Aquinas' Proofs of God

Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274) was one of the most brilliant theologians and philosophers of the Middle Ages and all of human history. Aquinas famously believed that the existence of God could be proved by reason alone and he provided five arguments to this effect. John Hamer of Toronto Centre Place will look at each of the five arguments alongside the counter-arguments and will also consider what Aquinas’ philosophy tells us about his conception of God.
A Q&A and discussion will follow the presentation. Please send your questions on the live chat.
Lecture topics include:
Existence of God,
Theism and Atheism,
Medieval Philosophy,
Thomas Aquinas,
Summa Theologica,
Scholasticism,
Reason and Religion,
Cosmological argument,
Ontological argument,
Teleological argument,
Intelligent Design,
#lecture #cofchrist

[@unrecognizedtalent3432]

I a simple man. I see Centre Place video, I click.

[@Greenfrog777]

Aristotle's causation is not really about temporality. An eternal universe doesn't have an infinite regress of causes. It has one cause: the Prime Mover. Meanwhile, the Prime Mover has only one cause, which is itself. If the Prime Mover is eternal and unchanging, it wouldn't make sense for it to spontaneously cause the cosmos on a particular date at a particular time. The cosmos can go through many drastic changes, but the process by which it is changed stems from an eternal cause. Personally, I find a finite date of creation much stronger evidence for infinite regress than an eternal universe, as it simply raises the question: "what caused the Prime Mover to change its behavior from 'not creating' to 'creating'?"

[@2009Artteacher]

I would do a good reading of Parmenides's ( esse, being, existence. Nothing can't come from anything) in response to Heraclitus's philosophy of flux. It's a good argument! Penrose ( Nobel Laureate in physics) does not put a time frame on things he does believe in the universe before the Big Bang theory.

[@clemenaparente9773]

The answer is pretty simple as Augustine onced said. God is outside time. There was no before and after before the creation because God is in his on mode of existence which obviously surpasses our mode of existence, which the theologians called "eternity"

[@GhostScout42]

John Hamer, thank you for you lectures.

[@opengnosis8555]

Thank You so much for your lectures or presentations. In this modern world, I almost look forward to your unbiased, without additives, just pure presentions of knowledge and truth. These moments in these "worlds away" heals what this modern world taints, being a part of daily, by persuasions to convince to sell or for usury. Again, TY. Sorry to be so brass, but this compliment and gratitude should have been expressed many lectures ago and many times over by me in every video watched and appreciated.

[@shanejohns7901]

We studied this Ontological Argument in one of my philosophy classes, rather in-depth. While that was close to 3 decades ago, I do remember there being a rather witty reply from a MONK (Gaunilo of Marmoutiers) who made a "Perfect Island" analogy/parody. I'd recommend people look it up, especially if they're the least bit persuaded by this bit of sophistry from Anselm: "Parodies of the Ontological Argument One problem with this argument is that it invites parody. Parallel arguments purporting to prove the existence of any perfect thing at all can be constructed. This objection was first raised by one of Anselm’s contemporaries, the monk Gaunilo of Marmoutiers, who constructed an ontological argument for the existence of the perfect island in his On Behalf of the Fool. The perfect island, this argument goes, is the island than which no greater can be conceived. Any island that does not exist, though, cannot be the island than which no greater can be conceived, for it could be conceived to exist which would be greater. Anyone who thinks that the perfect does not exist, then, is confused; the concept of the perfect island entails that there is such a thing. Similar arguments for the existence of the perfect baseball pitcher, or the perfect husband—for the existence of any perfect thing at all—can be constructed. If any of these arguments is sound, it seems, then they must all be sound. Clearly, though, these arguments are not all sound; the perfect baseball pitcher does not exist, and neither does the perfect husband. There is something wrong with the logic of these arguments. Each of these ontological arguments, though, uses the same logic. They must therefore all be unsound. The fact that there is no perfect island, and no perfect baseball pitcher, then, shows that the logic of the ontological argument for God’s existence is flawed."

[@cosmicnomad8575]

I’m sorry but I think these parodies completely miss the point. I do believe in God but I’m not really convinced by the Ontological Argument as of now, I’m more agnostic about it and need to do more research before I make up my mind on it. But I think these objections right here kind of fall flat. The main reason I think these analogies fall flat is that things like “islands” and “baseball pitchers” are particular types of objects. So in each of these analogies they are using the logic to argue from the conception of the instance of some thing in which no greater instance of that thing can be conceived. But Anselm is not arguing from the conception of the instance of some thing in which no greater instance of that thing can be conceived but from the thing in which no greater thing can be conceived. So it’s not some particular type of thing but is being in general. So your objection fails to take down the Ontological Argument because it fails to take that into account and thus completely misses the point. Now, whether the Ontological Argument is sound or not is something I still need to look into before making a conclusion but I don’t think this objection really has any real weight.

