Thomas Aquinas' 5 Ways (Proving God's Existence) DEBATE 

Does God Exist a Philosophical Inquiry: This books offers an in-depth analysis of The Problem of Evil and the three main arguments for the existence of God; the Ontological Argument, the Teleological Argument and the Cosmological Argument. Available Worldwide on Amazon... Paperback: US - www.amazon.com/dp/B088BH5HTL UK - www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B076GRHTQ2 Canada - www.amazon.ca/dp/B088BH5HTL eBook: US: www.amazon.com/dp/B076GRHTQ2 UK: www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B076GRHTQ2 Canada: www.amazon.ca/dp/B076GRHTQ2 India: www.amazon.in/dp/B076GRHTQ2 Australia: www.amazon.com.au/dp/B076GRHTQ2 Germany: www.amazon.de/dp/B076GRHTQ2 The Philosophy Vibe "Philosophy of Religion" paperback anthology, available worldwide on Amazon: US: www.amazon.com/dp/B092H42XCS UK: www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B092H42XCS Canada: www.amazon.ca/dp/B092H42XCS

One of the most underrated channels on RU-vid. The content is brilliant and thought provoking - good work chaps

I dont think there is any other philosophy channel on youtube that can make philosophy this much easy to understand and digest . Your method of teaching through argument is so comprehensive and Fantastic

I’m reading a bunch of these texts that you have uploaded onto your page, I love watching these in addition to make sure I am understanding them correctly 😂 please keep uploading!

This is the best philosophy channel, it's so interesting to learn by listening to both sides and making your own assertion, I wish I could subscribe one million times

You guys have no idea what you have done for me! Thank you so much

Super interesting arguments and video. Really loved the animations, helped me follow through. Thank you!

underrated channel.this channel deserve more viewers

these works are incredible , thanks you guys for diligent works

God send you guys as a helper for us❤️❤️ as without you guys these theories seems impossible to understand!!😀

Amazing! Thanks for the content!

The idea of God makes sense in order for something to be created it must have someone who has always been there in order to start it

The Best video and the way to make something understood👏… Could not find a better one anywhere else!

The theist wouldn't argue against the infinite regress at 9:45. That's not actually a Thomistic argument... Aquinas himself said that an infinite regress is possible, and that's because the crucial distinction that anyone studying Aquinas has to understand is the difference between chronological cause and metaphysical cause.

I really enjoyed this. Thank you.

I was eager to hear this debate. Seeing the clear bent of allowing the secularist to appear victorious was disappointing but probably shouldn’t have been a surprise. The pushing of the universe as random is typical. Randomness in our exquisite and complicated universe is not a logical view. The design points to the Designer. It makes me sad to see the intellectual mind become frequently directed toward denying God. His fingerprints are all over the universe if one will only open their eyes. God bless you.

Awesome video!

SoooooOOOoo Gooood! The structure is godlike! Love it!

Great, balanced overview of the two opposing viewpoints. I enjoyed the video. Here are my reactions if I could be a tiny third character in this cartoon: 5:49 The idea of backing up to a super universe is not adding much to the Russell viewpoint. I could keep adding parents universe tiers with superlatives like "mega-verse" and "ultramega-verse." The origin of these still leaves the question of what initiated them. 11:19 This is an appeal to moral relativism. Cultures do have different traditions and rules but not necessarily different moralities. It's easier to explain by saying they may have differing sets of ideal forms. Kant's work on morals is appealing. I also could argue that a culture may temporarily deviate from the one true set of morals, the culture will not persist over time because the failure of morals leads to weakness and death. 11:55 I like the teleological argument. Normally we think that a cause pushes to an effect. An alternative, timeless way to think about it is an effect induces a cause.

Amazing!

I definitely enjoyed the vibe, keep up the good work. One thing I did not quite get is, how the first two ways are any different, but my English is not flawless so I think that might have cost a little error in my logic. Now I am going to binge watch your entire stuff, Cheerio.

