speculation' as you put it? He (not in great detail I will admit) proved God's existence. Lastly, who is saying he does not carry the burden of proof?
Victor Mason we are not arrogant, we do not deny death, we embrace it because the life in the flesh will not be as enlightening as the life in the spirit. You don't know what happens after death either so you can't make the argument that nothing happens. I truly believe in the KJV bible and we were created in Gods image and that is why once we gained the knowledge from the fruit, we try to be like Him. Look at our society, look at the 3D cell printers and stuff. Look at stem cells and abortion. We feel like we are the ones in existence that get to determine whether or not something exists but you see that cannot possibly be the case. We didn't create any of the living creatures that we share the planet with. You trying to even deny the logic behind creationist ideology is equally as ignorant as trying to deny that you're being controlled because religion or faith isn't what controls us. We may make decisions out of faith but we are not persuaded by any outside force. The thing that controls us is temptation. Temptation to feel normal in society and not be made "fun of" for your beliefs. I think atheism is just a group of people trying to be exponentially intelligent and deny that something could ever be more powerful than man. THAT my friend, is arrogance. Be humbled and know that you are not one to know the mind of God. You don't know why He does what He does. You have been blessed with the spirit of slumber. You can wake yourself up with your blessing of free will, or stay asleep in the world being controlled by the banks and corporations, which worship Satan, if you didn't know about freemasonry. So you are being controlled by the force that is opposing the force of God and although you may think I'm trying to persuade you to convert, all I ask is that you read the teachings of Jesus and let him into your heart so that you may be spiritually born again. All He wants is peace and all Allah (Satan/the deceiver who leads people "a stray") wants to take that peace and make us feel like he is God when he really isn't. Because he will come to us as a man, because he was cast out of heaven down to earth. Do your research the signs are here and the end is truly near God says in the bible he will awaken many and save many souls in the end of days. I will pray for people like you so that you might be saved.
The KJV is a mistranslated version written by a man who did not have access to a complete vulgate or greek/hebrew/aramaish bible, and he distorted the verses with his own "meology" per say. The KJV and New American versions have thousands of mistranslations, purchase the Douay Rheims version its is the only correct english bible
As a Christian I think Aquinas' second argument (Cosmological) was the most compelling. However, the priest here has made a slight misrepresentation of the science. Entropy applies to the entire universe since its conception. As time progresses entropy or disorder will continually increase. This means that the corollary: 'order should increase if we move back in time' is also true. If we were to keep going back in time, there has to have been a moment when there was no disorder. You cannot have an infinite regress since something cannot experience disorder unless it was first completely ordered. Thus, this argument reasonable proves that something or someone transcendent (beyond matter/energy and beyond limits of space/time) must have created the universe we now live in. This argument alone won't prove Christianity but serves as a good starting point.
It's hard not to break Aquinas arguments, but it's actually uncalled for. His arguments don't 'prove' the exisitence of judeo-christian God anymore that they 'prove' the existence of Alah, Sheeva, Thor or the Flying Spaghetti Monster. The last argument is not well explained and the way you shove modern physics into it made Eintein turn in his grave. These arguments are interesting to be thoght of and important to this day, but the way you put them just fools the fools.
They most certainly do prove the existence of one God! Just not in the 4:37 minutes it took you to watch this video. If you honestly want to understand the arguments from Aquinas, it will take you much more time. Frankly that should be obvious. This video is little more than a list of the five ways. It is not an explanation of the five ways. That would take hours. Save yourself the embarrassment of posting your uniformed comments.
Very sad that in this day and age anyone could believe this rubbish. None of the arguments prove the existence of a specific god, just a beginning. Not really very helpful. I'm sure you can't be rational and believe in a creator.
Mark, St. Thomas never intended these to be "proofs" in the sense that they unquestionably substantiated God's existence. He used them to show that it's more likely than not that God exists. He admits this continually throughout the Summa. In fact, if you read and understand it (not easy), then you'll see that he has better objections than you about God's existence. That was his genius. He was never dogmatic or assuming. He was analogical the whole way through.
Look up a video called Faith and Reason 2-16 for a full explanation of why the first proof is much more than "just a begining". The video is fairly long, but it seems you are looking for a thorough explanation, so if that is what you want you should check it out.
Alex Magee St. Thomas Aquinas said that faith and reason are different but they NEVER contradict one another. If they do, he claimed, one didn't have a proper understanding of either one when they started.