[@shanejohns7901]

@@cosmicnomad8575 The argument FORM itself is bad, because it provides absurd answers. You can always find issues with any analogy. But showing that the logical FORM produces invalid results is all that's necessary in logic to show that the argument form is invalid itself.

[@rudycarrillo3rd]

Great lecture!🙏🏽

[@GuitarJimBourke]

I read Summa Theologica once, of course, to understand you have to read twice or several times. thanks for the refreshing lesson on Thomas Aquinas ' writings.

[@zrobo]

This was a pretty good overview. I enjoyed it.

[@andrewisjesus]

Excellent as always

[@edwardlocke874]

Thank you so so much !!

[@terencenxumalo1159]

good work

[@ogsus5773]

this series of lectures is an absolute god send. trying to get into philosophy as a hobby, you quickly find out there's a nebulous amount of works and knowledge that you have to not just read study dilligently. and so getting even a basic background is hard. which is all the worse when i'd prefer speeding through the ancient, medieval and what not period so i can get to the existentialists haha. but it feels like i'm travelling light years in a blink through what was supposed to be a bog (of course, i'm not expecting this to be a replacement for the study and effort but it does speed it up tremendously). absolutely invaluable. you guys might want to consider setting up a patreon too or something similar. just a suggestion. but keep up the great work.

[@mjperfume1523]

Today was your grandma birthday. I si mm. Dingymmn Don’t know how she would be. ?? M !!!!!!!😊

[@mjperfume1523]

Feliz cumpleanos

[@mjperfume1523]

He’s pulled 3 drawers out bc he thinkU I g have mmmmmnn. My m I’m gjad he taped it so that he can am See how insecure he is

[@mjperfume1523]

Brian need to be put in mental institutions bc og his abandament , trusts no one, I dumped my bag out it the floo,r there’s nothing it but air. He won the find ything in the ne r door but shay soap and my grandmothers june ve Vera I un that she gave to me as sa litttle giirll . Thers socks and leggdlgginf a and a few br. All my bras r there to2. Tomo😢jam going to the doctor to see if he has another med, it he he going to tell me the nerve has to heal

[@420JRMan]

Perhaps God is time, existence is when time formed sound, brought us shape.

[@vinm300]

Oh, these are great lectures. Erudite and enjoyable (if one likes culture). A few points :- Hugh Trevor-Roper : from the fall of Rome, Europe was re=seeded with civilization from Constantinople, which never stopped trading with Europe through the boot of Italy. Civilization spread along the trade routes - Rhine, Seine etc to the English Channel, Canterbury, London. That follows the line of Universities, the spread of Christianity, of literacy, etc Another route was from the Eastern Mediterranean to Ireland : which then spread Christianity to Scotland and Northern England (Bede) ; they in turn sent missionaries to Northern Europe. The two types of Christianity met at the Synod of Whitby to agree a date for Easter (664)

[@mathewsawyer4811]

Man, I wish there was a meet up like this around me!

[@ozzell]

38:31 This is interesting in that in science this argument is also used. When the theories start creating infinities we know that an impasse in the theory has been reached. Like black hole singularities or singularity at the beginning of the universe.

[@OCaminhoparaoDivino]

Great Lecture! Thank you very much for the great effort of demonstrating to us the "occult" knowledge into the religions of the world and philosophy (mostly).

[@carlogambino8109]

HHa my Nonnie is from Sicilia!!!

[@thoughtfuloutsider]

How do you spell name of the philosopher John mentioned as the opponent of Socrates, Plato and Aristotle? Want to research him?

[@diregnome4898]

Do you mean the Sophists?

[@2009Artteacher]

Plato endorsed his teacher Socrates' work. Both opposed the Sophists. ( false rhetoric rather thanr reason) Plato Carried Socrates teachings on after his death. Aristotle ( who influenced Aquinas ) Reworked his teacher Plato's theory of forms.

[@winstonbarquez9538]

Godel's proof for the existence of God is an ontological argument stated in mathematical theorems. It was like saying that goodness exists, but God is good, thus God exists.