Sensational as per

Good job with the video! I do have something to note specifically about the first way (though it would also seem to apply to the others). In the first way Aquinas was actually talking about an essentially ordered series of events, not an accidentally ordered series. This is crucial to the argument because Aquinas didn't believe it was possible to prove that the universe had a beginning. So when he discussed "motion" in the Summa, he was describing the composite existence of potency and act within the universe *right here and right now.* To illustrate the difference between an accidentally ordered series of events and an essentially ordered one, suppose that person A's parents were persons B and C. In this equation, person A initially depended upon persons B and C, but as he grows he becomes less dependent in every way. Now suppose person A is 25 years old now and both his parents were killed in a car accident. Now obviously this is terrible, but person A can still have children of his own. In other words, he no longer depends upon persons B and C and his future children will one day be able to have their own children even if he dies etc. etc. This is an accidentally ordered series of events. On the other hand, think of a coffee cup resting on a table. What is causing it stay in place? The table. What is causing the table to stay in place and be able to hold the coffee cup? The floor. What's causing the floor to be able to hold the table? The foundation and so on and so fourth. In this equation, every member of the series is *here and now* depending upon another member of the series, which in turn relies on another member, and so on and so fourth. THIS is what Aquinas is talking about and it is crucial to understanding his arguments because in this type of series an infinite regress IS impossible because all causes are merely instrumental. In other words, an infinite amount of effects doesn't give you a cause. Take away the cause and you have no effect. If you're interested in learning more about the Aristotelian/Thomist Arguments I suggest you check out Edward Feser's book *Five Proofs of the Existence of God.* Great job once again! I really enjoy your videos.

This is actually quite good. How did I not know your channel?

Thank you!!!

This left out a large portion of Aquinas' reasoning, the _ipsum esse subsistens_ that God's essence is equal to his existence. The essence v existence distinction is fundamental to his reasoning, and makes all of the objections raised in this video to the first 3 ways irrelevant. In order for something to have necessary existence, its essence (what it is) must be equal to its existence (that it is). This is divine simplicity, the fact that this necessary being is not a composite of essence and existence, but it pure existence. The "universe" cannot be substituted here because the universe is composite. In order for something to be composite, some cause for it to be composite is necessary. A composite is two distinct things put together, so something must cause those two things to unite. If we try to counter this with "what if both of these things are necessary?" or "what if there are more than one necessary being?", then we've violated divine simplicity. If thing A were _ipsum esse subsistens_ and thing B were also _ipsum esse subsistens_ both thing A and thing B have an essence equal to its existence, or otherwise said thing A and thing B are the same exact thing. This shows there can only be one being that is necessary being. And there is another clarification, the second way does not have the premise that "all things have an efficient cause", but that all things that are caused imply an existence of a cause. If we just propose that the entire universe is uncaused, then we've introduced an element of absurdity to our understanding of reality. If we assume all things began without a cause, then how can we ever apply cause and effect reasoning in any situation?

Its important that you understand at 2:01 pertaining to The First Way, when you state "if we go forever into the past, there was no point where everything started...", that is not the First Way, and its a misunderstanding of Thomistic and Aristotelian Causality. The First Way did not (nor any of his arguments) have anything whatsoever to do with the beginning of the universe. In fact he explained in detail that would be a problem to prove and to ensure his arguments were airtight, assumed the universe is eternal, for the sake of argument. Aristotelian Causality is a study of simultaneity. A cause and effect is SIMULTANEOUS (a brick smashing a window will smash the window at the exact time it is hit, and not before, and this is extremely important). To distinguish what had seemed to develop as two different notions of causation, Aquinas referred to the Aristotelian notion as an Essentially Ordered causal series rather than Accidentally Ordered causal series (ie my parents caused me to exist, i caused my children to exist, stars forming second generation stars forming planets etc etc). Most modern people only understand this later concept. The major point for the first causal series (essentially ordered) like train engine pulling train cars, or protein metabolizing into my muscle making it larger, or the suns rays making my skin slightly darker or a brick going through the window at this very moment, is that if the immediate cause of the effect isnt Acting on the effect RIGHT NOW, at this very second, then the effect is not possible, not even theoretically. If a train engine just disappears, the cars will just stop, as they cannot "move" themselves. If the sun disappears, my skin will no longer change color as my skin cannot change itself. If the brick doesn't exist, then it is not even possible that the window can be in the act of breaking (unless there's another reason apart from the brick) because a window cannot break itself, not even in theory. This is different than an accidentally ordered causal series like my mother giving birth to me. When she dies and is gone, I will petsist, same with myself and my children. If the sun burns out, that doesn't mean the earth will just cease to exist (though there's also essentially ordered causal series associated with that as well, such as the orbit of the earth would cease etc). The point here is, Aquinass argument has absolutely nothing to do with time and nothing to do with accidentally ordered causal series. In essentially ordered causal series, if the "train engine" (the thing empowering the "train cars" to change location) doesn't exist, then the train cars can't change location, ever. It is not adequate to try to argue "well, maybe theres an infinite number of train cars", that point simply does not matter. Without the engine, it doesn't matter if there's one car or infinity, they could not change location. Without an entity that can actualize any chage you are seeing at this very moment, that change would cease to exist, immediately, and this series of causes cannot be infinite (for an explanation), and there MUST be an actualizer (ie engine) of all changes that we see at this very moment, or all that we see "in motion" at this very moment would cease. I'm afraid that a lot of people educated in a modern philosophy in a modern university dont really grasp the material that was put forth by the Scholastics, put forth by Neo Scholastics or by The Church. Thanks for putting this content out there, as i think its real important, but hope my comment clears up a couple things.

