We will actually have a new website coming out soon with something similar to this, so make sure to subscribe and stay tuned for future announcements! Thanks so much for taking the time to watch and comment, and may the Lord bless you!
Some of the commenters here are getting ahead of the game---criticizing all five ways, when even the first way has not yet been presented. Why not hold your fire until the target is in sight? I, along with many others, look forward to the rest of the series.
And you wouldn't be condemned of aberration actually under the thorough investigation of Aquinas's thought, for he was heavily influenced by Averroes (Ibn Rushd) philosophy and his interpretation of Aristotelian philosophy. I do believe that there is a common ground at which the veil parallelism of Islamic and Christian medieval philosophy intercept, whom the brilliant can look into.
Here is a philosophical critique of the video's discussion on proving God's existence: - The presenter does not adequately engage with standards of logical validity and soundness when assessing arguments for God. An argument is only proof if deductively valid and sound. - Asserting God as an unfalsifiable explanation is not proof, as unfalsifiability does not establish truth on its own. Unfalsifiable claims require independent evidence. - Arguments relying solely on intuition, personal revelation, or scriptural authority beg the question instead of logically proving God's existence. They assume what they set out to prove. - Probabilistic and abductive arguments may lend support to God's existence, but they do not qualify as deductive proofs from axiomatic first principles. At best they establish plausibility, not decisive proof. - Alleged proofs for God contain premises that remain philosophically controversial, thus preventing deductive certainty. There is no consensus on their soundness. - A compelling proof would require either irrefutable logical reasoning from accepted axioms or empirical evidence open to scientific investigation. The video does not demonstrate this standard has been met. Overall, the video does not engage sufficiently with standards of deductive validity and soundness to establish when an argument successfully constitutes an actual proof of God rather than something weaker such as inference to the best explanation. More philosophical rigor is required.
I should expand on the specific issues with the presenter's treatment of logical validity and soundness in assessing arguments for God's existence: - He does not properly distinguish between deductive arguments that purport to offer definitive proof versus inductive arguments that only lend probabilistic support. Only deductive arguments can provide actual proofs. - He fails to analyze key premises and assumptions in arguments like the Five Ways to see if they meet the criteria for being necessarily true or self-evidently certain. Controversial premises prevent soundness. - Validity is never assessed by putting forward potential counterexamples or trying to deduce absurd conclusions from the arguments. This is essential to proving validity. - No attempt is made to confirm the conclusions strictly follow from the premises through steps of deductive logic. Invalid inferences invalidate proofs. - Alternative metaphysical positions that could be logically coherent are ignored rather than addressed. Proving logical necessity requires ruling out alternatives. - Ambiguous language and equivocation between terms like "perfection" or "cause" should be clarified to avoid pseudo-proofs from vagueness. In summary, the presenter does not rigorously apply standards of deductive validity and soundness in analyzing arguments for God's existence. He fails to ensure the arguments meet the formal criteria for being actual proofs rather than probabilistic cases. More philosophical care is required.
Because it is simple, it is not the point of this particular video to explore the complete analysis of Aquinas' proof, rather it just shows on how he prove it and it is basically on the second premises of each of his arguments. It is good to talk a lot but sometimes it is better to listen.
This is what came to mind as I listened to the video and the argument: ____ is what we call “a god”; but some being is a _____; therefore, something is what we call “a god”. I recall that the one first thing God gives Adam to do in the garden is to NAME things. And after the fall he asks Adam "Who told you you were naked?" (that is to say who, other than me (God) have you been listening to?). And isn't that always our sin, that we're not listening to God?
I just want to share my experience in overthinking this, I actually encountered an argument on the internet written by from a former friend of mine who is actually an evangelical protestant that "God's Existence is not dependent on Thomas Aquinas' Five ways." I actually thought long & hard enough in order to rebut his argument against Thomas Aquinas. Turns out, on the attempt to prove that he is wrong, I also became wrong in the process. This is because St. Thomas did not actually imposed his opinion of God on others that he exists based on his proposition of the Five Ways, rather, he asked the question of "How a God Exists?" something that does not necessarily ask the question of the existence of a Christian God, but rather, how to prove that a God exists? It was actually a crazy journey for me as a Catholic really, and thanks for this video my internal question was finally answered. Thank you very much & May God Bless the Thomistic Institute & the Order of Preachers!