[@gregorybyrne2453]

I can neither confirm nor deny? Can you? We live in an electric Galaxy powered by a double torus magnet. The outside force that acts upon our solar system planet is the 235,000 year rotation of the galactic bulge. The Antykythera device predicts the GALACTIC Milankovitch precession Cataclysmic and obliquity climate trends . We are currently at the Vernal equinox of eclipsing the galaxies electromagnetic gravitational plane for the next millenia and END TIMES cataclysmic climate change. We are at Bill Gates event 201 of and the 235,000 year eccentricity rotation of the galactic bulge cycle heading away from Aphelion ice age and towards Perihelion tropical age. What came first the continental glaciers with lower sea levels or the cataclysmic east to west tidal waves? Crossing the galaxies electromagnetic gravitational plane causes EMP pillars of fire lightning and brimstone sulfur, Oort cloud comets and cataclysmic East to west Tsunamis every 40 years when the planets are in conjunction. The beginning of the END conjunction will happen in 2033. Last time our solar system eclipsed the galactic plane was 12,000 years ago Washington scablands, Camas prairie ripples, Gobekli Karahan Tepe, sphinx water erosion, younger dryas, Clovis people etc. End times plan. Carnac stones wall to divert NOAH'S EAST TO WEST tidal waves to come. Garden of Eden Znamya solar sail laser spotlight satellites, Jericho, Gideon, Moses etc. Ezekiel Musk's VTVL rockets, ARC. Ezekiel Musk's Boring Company to make underground cities like Derenkuyu, capadoccia, and longyou caves. & Praise Jesus because he UNITES us all and UNITED the Brood of Vipers can't Divided and Conquer humanity by race , creed, class or religion. "Slave=Master" Jew= Gentile, Muslin=Infidel, Black=White, Rich=Poor, Queen=Queer, Chosen People=Master Race Purity of Blood inbreeding=Eugenics. Good luck humans

[@Tony-gg3nd]

That is like saying poop exists therefore unicorns exists. Also how do you know god is good? The god of the bible is THE biggest mass murderer in the history of the world.

[@noahbody9782]

People always talk about infinity like it is something incomprehensible. In both mathematics and physics the concept of infinity simple indicates that if you have one or more objects and add no objects to the objects you have, then you still have the same of objects no matter times you add no objects. Even a child could understand this. You can express this concept as 1/0 and get all metaphysical about it. But it is just the same concept expressed in a different manner.

[@2009Artteacher]

The moment you add something it becomes metaphysical as cause and effect.

[@steverorison665]

I wish John was my neighbor, I wonder if he is MapleLeaves fan,????

[@2009Artteacher]

Collin Francis, the head of the Federal Genome Research Team ( responsible for successfully mapping out all our DNA ), is a Christian. He was appointed by three different U.S. presidents to head the highest chair of biology in the country. He wrote two books and lectures on them: The Language of God ( religion ) and The Language of Life (Biology). He finds no conflict and recognizes them both as relevant to their own domain. He was an atheist in medical school and in his early years, though when treating patients, he saw in the religious patients a special sense of healing that science did not provide, leading him to become a Christian . He also sees that many atheists hid behind science while knowing little of its findings. He invited those to read the findings even though it would take 21 yrs 24/7. Dr. Collins confidently says he can't be fooled about biology. And there is no DNA for consciousness and spirit, that is something coming from the outside( efficient cause)

[@carlogambino8109]

We are from Catania en Riposte and Letojenni

[@marcvanleeuwen5986]

It would seem that medieval philosophy was confused bout the distinction between being infinite in some respect of being maximal for it. In a finite world (and it does not seem their world view was one of an infinite actual universe) there is no such thing as being infinitely large/fat/heavy, as that would require encompassing an unending (which is the meaning of infinite) sequence of ever larger/fatter/heavier things, which is impossible; but one can be maximal for these notions by encompassing _everything_ that exists. However in an idealised world like that of Euclidean geometry, one has notions that are infinite (a straight line that can be indefinitely extended as per an axiom then contains infinitely many points) but not maximal (there are many points not on the line; in some sense even more than there are on the line). Curiously the apparent absurdity of an infinitely sequence (as in infinite regress, the existence of an infinite sequence of ever older causes) is used as an argument to deduce the existence of a maximal entity (the oldest, therefore first cause), while there symmetric argument in the opposite direction (infinite progress, absurdity of a sequence of ever newer causes to infer the existence of a last cause) is not invoked. All this as intro to say that I feel the first objection in article 3 (49:42) is _not_ the usual argument from the problem of evil, which argues only against the existence of an entity that is both all good _and_ all powerful (where "all" is taken to be "maximally"), the latter implying the possibility to destroy evil. By contrast, in the argument given here no omnipotence is required. Although worded with "infinitely", I think the argument in fact argues from maximality:if something maximally good exists, there simply cannot exist anything that is not good, as this would mean one could still increase the goodness by removing the evil, or turning it into good. In other words the very existence of (even finite) evil contradicts the existence of anything (not necessarily divine) that is maximally good. (It does not seem to be a very compelling argument, but this is what to me appears to be meant.)