best explanation ever ✌️

The most convincing argument for myself: - my personal relationship with Jesus Christ - my personal experience with God

I LOVE THIS!

"If there is such an intelligent creator, why is life so scarce" is easily answerable by the the argument of humans / this world having a purpose (which at the end of the day nudges you in one direction or the other if you beleive in a powerful creator interferring in the affairs of life or not)

The gradation principle would probably be supported by the premise that God created an essence in humans to distinguish between good and bad. Disagreements are more about prejudice than about aesthetics.

😇😎😇 Wonder presentation of the long running human discussion.

best philosophy channel oat

I would debate anyone any day that this RU-vid channel is the best for philosophy

Note: There Is a God: How the World's Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind Book by Antony Flew and Roy Abraham Varghese

the problem with an infinite time before now is that we would never reach now.

I like the concept of the video, the problem is that the logic used for the counter-refutations is extremely weak. (FIRST TWO ARGUMENTS AGAINST) The problem with the first two arguments against is that God is outside of our universe and thereby is not within either space or time and therefore is not under the force of any physical laws. The problem with the third argument is that quite literally no other universe can exist, that is not divinely created. Since a universe by definition must have physical laws in order to exist, then since our universe extends into eternity then no other universe can possible exist, there would be no room left for such a universe. Some people might want to claim that our universe doesn’t extend forever, but that we have not discovered the end of it yet and that there is a super universe from which multiple universes come from. There are two problems with this: one scientific and the other logical. First, in an experiment carried out by astronomers in the 1920s, we have discovered that our universe is actually expanding (which is supported by Isaiah 42:5, “he stretches out the heavens”. The Isaiah supports and is the thing being supported is that no argument for the existence of God can use the Bible as support as the Bible assumes the existence of God and thereby would classify as circular reasoning). The logical problem is that the term ‘universe’ would now apply to the super-universe and thus require that a mover move the super-universe. (THIRD ARGUMENT AGAINST) The problem with this argument of infinite regression is that you would be approaching infinity from the wrong side. Proponents think that we are staring at zero and working our way into a positive infinite number of causes; the problem is that we would actually be at the infinite end not the zero end and thus we must work backwards towards a set cause which must also be the mover and efficient cause. (FOURTH ARGUMENT AGAINST) The problem which this argument is that it is an ad ignorantiam fallacy or a fallacy due to ignorance of the subject matter. It doesn’t matter which culture you go to all of them follow the same basic principles (i.e. murder is wrong, kindness is good). Termed as moral wrongs, these principles aren’t subjective but instead objective. Because of this standard for good and bad, then there must have been a Creator and ultimate Standard for this standard. (FIFTH ARGUMENT AGAINST) The claim that life on Earth is by chance. However, this is the problem with studying solely philosophy and absolutely no science. Entropy or the tendency of everything to turn into chaos is the root of thermodynamics and the supposed heat death of the universe because all the energy in the universe would be equally spaced out so it would take the same amount of energy to gain the exact same amount of energy thus zero energy profits. According to the Laws of Thermodynamics, Law of the Conservation of Energy as well as Einstein’s Law of Energy (E=mc^2), energy and matter cannot become more organized but only more disorganized as time passes. Now, let’s look at DNA, if chance were actually what created the universe then DNA should not exist because DNA contains information then it cannot come from chance or entropy. Therefore, because matter and energy cannot become more organized and yet we see organization in all areas of life (although I’ve only talked about DNA for time’s sake), then the universe must have an Orderer. I would absolutely love a part 2 that would take these counter-arguments into account!

