St. Thomas Aquinas' Favorite Argument for the Existence of God (Aquinas 101)

@ThomisticInstitute Жыл бұрын

We've heard which argument for the existence of God was St. Thomas' favorite; which one is yours? Let us know in the comments below! And, to view the rest of the videos in this new series, click on this link! → kzbin.info/www/bejne/pn26gZmtocR-oJY

@user-pj7sq7ce1f Жыл бұрын

Αctually no philosophical scholastic theology can know anything about The Deity,All that is from just human made up thoughts.They can be correct can be false. The only way to know that there is God is only by the experience of Theosis Gloryfication ,such as 2 Peter 1:16_18

@jsaff4391 Жыл бұрын

The third to me is probably my favorite. I think it speaks more directly to the mind of the present age.

@Enigmatic_philosopher 10 ай бұрын

Here is a philosophical critique of the arguments presented in the video "St. Thomas Aquinas' Favorite Argument for the Existence of God (Aquinas 101)": This video provides an explanation of Thomas Aquinas' First Way argument, which argues for a Prime Mover or Unmoved Mover of all motion in the universe. Some potential issues and critiques include: - The argument relies on a conception of motion that may not apply at the quantum level. If motion can occur spontaneously in the quantum realm, this could undermine the premise of an initial mover being required. - Showing the necessity of an unmoved mover only establishes a deistic god, not necessarily the personal, triune God of Christianity. More would need to be argued to bridge this conceptual gap. - The change/motion in the universe could potentially be explained by an infinite regress or circular motion models without requiring an unmoved mover. Aquinas dismisses these possibilities too hastily without fully engaging counterarguments. - By defining God as purely actual with no potentiality, the argument risks presenting an immutable, largely passive deity. A more developed doctrine of divine simplicity, act/potency, and ongoing creation is needed. - The video presents the argument at an introductory level without sufficient historical or contemporary philosophical context. It does not address modern critiques or alternative perspectives. While offering a clear initial explanation, the video presents the argument as a conclusive proof but does not fully engage with serious philosophical challenges. A more robust analysis would be needed to thoroughly argue Aquinas' position against modern objections.

@Enigmatic_philosopher 10 ай бұрын

Here is an analysis of potential problems with Aquinas' First Way argument using symbolic logic and syllogisms: P1) All motion/change in the universe requires a prior mover/changer. P2) An actual infinite series of prior movers is impossible. C1) Therefore, there must be an unmoved/unchanging first mover. (P1, P2) P3) An unmoved/unchanging first mover only establishes a deistic "watchmaker" god, not the God of classical theism. C2) Therefore, the argument only proves the existence of a deistic god. (C1, P3) P4) It is possible that motion can occur without a prior mover at the quantum level. P5) An infinite regress or circular causal series could potentially explain motion without a first mover. C3) Therefore, premises P1 and P2 are not necessarily true. (P4, P5) C4) If P1 or P2 are false, the conclusion C1 does not necessarily follow. (C3) C5) Therefore, the argument is invalid and does not decisively prove even a deistic god. (C2, C4) In propositional logic: (P1 & P2 & ~C3) → C1 C1 & P3 → C2 C3 → ~C1 ~C1 → ~C2 ~C2 → ~C5 This tries to symbolize how alternative interpretations of motion/causality and the disputability of premises P1 and P2 undermine the argument's progression from first mover to God and result in an invalid proof.

@rufinus_O 9 ай бұрын

The fifth one is more self evident, the order of the universe, intelligence design. Definitely my favorite

@tedgrant2 Жыл бұрын

My wife is not speaking to me at the moment and I am sure there is a cause. It's comforting to know that God started it.

@alecfoster4413 9 ай бұрын

LOL!

@askal31 Ай бұрын

I get the jest. gently saying you have to see a good priest since that comes to mind.

@tedgrant2 Ай бұрын

@@askal31 I don't trust priests. They lie to small children whenever they get the chance. And amazingly, they get paid to do it !

@jimklein6958 Жыл бұрын

I feel DIZZY anytime I have tried to study Aquinas so therefore I stop studying Aquinas because there is no chance I’ll understand it. BIG THANKS for your ability to get me to understand Aquinas!!

@ThomisticInstitute Жыл бұрын

We're thrilled to hear that the videos are helpful! Thanks for taking the time to let us know, and may the Lord bless you!

@notdonaldst Жыл бұрын

For now I’m just using The Thomistic Institute as my Cliff Notes and skipping the original author. I’m learning plenty about St. Thomas. 😂

@jonashassel5404 Жыл бұрын

THE GOSPEL OF THE WORD OF ALMIGHTY GOD "is a great last day that He will save man" (the Coming of God Incarnate in the Last Days Brought an End to the Age of Grace. He Came Mainly to Speak His Words, to Use Words to Make Man Perfect, to Enlighten and Illuminate and Remove the place of the elusive God within the human Heart) Almighty God said KNOWING GOD'S WORK in THESE TIMES, in MOST PART, is KNOWING GOD INCARNATED in the LAST DAYS, WHAT HIS MAIN MINISTRY IS, and WHAT HIS PURPOSE to DO ON EARTH. I MENTIONED to My THOSE WHO SAID THAT GOD HAS COME TO EARTH (in the last days) TO GIVE AN EXAMPLE BEFORE LEAVING. ☀️ HOW DOES GOD SHOW this EXAMPLE? THROUGH SPEECH, THROUGH DOING and SPEAKING THROUGHOUT the LAND. This is the WORK of GOD in the LAST DAYS; He ONLY SPEAKS so that the EARTH BECOME A WORLD of WORDS, so that EVERY MAN MAY BE PROVIDED and ENLIGHTENED by HIS WORD, and SO that the SPIRIT of MAN AWAKES and he is CLEAR ABOUT the VISIONS. In the LAST DAYS, GOD INCARNATE CAME TO EARTH MAINLY TO SHARE HIS WORDS. 🙏 WHEN JESUS CAME He SPREADED the GOSPEL of the KINGDOM of HEAVEN, and FULFILLED the WORK of REDEMPTION THROUGH CRUCIFIXION. He ENDED the AGE of the LAW, and BROUGHT ALL the OLD THINGS to NOTHING. The COMING of JESUS ENDED the AGE of LAW and USED the AGE of GRACE. ☀️ The COMING of GOD INCARNATE in the LAST DAYS BRINGS the END to the AGE of GRACE. 🙏 He CAME MAINLY to SPEAK His WORDS, to USE WORDS to MAKE MAN PERFECT, to ILLUMINATE and ILLUMINATE MAN, and to REMOVE THE PLACE of DARK GOD WITHIN MAN'S HEART. ☀️ This was NOT the STAGE of WORK JESUS DID WHEN He CAME. WHEN JESUS CAME, He PERFORMED many MIRACLES, He HEALED and CAST OUT DEMONS, and He PERFORMED the REDEMPTION WORK of CRUCIFIXION. ☀️ AS A RESULT of THIS, IN HIS UNDERSTANDINGS, MAN BELIEVED that GOD SHOULD BE LIKE this. 😪 Because WHEN JESUS CAME, He DID NOT REMOVE the IMAGE of the DARK GOD from PEOPLE'S HEARTS; WHEN He CAME, He was CRUCIFIED, He HEALED and CAST OUT DEMONS, and He SPREADED the GOSPEL of the KINGDOM of HEAVEN. ON the ONE HAND, the INCARNATION of GOD in the TIME of the LAST DAYS REMOVED the PLACE of the OBSCURE GOD in HUMAN INTELLIGENCES, that is WHY the IMAGE of the OBSCURE GOD is NO LONGER in the HEARTS of MAN. ☀️ THROUGH His ACTUAL WORDS and ACTUAL ACTIONS, His ACTIONS THROUGHOUT the EARTH, and the unique real and normal work He accomplished with man, He CAUSES MAN TO COMPLETELY UNDERSTAND the REALITY of GOD, and REMOVES the LOCATION of the OBSCURE GOD in the HUMAN HEART. On the other hand, GOD USES the WORDS SPOKE BY His FLESH to MAKE MAN COMPLETE, and to FULFILL THINGS. THIS is the WORK of GOD that He WILL FULFILL in the LAST DAYS. 🙏 What you should know: 1. God's work is not supernatural, and you should not harbor notions about it. 2. You must understand the main work that will be accomplished by the coming of God incarnate at this time. 💐 He DID NOT COME to HEALING, or CAST OUT DEMONS, or to SHOW MIRACLES, and He DID NOT COME to SPREAD the GOSPEL of REPENTANCE, or WILLING the MAN of REDEMPTION. ☀️ That is BECAUSE JESUS HAS ALREADY ACCOMPLISHED that WORK, and GOD does NOT REPEAT the SAME WORK. 🙏 IN the PRESENT, GOD HAS COME to BRING the AGE of GRACE to an END and REMOVE ALL the HABITS of the AGE of GRACE. PRACTICAL GOD CAME TO SHOW THAT HE IS REAL. 💐🙏 When Jesus came, He spoke few words, first of all, He showed miracles, showed signs and wonders, and healed and cast out demons, otherwise, He spoke prophecies to make people believe , and to help people see that He is truly God, and a gentle God who does not look at anyone. In the end, He completed the work of the crucifixion. GOD CURRENTLY DOES NOT SHOW SIGNS and WONDERS, NOR DOES He HEAL and CAST OUT DEMONS. When JESUS CAME, the WORK He DID REPRESENTED a PART of GOD, BUT IN the PRESENT TIME GOD CAME to PERFORM the STAGE of WORK that was APPROPRIATE, BECAUSE GOD DOES NOT REPEATE the SAME WORK; He is the GOD who is ALWAYS NEW and NEVER OLD, and BECAUSE ALL YOU SEE NOW are the WORDS and WORKS of A PRACTICAL GOD. ☀️🙏 From "The WORD Appears in the Flesh". holy book Fulfilled in "In the beginning He was the Word, the Word was with God, and the Word was God" (John 1:1). ... and "When I looked up, someone handed me a book wrapped in a scroll. I opened it and I read on both sides the prayers, lamentations, and curses." (Ezekiel 2:9-10). ... "His garment was stained with blood. He was called the "Word of God" (Rev. 19:13). The kingdom He brought down and set up in the highest in the sky so that it can occupy His creation in the universe and engrave on it the entirety of His Holy name "THE CHURCH OF ALMIGHTY GOD" 💐 fulfillment of (Mat, 16:18) "And I say as for you, you are Peter, on top of this rock I will build my Church, that even the power of death will not be able to overcome it.". ... and "The Letter to the Church in Philadelphia" (Rev. 3:7-13). ... And fulfillment of "The New Jerusalem" 💫 (Rev. 21:10) "The Spirit enveloped me, and the angel led me to the top of a very high mountain. He showed Me Jerusalem, the Holy City, which coming down from heaven from God." (1 Peter 4:17) "For the time has come in the house of God for the beginning of judgment in the house of God." 💌Calling and leading the sheep of God to His glorious Throne "THE CHURCH OF ALMIGHTY GOD"💐 to submit again to His authority so that He will continue to teach, guide and protect even in plague, famine and wild animals will not be moved by it and completely win this final battle with the big red dragon! "They say with a loud voice, "Salvation comes from the Lamb, and from our God who sits on the Throne!" (Rev. 7:10). ... "But you are a chosen race, a company of royal priests, a a nation dedicated to God, a people belonging to God to declare the wonderful things he has done. He is the one who calls you out of darkness into wonderful light." (1 Peter 2:9). ... and fulfillment that it will be built above the sky/KZbin in (Isaiah 2:2) "In the Last Day, the mountain on which Jehovah's temple stands will stand out above all the mountains. All nations will flock there. " 📨

