Aquinas v Dawkins on God's Existence

In his widely acclaimed book "The God Delusion" Richard Dawkins attempts to refute Aquinas' 5 proofs. Rather than successfully responding to Thomas' arguments, Dawkins unintentionally offers his writing as a prime example of some common misinterpretations of The Five Ways. In this video I explain exactly how Dawkins misses the points of Aquinas' arguments, and how The Five Ways of Aquinas continues to be a robust philosophical approach to the knowledge God.
------
👚 👕Get merch here: teespring.com/stores/matt-fradd
📄Read the paper in text form: pintswithaquinas.com/podcast/...
👆Subscribe to my channel here: kzbin.info/door/lh4...
(make sure to hit the BELL icon to be notified of new videos!)
🎧Listen to The Matt Fradd Show podcast here:
podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast...
📖Get my book "Does God Exist?" here: www.amazon.com/Does-God-Exist...
🍺Support me on Patreon (Thank you!): / mattfradd
Facebook: / mattfradd
Twitter: / mattfradd
Instagram: / mattfradd

[@MrGoodwell]

The fact that our understanding of the structure of the universe has changed so much since Thomas Aquinas' time and that his arguments not only still work but make even more sense, shows how reliable they are.

[@gabepearson6104]

That’s why I like Aquinas

[@nonicosio]

No it does not. The more we know the fewer and smaller the gods become

[@codygillard]

@@nonicosio no, that's just positing God of the gaps, and that just quite frankly just isn't a good objection. Find something else

[@icekills1]

Nope the more we discovered our reality. the less and less the explanation of god becomes.

[@tomasrocha6139]

All philosophical arguments are supposed to transcend scientific knowledge

[@PintsWithAquinas]

Me talking at you for 20 minutes... you’re welcome. ;) Please subscribe and help us out by sharing!

[@SC047074]

Matt the 3 proofs on the left of the screen reads like this: 1. 2. 2. Anyway, I love your work. Reading GK Chesterton’s book on ST. T Aquinaa bec of you.

[@PintsWithAquinas]

Susanna Palermo oh that was on purpose. Yeah, there’s a hidden meaning in the ... okay. That was not on purpose. :) thanks.

[@NightKnight347]

MATT. Do this more. Thank you!

[@SC047074]

Matt Fradd 😆 I believed you for a minute because honestly .. I’m having some difficulties reading GK C’s book. So fancy! LOL

[@gregorykotoch5045]

Matt, did you really just say all that extempore?

[@MVPerry]

Lol I love that street fighter style thumbnail. Aquinas has the same pose as Ken

[@intelligentdude4722]

I would never expect you to be here lol

[@ToxicPea]

Wait...MVPerry? Well you know what I dig it.

[@renzothesonger5411]

bruh I would never expect you to be here

[@anthonylozano8035]

i just realized that!

[@theobesetatertot6961]

Very happy to see a KZbinr I enjoy watching appear on a channel like Pints with Aquinas. Praying for you and your success!

[@BrianHoldsworth]

Cool new format! Keep it up.

[@amare.adonai5464]

Hey Brian i love your channel.

[@GigaliaTheGreat]

Hey Brian! Have you watched "How to be Christian"? He's a Catholic KZbinr who makes super high quality videos; I think you'll like him (if Matt's reading this too, you'll probably like him too).

[@BrianHoldsworth]

@@carsonianthegreat4672 No, I haven't. Sounds interesting.

[@BrianHoldsworth]

@@amare.adonai5464 Thanks!

[@BrianHoldsworth]

@@GigaliaTheGreat I did see it a while back but I thought he stopped making videos...

[@auraxfire]

Otherwise known as “Legendary philosopher vs. Some biologist.

[@bigboymustard230]

Yea

[@michaelharrington6698]

Lol, this is great

[@arianagrandaremix8858]

yeah some philosopher who deduced a god of gaps bez the gaps were too big in his time

[@clintonwilcox4690]

To be fair, Dawkins really isn't "some biologist" -- but he's certainly not a philosopher. He should stick to his area of expertise -- biology -- and stop trying to talk about things he clearly doesn't understand.