[@2009Artteacher]

If you want to get into the existence argument of anything l suggest you do a good reading of the presocratic philosopher Parmendas, the original argument of Esse, being and nothing can't come from anything. As his response to Heraclitus's concept of flux. Aristotle did not agree with the materialist atomists.

[@ephesians6172]

It’s Saint Thomas Aquinas!

[@markballantyne393]

The only entity that cannot then exist is yourself, therefore I AM God

[@Darisiabgal7573]

The quest of what exist and what is true came up. It is interesting that in scoence we do not often use the word truth, though science is tgat which brings forth knowledge. Let me address the truth issue first. Lets say you are hunting for something in the dark, that is some unknown truth, you have three men, but each man has only one eye, and they have no idea how big or small the thing is. A light flashes, each man turns his one eye to the thing, and each man calls to the next man. Realizing tgat he has only conveyed the thing exist. So then each man rethinks the problem and calls out the angle between the next man on each side and the thing. Through a series of light flashes they manage to describe the profile of the think from each man's point of view. Person one says it round, person two says ots skinny, person three says its ovoid. Person #1 says is white, person two says its grey, person three says they can barely see it. Truth does not exist as an entity, instead its a collection of descriptions, from the trivial to the relevant. For example what if ask is it true that the surface of the earth is flat? Depending on where you are standing and how closely you inspect the earth it can be true. what if I ask is the moon silhouette a circle. what if I ask is the earth round? Have you not heard that the Earth is gravitationally rounded? The earth is an oblate spheroid, you hear this one alot. But is i a mathematically definable oblate spheroid? It very much depends on the number of digits you want to use. As we can see there are no perfect truths about the earth, and so we have to accept an imperfect definition of the earth. Eventually you come up with an elevation map, a cartesian map, a gravitational map, a magnetic field map, ect. When all is said and done we cannot see the truth of the earth but for all the minute demonstrations of what the earth is. (We cant see the forest for the trees). These are the nature of scientific truth. What exists, does god exists, can god be defined. So here in lies the problem. I like to phrase it this way, I believe in all gods and none. I believe in a god so that I might better understand the god, but i disbelieve in that god so that I can understand the next god. In comparing all gods there are no uniformities except one, they are all entities that are/were believed, but do not exhibit a natural existence. I can create a place holder god and then define this god as P1 I can then convince 100 people to believe in my god rewarding them each time I got a certain nonverbal response, but I dont ask people what they belive for 200 generations. When I come back to ask they tell me it god P1.1 to P1.50, P2 and subvariants, P3 and its subvariants. in fact, if we had gone from household to household during the first Babylonian empire we might have found 3000 gods from an initial 4 to 6 gods. So lets say I propose a god PXL, theos maximus, the biggest badist god that can exist. Im going to call this god Aquinus1. A greek scholar 1000 years earlier proposes the same god, but of indoeuropen origin and calls it Jupiter the Great. Then a chinese scholar does the same. The Indians have tgere god which is infinitely old, wise and poperful. So lets just state up front there is a great achetect of the universe (borrowing from the scottish rite). Which of the descriptions of the greatest god is correct. Lets say Aquinus is correct, then why is this creator god not the Indian god, the Indian god better reflects the state of the universe. Why is his god the omnipotent one? Second question. Lets say Yahweh, via the word of christ, is the true creator. At what point did Yahweh reveal his divine abilities. Did he reveal them truthfully in Uruk or Eridu, did he teveal his truths to the Canaanites, who followed both gods El and Ea. Did he first reveal the majesty to moses, did he revesl his majestic creation to Jesus, to Paul. When did Yahweh reveal that he himself created a universe beyond all imagination, that the earth was just a speck in a speck in a speck called a galaxy in the nearly infinite cismos? So if the Yahweh-Jesus transubstantiation is the creator, when did he reveal this. Jesus is not memtioned in Genesis, even if he was genesis is not truthful. He dies not reveal his creation in the best attested sayings of Jesus. Nor dies it appear whether Jesus is at all interested in the creation question. So the conclusion when scrolling through possible creation gods Yahweh ranks fairly low on the list.

[@bonerici]

These proofs of good are baffling to me most of the time. I don't think I've heard a better explanation of this era's proofs. They seem overly complicated yet oddly lacking in details.

[@jfurl5900]

A word salad , I have listened to a lot of lectures on this subject for many years and I cannot see that any of them have progressed beyond a first year students theories , except of course the words have multiplied.

[@HouseOfJacobWAKEUP]

5:08

[@PeterShieldsukcatstripey]

You are so kind. So different to someone like E Michael Jones who is so angry all the time.

[@scienceexplains302]

God X is defined as the most purple being conceivable, and since it would be more purple for it to exist than not exist… This “works” for almost any adjective.