The one aspect that I would like someone to illustrate is an actual example of infinite regress affecting an issue/object today. I keep hearing that it is possible, so please give an example.

Hello uni student here! Can you give counter arguments for thomas aquinas’ efficient cause? i really need ideas for our debate tomorrow, hope you reply asap

Aquinas didn't believe that you could prove that the universe had a beginning.

I just loveeeeeeeeeeee this channel. Greetings from Macedonia!

Thomas Aquinas was one of the first to apply Epistemic Foundationalism to Metaphysics. He believed all the horns within Munchhausen Trilemma were problematic sicne it runs into an infinite regress except for Foundationalism, since to accept any horn within the Trilemma would itself be an acceptance of foundationalism.

Before talk to the first mover, define motion (and rest). Also define "first".

All praise to the almighty holy God!! 🙌🏾

7:10 I don't understand this argument. Are we taking causality as ontologically necessary or something empirically inferred?

i really like the video how can i donate to the channel?

Regarding the last point, wouldn't an infinite universe with one planet containing life have an infinite amount of that same planet with life at any given moment in time? Making not just one planet in time

I'm not sure that this video can justify the notion that because things outside of the universe are not necessarily the same as the universe, therefore we would be taking too much of a leap in rejecting infinite regress. The reason why is because we don't base our decisions on absolute knowledge but what is likely the case, and that means we base our decisions on what we DO know, not on what we don't, and that is why since based on what we do know from within the universe we understand that there cannot be infinite regresses, this is why we would apply it to things outside of the universe as well. Otherwise, to reject it based on "the possibility" that absurdities could apply differently prior to the universe would be an argument from ignorance, which is a logical fallacy. Furthermore, if we are going to deny the notion that we should reject an infinite regress because of not knowing the state of reality prior to the universe because it isn't observable, then we would also have to be consistent and apply this within the universe that we live in, because not all of the universe is observable and therefore it's possible that reality does not work the same way outside of what is observable within the same universe, and that would remove our justification for making universal conclusions or predictions of the Big Bang, which would cause us to reject much of scientists conclude is true. However, this video supports the agreement amongst scientists of there being a beginning and therefore supports a universal assumption that implies the beginning of the universe even though it was not observed, and that people are applying their immediate experiences of reality to unobservable aspects of reality, and if a person can do this with the extents of the universe one has not observed, then they should also be able to do this concerning things beyond the universe, and therefore this may give a reason not to reject these Theistic arguments that utilize the point of infinite regress to arrive to these conclusions. As for there not being life on other planets, just because God would have created other planets does not mean that the purpose for their existence is to put life on them. That is an assumption this video is making, and the video is also rejecting other assumptions that theists are making, so it's fair to point out these assumptions as well from The Atheist conclusion. The moon may not have life on it, but it does serve a purpose for the Earth, because it stabilizes the tides being at the distance it is at. There might also be other purposes for the moon and the stars or other planets. Biblically speaking, God created the Stars and planets to be lights for the Earth so that those lights would be for signs and seasons, and to give light on the Earth, implying the Earth was one of the main focuses and the other planets exist in order to support the experience of those from Earth, so there are other explanations as to why these other planets exist and don't have life on them. We are merely assumed that if there is a Creator, then they're absolutely must be life on these other planets, but that is an assumption one cannot justify. There may have been other purposes for them, but those were the purposes mentioned in the Bible. The point is, that there can be other reasons for why planets exist.

What about cyclical infinite regress?