[@yapmcgoolies1756]

And yet is there a god is still an unanswered question

[@nevig6557]

Dawkins most stunning victories are in figments of his imagination, against the dead who can't respond and, in being convincing when talking to himself.

[@resvero8342]

Now he's in hell

[@smartcow360]

wonderful - not sure how I haven't seen your channel before. Your serious knowledge of philosophy and your calm and humble way of approaching it is refreshing in the midst of all the cynicism and ignorance of youtube thanks man

[@mad_marc2757]

Holy cow, today a friend of mine asked me something about the existence of God and when I looked up "Aquinas God's existence" this video popped up! Thanks for this Matt, big fan of your content!

[@bennnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn]

This may be one of my favorite things you've done!.. please do more educational type videos like this one.. diggin the forMATT.. ha

[@kevinbenitez635]

This roast of Richard Dawkins should be televised!!

[@latiolaisgradnigo]

Kevin Benitez God doesn’t exist.

[@zayan6284]

@@latiolaisgradnigo how have I not thunk this? Wow, that was deep

[@gabepearson6104]

Steven-Etienne bruh really

[@gabepearson6104]

Steven-Etienne prove it

[@honesty1234]

Go for it.

[@Maskedlapis64]

Love this!!! It’s a great format. Hope to see more videos like this, especially on metaphysics!

[@mesichikitochikitochikito1128]

I don't know why anyone would take Dawkins seriously

[@leibniz4455]

It's a matter of lifestyle, the maturity level, and many else... It depends on the individual

[@crubs83]

I take him seriously when it comes to biology. Otherwise, he's a pretentious and neurotic prick.

[@ThepPixel]

Hes very intelligent but much like Lawrence Krauss he sees everything in an overly logical way at times. Logic and science can explain lots of things that we can SEE, FEEL, TOUCH etc. But science cannot answer more spiritual questions such as why people have out of body experiences, why people are able to have profound experiences using psychedelics, why we dream and how dreams work. Essentially anything that is only accessible by being asleep, dead or in a psychedelic state. I believe (and others may argue against this) that Religion, believeing that there is SOMETHING beyond the mortal realm and all those other feelings that we religious people have can be grouped into that group of things that are currently unexplainable by science. We have our natural senses, and then we have something MORE than that, something that makes us feel that something extra, that pull within us that makes us feel that theres something out there that we cannot explain but we know we feel it. If Dawkins and Krauss explored their mind and maybe looked into spirituality and the unconscious mind a little more rather than just being "if science cant prove it it aint real" then they would be more open minded. People have had HUGELY profound experiences exploring their consciousness, many people have lost their fear of death ENTIRELY after a couple tabs of LSD. Im not promoting drug use in general but psychedelics are a good example of something beyond the living mortal realm that science cannot seem to understand because you cant measure it, you have to EXPERIENCE it...just like you cannot MEASURE your feeling that God is real, you have to feel it for it to make sense.

[@josephososkie3029]

@@crubs83 . When hit with a common existential question like “ What if you’re wrong?”, he goes into petulant mode. What puzzles me is why/ how he has such a diehard army of atheist supporters. Soooo different from Bertrand Russell and CS Lewis.

[@maxalaintwo3578]

Nerds who don't want to be dragged to church by their mom

[@stevenmckenna999]

All people should read Alister McGrath ‘The Dawkins Delusion’. He systematically deconstructs Dawkins inability to think philosophically.

[@BradSchepisi]

Matt, phenomenal video! Perhaps one of your best. Thanks for putting this together.

[@noahsolomon1550]

hi brad how's it been

[@aidancampbell7935]

This is an incredibly well put together video on an incredibly important topic - Thanks so much for putting this out here!

[@angelicdoctor8016]

Best video on this topic and much needed - well done Matt.

[@baguette7851]

I've yet to meet an atheist who was down to earth and theologically competent

[@shallowlake]

This is great. Please do more videos like this, I really enjoy it!