[@herzkine]

It doesnt, god isnt more purple than barney,

[@scienceexplains302]

@@herzkine It is defined as the most purple conceivable! This “Barney” must be the devil! 👿 🦖 In fact, I have heard some parents complain of his annoying evil ways.

[@markballantyne393]

God is good a d perfect, nor ca he create anything that is not good or perfect so how can God know evil, only by creating good and then allowing good independence from himself, so we are outcasts from God in order that God can know evil, we can defy God and continue being good ,but it is God's will that we are evil ,freewill therefore because God cannot create evil then ultimately evil is good making good and evil one and the same

[@henrybenjaminstoneking238]

Evil is weakness, the more evil you are, the weaker you are GOD is strength, therefore, HE cannot be weak within HIMSELF, and cannot sin ever But HE understands it as weakness and spite, as the WORD states, "Is it not you you spite, and not ME, to your own confusion?" Jeremiah 7:19 To say that- because HE does not sin HIMSELF means that HE does not understand it at all-makes no sense GOD is not entertained by our sins, because that would make HIM an idiot Would you think it was wonderful to see a man bang his head on a concrete wall? Even you would not. In your weird world, banging your head on a concrete wall would be the same as getting a scalp massage Any mathematical genius can understand how an idiot gets the wrong result, simply because he is an idiot Every sinner is an idiot, living in their own spite, and this is their own choice of free will GOD wants to be in union with us, and then we can live and be in the light, through the HOLY GHOST enlightening us You choose to be in darkness instead, and have demons inside you, and this is why you have no logic You are like a two dollar whore, and the demons inside you are your pimps They are already damned, and they use you to spread evil, and they want you to be damned too and that is all they want with you Because logic comes from GOD as well, and you have to be in the light to possess it all those in darkness have no access to light therefore, what you think is logic is just illogical GOD allows free will because this means we merit Heaven or Hell If there was no free will, then there would be no merit for anything, and life would make no sense at all If GOD wanted you to be evil, HE would not punish you with demons inside your soul and HE would not help you out of your current dilemma, if you asked for help When we die, we are stuck FOREVER in the state we are in at our physical death So if we choose death and sin, then we go to HELL with the demons If we ask for help from GOD, then we will make it to Heaven, and will be in GOD'S face FOREVER So GOD is more of a warrior and wants us to war for good We are made to be warriors too, and we either war for good, or we war for evil, and this comes naturally All Satan needs is to make you soft, and you will war for evil, to your own demise HE knew free will would cause people to fall, and even Angels to fall too Free will brings merit into the equation, something you completely miss with your illogical statement You want to legitimize your life of weakness with faulty logic like all Satanists do So you are in a state of weakness, and the weak will always use bad logic to justify themselves, and their SPITE "I KNOW WHAT I AM DOING!" they always say, and all evidence is to the contrary Only GOD knows what HE is doing, and this is why we need HIM within us to do anything good If it was GODs will that we are evil, there would be no HELL or Heaven, and sinners would not suffer from the effects of their sins in any way We see how sinners are running to drugs for help, and running to addictions of all kinds, to try to alleviate their suffering And this would not happen if your statement was true we see so many sinners in wheelchairs today, only from their sins and the effects of their sins on their body If evil and good were the same, then your words make no sense either, because all your words mean the same thing, which is nothing So you should stop talking, because you admit you are wrong, by using any words at all (nihilism) You are just another hypocrite and blind from your tremendous sins "I came into the world so the blind could see, and those who cannot see become blind" John 9: 39 You use GOD to rationalize your sins, and then blame HIM for it, and say that HE wants this from you You say HE wants me to be free, so this means HE wants me to sin, yet sin does not exist and is the same as good I guarantee that you expect people to treat you well, with Christian ethics, but just want to justify your own evil ways Otherwise, you better be silent and accept all the evil people do to you too So the next time somebody steals from you, make sure to not be angry with this-- because no crimes exist in your logic This is obviously not true, that "good and evil are the same", we see sinners deteriorating in mind body and Soul -even in this life on Earth This proves that we are made in HIS image and there are negative results for evil actions, and good results for good actions We want to do good, but we are Fallen, and prone to weakness, and use illogical conclusions to justify our own sins and spite, as you prove yourself

[@markballantyne393]

Then those who attempt to prove the existence of God, dont exhibit a self evident proof , nevertheless all peoples on earth in pre history lived their lives believing inn the existence of God , and when theologians contemplate the existence of God the created the opposite of belief Doubt , so the church led the worldfrom beliefs to doubt ,and is not God.