"Some Truths about God exceed all the ability of human reason... But there are some Truths which natural reason is also able to reach. Such as God exists." Thomas Aquinas. Praise The Lord and God bless His Holy City Jerusalem E. John B.
""Some Truths about God exceed all the ability of human reason... But there are some Truths which natural reason is also able to reach. Such as God exists." Thomas Aquinas" He forgot to present any evidence that god exists.
@@crusaderACR If you mean that he didn't forget to present evidence for god because he couldn't forget to present something he doesn't have, you are correct.
I just learned of the phrase in Spanish, “Tomas, no mas” which means Thomas, no more (other). I am excited to learn more through this esteemed Doctor of the Church! St. Thomas, pray for us.
This is something I see happening quite often: people trying to "raise the bar" and trying to find an all knowing, all good etc etc God out of an argument that only proves that there's a God. On the contrary, there are many people that try to use the five ways to prove that God not only exists, but that he is x, y and z.
@@crusaderACR They are not _sound_ arguments. If you want me to DEMONSTRATE so, please take the time to present one of the five ways (the one you believe to be the best one) in syllogistic form. Be ready to champion the argument as Thomas Aquinas is not available to do so.
@@Theo_Skeptomai The syllogistic forms are online. You said none of them are sound arguments, I just want to know where. I'm not championing anything here, I'm just curious.
@alonso19989 Well, if the syllogistic forms are available online, then most of your work is done. Present one of these syllogisms, and I will demonstrate why it is not sound. And again, be ready to champion the argument, for I will have some straightforward questions concerning the premises.
We're so glad to hear it! You may enjoy our podcast on SoundCloud as well -- those are full-length, 40+ min lectures by top scholars. Thanks for taking the time to watch and comment. May the Lord bless you!
Actually, there is a connection between what the weather report says and what will actually happen weather-wise. And that commection is called Good Sensible Science. And what the H was that volcanic rock stuff? No, ah ah.
An exciting series. Am curious if there are plans to deal with the sophisticated objections put forward against these arguments from Atheist philosophers?
@@MichaelLevine-n6y Unfortunately, all the relevant works here are mainly written for other analytic philosophers and employ a high degree of rigor, technical sophistication, and use of analytic methodology that while are excellent for engaging in the relevant arguments, unfortunately make the books quite difficult to understand from a lay perspective. For example, Sobel's _Logic and Theism_ is excellent when it comes to it's engagement with Aquinas, but unfortunately highly technical. If you send us an email, we'd be happy to try to point you towards more lay friendly responses.
"What Would It Mean to 'Prove' God Exists?" It would mean there is evidence for the existence of god. An argument for god is not evidence for god. Do you have any evidence for the existence of god? To present evidence for god you would first have to clearly define god. What is your clear definition for god?
A successful argument would be evidence for God because it would render the proposition "God exists" as more probable than not. That's all that evidence is. If you try to define evidence as being only empirical data, you've committed the fallacy of question begging, which is a type of circular reasoning. You've assumed a premise - logical positivism - that your opponent disputes without providing a justification for this premise. So this argument doesn't work.
@@Jimmy-iy9pl It isn't possible for anyone to present evidence for god until they first present a clear valid definition for the god. A valid definition cannot contain logical fallacies or unproven assertions. "If you try to define evidence as being only empirical data" How are you defining evidence?
@C Nault Theologians and philosophers have done that for thousands of years. God is a necessarily existent, all-powerful, all-knowing, morally perfect, and simple being. I already said how. Anything that raises the probability of a proposition being true.
@@Jimmy-iy9pl "God is a necessarily existent, all-powerful, all-knowing, morally perfect, and simple being. " As I said earlier, to b valid the definition cannot contain logical fallacies or unproven assertions. "God is a necessarily existent" is an assertion that has not been proven, so that portion of the definition can be dismissed. "all-powerful" is an assertion that has not been proven, so that portion of the definition can be dismissed. Also, this assertion means the god is not the god of the bible; according to the Bible god is not all powerful. "all-knowing" is an assertion that has not been proven, so that portion of the definition can be dismissed. Also, this assertion means the god is not the god of the bible; according to the Bible god is not all-knowing. "morally perfect" is a vague assertion that you have not defined. "and simple being" is a vague assertion that you have not defined. Try again.