I have a critical question about Thomas Aquinas's proof of God's existence even though I believe in God and God's existence. My question revolves around " The Argument From Contingency ". Contingent beings are beings that could have existed (human, objects, and others), whiles a Necessary being is a being that always exists and is the supreme God. How can we classify Angels because based on these categories? This is because angels don't die, but they are living with God in heaven. Please, could you help me with this question?

I would argue there is a common view of goodness. I study a lot of religions and philosophy. There is a common thread to most of these.

I think the problem with the refutation of the infinite regress is the putting the universe outside of time and space. Saying the universe is eternal but the “observable” universe had a beginning then begs the question how did time come into existence? How did a non-intelligent impersonal universe create time? If physicalism is true an entire dimension (or multiple) being added is a little absurd without God.

U r missing the fact that aquinas distinguished between essentially ordered series and accidentally ordered series . Essentially ordered series he argues cannot go to infinite regress but accidentally ordered series can ( he felt it was impossible to prove or disprove it ) . And the starting premise is some things not everything is in motion .

Last argument the best. Only the Lord could've done what we see, etc. The objection of other worlds with no intelligence actually strengthens the point- God has centered His attention on earth and rest is a testimony. But if there are other intelligent worlds, then the skeptical would say ,see there is no God! Thank you!

🖤🖤🖤

The counter-arguments used against Aquinas in the video are against the theistic personalist conception of God. Aquinas was a classic theist, not a theistic personalist.

6:52 I am a bit confused by this example as the argument here is that "every human being has a parent but one cannot say it (the human race) has a mother." Is it not true that the human race has a point of origin (as does all life in the world)? The human species has a "mother" in the sense that sometime in the past an organism birthed the first human thus becoming the catalyst for the human race. This would mean that all humans have a common "parent".

The blank stare of these two guys is rather unnerving. The rigidity in their sitting position borders on the psychopathological. The monotone interjections from the guy on the left is almost maniacal

we all do know instinctively what right and wrong is.... that's Objective Morality

I think saying humanity is scarce and that would show God doesn't exist isn't a very strong argument. It implies that there *should* be more humanity, and the lack of life (that we know about) has anything to do with or against God's plan. We as humans cannot assume we know every purpose of the universe as God created it, so our assumptions about how much life should be in it would not affect His existence.

I am from India Hello 👋 sir

someone get the guy on the left a glass of water

I believe in God, but mine is a pragmatic belief (William James). Like Kant, I don't believe we have the capacity to discuss the nature of a Being that is beyond our own empirical understanding. Belief in God is a matter of faith, not reason in the form of Western proofs such as those put forward by Aquinas or any other Western academic philosopher. Mahatma Ghandi believed in God, but he said there was no way to prove God's existence.

I think god is also the infinite .. universe . I think Aquinas did intend to say this as well, as he understood God to be that infinite universe. Not a .. aspect similar to a being as we are.

The only assertion that Thomas successfully defended was his ability to construct a compelling argument using words that failed to deliver a god. To this day, no god claimed by god believers has ever appeared to silence skeptics.

If a supposedly "Super Universe" created all the other universes, what created this "Super Universe"?

So funny as soon as this started I thought, "the guy in purple is the atheist".

5:30 What caused the big bang is the real mystery.

The universe can’t be its own cause when explaining it and god can because he is outside it. That’s the true limit of our horizon it seems. Just as we know things exist outside our observable horizon we can speak of outside space time while being inside it

how two cells leanred to construct themselves into a human being is , I guess, something to think about in regards to whether it was designed by a God or pure random chance. I give 50 percent chance to both😀

God says "do not lean on your own understanding" and "my thoughts are higher than your thoughts" etc but that goes over every atheist and skeptics head. They feel the need to try to understand everything.🤷🏾‍♀️

The rebuttals to Aquinas come across as grasping, gotchas, and emotionally driven. For instance, the "superuniverse" is just kicking the can down the road, as long as the subject is material in some sense (including energy), you're dealing with all the same issues. It reminds me of when Dawkins admitted that the argument for intelligent design by the fine tuning of the universe was now overwhelmingly demonstrated by scientific discover. When asked how he could explain that without God he said... 'Maybe aliens?' 😑 Who made the aliens!? 🤣 The infinite regress rebuttal is a cop out. 'Well, there's (insert smart sounding references) and we have no idea how they work so... there!' Finally, the rebuttal to the argument of perfection was unscientific. Research has proven that there are nearly universal standards of beauty and goodness. The exceptions to the rule are predictable disordered outliers. Just because a satanist has convinced themselves that spilling the blood of the innocent is a good thing, doesn't mean that we are at a loss as to how we proceed with the study of ethics.