[@Darisiabgal7573]

I have many comments unfortunately limited reply space. If god exists as an All Everything deity, then god is capable of revealing his nature without aide of 'props'. Lets look at the earthly origin as proof that god exists. We are going to eliminate cosmology as an explanation. The western idea of go is not the same as the idea of the rising Yahweh in the near eastern context. Yahweh was a god among gods, Yahweh evolved from other notions of god, but the nature of Yahweh can be understood in the near Eastern context. At the dawn of "time" there were city states each with its own devotional temple, with a cental organization principle Anu/Ilu/El Elyon. Once poweful when Uruk rose to power, as other city states grew up around uruk, his powers waned once the god of the sky and the four winds. Anu had consorts, the fertility gidesses go back in time 200,000 years, and there appear before Anu elemental gods of earthen things and watery things that created Anu. Other god becomes the storm god, there is a god of the sun, Shamash-Utu, a moon god Nammu sin, Enlil and Enki the two prinicple sons. The gods of Sumeria reflect the political organization of Sumeria, and so we have a reflection of the way men think about politics as a backdrop, a prop, to their divine thoughts. As the rise of the tryant Lugal Zargasi shows people wanted a strong man to defeat the tyrant and go about the business of Sumeria, dominating neighbors and extending trade routes, bringing wealth into Sumeria. This coincided to the promotion of Ishtar, not a benevolent god, but a god of seduction and war. This can be seen in its two gender daemons the extension of the female(manipulatuon) and male(force). As the dynastic empires grew in their ability to project, Ishtar is replaced by Marduk, who can vanquish the Tiamat and her visier with just words, thus follower by Asshur, who simply shows up and the enemies are defeated and creation occurs. The old creation myths lose revelance in light of the new myths, which surround powerful leader gods, patterned off the desire for more powerful dynastic leaders. This is how the god assume power, by changing the definition of god by envoking more power onto a single deity. The god Marduk assumes 50 god names upon himself and the 50 names of gods similar to Ea (though at the time there were several hundred gods). King Yosiah wanted Yahweh to be more powerful, obviously his god did not save him from an early death, but he did manage to suppress the worship of the Israelite pantheon. Again why Yahweh and not El. Theophoric names indicate that polytheism was healthy in Israel until the rise of the kingdoms, and Yahweh was a minor god, in the same way Babylon and Marduk were minor until the rise of the amorite kings. Yahweh appears to role out of the place of the davidic kingdom. Elism falls with the conquest of Northern Kingdom, and the Yahweh god is left. These are political props for gods power. What we can see, fir example here in the west we use the word Lord God, we don't say El Elyon, El Shaddai, or Yahweh. But the people who defined those names originally gave different meaning. These god heads were not All powerful or All knowing. Consequently the argument is rather circular, we define god, we then imbue god with powers according to what we think god powers should be, then those god powers are used to do something to explain the earth, and the earth and its power gods create us and so on. If we create god, then how can god be the creator things that created earth. Therefore the source of the definition of God is logically inconsistent. This type of god cannot exist as _we_ have defined it except as cognative dissonnance in our minds. So lets argue that there is a very 'divine' thinker, not particularly tied to a religious argument such as the Kalam cosmological argument. And that thinking imagines there is a creator god, an omnipotent god that created everything. Lets add a context, there is a universe > 92 BLY across, and we are one miniscule world of many that can see the origins of the cosmos. We project our thoughts on hiw it began. We imagine a being powerful to create it, its created and preceeds as observed. 1. That process contradicts early creation stories 2. That process will contradict future creation stories tgat try to harmonize future discoveries. 3. Stories are superfluous for understanding the extrinsic nature of the divine. Though they may some other meaning. Thus we cannot reliably project what we know as a logical basis to decide how events that transpired in telative time, long before the time we can observe. And if we cannot do this we cannot assume any material power on god, unless we presuppose that god can be a created being, a being that manifests in the universe but not outside of the unuverse. If we cannot assume any extrinsic manifestations of the divine we are left with two choices. 1. "Divine" beings can manifest themselves in our beliefs by some sort of far reaching telekinetic power. 2. Divinity is originally a projection of the mind. 3. Our definity of divinity is far too entangled in agency and ownership. And so if we ask the question which god that humans have projected is the one true god, the one that has the divine power. Maybe there is a god that projects power into us. 1. Cant be the sumerian gods, they are all gone, maybe Yah is the remnant. 2. Cant be the roman or greek gods, for they are gone. 3. Can it be Yahweh or Jesus. Why would a far reaching telekinetic being of all the sentients in the unuverse morph himself from a god of cow herders in Anatolia, to a god of white temple in Uruk, to a tabernacle god in Canaan, to a Temple god in Jerusalem, to a God in exile in Babylon, to a resident of a Temple built by a despotic King once again in Jerusalem, to a god in Exile, then a god that needs anointing, by crucifixion, the the fabrication of mystic tradition enveloped by an idolistic ecclesia. Its an interesting story, but not the basis for a being with astounding telekinetic power. This leaves 2 and 3. Either human facilitate their own projections of divinity, or humans are confused about the divine.