[@danielleeper8719]

"I know science, therefore, I know I can disprove God's existence." Funny, people that know Theology and Science can easily prove God's existence. LOL

[@dr.deverylejones1306]

I would love to hear your scientifically evidence that can disprove God

[@danielleeper8719]

@@dr.deverylejones1306 I don't have any, I study both Science and Theology as well as some Philosophy so, I am more than sure God exists.

[@xBaphometHx]

If it is that easy, then I don't know why it hasn't been proven yet.

[@Alex-yr8iy]

@@xBaphometHx because no Atheist can't bring any decent arguement to the table

[@xBaphometHx]

@@Alex-yr8iy then prove god's existence.

[@philliparmitstead1260]

The word “EASILY” proven was Dawkins biggest mistake...

[@petertrausch3245]

I love this new format Matt!

[@paulinap8503]

This did not feel like 20 mn, loved it!! Thanks Matt 🇲🇽

[@supergene256]

I clicked on this just for the thumbnail!! Obviously Aquinas wins

[@mr.mayonnaise2095]

Same here, I'm gonna try to make this a real game

[@sloveniadave]

A clear and helpful summary of the arguments. very well put together. thank you.

[@sageseraph5035]

At 2:58 the argument from necessity is numbered 2 when you call it 3.

[@jamesmerone]

*Finish him!!* *FATALITY* *St. Thomas Aquinas wins*

[@adamcharleshovey7105]

That is literally what I was thinking when I saw this come up

[@GeoCoppens]

‘This is the true horror of religion: It allows perfectly decent and sane people to believe by the billions what only lunatics believe on their own.’ Sam Harris

[@WhatsTheTakeaway]

@@GeoCoppens That's so...neuroscientisty and stuff!

[@scutumfidelis1436]

@@GeoCoppens Like how the universe was created magically by itself and that there is no inherit moral order to the world and everything is chaos?

[@GeoCoppens]

@@scutumfidelis1436 Haha! No God created the universe magically. All creationist crap!

[@alessandrovolta8354]

Have only I Heard saint Thomas laughing at Dawkins from Heaven?

[@brendangolledge8312]

Without being aware of Dawkins saying this, I also came to the conclusion that the first 3 are the same thing after watching a catholic video on the subject. They seem like different kinds of causality. Asking the question of whether there is objective goodness I think is not so easily answered as in the video. The person asking the question wants to know, but that doesn't prove that wanting to know is itself an objective goodness. I do lots of things which I know perfectly well are only subjectively good to me, so I don't see how this particular case necessarily involves objective goodness. All this comes down I think to the observation by Hume that either the universe is infinitely old and has no beginning, or else there was something which had no cause. Hume said that we reason from our experiences, and we have no experience of this matter, so he refused to speculate further. It also seems to me that if there was a first cause, the only possible cause it could have been which is comprehensible to people is a living being. Inanimate objects seem to only react when they are acted upon, so it does not make sense to us to imagine that they could be the ultimate cause. So, I conclude either that there is a God, or that the matter is beyond human comprehension. Or both. Edit: I'm going to read the Summa Theologica because of this video.

[@luxither7354]

Good luck. Its longer than the Bible. Hope you've made a dent.

[@presidentoatmeal9748]

Dawkins Delusions should be the name of his book. And in the intro it should say, I only heard of Thomas, but wrote this book against him without reading into it.

[@ToxicallyMasculinelol]

I love that phrase, "easily exposed as vacuous." dawkins is a brilliant wordsmith, but what an insufferable pompous fool he can be. when I was a teenager I was such a fanboy of dawkins, hitchens, sam harris, et al. ironically, it's his material (and that of the other "new atheists") that got me reading the Bible and looking into the evidence for the resurrection. therefore, it's dawkins who brought me to the Church lol

[@emmanatoli6332]

Love this! so clear and easy to follow!

[@hectorturcios1205]

I REALLY enjoyed this!!

[@user-dd3tt1ov4i]

Very educative video! Splendid job!👍

[@zestotemp]

This is very well produced; I think you should do more like this!