The big flaw in this argument is that 1 and 2 are backed by science but only support the existence of god as a first cause. Not necessarily the existence of a moral god. Also it has the comical side effect that according to this logic everything is caused by god so literally everything can be blamed on god and everything can be used to praise god. This actually defies god as a moral being. 3 Does again support the existence of a necessary being but not a moral necessary being. It doesn't matter whether the statement is false or true, it will never support the existence of a moral being. 4 Relies on human perception of things around them and the term perfection which is paradoxical. The word perfect itself can't be perfect as it is created by an imperfect being (see the paradox?). Thus any use of the word perfection in any argument is problematic. 5 Is flawed because: if the universe couldn't support life, there would be no one to observe that universe as we are doing now. In this way we have a 100% chance of observing condition which support life, since we are in fact alive. So living things observe conditions which make their life possible, almost per definition. God isn't needed as an explanation.
kikker981 If you would like to look at Aquinas' works, he proves God must be a moral being. Basically, the principle is that being and the good are the same thing. Hence, since God's essence is existence, God is also the good. I could go on, but this is the first step to get to a moral God. You can get the rest from reading his book: www.newadvent.org/summa/1006.htm
***** A moral being does judge other beings for being good or bad. We judge "God" if we call him good, whatever reason we give. It does not prove that "God" judges us.
When what you read or been told is controlled how you know it's the truth this arisyole guy put into right rule that his version is the one and only correct way as we know there where many people before this do called name brands came about its like fashion and the industry it's all control most of the pedophile wear them dog colars so what ever they say I frown. anything forced upon people can't be good??
it is not a big deal if you do not believe on God or you believe on it..It is better for us to believe in God because it emphasize faith rather than not believing in God in which it doesn't know what faith is emphasizes through..Faith=God and Faith is an important role it gives us Strength and Strength defines our attitude towards life.. Thus Equation: FAITH
Religion is killing Humanity. that my friend was 2 years ago, since i had never been introduced to science and math, yet for almost 2 years things changed and i had already accept the fact that there is really no Divine being or what they called a God afterall..:)
Religion is killing Humanity. yup i really missed those days wherein i stayed home because i was unemployed after college and all i can do is to study home doing internet and research, those days really was the transition where i feel the rapid change upon my intellectual reflection towards the cosmos..
Silly question lol you've missed the mark my friend lol. If God had a creator, then Hes not God, and that creator would be God, so you're right back to square one. Eventually there has to be a source, and that would be... God
Part 3) To help, I would use the basics of catechism to explain concepts of truth, faith, grace etc., concentrating on important ones that are very misunderstood today. Use examples and metaphors to make these concepts real! And explain the purpose of Catholic rituals, how & why they help. Through this learning AND the EXPERIENCE gained from practice it will become clear how hard it is to be like Jesus. His divinity will reveal and prove itself. And through Jesus God will be revealed and proved.
If people are unconcinved and want a longer video that shows how the first argument proves God (and not just a first cause) they should look up a youtube video called Faith and Reason 2-16 for a full explanation of why the first proof is much more than "just a begining". The video is fairly long, but it seems you are looking for a thorough explanation, so if that is what you want you should check it out.
Let's use the science that the Catholic Church used to incite the cries of Heresy - to prove our Lord's existence What the indemnified had died for? Exactly what this man was just paid to do. Brilliant fraud, but lack of human reason. Step out of your matrix.
Excellent video. Lapsed Catholics and secular folks alike are often surprised to hear that The Church was inherent in the founding of the university system and of modern science. The book "Dominion" by historian Tom Holland is a good start. Also, the book "How the Catholic Church built Western Civilization" by economist Thomas Woods is another. The idea that Christianity is opposed to reason and science is not only wrong, it is the opposite of the truth.
I have been studying Aquinas on Act and Potency and the infinity of God. My understanding of the metaphysics of Being according to Thomas is. Everything is pure Actuality or a mixture of act/potency. Pure Actuality would be infinite. There is where I would like some input and confirmation from Thomistic philosophers out there. So if God is Pure Actuality then the Act of knowing or the Act of Power would be infinite since he is simple. So one could say that the Act of knowing is infinite and all of creation is a limited participation in the Infinite know ability of God. So according to Aquinas does unlimited mean that it has no terminus? So when we say God’s knowledge is unlimited we mean that there is no terminus to God’s knowledge. That it is Inexhaustible? Would that be a true statement? Is that what act is only limited by Potency implies?
the same physics he claim proves the existence of god also gives a really good explanation to the origin of our universe (or science in general as what I said actually falls in astronomy) different to a god creating it, I wouldn't trust anyone who cherry pick information like that.