@gsus4eternity112 Жыл бұрын

Brilliant and well executed video that made it easier for me to grasp St Thomas Aquinas. Thanks.

@NaruIchiLuffy Жыл бұрын

I think it is a struggle for most of us modern men because very few of us receive the sort of training or education required prior to engaging with logical arguments, namely a classical liberal arts education that trains us in the arts of grammar, logic (organon), rhetoric, arithmetic, music, geometry, and astronomy. Especially, the basic foundations of grammar and of logic (as taught by Aristotle in his organon). And also because these are difficult subjects that require lengthy and arduous study.

@therese_paula Жыл бұрын

"If a dominican causes his audience to fall asleep with his boring philosophy lecture and falling asleep causes an audience member to be late for his next class, 'falling asleep' is both 'mover' and 'moved'...." Have I said I love the Dominican humour? 😁

@ThomisticInstitute Жыл бұрын

We're happy you enjoyed it! Thanks so much for taking the time to watch and comment, and may the Lord bless you!

@chocolateneko9912 Жыл бұрын

@@ThomisticInstitute God bless you for the super duper spectacular videos you make! You are to be commended for the value these videos have. ☦️

@noerodriguez4769 Жыл бұрын

I like it Greetings from Mexico 🙏🏽!!

@blessedvirginmaryisqueen8448 11 ай бұрын

Except... these ain't boring! So, it's a hypothetical impossibility! ;)

@alecfoster4413 9 ай бұрын

Dominican humor? I'm unmoved. (Heh...heh-heh)

@JohnR.T.B. Жыл бұрын

Existence cannot be necessitated by changes, but existence is simply something rather than nothing or non-existence by definition, while changes (causality) imply internal activities or mechanism within a certain existence. Since if there is no existence at all, then there cannot be any change; hence since there are changes, existence does exist. However, since changes do not create existence but require existence, hence existence itself is not caused by nature but must be eternally present, and hence there exists "the unmoved mover" or "the unchanged cause of change" that causes all changes.

@phetmoz Жыл бұрын

Great breakdown

@shezyam460 7 ай бұрын

yeah this is a concise way of putting it

@matswessling6600 21 күн бұрын

😂 "existence exist".. you have no idea what you talk about.

@JohnR.T.B. 20 күн бұрын

@@matswessling6600 no, I do

@matswessling6600 20 күн бұрын

@@JohnR.T.B. no you dont. existence is an axiom: its a tautology: "existence" is just a way to say that something is. thus there is never a need to deduce existence of existence,

@Shevock Жыл бұрын

It is my favorite. The big bang was itself a reaction. Re-actions are acted upon and cannot be the first point. The unmoved mover.

@paulgibbons2320 4 ай бұрын

They can never get away from the chicken and egg paradox.

@emmanuelkolbila529 Күн бұрын

action = reaction, there was an action

@josephezekielsegismar Жыл бұрын

I've just downloaded all your videos and I listen to all your talks everyday. Everyday time I listen to your talks my soul desires to know more God and communion with him.

@chrystianrevelles Жыл бұрын

I want to download them as well, how you did it?

@roisinpatriciagaffney4087 10 ай бұрын

Thank you, Father Reese. These lessons are essential. Almighty God bless you.

@ThomisticInstitute 10 ай бұрын

We're glad the videos are helpful! Thanks for taking the time to watch and comment. May the Lord bless you!

@hasieretxaparekareaga3993 3 ай бұрын

Very interesting video! I grew up in a syncretic community (very strong mixture of Pagan and Catholic), so these teachings have always been fascinating to me because they follow a really unique logic. Saint Thomas was so clever and so ahead of his time, to create such a solid logical argument for the existence of God and, paradoxically, put the foundations for his argument on a palpable, "earthly" bedrock that every human can relate to. Saint Thomas was a true Christian thinker because he was NOT a gatekeeper. Thank you very much for making these teachings accessible and easy to understand. Have a blessed day!

@xrisc131 Жыл бұрын

I can’t believe you’ve got me excited to see the next video!

@ThomisticInstitute Жыл бұрын

We're excited for you to see it, too! Thanks for watching, and may the Lord bless you!

@usernamebot8021 Жыл бұрын

Great work. Thank you.

@seanc1410 Жыл бұрын

Awesome work on the video!

@ThomisticInstitute Жыл бұрын

Thank you for your kind words, and thanks for watching! May the Lord bless you!

@gualula8641 Жыл бұрын

God bless you Father 🙏🏽

@davysmom1 Жыл бұрын

Thank you for a great clip. A great resource to refer to where there is much "palpable" intelligence!

@ThomisticInstitute Жыл бұрын

Our pleasure! Thanks for watching, and may the Lord bless you!