[@bennnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn]

this had a very "V-Sauce" type vibe to it.. maybe it was the chill background music

[@cyrillebernier2676]

You fully reveal the truth when saying that God cannot do certain things because these things are by nature impossible. Tremendous job ! Your arguments bring light to the mind and peace to the soul. Thank you !

[@unassailable6138]

Haha, Matt! Loved the Street Fighter Tumbnail. Do you also game? PC or consoles? Regina Pace ora por nobis. Amen.

[@zeldapower6096]

Love the video, it's a good format

[@dominickolas]

I sometimes feel too dumb to even partially understand God. And I am not prepared to go against those who argue against God. Matt, I appreciate the work you put in to this to at least partially equip me. Thanks.

[@4thlegion253]

Lol.. I didnt know Matt was such a great teacher or knows this much! I often saw Him interviewing others!! Loved it!!:)

[@jamesmonsour5620]

wow. This is really good. But I feel like the guy who wrote Ps 139 "Too high for me, this knowledge...!!" hahah. Gotta slow down to take it all in. Wonderful job though!

[@lukericker8325]

James Monsour I guess it helps to have a background in philosophy to understand. Which ironically is something Dawkins does not have. It’s still boggles my mind that he somehow amassed a following despite being seen as a total joke in the philosophy community. It must be his eloquent British voice and humble narcissism.

[@shanedulay2554]

This is too enlightening. And it's beautiful.

[@dekafer123]

Well done, Matt!

[@smartcow360]

hey I was wondering how do you compile the quotes? Do you write them down for reference as you read? or do you google them as you prepare the videos?

[@displaychicken]

“Last week I couldn’t spell philosopher, today I is one!” -Richard Dawkins 2006

[@MrAwesomePoopz]

that is literally the DUMBEST thing i've ever heard...

[@siegfried.7649]

I like this new video format. I hope to see more of these apologetics videos in the near future. Keep it up, Matt. God bless.

[@journeyfiveonesix]

Hey Matt, I have a question about the 5th Way. I thought I was starting to understand it, but now I'm confused. I believed that directedness towards an end was assumed as true, but then Aquinas' argument was that the final cause itself must exist (to cause the thing to be an efficient cause) and that presupposes an intelligence in which it exists actually: God. But it seems like you're saying that Aquinas is asking why things have directedness towards an end, similar to how intelligent design of other stripes asks us to consider why things have order, or why life exists, etc. thoughts?

[@Firebreath56]

Fantastic video, Matt!

[@fanrik9583]

After stumbling across this channel, a couple of weeks back, I have now finally decided to follow the advice given to me by a priest long ago - to put down my Youcat, and get into Aquinas. The question now is where to start? The Summa Theologica seems like the bread and butter, but I've found many different versions of it at very different pricepoints, so if anyone has some advice, I'm all ears!

[@jeremysmith7176]

These Dominicans are a great place to start. kzbin.info/www/bejne/p4HZZaZ9attsqrs

[@mickieknows7712]

I liked this Matt Fradd TED Talk.

[@adrianfonseca]

Can we download or purchase the two backgrounds/wallpaper/thumbnail of Thomas fighting Dawkins?

[@adamcharleshovey7105]

That would be kind of a cool background to have on your phone or computer, wouldn't it?

[@lenk8374]

I love the street fighter inspired images

[@remainhumble6432]

Fantastic video. I just hope that just like Dawkins, most of this content does not just go over the heads of the philosophically-challenged average atheist...

[@tr1084]

Would Aquinas have preferred subs or dubs?

[@thatguyk.5306]

Subs. 💪

[@tr1084]

@@thatguyk.5306 Virtuous.

[@stevenwiederholt7000]

Thing is, I've never been accused of being the brightest bulb on the tree. Still I have 2 small questions for our materialist friends. 1. How Do You Get Something From Nothing? 2. How Do You Get Life From Non-Life? Ok I LIED :-) 3. What Happened To The Body?

[@tflics]

Awesome video!

