38. Thomas Aquinas and the Five Ways

Thomas believed that the existence of God could be demonstrated rationally, and to illustrate this his employed his well-known 'five ways,' arguments borrowed from Aristotle, but fashioned according to Christian perspectives. This lecture explores those proofs.

[@williamjayaraj2244]

Really for the first time listeners like me it is a great experience. Thank you professor Gore.

[@ceallly]

I have always wondered how Christianity laid the foundation for science. Thank you, Thomas Aquinas's Five Ways explains how. I love complex and system theory. We apply science laws as the universal context, and we get into trouble because it is challenging to anticipate emerging properties in complex systems, e.g. climate change and human consciousness

[@deetsy4jesus]

Thank you for making this series available. This 49 year old grandmother of 6 is learning so much from you. I'd be interested to know which writings you have the students read to help them grasp the information better. I was pleased with myself when you mentioned Steven Meyer because I've watched a few of his lectures available through Ligonier Ministry. Again , thanks and God bless you!

[@brucegore4373]

You are a very young grandmother! Nice to hear from you again. I am working on a full online course based on these lectures that will include collateral reading, quizzes, and essays. It's a work in progress (along with several others) that I hope to have completed in the next six months or so. Thanks for your patience!

[@deetsy4jesus]

@@brucegore4373 Great news! I want to take your Greek course too! Several of my grandchildren are being home schooled in the classical education style and I am inspired by them. Yes, I am a young grandmother. I was a young mother. Thankfully, I home schooled my children as well, so all of my kids are Christians that are serving the lord! I am so blessed!

[@willmcpherson2]

Another good book on biological complexity and design: Genetic Entropy & the Mystery of the Genome by John C. Sanford

[@Stethacanthus]

That's well disproven.

[@DigitalGnosis]

What are the best biographies/books you would recommend on Aquinas. Im really enjoying Luthers Table Talk at your recommendation!

[@brucegore4373]

You might enjoy G.K. Chesterton's biography and summary of Thomas. www.amazon.com/St-Thomas-Aquinas-G-Chesterton-ebook/dp/B00A0B1S46/ref=sr_1_2?keywords=biography+on+thomas+aquinas&qid=1556731898&s=gateway&sr=8-2-spell

[@tommyboyindy1157]

Nathan Ormond : Check out Edward Feser for a great contemporary philosopher’s explanation of Aquinas theory’s on God

[@mioszbies903]

In fact the evolution process is not entirely random so comparing it to the watch and saying that our exsistence is the same probable as the exsistence of watch without designer is fallacy. There are two components of Darwin's theory of evolution. First, the mutation which is entirely random, that is true. But the second one is natural selection and it is not random but it is guided by striving for survival and ability to reproduce. So there is some kind of mechanism here unlike to watch without designer. Of course there is still question who designed this mechanism but this is different topic...

[@samysantarella8287]

...actually, it is the exact same topic: the problem with the argument in defence of Neo-Darwinian evolution is that the entire process presumably began even more randomly as a watch by chance being assembled in a dryer. The pieces of the watch would have been placed in a dryer, whereas of the pieces of a cell happened randomly and assembled themselves in a puddle of slime. The huge difference between the parts of a cell and the pieces of a watch are that the pieces of a watch are made by something entirely other than the watch itself, whereas the parts of a cell are made in and by the exact same cell. Also, the information to make the pieces of the cell are in the DNA, but the DNA can’t make any of the pieces without the rest of the cell already in tact, which means that both the DNA and all the other pieces of the cell necessarily had to have occurred at the same time, and would have to have assembled, programmed, and started the process all on its own, which is a physical impossibility! After all, it is absurd to assert that non-living material ever strived to survive or reproduce!

[@simongiles9749]

@@samysantarella8287 This argument is malformed in two respects. First one, a watch doesn't reproduce with modification, so the analogy that pieces of a watch being shaken together is equivalent to the development of a protocell isn't a workable one. There's a video somewhere that shows a simulation of what would happen if watches reproduced, and, yes, they would form. The second is the assumption that early life needed to be as complex as existing eukaryotic life forms.