@aertonpaulosenacesarsena5348 Жыл бұрын

Santo Tomaz de Aquino," Rogai por nós!'👏👏🇧🇷🇧🇷🇧🇷

@jonashassel5404 Жыл бұрын

THE GOSPEL OF THE WORD OF ALMIGHTY GOD "is a great last day that He will save man" (the Coming of God Incarnate in the Last Days Brought an End to the Age of Grace. He Came Mainly to Speak His Words, to Use Words to Make Man Perfect, to Enlighten and Illuminate and Remove the place of the elusive God within the human Heart) Almighty God said KNOWING GOD'S WORK in THESE TIMES, in MOST PART, is KNOWING GOD INCARNATED in the LAST DAYS, WHAT HIS MAIN MINISTRY IS, and WHAT HIS PURPOSE to DO ON EARTH. I MENTIONED to My THOSE WHO SAID THAT GOD HAS COME TO EARTH (in the last days) TO GIVE AN EXAMPLE BEFORE LEAVING. ☀️ HOW DOES GOD SHOW this EXAMPLE? THROUGH SPEECH, THROUGH DOING and SPEAKING THROUGHOUT the LAND. This is the WORK of GOD in the LAST DAYS; He ONLY SPEAKS so that the EARTH BECOME A WORLD of WORDS, so that EVERY MAN MAY BE PROVIDED and ENLIGHTENED by HIS WORD, and SO that the SPIRIT of MAN AWAKES and he is CLEAR ABOUT the VISIONS. In the LAST DAYS, GOD INCARNATE CAME TO EARTH MAINLY TO SHARE HIS WORDS. 🙏 WHEN JESUS CAME He SPREADED the GOSPEL of the KINGDOM of HEAVEN, and FULFILLED the WORK of REDEMPTION THROUGH CRUCIFIXION. He ENDED the AGE of the LAW, and BROUGHT ALL the OLD THINGS to NOTHING. The COMING of JESUS ENDED the AGE of LAW and USED the AGE of GRACE. ☀️ The COMING of GOD INCARNATE in the LAST DAYS BRINGS the END to the AGE of GRACE. 🙏 He CAME MAINLY to SPEAK His WORDS, to USE WORDS to MAKE MAN PERFECT, to ILLUMINATE and ILLUMINATE MAN, and to REMOVE THE PLACE of DARK GOD WITHIN MAN'S HEART. ☀️ This was NOT the STAGE of WORK JESUS DID WHEN He CAME. WHEN JESUS CAME, He PERFORMED many MIRACLES, He HEALED and CAST OUT DEMONS, and He PERFORMED the REDEMPTION WORK of CRUCIFIXION. ☀️ AS A RESULT of THIS, IN HIS UNDERSTANDINGS, MAN BELIEVED that GOD SHOULD BE LIKE this. 😪 Because WHEN JESUS CAME, He DID NOT REMOVE the IMAGE of the DARK GOD from PEOPLE'S HEARTS; WHEN He CAME, He was CRUCIFIED, He HEALED and CAST OUT DEMONS, and He SPREADED the GOSPEL of the KINGDOM of HEAVEN. ON the ONE HAND, the INCARNATION of GOD in the TIME of the LAST DAYS REMOVED the PLACE of the OBSCURE GOD in HUMAN INTELLIGENCES, that is WHY the IMAGE of the OBSCURE GOD is NO LONGER in the HEARTS of MAN. ☀️ THROUGH His ACTUAL WORDS and ACTUAL ACTIONS, His ACTIONS THROUGHOUT the EARTH, and the unique real and normal work He accomplished with man, He CAUSES MAN TO COMPLETELY UNDERSTAND the REALITY of GOD, and REMOVES the LOCATION of the OBSCURE GOD in the HUMAN HEART. On the other hand, GOD USES the WORDS SPOKE BY His FLESH to MAKE MAN COMPLETE, and to FULFILL THINGS. THIS is the WORK of GOD that He WILL FULFILL in the LAST DAYS. 🙏 What you should know: 1. God's work is not supernatural, and you should not harbor notions about it. 2. You must understand the main work that will be accomplished by the coming of God incarnate at this time. 💐 He DID NOT COME to HEALING, or CAST OUT DEMONS, or to SHOW MIRACLES, and He DID NOT COME to SPREAD the GOSPEL of REPENTANCE, or WILLING the MAN of REDEMPTION. ☀️ That is BECAUSE JESUS HAS ALREADY ACCOMPLISHED that WORK, and GOD does NOT REPEAT the SAME WORK. 🙏 IN the PRESENT, GOD HAS COME to BRING the AGE of GRACE to an END and REMOVE ALL the HABITS of the AGE of GRACE. PRACTICAL GOD CAME TO SHOW THAT HE IS REAL. 💐🙏 When Jesus came, He spoke few words, first of all, He showed miracles, showed signs and wonders, and healed and cast out demons, otherwise, He spoke prophecies to make people believe , and to help people see that He is truly God, and a gentle God who does not look at anyone. In the end, He completed the work of the crucifixion. GOD CURRENTLY DOES NOT SHOW SIGNS and WONDERS, NOR DOES He HEAL and CAST OUT DEMONS. When JESUS CAME, the WORK He DID REPRESENTED a PART of GOD, BUT IN the PRESENT TIME GOD CAME to PERFORM the STAGE of WORK that was APPROPRIATE, BECAUSE GOD DOES NOT REPEATE the SAME WORK; He is the GOD who is ALWAYS NEW and NEVER OLD, and BECAUSE ALL YOU SEE NOW are the WORDS and WORKS of A PRACTICAL GOD. ☀️🙏 From "The WORD Appears in the Flesh". holy book Fulfilled in "In the beginning He was the Word, the Word was with God, and the Word was God" (John 1:1). ... and "When I looked up, someone handed me a book wrapped in a scroll. I opened it and I read on both sides the prayers, lamentations, and curses." (Ezekiel 2:9-10). ... "His garment was stained with blood. He was called the "Word of God" (Rev. 19:13). The kingdom He brought down and set up in the highest in the sky so that it can occupy His creation in the universe and engrave on it the entirety of His Holy name "THE CHURCH OF ALMIGHTY GOD" 💐 fulfillment of (Mat, 16:18) "And I say as for you, you are Peter, on top of this rock I will build my Church, that even the power of death will not be able to overcome it.". ... and "The Letter to the Church in Philadelphia" (Rev. 3:7-13). ... And fulfillment of "The New Jerusalem" 💫 (Rev. 21:10) "The Spirit enveloped me, and the angel led me to the top of a very high mountain. He showed Me Jerusalem, the Holy City, which coming down from heaven from God." (1 Peter 4:17) "For the time has come in the house of God for the beginning of judgment in the house of God." 💌Calling and leading the sheep of God to His glorious Throne "THE CHURCH OF ALMIGHTY GOD"💐 to submit again to His authority so that He will continue to teach, guide and protect even in plague, famine and wild animals will not be moved by it and completely win this final battle with the big red dragon! "They say with a loud voice, "Salvation comes from the Lamb, and from our God who sits on the Throne!" (Rev. 7:10). ... "But you are a chosen race, a company of royal priests, a a nation dedicated to God, a people belonging to God to declare the wonderful things he has done. He is the one who calls you out of darkness into wonderful light." (1 Peter 2:9). ... and fulfillment that it will be built above the sky/KZbin in (Isaiah 2:2) "In the Last Day, the mountain on which Jehovah's temple stands will stand out above all the mountains. All nations will flock there. " 📨

@rickromney2150 Жыл бұрын

Looking forward to the next video.

@ThomisticInstitute Жыл бұрын

We hope you enjoy it! Thanks for taking the time to watch and comment, and may the Lord bless you!

@michaelocampo1558 Жыл бұрын

thanks for this lecture. I was moved and I am changed :)

@ThomisticInstitute Жыл бұрын

Our pleasure! Thanks for watching, and may the Lord bless you!

@dennis1662 11 ай бұрын

Excellent intro. Really helpful for beginners like myself

@ThomisticInstitute 11 ай бұрын

We're so glad it was helpful! Thanks for taking the time to watch and comment. May the Lord bless you!

@robertoalvarez6006 Жыл бұрын

amazing me the time from Thomas Aquinas wrote his written and his profound love for GOD.

@northeastchristianapologet1133 Жыл бұрын

Love this channel. They do such a good job. This is also my favorite argument.

@ThomisticInstitute Жыл бұрын

Thanks so much for your kind words, and thanks for watching! May the Lord bless you!

@pauljordan4452 Жыл бұрын

I want to invite everybody to watch trees blowing in the wind. Trees grow, and therefore this brilliantly and calmly illustrates God as first cause and first mover.

@DistributistHound Жыл бұрын

First video in a while that was super clear to me that I understood it the first time I watched it. Thank you very much! God Bless

@ThomisticInstitute Жыл бұрын

We're glad the video was helpful! Thanks for watching, and may the Lord bless you!

@StephenMBauer Жыл бұрын

This is clear and well comunicated

@jonashassel5404 Жыл бұрын

THE GOSPEL OF THE WORD OF ALMIGHTY GOD "is a great last day that He will save man" (the Coming of God Incarnate in the Last Days Brought an End to the Age of Grace. He Came Mainly to Speak His Words, to Use Words to Make Man Perfect, to Enlighten and Illuminate and Remove the place of the elusive God within the human Heart) Almighty God said KNOWING GOD'S WORK in THESE TIMES, in MOST PART, is KNOWING GOD INCARNATED in the LAST DAYS, WHAT HIS MAIN MINISTRY IS, and WHAT HIS PURPOSE to DO ON EARTH. I MENTIONED to My THOSE WHO SAID THAT GOD HAS COME TO EARTH (in the last days) TO GIVE AN EXAMPLE BEFORE LEAVING. ☀️ HOW DOES GOD SHOW this EXAMPLE? THROUGH SPEECH, THROUGH DOING and SPEAKING THROUGHOUT the LAND. This is the WORK of GOD in the LAST DAYS; He ONLY SPEAKS so that the EARTH BECOME A WORLD of WORDS, so that EVERY MAN MAY BE PROVIDED and ENLIGHTENED by HIS WORD, and SO that the SPIRIT of MAN AWAKES and he is CLEAR ABOUT the VISIONS. In the LAST DAYS, GOD INCARNATE CAME TO EARTH MAINLY TO SHARE HIS WORDS. 🙏 WHEN JESUS CAME He SPREADED the GOSPEL of the KINGDOM of HEAVEN, and FULFILLED the WORK of REDEMPTION THROUGH CRUCIFIXION. He ENDED the AGE of the LAW, and BROUGHT ALL the OLD THINGS to NOTHING. The COMING of JESUS ENDED the AGE of LAW and USED the AGE of GRACE. ☀️ The COMING of GOD INCARNATE in the LAST DAYS BRINGS the END to the AGE of GRACE. 🙏 He CAME MAINLY to SPEAK His WORDS, to USE WORDS to MAKE MAN PERFECT, to ILLUMINATE and ILLUMINATE MAN, and to REMOVE THE PLACE of DARK GOD WITHIN MAN'S HEART. ☀️ This was NOT the STAGE of WORK JESUS DID WHEN He CAME. WHEN JESUS CAME, He PERFORMED many MIRACLES, He HEALED and CAST OUT DEMONS, and He PERFORMED the REDEMPTION WORK of CRUCIFIXION. ☀️ AS A RESULT of THIS, IN HIS UNDERSTANDINGS, MAN BELIEVED that GOD SHOULD BE LIKE this. 😪 Because WHEN JESUS CAME, He DID NOT REMOVE the IMAGE of the DARK GOD from PEOPLE'S HEARTS; WHEN He CAME, He was CRUCIFIED, He HEALED and CAST OUT DEMONS, and He SPREADED the GOSPEL of the KINGDOM of HEAVEN. ON the ONE HAND, the INCARNATION of GOD in the TIME of the LAST DAYS REMOVED the PLACE of the OBSCURE GOD in HUMAN INTELLIGENCES, that is WHY the IMAGE of the OBSCURE GOD is NO LONGER in the HEARTS of MAN. ☀️ THROUGH His ACTUAL WORDS and ACTUAL ACTIONS, His ACTIONS THROUGHOUT the EARTH, and the unique real and normal work He accomplished with man, He CAUSES MAN TO COMPLETELY UNDERSTAND the REALITY of GOD, and REMOVES the LOCATION of the OBSCURE GOD in the HUMAN HEART. On the other hand, GOD USES the WORDS SPOKE BY His FLESH to MAKE MAN COMPLETE, and to FULFILL THINGS. THIS is the WORK of GOD that He WILL FULFILL in the LAST DAYS. 🙏 What you should know: 1. God's work is not supernatural, and you should not harbor notions about it. 2. You must understand the main work that will be accomplished by the coming of God incarnate at this time. 💐 He DID NOT COME to HEALING, or CAST OUT DEMONS, or to SHOW MIRACLES, and He DID NOT COME to SPREAD the GOSPEL of REPENTANCE, or WILLING the MAN of REDEMPTION. ☀️ That is BECAUSE JESUS HAS ALREADY ACCOMPLISHED that WORK, and GOD does NOT REPEAT the SAME WORK. 🙏 IN the PRESENT, GOD HAS COME to BRING the AGE of GRACE to an END and REMOVE ALL the HABITS of the AGE of GRACE. PRACTICAL GOD CAME TO SHOW THAT HE IS REAL. 💐🙏 When Jesus came, He spoke few words, first of all, He showed miracles, showed signs and wonders, and healed and cast out demons, otherwise, He spoke prophecies to make people believe , and to help people see that He is truly God, and a gentle God who does not look at anyone. In the end, He completed the work of the crucifixion. GOD CURRENTLY DOES NOT SHOW SIGNS and WONDERS, NOR DOES He HEAL and CAST OUT DEMONS. When JESUS CAME, the WORK He DID REPRESENTED a PART of GOD, BUT IN the PRESENT TIME GOD CAME to PERFORM the STAGE of WORK that was APPROPRIATE, BECAUSE GOD DOES NOT REPEATE the SAME WORK; He is the GOD who is ALWAYS NEW and NEVER OLD, and BECAUSE ALL YOU SEE NOW are the WORDS and WORKS of A PRACTICAL GOD. ☀️🙏 From "The WORD Appears in the Flesh". holy book Fulfilled in "In the beginning He was the Word, the Word was with God, and the Word was God" (John 1:1). ... and "When I looked up, someone handed me a book wrapped in a scroll. I opened it and I read on both sides the prayers, lamentations, and curses." (Ezekiel 2:9-10). ... "His garment was stained with blood. He was called the "Word of God" (Rev. 19:13). The kingdom He brought down and set up in the highest in the sky so that it can occupy His creation in the universe and engrave on it the entirety of His Holy name "THE CHURCH OF ALMIGHTY GOD" 💐 fulfillment of (Mat, 16:18) "And I say as for you, you are Peter, on top of this rock I will build my Church, that even the power of death will not be able to overcome it.". ... and "The Letter to the Church in Philadelphia" (Rev. 3:7-13). ... And fulfillment of "The New Jerusalem" 💫 (Rev. 21:10) "The Spirit enveloped me, and the angel led me to the top of a very high mountain. He showed Me Jerusalem, the Holy City, which coming down from heaven from God." (1 Peter 4:17) "For the time has come in the house of God for the beginning of judgment in the house of God." 💌Calling and leading the sheep of God to His glorious Throne "THE CHURCH OF ALMIGHTY GOD"💐 to submit again to His authority so that He will continue to teach, guide and protect even in plague, famine and wild animals will not be moved by it and completely win this final battle with the big red dragon! "They say with a loud voice, "Salvation comes from the Lamb, and from our God who sits on the Throne!" (Rev. 7:10). ... "But you are a chosen race, a company of royal priests, a a nation dedicated to God, a people belonging to God to declare the wonderful things he has done. He is the one who calls you out of darkness into wonderful light." (1 Peter 2:9). ... and fulfillment that it will be built above the sky/KZbin in (Isaiah 2:2) "In the Last Day, the mountain on which Jehovah's temple stands will stand out above all the mountains. All nations will flock there. " 📨