[@noahdanielg]

Dawkins is an overgrown edgy teenager.

[@kenim]

There is always this childish tone in atheist intelectualism.

[@jusfugly]

However, he's right

[@marcokite]

@@jusfugly - however he is totally wrong...not that edgy either, poor guy

[@GrammeStudio]

yes because being grounded in reality is edgy. well at least he's not delusional--believing in something because he was told so like an edgy teenager who's repeating a one-liner that he saw on facebook.

[@Paddy234]

@@kenim I agree, it's offputting to see such grown men using such adolescent atheistic arguments

[@johncollins8304]

You said, "God is not an infinite person." If we are just arguing monotheism (not trinity) I thought that's exactly he is. Could you explain please? Thank you for this new format.

[@Polones12]

That was an excellent presentation

[@karcharias811]

Classical apologetics is so cool.

[@LeftFootMediaNZ]

Excellent video Matt! Loving the new long form interviews too.

[@carolkegel7599]

"word salad, word salad, wrod salad, wodr sladad, wodr, ssdalad, wooooord salad, salad word..... therefore, the Catholic version of God" said Thomas Aquinas.

[@Daniel_Abraham1099]

PLEASE MORE QUICK PHILOSOPHY VIDEOS LIKE THIS!!!

[@metatron4890]

In regards to your essentially ordered series, the kind of interactions that occur are unlike how you describe them. The table and book and the earth are attracted to each other and they repell each other. The forces at play here are gravity and electron repulsion. If you were to place a book on a table in space and then remove the table, then the book would not move since gravity is not a factor here. The source of change is found within the changing things themselves not outside of them. Think of two magnets; they are attracted to each other due to the inherent nature of the magnets.

[@chokin78]

Aquinas didn't even try to move from deism to theism. Can you explain this quantum leap, or to put it better, the 'missing link'?

[@rosezingleman5007]

Great video! Love anything short that refutes Dawkins.

[@neptasur]

Dawkins may be a great biologist (I can't really say), but he is inept as a philosopher.

[@franktoyou]

Thanks Mat this is the best video that you have produced in my estimation. I’ve been subscribed to your Chanel for almost 1year. Thank you so much. I first heard of you from a video that I had to watch for my marriage preparation class that the novus ordo church I got married in asked me to watch. I liked you in that video and subscribed to your channel. I have found you to be very soft core traditional even as illustrated in your recent interview with Timothy Gordon where you found it uncomfortable to go along with the biblical representation of women’s place. But it seems like you are a good guy trying and your grasp of Themistocles philosophy is really good, and this video is proof. Thanks again I will book mark this video to share with others under philosophy.

[@keithmoore9992]

Honest question: how do Aquinas' arguments hold when we consider quantum physics that has proven to us that the world is far from intuitive. Since philosophical arguments seem to often rely on "what makes sense", how do these stand in the realm of quantum mechanics -- which is real but far from 'sensible'? Hoping for a clear and reasoned response from the philosophers that does not rely purely on what might be seen as word-play. Thank you, K

[@lcf2366]

@m_train1 No, they are not

[@johnpate6597]

Can I get that song link to the intro background tune? That is a straight up banger man!

[@brendaolguin3039]

Your Peter Kreeft video is marked as private. And I tried another KZbinr and 2 of his videos were marked private. Just so you know.

[@clintresler1218]

I find the omnipotence/ominscience argument interesting. If God is omniscient, then can He not act by that all-knowingness, thus making Him omnipotent? Or if He is omnipotent, wouldn't he have it in his power to know all, thus making Him omniscient? Having but one of these attributes would essentially lend itself to having the other.

[@doplyer]

The Amazon link does not lead to the book! :(

[@4LoveAndJustice]

Sweet... Found your channel... Hope you grow... God bless ❤️

[@vladimirbraun4957]

Great video! Thanks!

[@sarararah18]

I’ll come right back and finish listenjtnv this afte

[@pberggre]

His argument about the complexity explanation, if complexity needs God etc... he can’t use that argument and also deny that creators in this realm prove that we need a creator.