[@simongiles9749]

@UCwAbl2MbRykF9UfWvGZwo2Q Well, we know that RNA can be self-catalysing, we know that phospholipid membranes are self-assembling, we know that nucleotides and amino acids can become encapsulated within phospholipid micelles, and we know that all three components help stabilise the others, so it's an exponential process. Steen Rasmussen models the processes needed for a protocell in his book Protocells - some kind of energy trap (of which all chemical reactions are in one form or another), an "information" molecule (that happens to have ended up as nucleotide macromolecules but could have been sugars or amino acids equally), and an envelope. As mentioned above, each system can occur independently, or in any combination of two or three, and in any order. All the other associated cell paraphernalia will enhance efficiency but are not necessary. Protocells without the motile cytoskeleton used on mitosis, for example, will still replicate by forming blebs. None of which really has relevance to the Christian God, as one could argue that all we are discovering is the mechanisms that God put in place. However, it's not wise to pretend that this knowledge does not exist.

[@samysantarella8287]

Simon Giles: given the validity of these facts, let’s check for soundness after we apply the same kind of reasoning to the context of biological life, the cell. “if it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down." ~ charles darwin, origin of species I take Darwin on here: 1. the information to make the cell parts is in the DNA 2. DNA must be translated to make these parts 3. a 'ribosome' is a protein responsible for translating DNA, but 4. the information to make the ribosome is in the DNA 5. this means that for there to be a living cell, ALL the cell parts including the DNA would have to be present; DNA could not have come before the other parts (because without them DNA is biologically useless), or the parts before the DNA (because their structures require the information programmed in the DNA itself!). It’s the chicken or the egg thing, but at least here, we know that one thing cannot come before the other. Each part is dependent on all the parts existing all at once. 6. thus, a living cell is irreducibly complex, and 7. therefore, life (as we know it) could not initially have spontaneously “formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications.” Darwin was wrong. Now, if there is a flaw in that argument, we can go from there.

[@simongiles9749]

@@samysantarella8287 Darwin didn't know about DNA. DNA isn't even the only form of replicative nucleic acid. RNA is replicative, it forms a copyable template, it is able to catalyse its own replication. It's much less stable in free solution than DNA, but more stable when encapsulated within a phospholipid micelle. RNA can interact with amino acids. Ribosomes are made of RNA. I'm not quite sure why you're bringing Darwin into a discussion on abiogenesis and prebiotic chemistry. He's only barely relevant to evolutionary theory these days. It's also not really relevant to Aquinas either, since it's still possible for a First Cause to have begun the process of macromolecular assembly, if you wish.

[@kennick7]

What would Aquinas say about "double truths"?

[@brucegore4373]

I cover that question in an earlier lecture in this series. Bottom line...his philosophy was devoted in part to destroying the intellectual dishonesty of 'double truths.'

[@wprandall2452]

This_guy's_a_professor?_C'mon._An_elephant_crossing_the_road_is_NOT_random._The_elephant_would_say_the_car_is_a_random_event!_The_elephant's_deliberate_journey_was_interrupted._Both had a reason_for being there.

[@crazyprayingmantis5596]

"Evolution has never been observed"???? Wrong!!! Evolution - Change over time, I think we can definitely observe that. It can, has and is being observed.

[@brucegore4373]

Fair enough. Micro-evolution (adaptation) is readily observable. Macro-evolution is rather a different matter.

[@crazyprayingmantis5596]

@@brucegore4373 Basically Aquinas's 5 steps boils down to a "first cause" argument or a "unmoved mover". So even if it was a sound argument all it would prove is that "something" caused things to move, set things in motion. It doesn't tell us what that "something" is. So it doesn't even get us to Deism, let alone Theism. It also commits the "special pleading fallacy" by saying everything that exists must have a cause 'except' for the special "something" that set everything in motion. Without justifying why. It just makes an unjustified assertion. It creates an exception to it's own rule in its premise.

[@brucegore4373]

Thomas' argument is not that 'everything' must have a cause, but that for every effect, there must be a cause, which is true by definition.

[@crazyprayingmantis5596]

@@brucegore4373 Still doesn't get you far

[@brucegore4373]

Thomas' argument gets a reasonable person just as far as Thomas intended, and no further. Many other arguments pick up the logic and carry it forward from there.

[@simongiles9749]

Repeat after me: Watches Don't Reproduce With Modification. Also: human eyes are pretty rubbish. No intelligent designer would put all of the cabling in front of the receptor. Especially since, apparently the same designer managed to get it right for the octopus. Apparently the Cosmic Designer decided to give His ultimate creation, the human, a worse capacity for vision than the octopus, lower acuity than birds, a narrower visible spectrum than insects and a more limited arc of vision than a sheep.