@StephenMBauer Жыл бұрын

@@jonashassel5404 This is incoherent.

@Lerian_V Жыл бұрын

The second - first efficient cause - is my favorite.

@ThomisticInstitute Жыл бұрын

Glad to hear it! We'll have some videos on that coming out very soon, so make sure to subscribe and stay tuned. Thanks so much for taking the time to watch and comment, and may the Lord bless you!

@LifeCraftVideos Жыл бұрын

Excellent explanation!

@ThomisticInstitute Жыл бұрын

Thanks for watching and commenting! May the Lord bless you!

@joanl.7543 Жыл бұрын

Food for thought....

@RomanCatholicAspiringScholar Жыл бұрын

Great explanation as always, God bless.

@ThomisticInstitute Жыл бұрын

So glad to hear the video helped! Thanks for watching, and may the Lord bless you!

@RomanCatholicAspiringScholar Жыл бұрын

@@ThomisticInstitute God bless you too!

@tonyrouphael8780 3 ай бұрын

Love the video

@Harlow65965 Жыл бұрын

Very well presented! (and no, I did not fall asleep even for a second 😉) I love these bite sized videos breaking down the arguments of the great Doctor. I have to say though, whenever I hear those bells I stop what I’m doing and listen…well trained 🤔

@ThomisticInstitute Жыл бұрын

We're glad you enjoyed the video! Thanks for watching, and may the Lord bless you!

@jonashassel5404 Жыл бұрын

THE GOSPEL OF THE WORD OF ALMIGHTY GOD "is a great last day that He will save man" (the Coming of God Incarnate in the Last Days Brought an End to the Age of Grace. He Came Mainly to Speak His Words, to Use Words to Make Man Perfect, to Enlighten and Illuminate and Remove the place of the elusive God within the human Heart) Almighty God said KNOWING GOD'S WORK in THESE TIMES, in MOST PART, is KNOWING GOD INCARNATED in the LAST DAYS, WHAT HIS MAIN MINISTRY IS, and WHAT HIS PURPOSE to DO ON EARTH. I MENTIONED to My THOSE WHO SAID THAT GOD HAS COME TO EARTH (in the last days) TO GIVE AN EXAMPLE BEFORE LEAVING. ☀️ HOW DOES GOD SHOW this EXAMPLE? THROUGH SPEECH, THROUGH DOING and SPEAKING THROUGHOUT the LAND. This is the WORK of GOD in the LAST DAYS; He ONLY SPEAKS so that the EARTH BECOME A WORLD of WORDS, so that EVERY MAN MAY BE PROVIDED and ENLIGHTENED by HIS WORD, and SO that the SPIRIT of MAN AWAKES and he is CLEAR ABOUT the VISIONS. In the LAST DAYS, GOD INCARNATE CAME TO EARTH MAINLY TO SHARE HIS WORDS. 🙏 WHEN JESUS CAME He SPREADED the GOSPEL of the KINGDOM of HEAVEN, and FULFILLED the WORK of REDEMPTION THROUGH CRUCIFIXION. He ENDED the AGE of the LAW, and BROUGHT ALL the OLD THINGS to NOTHING. The COMING of JESUS ENDED the AGE of LAW and USED the AGE of GRACE. ☀️ The COMING of GOD INCARNATE in the LAST DAYS BRINGS the END to the AGE of GRACE. 🙏 He CAME MAINLY to SPEAK His WORDS, to USE WORDS to MAKE MAN PERFECT, to ILLUMINATE and ILLUMINATE MAN, and to REMOVE THE PLACE of DARK GOD WITHIN MAN'S HEART. ☀️ This was NOT the STAGE of WORK JESUS DID WHEN He CAME. WHEN JESUS CAME, He PERFORMED many MIRACLES, He HEALED and CAST OUT DEMONS, and He PERFORMED the REDEMPTION WORK of CRUCIFIXION. ☀️ AS A RESULT of THIS, IN HIS UNDERSTANDINGS, MAN BELIEVED that GOD SHOULD BE LIKE this. 😪 Because WHEN JESUS CAME, He DID NOT REMOVE the IMAGE of the DARK GOD from PEOPLE'S HEARTS; WHEN He CAME, He was CRUCIFIED, He HEALED and CAST OUT DEMONS, and He SPREADED the GOSPEL of the KINGDOM of HEAVEN. ON the ONE HAND, the INCARNATION of GOD in the TIME of the LAST DAYS REMOVED the PLACE of the OBSCURE GOD in HUMAN INTELLIGENCES, that is WHY the IMAGE of the OBSCURE GOD is NO LONGER in the HEARTS of MAN. ☀️ THROUGH His ACTUAL WORDS and ACTUAL ACTIONS, His ACTIONS THROUGHOUT the EARTH, and the unique real and normal work He accomplished with man, He CAUSES MAN TO COMPLETELY UNDERSTAND the REALITY of GOD, and REMOVES the LOCATION of the OBSCURE GOD in the HUMAN HEART. On the other hand, GOD USES the WORDS SPOKE BY His FLESH to MAKE MAN COMPLETE, and to FULFILL THINGS. THIS is the WORK of GOD that He WILL FULFILL in the LAST DAYS. 🙏 What you should know: 1. God's work is not supernatural, and you should not harbor notions about it. 2. You must understand the main work that will be accomplished by the coming of God incarnate at this time. 💐 He DID NOT COME to HEALING, or CAST OUT DEMONS, or to SHOW MIRACLES, and He DID NOT COME to SPREAD the GOSPEL of REPENTANCE, or WILLING the MAN of REDEMPTION. ☀️ That is BECAUSE JESUS HAS ALREADY ACCOMPLISHED that WORK, and GOD does NOT REPEAT the SAME WORK. 🙏 IN the PRESENT, GOD HAS COME to BRING the AGE of GRACE to an END and REMOVE ALL the HABITS of the AGE of GRACE. PRACTICAL GOD CAME TO SHOW THAT HE IS REAL. 💐🙏 When Jesus came, He spoke few words, first of all, He showed miracles, showed signs and wonders, and healed and cast out demons, otherwise, He spoke prophecies to make people believe , and to help people see that He is truly God, and a gentle God who does not look at anyone. In the end, He completed the work of the crucifixion. GOD CURRENTLY DOES NOT SHOW SIGNS and WONDERS, NOR DOES He HEAL and CAST OUT DEMONS. When JESUS CAME, the WORK He DID REPRESENTED a PART of GOD, BUT IN the PRESENT TIME GOD CAME to PERFORM the STAGE of WORK that was APPROPRIATE, BECAUSE GOD DOES NOT REPEATE the SAME WORK; He is the GOD who is ALWAYS NEW and NEVER OLD, and BECAUSE ALL YOU SEE NOW are the WORDS and WORKS of A PRACTICAL GOD. ☀️🙏 From "The WORD Appears in the Flesh". holy book Fulfilled in "In the beginning He was the Word, the Word was with God, and the Word was God" (John 1:1). ... and "When I looked up, someone handed me a book wrapped in a scroll. I opened it and I read on both sides the prayers, lamentations, and curses." (Ezekiel 2:9-10). ... "His garment was stained with blood. He was called the "Word of God" (Rev. 19:13). The kingdom He brought down and set up in the highest in the sky so that it can occupy His creation in the universe and engrave on it the entirety of His Holy name "THE CHURCH OF ALMIGHTY GOD" 💐 fulfillment of (Mat, 16:18) "And I say as for you, you are Peter, on top of this rock I will build my Church, that even the power of death will not be able to overcome it.". ... and "The Letter to the Church in Philadelphia" (Rev. 3:7-13). ... And fulfillment of "The New Jerusalem" 💫 (Rev. 21:10) "The Spirit enveloped me, and the angel led me to the top of a very high mountain. He showed Me Jerusalem, the Holy City, which coming down from heaven from God." (1 Peter 4:17) "For the time has come in the house of God for the beginning of judgment in the house of God." 💌Calling and leading the sheep of God to His glorious Throne "THE CHURCH OF ALMIGHTY GOD"💐 to submit again to His authority so that He will continue to teach, guide and protect even in plague, famine and wild animals will not be moved by it and completely win this final battle with the big red dragon! "They say with a loud voice, "Salvation comes from the Lamb, and from our God who sits on the Throne!" (Rev. 7:10). ... "But you are a chosen race, a company of royal priests, a a nation dedicated to God, a people belonging to God to declare the wonderful things he has done. He is the one who calls you out of darkness into wonderful light." (1 Peter 2:9). ... and fulfillment that it will be built above the sky/KZbin in (Isaiah 2:2) "In the Last Day, the mountain on which Jehovah's temple stands will stand out above all the mountains. All nations will flock there. " 📨