[@steveflorida8699]

There are many mysteries at our human level here on earth 🌎. Consciousness, origin of life within lifeless molecules, etc, are a couple of not fully understood. Therefore, regarding the true nature of God, is for man and mankind an evolutionary awakening. With subsequent revelations uplifting the sons & daughters nearer the reality of God the Universal Father.

[@bnotapplicable7000]

I never understood the 'common era' crap. It's still based on all modern calendars and improvements since Caesar. Just say what it is - After Death (AD; of Christ). Just makes people sound ridiculous trying to hide Christ in a system completely built around him.

[@JLRandNothingElse]

Well… if After Death started before he was born, or even when he was born… why call it AD? Shouldn’t there be a 33ish year window we call “During Life” or DL. Then all our dates should be pushed back 33ish years. That way we don’t “hide” Christ in the system built around him. Or is that too much? I say BC and AD is not enough and we should mandate the terms Before Christ, During Life, and After Death.

[@suelingsusu1339]

The problem of evil is indeed a very powerful debunking of any benevolent god... but ... the problem of imbecilic incompetent design is also a powerful rebuttal for any creator god who is not a bungler or a sadist.

[@steveflorida8699]

Free Will is why there are evils. Therefore, humans are not created perfect, nor robots or slaves doing God's divine will.

[@suelingsusu1339]

@@steveflorida8699 .... really.... so a child with cancer free willed himself into the suffering ... what about earthquakes and tsunamis and volcanos.... what about famines and droughts and pestilence... what about parasites and viruses and bacterias and pathogens and disease... what about congenital and genetic diseases... are any of these the result of free will. Your ilk of privileged spoiled people are abjectly benighted as to the REALITY of the world you obliviously live in without any appreciation or understanding for the facts of your privilege.

[@suelingsusu1339]

@@steveflorida8699 "slaves doing God's divine will"... have you ever read the Bible... if you had you would have known that your deadbeat sky daddy boasts about his divine plan that no one can thwart and how he planned your DESTINY before you were even born. Your own deadbeat sky daddy makes a mockery of your mistaken notion that you have any free will whatsoever.

[@th3r3canb3only1]

@@steveflorida8699 If god couldn't make a universe that allows both free will and disallows evil, then he isn't really all powerful, and deserves no more worship than a politician.

[@macroman52]

@@steveflorida8699 Yes, correct, God's Free Will is why evil exists. God freely choose to make a world, which God knew would contain evil, right? Q: Is a world with God + some evil + some good, better than God alone? God alone was perfect, right? Unless God was lonely, which seems to make God less than perfect.

[@thomasv.nielsen3128]

Very central, when talking with vibrant atheists is the question ‘what does god mean’ that they don’t believe. Cos is it a choppy man in toga who rules everything, it is not really unalike to Christianity, to not believe said. God talk around this

[@Demortixx]

no

[@oscarmudd6579]

Why go to all the trouble? Your members just lie.

[@scienceexplains302]

I can see why nobody uses (Afaik) these to try to convince anyone of god’s existence. And this greatest conceivable being is the guy that commits and demands genocide and promotes misogyny and slavery? Yahweh’s closer to worst conceivable than best conceivable

[@artofthepossible7329]

As far as I can gather: the main alternative policy was cultural assimilation (cultural diversity wouldn't be central policy to anyone until Cyrus), women ran the affairs of the estate, and the strange think about the history of slavery is that there were advocates to end it not that it existed or had been advocated for. Besides, the 20th century does not give you much evidence in proving that we have outgrown such silly practises like killing people on the basis of ethnicity, that women exist to be breed and nothing more and that people exist to serve.

[@uchangeng8954]

The more you try to proof God, the more it shows you hv no faith.

[@frederickanderson1860]

Jesus alone came to his own to prove his relationship with their living God. But he was rejected, just like the rejection of him in Moses time.

[@suelingsusu1339]

Saying Dawkins does not understand medieval philosophy so he is not qualified to debunk the fallacious piffle of Aquinas... is like saying not understanding drilling skulls to relieve the demons or blood letting to cure disease ... does not qualify a modern day medical doctor to debunk drilling skulls and blood letting using leaches.

[@topologyrob]

Dawkins understands very little outside his speciality, and his fanaticism makes him really dumb in culture/history/religion.