The link to your book is not working.

[@user-wq6mt6ib6u]

Dawkins recently: “I’m not a believer, but there is a distinction between being a believing Christian and a cultural Christian. … I love hymns and Christmas carols and I sort of feel at home in the Christian ethos, and I feel that we are a Christian country in that sense.”

[@eileen1820]

Great video!! 👍👍

[@arianagrandaremix8858]

Produce any evidence at all to indicate God’s existence is necessary. Then, perhaps, there would be something against which to argue

[@jayv9006]

Thanks!

[@IskalkaQuest2010]

I don't like the background music. It takes away from attention to what you are saying.

[@reality4330]

When debating Dawkins, remember your trying to show the bystander the overwhelming, irrefutable evidence proven with pure science and historical writings, along with philosophical arguments that make atheism absurd. You’re trying to convince the bystander because Dawkins et al are actually preaching their faith in a ridiculous concept. Atheism is a religion.

[@tonydarcy1606]

Evidently you don't know what atheism means. It means the lack of a belief in gods or God. What's "religious" about that view ? A = without, theist = believer in gods / God. I would like to see the : " irrefutable evidence proven with pure science and historical writings, along with philosophical arguments that make atheism absurd.". In the meantime I have a nice bridge in New York for sale.

[@sally9352]

@@tonydarcy1606 so if you are lacking belief in God, so what !! We see the evidence and we don't lack the belief in God. So by definition it's not that God doesn't exist it's that you personally want more evidence but again that's a personal problem so atheism can't be true because it's lacking in all senses.

[@tsarnicholasii274]

@@tonydarcy1606 New Atheism is most definitely a religion. And the definition of atheism differs from dictionary to dictionary, certainly in this case we’re referring to those like Dawkins who argue that God absolutely does not exist

[@arianagrandaremix8858]

@@tsarnicholasii274 if u have read even a single page of dwarkings books u would know that he never claimed that god absolutely does not exist he rather implies it's highly improbable as the existence of any supernatural especially in terms of evidence lol

[@arianagrandaremix8858]

@@sally9352 i fail to see rationality in ur periss and conclusion 1- u assumed that god has evidence and we both know he has nil 2-u asserted that god exists either way and we don't have sufficient evidence when in reality god is improbable and in terms of evidence does not exists and i don't see how u concluded he exists either way 3-u asserted that athiesm lacks all senses when in reality it's a logical position of denying big claims backed with nothing substantiated very much like ur argument lol

[@peterkalafut9793]

May you do a transcript or subtitles please? I would like to do a translate to slovak and czech language. We have to spread this ideas.

[@izbavynasotlukavago]

Dawkins really epitomizes the science industry.

[@izbavynasotlukavago]

@Charlie The scientific method is a good thing. But the science industry doesn't let observation get in the way of tradition.

[@izbavynasotlukavago]

@Charlie Exactly. There's too much at stake. Careers, position, prestige, money...and the credibility of the whole entrenched bureaucracy and its patrimony. Watch Robert Sungenis's "Einstein: The Closet Geocentrist". It's free on youtube. kzbin.info/www/bejne/nnymgGCKmrt4na8 (and don't criticize it without watching. That would be hidebound behavior;)

[@izbavynasotlukavago]

@Charlie I was being a bit facetious, pointing out that the science community is guilty of precisely what they accuse the Church of. But the Church (i.e.Catholicism) has always always encouraged science, built the universities, provided the means, never fearful of it. Aquinas, Albert Magnus, Augustine, et al said the same thing that Aristotle, Plato and the Greeks said; that the existence of God didn't require faith, only a rational mind. On the other hand, the resurrection, the trinity, the two natures of Christ, the incarnation, etc. are revealed truths, requiring faith. Tradition (with a capital T) along with scripture, is called the Deposit of Faith, and is all of the revelation received by the Church from Christ and through the Apostles, protected against heresies by the Church's magisterium by means of infallible definitions. "t"radition with a lower case t is local and universal immemorial custom, either concerning faith and morals, or other things. Tradition with capital T has never been refuted by objective, empirical science, and as Catholics, we have no fear that it will ever be. Lower case traditional views, such as geocentrism and de-evolution, have been changed by science, but now it looks like science may not have been objective with its observations, after all, in its rush to overturn reason and disprove the existence of God. So there you have it.