It wouldn't mean anything to most people, if we could prove that God did exists. Besides, look at all the people that still murder, even though they know that the death penalty is real.
The statement you presented is based on a common philosophical and theological argument: "If you can't create something out of nothing, then how can you deny the existence of a creator (God)?" This argument is often used in debates between theists and atheists. However, we must be careful not to oversimplify or misconstrue each other's positions. It's important to note that asking someone to prove they can create something out of nothing is not necessarily a valid way to prove God's existence. This is because it commits a logical fallacy known as argumentum ad ignorantiam, or argument from ignorance. Here is the syllogistic form of the argument: 1. If person A cannot create something out of nothing, then God must exist. 2. Person A cannot create something out of nothing. 3. Therefore, God must exist. The problem with this argument is that the first premise is not necessarily true. The ability or inability of a person to create something out of nothing does not directly prove or disprove the existence of God. Here's an alternative counter-argument: 1. If an entity can create something out of nothing, it is a creator (God). 2. Humans cannot create something out of nothing. 3. Therefore, humans are not creators (God). This counter-argument does not disprove the existence of God, but it does illustrate the logical jump in the original argument. Another counter-argument might be based on the concept of the universe itself: 1. If the universe needed a creator, then God exists. 2. The universe did not need a creator (as suggested by some interpretations of quantum physics and cosmology, like the idea of a self-creating universe). 3. Therefore, God does not exist. Again, this argument does not conclusively prove the non-existence of God. It simply shows that the existence of the universe does not necessarily imply the existence of a creator. It's also essential to note that the burden of proof lies with the person making the claim. If someone claims that God exists, it's their responsibility to provide evidence for that claim. Asking someone to disprove a claim is shifting the burden of proof, which is another logical fallacy.
@@Enigmatic_philosopher Right, Atheists make the claim, among others just as far-fetched, that the universe was created out of nothing so I'm asking for proof that somebody or something can create something out of nothing. Or is it only Atheist are allowed to demand proof of God's existence?
@@Theo_Skeptomai God really exist He said he made the heaven and the earth and things there in How do I prove that God exist is of his creation. For example you have a table A carpenter made the table But who grow the tree It's God It's was he who created everything
@@jeromeron2418 So this 'God' created the the foot stool that I crafted out of poplar with my woodworking tools in my shed last weekend out of nothing? Yes or no.
God exists and there's nothing else to say on it. If you don't believe that, that's your own thing. If you do, then that's good. Either way, He exists, it's just up to everyone to decide on what they think.
Aqquinas was a religious Philosopher strongly influenced by Aristotle & other Hellenistic greek thinkers! Paul warned that Christians should NOT be influenced by philosophy Col 2:8)
"Paul warned that Christians should NOT be influenced by philosophy" ---- Yet Paul was aware of and conversant in philosophy, "as certain also of your own poets have said" (Acts 17), as also was Moses who "was learned in all the wisdom of the Egyptians" (Acts 7). Like Moses before them, both Paul and later Aquinas were familiar with philosophy and they understood and opposed the philosophers' objections to Christ. Neither Moses, nor Paul, nor Aquinas allowed men to "spoil [them] through philosophy" (Colossians 2). Peace be with you.
@@andrewferg8737 Thanks for your interesting reply! 'Philosophy' is a general subject. It may agree or disagree with biblical truth. If it does conflict with the bible, what would you do? reject one for the other, if so which one? Take the 'incarnation'. This church teaching that Aquinas agrees with & attempts to elaborate on cannot be merely a coincidence. He obviously accept the 'orthodox' stance and then commented on it! So my question is, 'How does his philosophy prove to you personally that 'Jesus had two natures' please tell me which bible texts teach this.
so it takes aquinas 1200 years plus to 'prove' god?.. but fails IMO....a biased monk in the 21st century when we know so much more (in strange clothing) talking about the philosophy of someone 700 plus years ago ?... I am not convinced....