@winstonbarquez9538 Жыл бұрын

St. Thomas added in the progression of his argument, as in the second way, that to interpose no FIRST in the series will result in an infinite regression which is impossible (or something to this effect); thus, the FIRST mover exists whom everyone understands to be GOD.

@goranmilic442 Жыл бұрын

Aquinas' argument is based on problem he can't prove even exists, which Aquinas attempts to solve simply by defining his solution as something that solves the problem. Nothing can exist without cause, therefore let's invent an entity that can exist without cause, by calling it timeless and infinite, while at the same time we deny such properties to anything else. And then, the final touch, let's call this solution God, even though we didn't even start to prove that our solution is a sentient being, all-good, all-powerful, all-just, all-knowing, unique etc.

@josephsalvolo3727 Жыл бұрын

@@goranmilic442 What needs to be proven? That an infinite regression of events prior to this moment is impossible? That is self evident. If it happened with or without an agency? At a certain level of nothing ,unless acted upon by an agency, will never make itself anything.

@goranmilic442 Жыл бұрын

@@josephsalvolo3727 Thank you for the answer that is directly connected to my question. However, your entire answer, just like Aquinas' argument, depends on unproved assumption that linear causality exists outside of our space-time continuum. You can't actually know that. If the cause of the universe is indeed timeless, then there is no linear causality. You can't say "first there was nothing, then there was agency, so universe came to be", because such claim implies linear timeline (no universe-agency-universe). If the cause of universe is timeless, there is no sequence of events, therefore no regress. The question then remains - why does the cause of the universe need to be sentient/intelligent?

@josephsalvolo3727 Жыл бұрын

@@goranmilic442 I hear you. I'm leaning towards the presumption. That first all that existed was the agent God. Triune and being totally complete. Then in a time beyond time took something of God stuff and created everything else.

@goranmilic442 Жыл бұрын

@@josephsalvolo3727 There you go. You can't at the same time claim "God is timeless" and "first there was just God, then God did something". That second claim would suggest God does things in time-sequences of events, which would mean God is not timeless. I don't honestly know what you mean by "time beyond time", but it seems like you're trying at the same time to claim God is timeless and God is not timeless.

@andreawill154 Жыл бұрын

The wonderful thing about God is, He IS. There is no need to prove...oh, everyone will find out that God IS... We 🙏 we stand on His side though

@Epiousios18 Жыл бұрын

6:34 "Nothing _really_ changes itself." It is funny how some of the most profound things are also the most simple.

@pauljordan4452 Жыл бұрын

First cause and Subsistent Existence. A former archbishop said Aquinas is a genius.

@mikemccarthy6719 6 ай бұрын

For more on the First Mover argument checkout Edward Feser. He's also a great teacher and uses approachable language and breaks down the argument well.

@jimnewl Жыл бұрын

In one sense, there can be no "favorite way" for St. Thomas, because they are all equally demonstrative and conclusive. But, insofar as the "manifestior" proof contains, in a way, the other four proofs within it--the manifestior way being the proof from becoming, and the other four being proofs from each separate cause of being (efficient, material, formal, and final)--it is probably preferable for that reason.

@gabrielmedina2480 Жыл бұрын

Started to sound like personalism at the end -- maybe we're all closer to Thomistic personalists than we once thought

@blessedvirginmaryisqueen8448 Жыл бұрын

Rather, the other way around: personalism is similar to Thomism on this. Any time any system discovers the truth, it's either by complete chance or because it is doing so by imitating Thomistic/Aristotlian Realist philosophy in some way! I'm not even exaggerating....

@johnswoodgadgets9819 Жыл бұрын

My favorite way to begin that argument is with the question 'How did the first thing that ever happened, happen?' It is I admit a trick question, because if you roll back through all known information looking for the first thing that ever happened in any universe or in any state of existence, the only way it could happen is to decide to happen arbitrarily. Consciousness must precede corporal existence, if the laws of cause and effect are at the point of origin. To concede origin is to concede God. To concede end is to concede origin. No way around it, no matter what you believe. At the time I found myself considering the question I was agnostic. Such a foolish and arrogant youth!

@joemamicha349 8 ай бұрын

hello love your comment what do you mean by 'the only way it could happen is to decide to happen arbitrarily.' do you mean, it'd be self -defeating

@johnswoodgadgets9819 8 ай бұрын

@@joemamicha349 I do wonder sometimes if arbitrary is the right word, but it is all I have. If a decision is made or an action occurs completely independent of cause and effect, or the consideration of cause and effect it is arbitrary. Nothing we do is completely arbitrary, I suppose, but if I like green but do not like red, there is no identifiable cause and effect involved. A psychiatrist could delve into my subconscious and shrink my head and come up with an approximation, but my reasons would probably be just as arbitrary. So, I just do not see how the origin (assuming one exists) could be anything other than an arbitrary conscious act. Without cause and effect or previous conditions it could not possibly be a reaction to anything on any level. If the universe is all cause and effect, how could anyone just prefer red over green or vice versa? That is why when Hawking said he was scientifically convinced the universe will one day end, (self-defeating) it made the hair stand up on my neck. That which has one end must surely have another. Origin. Here is the real hair-stander: Was origin aware of end? If so, why did origin go ahead with the cosmos anyway?

@saintanthonyofpadua290 Жыл бұрын

Nice

@ThomisticInstitute Жыл бұрын

Thanks for taking the time to watch and comment! May the Lord bless you!

@RonJohn63 5 ай бұрын

5:38 This works in a completely mechanical world, but quantum mechanics throws that out the window: something (the Universe) _can_ come from "nothing" (quantum fluctuations in "the void").

@baafilm Жыл бұрын

God is a metaphor for that which transcends all levels of intellectual thought. It's as simple as that. Joseph Campbell

@gabrielgaranas Жыл бұрын

Curious: did Isaac Newton study the Summa? Or did he discover his laws of physics only from material observation and natural philosophy? 🤔

@Autobotmatt428 Жыл бұрын

Its my favorite

@ThomisticInstitute Жыл бұрын

Glad to hear it! Thanks for watching, and may the Lord bless you!

@c_h_r_i_s_t_c_o_r_e Жыл бұрын

#askafriar Can Man in fallen nature still naturally desire to Love God without having recieved grace? But in the state of corrupt nature man falls short of this in the appetite of his rational will, which, unless it is cured by God's grace

@MarshBrik Жыл бұрын

how is falling asleep moved and mover is falling asleep isn't something that actually exists? i thought movers had to be substances. so isn't it better to say the person changed themself from not being "late for class" to being "late for class"?

@conornagle9528 Жыл бұрын

Going into the Reason of our Faith enriches and deepens prayer life, beauty of Creation, truth, and awe. Pray for us, St. Thomas Aquinas.