[@bnotapplicable7000]

Your conclusion as written doesn't really follow the premise. Strictly speaking Dawkins in his totally unrelated profession 'debunking' another field of study might be more similar to a carpenter debunking an electrician. Separately, dealing with the spirit of your claim, could any lay-man debunk a scientist regarding science? Or any other field of practice? What about a mechanic debunking a medical doctor? Personally I agree with the spirit of your statement that is, I don't think you must be a professional to have an opinion but I use my previous statement as a mirror to see if perhaps your leaning into a bias.

[@suelingsusu1339]

@@bnotapplicable7000 ... your mistake in the analogies you used is that those are LEGITIMATE fields that require skill... theology is a scam... one does not need to be an expert in fairy tales to debunk the lies in fairy tales.... nor does one need to have read the ad nauseam CASUISTRY and sophistry of apologists for the fairy tales to be able to debunk the lies in the fairy tales. And... one does not need to know how to build a skyscraper to recognize a shabbily cobbled up hovel... and one does need to be a doctor to debunk the voodoo rituals and hexed potions and magic incantations prescribed in the buybull.

[@TheBlindamerica]

@@suelingsusu1339 Your discussion was very helpful as it provided an example of man’s fatal reasoning flaw and thus nearly demands a true lover of wisdom (philosophy) to indulge the interrogatories of Aquinas. That flaw is magnified by the statement “theology is a scam.” That is an opinion not a self-evident proof. One who declares an opinion as justification for avoiding wisdom in that area is denying the true self. Wisdom is not about agreeing but about love of exploration for wisdom’s sake. So, unless you are God, you cannot make an all-knowing declaration. If you were God, and had that ability, you likely would not believe yourself because, “theology is a scam” as you declare.

[@suelingsusu1339]

@@TheBlindamerica ... theology is a scam... and this is clearly self-evident because it is the field involved in scamming people that fairy tales are facts... it is a field about mythology pretending to be about reality... it is a field of blathering on and on (like Aquinas et al) about imaginary sky daddies to inveigle people that this sky daddy delusion is not a delusion.

[@royhiggins7270]

My testimony for the story of Jesus Christ. The story of Jesus destroyed my world. I've witnessed first hand what the bible did to my friends and family and nation. It turned good decent people into hate filled monsters. What has happened to my loved ones and the deadly divide in my nation could never have happened without the greatest lie ever told...the story of Jesus Christ.

[@nlcrme]

This has to be the most absurd comment I have ever read. Why go around trolling all of the biblical lectures and documentaries and write the same trash comment everywhere? Do you honestly think you pure hatred and found behavior and words will change anyone's faith or love of the Lord? Of course it won't. People will read you comment like me and they will either pray for you or they will call your trash talk out like me and let everyone know that this it what you do all day out of boredom because you want attention. Look, I am so sorry you are so lonely and filled with hate but if everyone around you, friends and family, etc. Seem to all be on the same page then you need to take a moment and look in the mirror because I have a feeling based on your foul comment that you are not a nice person to be around. Try to find peace and perhaps you should see a counselor. Or medical professional...they can and will help you feel better. Or, you can read you Bible and pray and see if your heart will change and start to love thy neighbor and show kindness to the world.

[@M0rmagil]

It’s regrettable that you feel that way, and yes, feel is the key word here. May you find the truth instead of the lie that is animating you.

[@langreeves6419]

Charles Manson killed people, partly based on lyrics from the Beatles. Millions of other people have found great joy from the Beatles.

[@royhiggins7270]

@@langreeves6419 The Beatles actually existed. And the story of Jesus has killed millions. And that doesn't include how many will die because of Climate Changes and the Christians who voted for anti-science politicians.

[@royhiggins7270]

@@nlcrme I am a missionary of truth Nancy...I am sorry if that bothers you. But I am not trying to reach the lost like yourself but the ones who have the potential to think for themselves. It isn't my entire family and friends who love and worship men like Donald Trump...I am a very lovable and kind person which those who worship and vote for men like Trump aren't. And this is a wonderful outlet to release my anger and the beauty is most of the people deserve to hear it.

[@suelingsusu1339]

Prattling on and on in thousands of pages repeating fallacious piffle over and over ad nauseam... is not proof for any god.

[@garrymcdougall9481]

Laughable "proofs". Yes, religion all comes from the same source: trickery, false promises and delusion.

[@Lay-Man]

You just attacked the position...

[@topologyrob]

Ok, thanks for showing us your fanatical dogma and extreme generalising cartoon view of the world.

[@fromra8569]

I did not understand the proof

[@henrybenjaminstoneking238]

Stay with JESUS Aquinas is from Hell He was a salesman for turning the beautiful Catholic faith from a source of water, to something totally dry