"When an escaped slave met Paul and Jesus was it okay for Paul to convince the slave that he should return as he was his master's property?"--- "But without thy mind would I do nothing; that thy benefit should not be as it were of necessity, but willingly... albeit I do not say to thee how thou owest unto me even thine own self" (Philemon 1)
@@andrewferg8737 so Paul advocates for the escaped slave to return to his master as he were just property. Why does the bible advocate slavery? Oh wait. Christians want to be slaves, they hate freedom of choice, they hate self determination only slavery is suitable for Christians slaves to Christ.
Let me play the devil's advocate for a moment: isn't it important to distinguish between a valid and a sound argument? Arguments for anything can be valid, even if it doesn't make sense in reality. For example, if I take a very dumb definition of God, like for example "A man who is named Kanye West is what we call God" and then show a picture of him to prove that the thing called God exists, anyone who would have a problem with the definition would be justified. I'm not saying that Aquinas' definition is bad, I'm just interested what your objection to this would be.
I agree. There is an important distinction between an argument being valid and one being sound. Although sound aguments require an argument to be valid, valid arguments are not required to be sound. We _first_ established validity by preconditionally accepting all premises proposed in the argument to be true to insure that the argument proceeds to one and only one _inevitable_ conclusion through rules of proper inference and congruent with laws of logic. We _then_ establish an argument to be _sound_ only after establishing the argument to be _valid_ by establishing that all the premises can be _demonstrated_ to be true.
I see only two problems with that approach. 1. No one, as far as I know, and certainly no one in his right mind, has thought that a man named Kanye West is what we call God. It is, as you yourself said, "a very dumb definition of God." By contrast, if you look at the characteristics of God which Aquinas uses in his Five Ways, they *are* characteristics which are thought of (either by philosophers or by people in general) as characteristics of God: a first mover (Aristotle); a first efficient cause; a necessary being which is exists from the necessity of its own nature; the cause of the being of all other beings; an intelligent being by whom all natural things are directed to their end. Now to be sure, if the proofs are sound, that is *all* they prove: the existence of a first mover, or a first efficient cause, or the like, in the same way that, as you pointed out, anyone using the "Kanye West argument" could conclude no more than that---Kanye West exists. Duh. 2. But there is more. Beyond the Five Ways, Aquinas devotes many pages to showing the "attributes" of God: absolute simplicity (no parts), immateriality, goodness, perfection, infinity, omnipresence, immutability, eternity, intellect, will, providence, etc. (Summa Theologiae, Part I, Questions 3-26; these immediately follow the Five Ways, in Question 2.) I'm not going to say, here and now, that these arguments are valid or sound, because I have not reviewed them sufficiently to know that. But he at least makes the effort. And clearly, Kanye West, poor man, fails to possess those attributes: he has arms and legs, which are parts, so he is not absolutely simple; has a body, so is not immaterial; is not perfect, infinite, immutable, etc. That is why "a man named Kanye West" is such a dumb definition that no one would say a man named Kanye West is what we mean by God. Well, come to think of it, both problems are pretty severe, don't you think?
@@gregoryweber5667 Thank you. What you said makes sense. The point of my comment was (I think justified) scepticism towards the proposal that validity and soundness in arguments don't matter. I don't believe that Aquinas himself, someone who was extremely rigorous when it comes to the subject of truth, would have tolerated this kind of idea. I vehemently believe that we as modern people seriously undererstimate the intellectual abilities of our medieval ancestors.
name one thing in creation that was not created.... why would creation itself be any different? How can Spider man Know Stan Lee? Even tho everything Spider man has ever known is Stan Lee.. the literal and paradoxical things to consider
@@grubblewubbles did Spider man ever meet Jack in person? its more common then not that a creation never meet or know its creator. i mean, you might know your parents but do you know the root of your lineage? and if you dont know the person you root from, even tho they must exist for you to exist, dose that mean that they are not real? its the same excuse people use against God the creator so why not use it against the original creator of the lineage we root from.. "i dont know them therefore they do not exist.. regardless of all the evidence.." but i get your point... i did forget Kirby, my bad..
Was it okay for Moses to have pregnant women, infants, breast feeding babies', breath feeding mothers, toddlers, elderly, infirm butchered? Numbers 31:17?
@@andrewferg8737 so it's okay to Kill so long as his gives the command! Because whatever god says is good. That's just like a follower of a cult would say if their leader. Divine can't be questioned. Well it can! And I do.