Now, go for 5 proof for Goods no-existence.

Why did I get a christian school ad at the start of the video???!!!!!

That's why contingency argument is stronger than causality/cosmological argument, even the multiverse argument is contingent. There has to be only one indivisible necessary being. Spoiler alert : one of Allah's names is Ash-Shomad = the necessary being. Stop by Efdawah youtube channel livestreams and have friendly fruitful discussions insya Allah.

15:04 The fact that life is so rare leaves me wondering why we are spending $24 billion to find life? Couldn't we spend $24 billion to feed the poor here on Earth?

super universe that caused the big bang?? ok even if you accept that it is correct, you still have to answer the primary question of who caused the super universe to cause the big bang? you still have to find the first mover.

I feel infinite regress is too quickly accepted by the atheist. I also contest the meaninglessness of reasoning about things outside spactetime. We are limited in reasoning about that state but less so reasoning that it must exist and have a contour of it.

If GOD showed himself to the world everyday but didnt answer any of our but why this that or the other thing questions would you server him Or if he let you know all the answers to your questions including how he came to be but never let you see him would you serve him

If a god was real I'm certain he would just announce himself , especially one as petty as this one , instead of religious people trying to make one up using only words .

"Argument from Ignorance" aka "God of the Gaps."

6:15 the disagreement about super-universe vs. God is only a semantic discrepancy. With scrutiny, both claims could be argued as functionally identical. I think Aquinas' arguments are definitely of their time. Important and useful as a philosophical "mover," so to speak, but greatly improved upon by the following thinkers mentioned. The way he exercises the dialectic in his work is profound (he even disproves his own ontological arguments in later questions of the Summa Prima Pars! Albeit unintentionally) Very cool video

Regarding your negation of the 4th way: Why can't God maintain within himself a paradox of multiple goods and tunings and be the sum of all? Also, Thomas Aquinas did not use logic alone like the Greeks, but rather a combination of both logic and secondarily faith. The former uses the intellectual faculties much like that of academia and those displayed in this video. The other requires a direct and personal relationship with God which leads to an experiential understanding of some truths that cannot be arrived at using the standard methods we are used to in the west, but which have been documented often in ways which Western critique has fallen short of understanding due to an inability to obtain such understanding by simply putting it to the logical intellectual and theoretic proof level test. Rather, this is just the first step (for a Western, science loving) mind to begin their walk of faith. The totality of the problem here is that the negations all rely on: you cannot give me information in the format which I demand it, therefore I will not humor it. However, truth on such matters is two parts: the first is an intellectual reasoning and the second is an experiential understanding which comes from practicing the faith with earnest and having proper spiritual guidance. Lastly, it requires a capacity to perceive the experience which requires inward work. We wouldn't say surfers do not exist simply because I cannot surf yet or for some that the ocean isn't there simply because I cannot see the beach from my inland home. So it is with Faith. Walking closer to God and removing the barriers of perception can reveal the ocean. However, not everyone needs to become a surfer to know and believe in the ocean. Only the most stubborn amongst us. So it is with intellectuals and so their path is the most difficult if they should ever try to embark on it. It also does not negate their duties as a human being and available salvation given to them by their creator. The paradox of free will to believe is that it grants you grace for your pride, but you must come into alignment at your own free will through Faith. If you attempt to arrive at God via intellectualism and reasoning, you will either fail or be ill prepared to handle it which you would understand simply by reading and interpreting scripture. Not everyone could enter Abraham's constructed Tabernacle except those who are sinless enough to handle an encounter with God. Things which do not make sense out of ignorance and lack of understanding, do not negate their truth. The microbiome of your gut is complex. Certainly the construction of the human mind and spirit are also following rules of their own. The pride of academia comes from wanting to know what those rules are from a scientific approach which is a trespass of a human being. We are called to believe, not to know. The randomness negation argument is not mathematically sound as it is still beyond improbable to get proteins to form, much less RNA and defies entropy. Regarding infinite regress: this is addressed in the bible in Revelation 22:13: "I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last, the Beginning and the End.”