[@izbavynasotlukavago]

@Charlie Yes of course i believe those things. But the sun and the earth don't exist independent of the rest of the universe. Its obvious you haven't yet grasped the subject. You're on your own.

[@medicorene]

The thumbnail alone was worth a like and comment.

[@coda-man8509]

My mind imploded with all those logical reasoning arguments. Probably was a bad idea to watch it at 1.5x speed right after I woke up.

[@ryanalving3785]

Nah, it's good for you. Come back to the ideas later, you'll find them easier to hold in your mind. The mind needs a workout same as the body.

[@g4p5l6]

Well said, well stated.

[@andrewvillalobos5686]

There is a typo at 2:48.

[@Crandaddy81]

Coming from a theist who is well versed in Aquinas, this is very well done! All these Dawkins-esque straw men arguments that some atheists like to churn out contra Aquinas make me want to repeatedly slam my face into a brick wall; they really do fail to understand his arguments at even a basic level! Now that said, I must quibble that I’m not sure that a gravitating body, such as the Earth, is a good example to use when discussing essentially-ordered causal series _en_ _route_ to an uncaused cause. This is because it seems to me that it may just be in the nature of massive bodies to exert gravitational fields - i.e., there seems to be nothing between the gravitating body and the uncaused cause that we could invoke. I will say, however, that no gravitating body of any sort, nor any other contingent being whatever, seems to be able to account for its own existence. For us to satisfactorily account for contingent being, we must ultimately invoke necessary being - and this, as St. Thomas would say, all men call God.

[@kengchen2961]

This is what Richard Dawkins said in his god delusion: All three of these arguments rely upon the idea of a regress and invoke God to terminate it. They make the entirely unwarranted assumption that God himself is immune to the regress. chapter 3 Thomas Aquinas Proofs

[@JamesRichardWiley]

Thomas believed that human thought and witness testimony written down constituted evidence for the existence of an immortal Hebrew god that was beyond human comprehension. As a theologian defending his beloved Church Dogma He never considered the infinite eternal Cosmos that formed our local universe as evidence for doubt in his creationist arguments and thus avoided persecution from the Church authorities who examined his ideas.

[@turtwigking2204]

Big THANK YOU, Matt, really, I have been wondering about those Tomistic proofs lately and you just busted right through them with such clarity and precision... beautiful mind, beautiful soul! Thank God He spoke through you in that particular way, may He abundantly bless you and precede all your work with His grace :D

[@IasonIsrael]

God is holy, and His existence is one matter that determines where people spend an eternity. "They said to the mountains and rocks, 'Fall on us and hide us from the face of Him who is seated on the throne, and from the wrath of the Lamb!'" Rev 6:16 It is not a lighthearted debate, as if a mere arena to prove a superior intellect, like the thumbnail for this video suggests. That said, the information in the video was really helpful and I'm glad for it.

[@mtmoonan]

It's All Straw "Everything I have written is straw" --Thomas Aquinas It's not about thought!

[@AH-zd5ge]

omgosh can i get copy of the animations please! i want as my dektop

[@derrickcarruthers4203]

Absolutely brilliant 👏

[@jaredlopez5991]

Great thumbnail!

[@timrichardson4018]

Some of these distinctions are just matters of linguistics. All of our arguments speak of God as if God is a thing, a discrete being. To have a subject of speech at all requires this. There is no way to speak of God as the subject of a sentence without incidentally suggesting the idea that God is a thing. It's an unfortunate limitation to language. But the whole point of Thomas's arguments is to attempt to show that this is precisely what God is NOT. God is not a thing. God is nothing. God is IS. God is not a being; God is BEING. I like how Tillich put it. God is the ground of all being.

[@KurffyOriginal]

I like the street fighter refference