@@ronbernardi "Jesus answered and said unto them, For the hardness of your heart Moses wrote you this precept" (Mark 10) Do you not understand what this means?
@@andrewferg8737 what has divorce to do with what we're talking about? Mark " They answered, “Moses permitted a man to write his wife a certificate of divorce and send her away.” however, imagine a captured virgin in Moses army, she's forced to marry the soldier has intercourse and then decided to divorce her. And merely writes a divorce paper. She's now free to return to her devastated village where all others are genicided. And she may be pregnant as well.
@@ronbernardi "whatever god says is good. That's just like a follower of a cult would say" --- Indeed. That is a very real danger common to us all as sinful men. To disregard your own conscience when seeking "God" is in fact a denial of God. This tendency however should not be confused with naively misunderstanding scripture or of projecting our own sinfulness onto God. "Will ye speak wickedly for God? and talk deceitfully for him? Will ye accept his person? will ye contend for God?" (Job 13) False or sugar-coated theodicies only feed the atheistic delusion and provide an entrepôt for God-haters seeking the destruction of souls. Something is not good simply because we think "God says so". Rather, Goodness itself is God. If we mistake darkness for light we are not following God. Abraham understood this intuitively. He came from a culture which regularly practiced child sacrifice in their false and misguided search for the divine. But at the crucial moment in Abraham's desire to find God, he recognized that Goodness never requires evil. From that point on he is called the friend of God.
While the various arguments presented in _Summa Theologiae_ are arguably valid, none of them are sound as not all proposed premises in each of them can be demonstrated to be true.
@@JohnR.T.B. You just the kind the kind of imbecile who can't argue logically. Let's breakdown your comment down to the core facts. First, indicate _precisely_ where I have made a "circular excuse". Once we resolve this issue we can move on to the next issue. This one you presented first, so we can resolve it first.
Sign up for the free course and receive the reading to follow each video. in this case: Reading 1 From the Commentary on the Posterior Analytics II.8 Reading 2 From the Commentary of Boethius's De Trinitate, Q.6, a.3, corp. Podcast 1 The Divine Attributes: God as Perfectly Simple and Perfectly Good. Prof. Edward Feser Podcast 2 Why Should We Believe God Exists? if you are willing to get started in apologetics, I can help you.
This work of Aquinas is titled _Summa Theologiae,_ and complete volumes can be found online in pdf format. I have an Audible version as I am sight impaired.
@@ryanEstandarte Sorry, but in my opinion, you will have to read the entirety of work to understand it. In many ways it us a treatise on Christianity itself. Think of it as a manual for Christian theology. Aquinas lays out a series of question in a particular order which pretty much eliminates jumping around or read particular passages. But for the actual arguments _themselves,_ you can isolate any of the Five Ways though they are not presented in formal syllogistic format. But there are resources that do present them faithfully in proper syllogisms.
@@ryanEstandarte So that you are not caught off guard, I am an atheist who has studied the arguments both formally (as a thesis for my MDiv, Ecumenical Studies, Princeton Theological Seminary) and exhaustively and find none of these arguments, presented in _Quinque Viae,_ to be sound.
I have never observed any such 'God' nor this supposed 'grace' that was afforded to we humans. And if this 'God' is the only entity that can prove its own existence, then the proposition of such existence does not merit any consideration of being true.
@Theo Skeptomai you have commented on this channel 32 times, saying the same thing over and over. Do you have no better use for the time you waste here?
@@sengan2475 I am not convinced that any god is a reality for I have never encountered any credible evidence or sound argument that suggests such a reality. And until I do encounter such evidence, I will continue to suspend any acknowledgement as to your claim of a god. Do you think I am rationally justified in my position of atheism? Yes or no.
No one will doubt that the internal angles of a triangle add up to 180 degrees, because when you read the proof you realize it’s impossible for it to be any other way (in an Euclidean space). But when you read “proofs” of god’s existence they don’t have the same effect because they are not actually proofs. They are just arguments that show that the existence of God would be logically consistent with other aspects of reality
I think that the arguments for Gods existence do more than show that God’s existence would be logically consistent with other parts of reality, I think they show that a lack of God’s existence would make reality itself logically inconsistent, and therefore making Gods existence necessary for reality to exist in the way it does, making the belief that God doesn’t exist illogical. Unless you want to claim reality itself is illogical, which would render any sort of belief in any truth impossible, then you have to conclude God exists.