@SuperGreatSphinx 2 ай бұрын

Is it acceptable for a Christian to use the Takbir? GOD IS GREAT

@reyreyes6126 Жыл бұрын

The Five Ways are so organized from what is most evident to least evident; he follows the principle of reasoning from what is more known to us to what is less known. In the same way, the FW are so organized that each proof proves the existence of God as having this 'attirbute' e.g., First unmoved mover, then from this property of God, the second proceeds to another attribute which is implicit in the first (First Cause), then from this second, the third follows, proving that this being as first mover and first cause is Necessary Being, from this, he proceeds to the fourth, implicit in the previous proofs, as an All Perfect Being, and finally that all these attributes from the first four, we discover that this Being is All intelligent being. Thus contrary to common understanding about the FW that St. thomas set them without any ordering. Moreover, all these divine attributes of the FW are all resolved to the metaphysical essence of God as IPSUM ESSE SUBSISTENT BEING a Being whose essence and existence are identical. Each proof suggests the existence of such being. The First Way he began from motion because it is most evident to all, the existence of motion, from there he goes to the next proof premised from the first, so and so forth. The question is : Why the FW in the Summa when the Existence of God is a preamble considering it is written for beginners in theology who had sufficient knowledge of metaphysics from the five are derived? In my mind, he set the FW in the summa to identify the God of reason (metaphysical essence of God as ipsum esse) with the God of revelation--these two concepts are identical differing only as to implicit and explicit, in other words they are explicative concepts. What is the relevance of identifying these two concepts? By that, the Middle term of Theological syllogism is established. The Middle term of the FW a posteriori proofs are established, however the same middle term identified with the God of revelation, it now can serve as middle term of Theological reasoning, that is to arrive at conclusions inferred from revealed truths.

@jimnewl Жыл бұрын

Regarding your question (at "The question is...") I agree with you. Thomas is establishing that the subject matter of Metaphysics--Being as such--is the same as the subject matter of Theology. But whereas the highest that Metaphysics can reach is to a knowledge of abstract principles attainable by natural reason, Theology involves a personal God who has revealed truths about himself to us. Thomas' business is to identify the one with the other--the abstract principles with the concrete God--thereby establishing, as I said, that the object of the science of Theology is the same as the one delivered to it by Metaphysics.

@schachmatt1581 Жыл бұрын

Amen

@ThomisticInstitute Жыл бұрын

Thanks for watching and commenting! May the Lord bless you!

@fredericobonaldo6948 Жыл бұрын

Without thinking in the very same terms exposed on this video, once I was struck by the idea that St. Thomas' first way implies, e.g., that if you take for granted that a piece of paper is effectively torn by a simple movement of your own hands you have to admit at last that God exists.

@aclark903 Жыл бұрын

Doesn't #Kant demolish Aquinas?

@fredericobonaldo6948 Жыл бұрын

@@aclark903 Kant didn't even read Aquinas. All Kant's thinking is a blend of the rationalist and empiricist traditions, whose main representatives (Descartes, Wolff, and Hume) didn't read Aquinas as well. There's a deep gap between classical philosophy (ancient and medieval) and modern philosophy (in which Kant is in).

@aclark903 Жыл бұрын

@@fredericobonaldo6948 I don't have much of a grounding in philosophy, but the way I was taught philosophy of religion, Kant is definitely responding to Aquinas & Anselm.

@fredericobonaldo6948 Жыл бұрын

To Anselm only indirectly, because his proof of God's existence is quite similar to Descartes's. And Kant actually responded to Descartes's demonstration of God's existence. But Aquinas did responded directly to Anselm's proof, with substantially different background to Kant's, though.

@jimnewl Жыл бұрын

@@aclark903 The ancient Greek philosophers, along with Christian thinkers like Augustine and Aquinas, take it as assumed at the outset that the human reason, and the senses which serve it, are commensurate with their object--that is to say, that when we sense something, we sense it as it really is, and when we understand something, we know it as it really is. Kant and the other modern skeptics attempt to deny this initial assumption and construct a rational edifice based upon doubt. Kant devised a system in which the outside world, however it may actually exist, is unknowable to man, whose mind is assumed to impose a certain structure upon whatever it encounters that renders it intelligible. The mind sees what the demands of its design forces it to see, much in the way an eye seeing through a blue lens sees the world as blue even though it actually is otherwise. Whether such a system "destroys" Aquinas is a matter of opinion, but the fruits of Kant's labors, such as contemporary "wokeness" and the straight-faced attempt to claim that things are simply whatever one says they are, would seem to suggest otherwise.

@billc3114 Жыл бұрын

I find this Plotinus philosophy to be confusing. What does the church and Aquinas think? Especially this "The One" and "God"? I had to ask, I like Aristotle and Aquinas anyway.

@markbirmingham6011 Жыл бұрын

Would a substance passing from time t to t+1 be considered a change (actualized potential) brought about by time? Or at least reflect a substance’s ontological dependence on realities outside itself for continued existence across time.

@blessedvirginmaryisqueen8448 Жыл бұрын

Time, by definition, is a measure (or, more precisely, according to Aristotle's definition in "The Physics", "the number") of change/motion Thus, if there is time there is, by definition, change. If there is no change, there is no time.

@blessedvirginmaryisqueen8448 Жыл бұрын

Thus, one would not say that time "brings about" change, but, rather, it MEASURES (or "numbers") change. Hope that makes sense.

@blueskyguy1 Жыл бұрын

Very good replies

@blessedvirginmaryisqueen8448 Жыл бұрын

@@blueskyguy1 @blueskyguy1 Thank you. Although, now I myself am considering the theoretical (even if not practical) possibility of a particular unchanging substance(s) in the midst of motion governed by a First Mobile (in addition to a First Mover Who moves the First Mobile, as Aristotle argues). For, the definition to which I alluded declares time to be a number of motion in reference to the motion of the First Mobile. Does this leave a theoretical possibility of a hypothetical "unchanging/unmoved substance" in the midst of other moving/changing substances, in which case, going back to the original question here, the only "change" in such a hypothetical substance would be in the category/predicament of "When" (while it would remain unchanged in all the other categories), perhaps...? Hmm....

@shadow8797-ng5kr Жыл бұрын

#askafriar how then can we call God an unmoved mover? We see numerous times in the Old Testament God’s wrath being kindled against the tribes of Israel, in the Golden Calf for example. God says “now therefore let me alone, that my wrath may burn hit against them and i may consume them; but of you I will make a great nation.” (Exodus 32:10) It is when Moses intercedes that “The Lord repented of the evil which he had thought to do to his people” (Exodus 32:14) thus Moses “moved” The Lord. (RSV2CE) I really appreciate any insight you can provide. I’ve struggled with this passage.

@ErikJC20 Жыл бұрын

I think that your premise is: "If God is the Unmoved Mover, then he could not be moved by anything. If He is moved, then he cannot be the Unmoved Mover" (Please correct me if I misunderstood). But addressing this statement, God is the Unmoved Mover in the sense that He is the beginning of all movement, of all change; He was not influenced or "moved" in any way to initiate the first movement or the first change which rippled, and ripples, down through time. It is at this very point of the First Movement or the First Change that God is referred to as the Unmoved Mover. But God being the Unmoved Mover (or Prime Mover) does not mean that throughout the course of time and existence He cannot be moved anymore by anything. There are so many instances in Sacred Scripture that God was moved, including the ones you mentioned above. Even our Lord Jesus Christ, who is both God and man, was moved as well (consider the passages describing His first miracle at the wedding in Cana where His Blessed Mother Mary insisted that He will help with the wine and so moved Him to do His first miracle in His ministry even when He said that it was not yet the right time). Our Lord was "moved with pity" also numerous times when he performed His miracles, as well as during His Crucifixion when he encountered the penitent thief and promised him that on that very day he will be with Him in Paradise.

@homer30 6 ай бұрын

Unmoved Mover, isn't that Aristotle's idea?

@rvirzi Жыл бұрын

An atheist friend of mine says quantum mechanics disproves this because it shows that events in nature can be purely random and therefore have no "cause". He specifically points to the spontaneous creation of particle-antiparticle pairs in the vacuum which just appear. What can I put forth as the mover here? Would it be the vacuum itself that causes it? But this is just the environment it occurs in. Could it be the physical universe itself which obeys the laws of quantum mechanics?

@jimnewl Жыл бұрын

Quantum physics is in error, in the sense of revealing to us anything about the ultimate nature of reality. It employs a mathematical framework that allows for accurate predictions, but it tells us nothing certain about what's really going on beyond the reach of our senses. There are many proofs of this, but I will suggest just one here that you might ask your friend about: THE most fundamental logical first principle, upon which all reason--and hence, science--rests, is that a thing cannot both be and not be at the same time and in the same respect. For example, if a thing can both be a triangle and not be a triangle in exactly the same way and at the same time, how can we ever know anything about the thing? (The statement of this principle is completely convertible, btw: a thing can neither be nor not be at the same time, etc.) Yet Schrodinger's famous cat thought-experiment concludes precisely to the proposition that the unobserved cat is neither dead nor alive. Modern materialists are therefore in the position of preferring to believe the most ridiculous things about the world (multiple parallel universes and all of that nonsense), rather than facing the obvious fact that something is seriously amiss. Their mathematics work, just as Ptolemy's geocentric system of the heavens works if you try hard enough, but the actual fact is not as they assume--the actual fact is that they have reached the end of the line in their science. What is actually going on is that the cause of the particle-antiparticle pairs is coming from outside the physical world. It's a cause that affects the physical world, but it is not a physical entity itself. It is therefore completely beyond the reach of physical science, which is the reason for the materialists' frustration. They have been proven wrong. Matter in motion is not all that exists, and physics is not the highest science.

@rvirzi Жыл бұрын

@@jimnewl So you are postulating a supernatural cause for quantum events. If that were so, it would need to be a mechanistic supernatural cause because the outcomes are statistically predictable. In other words - we may not know which outcome appears in each experiment, but we do know how often each outcome will appear - based on the wave equation probabilities. When God intervenes in nature (via miracles), it could be through this doorway, but it does not have to be since God can intervene at ANY level of reality. Right now science still can't really explain the reality behind quantum theory - they can only make predictions based on the equations. But back to causality - I could probably tell my friend that whether or not there is a cause to quantum events is currently not an answerable question, so it cannot be used as a counter argument.