The guy in the purple shirt is devoid of reality. Different cultures don't have different morals. Morals are concrete. People choose their actions, this doesn't mean they have different ethical values but have free will. Most of his arguments argue against free will. In ordered chaos you have boath views represented the theists and atheists and in chaos there is no choice no free will people. This just proves that people belive what they conjure up not using reason. In chaos I have have no choice I would be either a theist or atheist it's predetermined, the change is also predetermined by order chaos from one side to the other giving us no choice. Life with no choice doesn't have a purpose reasonably speaking. I don't understand why people CHOOSE to exist if they don't surve a purpose. Keep in mind his point, different cultures don't hold same moral values.

The guy just destroyed himself trying to give a counter argument in the 5th way. The universe isn't infinite, the mustiverse is just as true as the big spagetti monster, and the probabilities to get life is even smaller than the smallest thing you can imagine. The philosophical chance doesn't exists anyway, so saying that the Universe or life just pooped "just like that", "by chance" is scientifically and rationnaly innacurate.

I dont see why the Motion thing is the sane as efficient cause. Motion exists due to a caused mover. I feel like efficient cause should just be the same

The Big Bang is no longer such a sure thing.

JMJ O HOLY SPIRIT PLEASE HELP US, My dear friends in MIGHTY GOD AND LORD JESUS CHRIST, I am not here to say, right or wrong about your arguments of the creator CREATOR, just take both of you as an example, both are you sitting and talking, for you to do this, there is something moving within you, you don't know what is that, Even I am watching your conversation, but I don't bother to think about that, however the reality is there is something causing US to do this, well you guys MAY turnaround and say, it is chemical reactions or whatever it is, my dear friends for everything to move there is something, that you can't see at all as you all are using your finite mind, because, GOD'S KNOWLEDGE AND UNDERSTANDING IS beyond human comprehension, GOD IS OMNIPOTENT, OMNISCIENT, AND OMNIPRESENT. THERE IS GOD NO DOUBT AT ALL.. MAY THE ALMIGHTY GOD AND SAVIOR LORD JESUS CHRIST BLESSED AND OUR BLESSED HOLY MOTHER GUIDE AND GUARD YOU AND MAKE ALL OF YOU TO UNDERSTAND ABOUT GOD.

If everyone just.. forgets the term “God/god” and plugs in breath, thought, spark, light… whatever .. then all of Aquinas arguments seems must less arguable to those who refute… it seems. Religion has caused so many to turn from the inner most truth of the aspects of thoughts and feelings and innate intuition.. including the reason for morphic reasonable etc..

He said its just organized Chaos ..lol Atheism is a problem of psychology.. not theology

Thinking there is an infinite regress is much more illogical than a God. People that think an infinite regress is more plausible than a divine being are just hard stuck convicted atheists

Not all flowers grow vertically - have you heard of phototropism 😂

But what if one day scientists prove that any universe with a average Hubble expansion greater than 0 cannot have an infinite past-time? What if this proof has just that one condition regardless of the properties of that universe? Well, according to the Borde-Vilenkin-Guth Theorem does indicate a finite past-time even for a hypothetical bouncing universe or bubble universe or any other universe with H(av) > 0. See Alexander Vilenkin explain this himself: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-NXCQelhKJ7A.html

The Truth will set you free , it is true , it will help you overcome all those unreasonable fears they brainwashed you with , it will set you free of religion .

And special pleading

🤗🍝❣☻😃

This cartoon in purple sounds like Trump

Why can't universe be necessary? Because we can prove that the universe is contingent. Why is the universe the way it is? Contingent beings require explanations as to why they are the way they are, necessary being doesn't, because the necessary being, Allah, Al Hayy, Al Qoyyuum : the ever living, the ever sustaining, having no beginning nor end, is the sustainer of contingent beings. Give the Quran a fair chance to read.

Thomas Aquinas believed the universe was eternal so you're not understanding his argument