And only _sound_ arguments for the reality of a god can do THAT. These arguments Aquinas presents in _Summa Theologiae,_ while admittedly _valid,_ are not _sound._ Not _all_ premises in _each_ of these stated arguments can be _demonstrated_ to be true.
It would be useful to ask skeptics what sort of evidence for God they *would* accept, to see what they say. I don't perceive most atheists as accepting any possible evidence as convincing- they just don't want to believe.
I will answer that question. I will accept ANY credible evidence. It matters not if I _want_ to believe the proposition (or not). If I am presented sufficent credible evidence for the truth of a stated proposition, I will have no choice but to be convinced. We cannot choose that which we believe to be true (or false). Thus far, I have not been convince of the reality of any god as I have never encountered any credible evidence that suggests such a reality. And until I am introduced to credible evidence, I will continue to suspend any acknowledgement as to the truth I f the theistic claim that any god exists in reality.
@@Theo_Skeptomai You'll never get the perfect evidence of proof you desire because God is by definition immaterial and "dwells in light inaccesible". He trascends all earthly methods of detection and He isn't even in the same dimensional plane, God isn't a creature in the Universe to be observed. You can know him in this world but you'll always have to rely in the end on faith in the testimonies of apostles, clergy, mystics, faithful servants, miracles, etc.
@@NTNG13 WRONG! I never stated, suggested, or even implied that I desire "perfect evidence of proof". I state CLEARLY that I desired _credible_ evidence. Is that correct? Yes or no.
What "evidence" would I accept? To be able to interact with this "person" the way I interact with other persons. Like a direct, no-nonsense communication.
A great video! But i can t resist the comment that here we go again with Adam and Eve being two white dudes in Iraq when science shows they were blacks in east Africa.😂
Wait, what?!? Which scientific study states in its conclusion that this Adam & Eve were black and resided in East Africa? Please provide a citation for such a study.
@@Theo_Skeptomai I m sorry I don t have citations but I m confident that if you ask a paleoanthropologist he/she would say the consensus is that homo sapiens sapiens originated in Africa. Within the past 20 years there was a study published in Science News by two Russians that said that modern humans originated in east Africa.
Faith isn’t about the existence of God, I can believe that God exists and have no faith in him. The church actually teaches dogmatically that we can, through natural reason, come to know with certainty that God exists. Faith is when I trust God, with all the evil and suffering that I see in the world or that I myself face I still trust in God’s divine plan. Or even perhaps I can intellectually agree with arguments for God’s existence and still feel a hint of doubt because I haven’t seen him, there are other examples, but faith simply put, is an assurance in God and what he promised such that even when I can’t see them fulfilled with my sense’s I am assured in the truth which was revealed to me whether through natural reason or divine revelation.
@@robertlaprime6203 However, not all persons can believe this god to exist in reality. I for one can't believe this or any god to be a reality if not convinced by sufficient credible evidence. I cannot choose to believe that which I believe. So, I would agree with the OP. What point is there in faith (as you have defined) if this 'God' can't be demonstrated to be real. Faith would be superfluous at this point.
@@Theo_Skeptomai let me explain I defined faith as “an assurance in God and what he promised such that even when I can’t see them fulfilled with my sense’s I am assured in the truth which was revealed to me whether through natural reason or divine revelation.” The point of faith is to hold fast to the truth. That’s why faith is a virtue because a lack of faith is a lie. Specifically when it comes to questions about God it’s different than questions of other things for example, I can’t choose to believe that dogs don’t exist because I see dogs all the time and have no moral reasons not to, nor do I need to put my complete trust in a dog. With God you don’t see him, even if it is logical to believe he exists there is still the question of why do we care about the logic that leads us there? it’s still abstract. Furthermore, let’s say I want to do something which I know is wrong and my soul is more willing to deny God so I can do it rather than obey God, also when we see evil existing it seems more real to us than the logic which lead us to Gods goodness, so with all of this how can we trust him? It is only through faith. The passions of the soul sometimes fight against the intellect so we must cling to the intellect in faith because it is only by our intelligence that be can even believe in God in the first place whether or not we necessarily have learned the adequate reasons for doing so.