@alphazero5614 10 ай бұрын

To deduce that quantum indeterminism demonstrates the absence of a mover in any meaningful sense would be erroneous. While processes like vacuum fluctuation and particle-antiparticle pair production may not have precise, temporally prior causes by our ordinary macroscopic understanding, this does not preclude their being grounded in and made intelligible by more fundamental ontological principles - perhaps, as you suggest, through the self-diffusive actuality of quantum fields within the universe itself, understood as subsisting in the Divine Intellect through primary participation.

@aqualifeisbestok 13 күн бұрын

Thank you Father Reese for helping people to get more of an insight in to these texts. I wish i could somehow show or share the absolute knowledge that i have of Gods existence, i was blessed enough to see something that was not of this earth and it just concreted my faith even further being a Catholic from birth. It’s funny to me hearing some scientists or mere mortals as i call them trying to big note themselves make up words like big bang theory or the theory of evolution whatever the flavour of the month is, when i know it all points back to God creating the Universe and everything in it, just look how intricate even a small insect like a mosquito is, we as humans could never even possibly imagine one let alone create it. Only God praise him in the highest could have come up with with all the animals/plants/human/earth/sun/planets. And did Jesus exist, well if you look at your calendar it started when Our Saviour was born, can’t make it clearer than that. Keep praying and praising God, Jesus, Mary all the saints and apostles and Angels every day.

@DenisOhAichir Жыл бұрын

Makes sense.

@ThomisticInstitute Жыл бұрын

Glad to hear it! Thanks for taking the time to watch and comment. May the Lord bless you!

@hitman5782 11 ай бұрын

@@ThomisticInstitute I don´t think it makes any sense. In fact, by now i am willing to pay 100.000$ for a single rational argument for this or that god to be more real than all the millions of other gods we humans invented. Do you have one?

@jackisboom 8 ай бұрын

Why do I have to watch this for religion class I'm gonna fail 😭😭

@jsaff4391 Жыл бұрын

"Everything that changes is changed by something else." We can substitute "changes" and "changed" with "moves" and "moved". Doing so raises a question about natural substances that appear to move themselves, such as animals. Do not some things move themselves towards their own ends? And if so does this contradict the self evident principle that "whatever moves is moved by something else"? It seems this premise must first be defended however obvious it may appear.

@jimnewl Жыл бұрын

(I'll give you an example that begins from local motion, and hopefully when we reach the end you'll see the general solution.) Local motion is change of place, whereas what is in place are bodies. But no body can move itself from one place to another, for the reason St. Thomas states. Therefore, a body must be moved by something else--for example, in the case of living, mobile human bodies, the will. In turn, while the will can choose, it cannot move itself but must be moved by another, and this (because we cannot go on to infinity in movers) is God.

@jsaff4391 Жыл бұрын

@beezlebrax you write, "a body must be moved by something else..." Why? Secondly, you go on to state, "...in the case of living, mobile human bodies, the will..." Yet Aquinas, following Aristotles, regards the soul and body as a composite whole. Therefore, only in the mind is the will considered separate from the living human body, as the part relates to the whole. It therefore follows that to suggest the will moves the body is to say that part of the human being moves the human being. Do you agree or no, if no, why not? I am more interested in defending the premise that "everything that moves is moved by another thing." Above you seem to assume it, as does the video, but why MUST that be the case? Why must everything that changes be changed by something else, or everything that moves is moved by something else? And, moreover, is this a proposition by means of induction, and if induction then can this argument be demonstrably certain or only probably certain? Or maybe the premise is self evident and therefor certain thereby yielding a conclusion that is certain not merely probable...but if so I want to know why this premise is certain...Aristotle addresses this in Book VIII of the Physics.

@godfreydebouillon8807 10 ай бұрын

@@jsaff4391You don't have to assume anything. That's why it gets frustrating talking to atheists (not saying you are, I have no idea) anytime that I do. "Everything that is changed, is changed by another" is a METAPHYSICAL axiom, like "The external world outside of my own head is real", "mathematical principles are true and they are universal". Most atheists and everyone else would just stomp their feet and respond "that's just the way it is!!!" if one were to question why the above assertions are true. I think a good way to understand metaphysical axioms is to understand that human reasoning would not be possible if they are not true. They are fundamental to reality and the possibility of understanding reality. If one thinks that a planet can just stop itself from orbiting the sun, or a ball can hop itself off a table and start rolling around, or that my hand can move without my brain, then you can feel free to be an atheist. Otherwise, if you are rational you'll recognize that there are things that change, if they do change, they are changed by something else, this sequence must terminate, and it starts with something that itself does not change.

@julioalonzo1383 Жыл бұрын

My issue with this exegesis is that it seems to make the proof a physical one. And Aquinas argues in his commentary on Boethius’ De Trinitate that the proof for God occurs in metaphysics. Maybe I just got your reading of the first way wrong…

@NTNG13 Жыл бұрын

I don't think the purpose is to make the proof physical but to make it undeniable. No one can deny change exists because it is more than evident in our human experience. Basically something like "The fact that change exists in the world leads to the deduction of the existence of an unchanged source called God. You can't deny the existence of alteration and change in the world so the existence of God is undeniable."

@julioalonzo1383 Жыл бұрын

@@NTNG13 that still doesn't have to do anything with my point. My point is about that very old debate whether the existence of the unmoved mover is proved in metaphysics or physics (obviously not understood in the contemporary sense, but in the Aristotelian sense). It's not about whether the proof starts from our experience or if about it's undeniable or not...

@cafecomescrita Жыл бұрын

You to back further enough, and physics end (before time and space). God precedes physics, so the proof must be in metaphysics.

@jimnewl Жыл бұрын

@@julioalonzo1383 If change were a purely physical phenomenon, then you would have a point. But change--movement--is not limited to physical bodies. I can change my mind, I can learn, I can will, etc. Therefore, while physical change is "manifestior," and for that reason is useful in illustrating Thomas' point ("as the hand moves the staff"), it is not exhaustive and any proof involving change per se belongs to a higher science. For it is just as manifest, upon reflection, that I learn because I'm taught, or that I will because I desire some end, as it is that the staff moves because of the hand moving it.

@julioalonzo1383 Жыл бұрын

@@jimnewl you don’t seem to understand my point. I’m not attacking Thomas’ proof… it’s not about change being a physical phenomenon. My complaint is that they paint the proof as a physical one rather than a metaphysical one. Physical not in the contemporary sense. This is a debate between Aquinas and Averroes (if I remember correctly). While the latter affirmed God is proved in physics as the unmoved mover Aquinas affirms He’s proved in metaphysics, as ipsum esse.

@toml.8210 4 ай бұрын

I teach at a college, and it really makes me sad to hear students saying "there is no God." Nut I like e argument where you go back in time, starting just after or at the "big bang."

@rebelrog2870 Жыл бұрын

Love the robe, did it come with a lightsaber? I think Aquinas was way over thinking this. Anyone can look at the beauty in this world and see the Existence of God. Anyone can look at the evil in this world and see the Existence of Satan. It doesn't require "favorite arguments", only recognition. If someone can't see God, no "argument" will ever open the eyes of those squeezing them shut.

@elvenkind6072 10 ай бұрын

By thinking of the universe combined with entropy, going backward in time to the point where the universe came into existence, it's impossible that this universe could come from nothing, and it's also impossible that the universe could have come from something less then itself, with more entropy, or less energy. Also it's impossible that the universe came into existence because of something just more then itself, because then this reason for existence would have had to be explained by an even greater force again, etc etc. So eternal existence, energy, matter, consciousness etc. An "ultimate great" God, is the only logical cause of our own and the universe having any existence.

@tedgrant2 Жыл бұрын

Its interesting that we have an excellent argument for the existence of Zeus. And we have physical evidence for Zeus too.... lightning ! Yet very few people worship Zeus.

@62peppe62 Жыл бұрын

If one studied greek religion, one would discover that Zeus wouldn't be a first mover, neither a first cause, so the definition of god as described by Aquinas wouldn't apply to Zeus.

@tedgrant2 Жыл бұрын

@@62peppe62 The argument for the existence of Zeus goes like this... Anything that has a beginning must have a cause. Lightning begins to exist, therefore it has a cause.

@jimnewl Жыл бұрын

The First Mover is first precisely because it has no potentiality, but is purely actual. Zeus is not pure act, but possesses potentiality--for example, he gets angry. Therefore Zeus is not a first mover. You're not completely wrong, though, since Zeus was dreamed up to explain actual effects that the true God causes in the world. Thus, insofar as Zeus is thought of as possessing God's actual attributes, it wouldn't be wrong to conclude that he is God. But insofar as he strays from possessing those attributes, which he does in manifold ways, it is clear that he doesn't, and cannot, exist.

@tedgrant2 Жыл бұрын

@@jimnewl Maybe the "true God" was dreamed up to explain anything and everything.

@berserker9682 Жыл бұрын

Funny to see this 1.5 years after going from Atheism to Catholicism. What is described here is more or less what I realized. After the paradigm analysis only Catholicism ticked all the boxes.

@ThomisticInstitute Жыл бұрын

We're so happy to hear it, and welcome to the Catholic church! Know of our prayers. Thanks so much for taking the time to watch and comment, and may the Lord bless you!

@dylanwilliams2202 7 ай бұрын

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints is God's and Jesus Christ one and only true church here on earth.