So where does First Cause become equivalent with a single denomination of a single cult's idea of an intelligent sentient magical man that has been given the name Yhwh? Perhaps more consideration should be paid to Thomas Aquinas' idea of divine simplicity (also postulated by Justin Martyr and others) that his god is indivisible in space, indivisible in time and indivisible in properties. This sounds more like the superpositioned singularity of nothing and infinity from which all existence has arisen, impelled towards both entropy and complexity by the increasing resolution of time. This singularity being unbound in time and space (like the concept of a creator god) cannot be held to the principle of sufficient reason. Life, intelligence and self-awareness have arisen as a result of the complexification of the universe. This shouldn't be confused with the absurdity of a complex universe arising because of intelligence and self-awareness.
MagnificentDesolation I see. What exactly is evil about the Catholic Church? (Do not say priests abusing children because that was a horrific thing that happened and was allowed to continue but once discovered by those not involved, was greatly prevented from happening again)
I'm pretty sure he misunderstood all 5 arguments. One of the main problems is that Dan does not recognize that Aquinas held that philosophy alone could not prove a beginning of the universe.
if you believe you can prove there is a god then there is no need of faith and means that we are all domed to hell, the just shall live by faith alone as Paul the writer of almost a third of the bible said. when yea believe yea are already saved
There are three things wrong with this video: 1) involving modern physics into proofs that are metaphysical 2) not understanding or misinterpreting modern physics, most obviously when denying entropy 3) presenting the fifth way as the watchmaker argument which it is not, teleology is not identical with intelligent design
Hello Commie - he didn't misinterpret physics at all unless you want to change the goal posts, which commie's tend to do. The fifth argument is NOT the watchmaker argument. The watchmaker argument is something set in motion then forgotten about (basically). He didn't say that - our existence is always dependent on God.
@@sstritmatter2158 I don't know what my political beliefs have to do with anything. There is a misunderstanding of physics present and if it is not relevant to the argument it should not be included as a part of it, my first complaint is about involving physics at all into metaphysical proofs. The fifth argument not being the watchmaker argument is precisely my complaint. What happens to the watch later on is not relevant to the argument concerning God's existence, but yes, the existence of anything is always dependent on God. Honestly it just seems like you get triggered by a symbol in my profile pic and felt the urge to comment. I never said anything communist, I never said anything against the Five Ways and I certainly haven't argued against God's existence.
In regards to Cholurs69's comment. Aquinas is working off of an Aristotelian metaphysical framework. The unmoved mover in Aristotle's work is identified as being necessary because we see a world of flux all around us which is contrasted with the fact that there is also something unchanging and eternal about the universe, namely forms. (For instance, the form of tree or flower does not change. it will always be in actuality) These forms (pure actuality) are the unmoved movers of Aristotle's works. Everything in the universe is in a state of potentiality relative to the forms (actuality). The unmoved mover can not move as we would think of one moving a pencil or box with our hands, but rather it exists in a pure state of actuality contemplating itself. It is "thought thinking thought". Rather the world of flux moves towards (or desires) these unmoved movers as they change from a state of potentiality into actuality. St Gregory the Great, and St. Thomas were some of the first philosophers since the advent of Christianity to have access to to Aristotle's work thanks to a new Latin translation of his works. St Thomas took the brilliance of Aristotle and applied his ideas to the truth of Christianity. At the time a quite 'scandalous' move. As a final note, St Thomas worked under the supposition of 'faith seeking understanding' (a quite defensible position philosophically but that is another conversation) so he was not so much seeking to convert an atheist to Christianity but rather arguing that the existence of God is not self evident (as St. Anselm claimed) but then goes on to demonstrate that though the statement "God Exists' is not self evident it is a quite rational position to take.
+Thomas Hägg Take the accidental form of red. That which possesses the intelligibility of 'red' will never change to have the intelligibility of blue. For instance a flower that dies. While alive it has the intelligibility of 'flowerness' when it dies it no longer has that same unifying intelligibility and it is no longer a flower but rather decaying matter (Whatever that may be). The only thing a nature can change into per se is 'not flowerness'. Aristotle talks about this in his discussion on matter, form, and privation. (In his physics?) The intelligibility of what it is to be a flower will never be the intelligibility of what it is to be a dog. The notion of change that you are talking about from what you have said appears to be from a perspective of evolution. This type of change is fascinating to think about and warrants a much larger discussion. Also note that volumes and volumes of works have been written on the notion of essences, change, evolution, etc. A RU-vid forum does this very little justice. There are two books I would suggest you look at if you are interested in this. Most of the time you can find them used for very cheap on Amazon. Both by Mortimer J Adler. The first is "Aristotle for Everyone" this is a very good introduction to Aristotelean thought. The second book, "The Difference of Man and the Difference it Makes" brings up some very interesting questions on the notion of change as it pertains to man and evolution (either a difference of degree or kind and all that entails)
You know, the whole point of searching for proof for God just doesn't make any sense to me. Like, the fact that your faith in God is so weak you need any confirmation at all, shouldn't that make you a pretty bad Christian anyway? Also, the argument "We have no other way to explain it so it must be God" is exactly what the people once said about thunderbolts.
Of the 'first mover' Aquinas does not say "this is God" but "et hoc dicimus deum" ; this we CALL God. The argument is not made as a "proof" of God - appealing to reason - but as an appeal to another human universal; our god-like capacity for awe. The big bang would be as awesome by any other name.
For starters, we need atheists to take us seriously. So we need to be credible. Which means we should try not to say things that aren't credible. Today, TA's proofs aren't credible to many REASONABLE people- this is verifiable. I'm saying, we need to teach about Jesus in a way that is credible by, I'll take a tip from Thomas, teaching the material in the order they can understand it. So start by relating the human experience of Jesus to their own human experiences. And the rest will follow.
Very deep theological explanations and I need to jar my brain to wake up so that it can absorb what has been disseminated. Thank you, Father. I'd rather have faith because for me it doesn't need any deep explanation at all.
Part 1) I don't think priests should use any argument to prove God. I think they should intelligently discuss the life of Jesus in a way that makes sense to modern minds. I would start by concentrating on the human level, and let people imagine what it might be like in the situations that Mary, or Joseph, or Jesus, or Peter, or Judas, or a person in the crowds found themselves in. And along with that discuss Jesus's teachings and have people help each other try to understand what they mean.
That this preacher deliberately spouts spurious arguments he has every good reason to know are soundly refuted demonstrates a willingness to lie for Jesus. [3:7 For if the truth of God hath more abounded through my lie unto his glory; why yet am I also judged as a sinner?]
Thank you and I did feel the Power of Creativity...which flowed through me whatever i did.. even when I used to pray his prayers to Christ...before I knew that it was a Blessing from Christ through his beautiful Prayers...Thank you Jesus for assisting us through your servants of Faith...
No not at all, the Pythagorean theorem is old and it's always going to work. The same goes for the teachings of Jesus. But reasonable people, very good philosophers included, have been arguing the validity of the cosmological argument in one form or another for thousands of years and there is NO CONSENSUS. Imagine reasonable people couldn't come to a consensus on the validity of the Pythagorean theorem. Now doesn't that tell you something?
I merely cite Darwin as a major nail in the coffin of the design argument (which is the only argument worthy of consideration). Since Darwin's day evolutionary biologists, geneticists, geologists, palaeontologists, astrophysicists, radio-astronomers, cosmologists (not forgetting logicians) have provided overwhelming arguments that make Aquinas little more than an item of historical curiosity. You're obviously intelligent so don't ask me to believe that all of this science has passed you by.
I'll use the "generic" cosmological argument for my example to simplify the communication. I could use many people and websites to illustrate my point but let's just start with Andrew McMillan's youtube site where he has two videos: Cosmological Argument - Part 1 and Cosmological Argument - Part 2 which explains how competent, reasonable? (I think so) philosophers have had reason not to buy into the argument.
When Aquinas talks about infinite regress, and its impossibility thus there must be an unmoved mover or first efficient cause etc., he is referencing a hierarchical regress. This is something akin to a son relies on his Father, who relies on X, who relies on Y for his existence. Not, as the video presume, a temporal regress.
Part 2) And then I would explain how other people through history understood the life of Jesus and the variety of ways Jesus came into their life. e.g. Augustine, Francis, Teresa, Thomas, etc. and others too. e.g. Let them listen to the words of the Bible come alive in the speeches of Martin Luther King. And then they should do as Jesus did with the apostles, have them try put these teachings in practice as they go out and live their lives because real understanding comes through experience.
Dear Brother and Sister. Believe in Faith in our God you will see the answer anything. because you never doubt you will find it according to the law of God.