@berserker9682 7 ай бұрын

@@dylanwilliams2202 not even close its filled with condemned heresies apart from the total lack of continuity with the Prophets. Christ gave that Church to St. Peter not to Smith

@dylanwilliams2202 7 ай бұрын

@@berserker9682 Part 1 I know this is long but hopefully you read this so you can see how easy it is to debunk the Catholic Church's claims. Also, I had to retype this so a courtesy read would be nice. Also had to make it in 2 parts. _"not even close its filled with condemned heresies apart"_ There are not enough words in the English language that can express how much I nor my Church do not care that multiple councils of uninspired men declared something a heresy. More so because the Catholic Church worships a false and unbiblical 3 person 1 being thing they call God while also worshiping Mary (you can deny it all you want but you do) and the rest of the Saints. That being said, there are only 2 things that we believe and teach that have been declared heresies, that being Baptism for the Dead and souls being eternal. Though since both weren’t declared heresies for hundreds of years afterwards (419 AD and 543 AD respectively) and both were taught by the Early Church Fathers and baptism for the dead is directly talked about in the Bible then it brings me back to not caring. _”from the total lack of continuity with the Prophets.”_ This is just flat out false. The New Testament affirms true prophets after the death, resurrection, and ascension of Jesus. Acts 11:27-28 *”And in these days came prophets from Jerusalem unto Antioch. And there stood up one of them named Agabus,* and signified by the Spirit that there should be great dearth throughout all the world: which came to pass in the days of Claudius Caesar.” Acts 13:1 “Now there were in the church that was *at Antioch certain prophets* and teachers; as Barnabas, and Simeon that was called Niger, and Lucius of Cyrene, and Manaen, which had been brought up with Herod the tetrarch, and Saul” Acts 15:32 *”And Judas and Silas, being prophets also themselves,* exhorted the brethren with many words, and confirmed them.” 1 Corinthians 12:28 *”And God hath sent some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets,* thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, governments, diversities of tongues.” 1 Corinthians 14:29, 32) *”Let the prophets speak two or three, and let the other judge . . . And the spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets.”* Ephesians 3:5 “Which in other ages was not made known unto the sons of men, as it is *now revealed unto his apostles and prophets by the Spirit.”* Even in the teachings of Jesus, there is an expectation of true prophets that would come after Him. Matthew 23:34 and Luke 11:49 “Wherefore, behold, *I send unto you prophets,* and wise men, and scribes: and some of them ye shall kill and crucify; and some of them shall ye scourge in your synagogues, and persecute them from city to city” Additionally, Christ not only would send/commission prophets, but His followers were to accept them as true prophets of God. Matthew 10:40-41 (John 13:20, John 15:20) “He that receiveth you receiveth me, and he that receiveth me receiveth him that sent me. He that receiveth a prophet in the name of a prophet shall receive a prophet's reward; and he that receiveth a righteous man in the name of a righteous man shall receive a righteous man's reward.” While it is true that Christ warned against false prophets (Matthew 7:15), this only makes sense if there would be true prophets that would have to be distinguished from false prophets (Matthew 7:15-20). Furthermore and the real nail in the coffin of your false assertion, in Revelation 11:3-12 there is a promise of two prophets who would serve as two (true) witnesses of God against a fallen world and who would be killed, which I am sure you believe in because if not then you have to discredit the Bible. We also know more apostles were called from Acts 1:26 with Matthias and with Paul and Barnabas being called apostles in Acts 14:14 and Paul introducing himself as an apostle of the Lord in all his letters. Ephesians 2:20 says the church is built on the foundation of apostles and prophets with Jesus Christ being the cornerstone. Paul is saying that the priesthood foundation of the household of God includes apostles and prophets with Jesus Christ being the cornerstone. Ignatius of Antioch wrote “Let all reverence the deacons as Jesus Christ, and the bishop as the Father; and the presbyters [elders] as the Sanhedrin of God, and college of the apostles. Without these, there is no church.” In other words, in God’s and Jesus Christ’s true church there will be apostles and prophets found. The reverse is also true, a church without apostles and prophets is not the true church of God and Jesus Christ. This has been true since the apostles died, not just the church from 33 AD till around 120 AD. To say otherwise goes against the Bible and God’s word. Once having Apostles or Apostolic authority ~2000 years ago means nothing now since you don’t have them or it anymore.

@dylanwilliams2202 7 ай бұрын

@@berserker9682 Part 2 _”Christ gave that Church to St. Peter not to Smith”_ So in other words, it is Peter’s Church and not Christ’s Church? If the Catholic Church is Peter’s Church then it isn’t Christ’s Church. I know that is what you meant but I did find it funny the way it was worded. Now, you misunderstand our position. We believe that Peter was the Leader of the Church and had the keys to run it. What our position is that it didn’t continue after his death and that the authority was lost. Plus that you make many false claims about Peter. Peter wasn’t a bishop, he was an apostle and leader of the church during this time. There is no evidence of Peter starting the Church in Rome then being the bishop and ruling the Church from Rome. In fact, while Iranaeus does say Peter and Paul started the Church, he also says “The blessed apostles, then, *having founded and built up the Church, committed into the hands of Linus the office of the episcopate.”* (Against Heresies 3 chapter 3) Or after the apostles set up the Church area, the first Bishop was Linus, not Peter. So where do you get that Peter was the Bishop of Rome? Where does it say that Linus or even the Bishop of Rome was supposed to secede Peter as leader? Linus was bishop of Rome from 67 AD until his death in 76 AD and John the Apostle, *the last of Christ’s top 3 Apostles who he took everywhere,* is said to have died between 89 - 120 AD, why would the leadership not have fallen to one of Jesus’s apostles? Andrew and Thomas are said to have been alive as well during that time. You also have to contend with the fact that most scholars believe Peter died in 68 AD, which if true means that Linus would have been Bishop of Rome while Peter was alive. Also, Peter is also supposed to have founded the Church at Antioch, so why does the Bishop of Rome get to be the leader when another Church has the same claim of authority? And the Church at Antioch was founded in 34 AD while Rome was founded in 42 AD so it doesn’t even have a seniority position which makes the claim of Rome even weaker. Just preemptively, you are completely misquoting Matthew 16:18. That is saying that the gates of hell wouldn't prevail against the rock who is Jesus Christ (1 Corinthians 10:4), not the Church. Hence why it says “and on this rock (Jesus Christ) I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.” This has shown to have been the case because 1 Peter 3:19 tells of Christ going in and teaching to spirits in prison that they might be judged according to men in the flesh, but live according to God in the spirit. (1 Peter 4:6) and that preaching is still happening today because every knee will bow and confess Jesus is Lord (Philippians 2:10-11) on judgment day. The gates of hell did not prevail because Jesus Christ broke through the bands of death and hell and his gospel went into hell like a rock smashing through a gate. The gates of hell are *gates* not a person or entity and those *gates* did not prevail against Christ. Even if I were to entertain the idea of it talking of the Church then it still would hold true because the gates of hell didn't prevail against the Church because the Church came back. The closest you can get to it meaning Peter would be his faith in Christ that was the rock, and on this rock or Peter’s faith in Christ will He establish his Church. Peter himself uses the same imagery in his first epistle saying the church is built of numerous small petros “living stones” (1 Peter 2:5) who, like Peter, confess that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the living God, and those confessions of faith are the bedrock of the church. Which is also how the Early Church Fathers took Matthew 16:18 to mean. From Augustine “And I tell you…‘You are Peter, Rocky, and on this rock I shall build my Church, and the gates of the underworld will not conquer her. To you shall I give the keys of the kingdom. Whatever you bind on earth shall also be bound in heaven; whatever you loose on earth shall also be loosed in heaven’ (Mt 16:15-19). In Peter, Rocky, we see our attention drawn to the rock. Now the apostle Paul says about the former people, ‘They drank from the spiritual rock that was following them; but the rock was Christ’ (1 Cor 10:4). *So this disciple is called Rocky from the rock, like Christian from Christ…* Why have I wanted to make this little introduction? In order to suggest to you that in Peter the Church is to be recognized. *Christ, you see, built his Church not on a man but on Peter’s confession. What is Peter’s confession? ‘You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.’ There’s the rock for you, there’s the foundation, there’s where the Church has been built, which the gates of the underworld cannot conquer”* (John Rotelle, Ed., The Works of Saint Augustine (New Rochelle: New City Press, 1993), Sermons, Vol. 6, Sermon 229P.1, p. 327). The current Catholic interpretation of Matthew 16:18 is not shared by the Early Church Fathers and is a later interpretation to try and justify the false Catholic claim of being true (which probably came about around the time of the Schism of the East and West Church). Again, to say that the Church was built on Peter is to say that the Catholic Church is Peter’s Church and not Jesus Christs.

@andydee1304 9 ай бұрын

You don't need to argue, you just need to explain how God exists and show your work.

@adude849 5 ай бұрын

That's literally still agure

@andydee1304 5 ай бұрын

@@adude849 It's really not, and you look very silly for thinking it is.

@gabehcuodsuoitneterp203 Жыл бұрын

🇩🇴 🇩🇲 😮 👏👏👏

@tonyrouphael8780 3 ай бұрын

Why do we assume we have to have successive movers? What if we don’t have a starting point? Two movers A and B A causes B to move Then B causes A to move Etc Sorry not a philosopher just wondering

@C.S.S.M.L.. 2 ай бұрын

One must be the cause of the other's movement.

@timjones7157 Жыл бұрын

Thanks for video but might aswell have been talking in Chinese, i must be really dumb😢

@johnfrum-5602 9 ай бұрын

If nothingness doesn't exist, then somethingness that exists as the solution to this paradox, is God by definition. Reality and existence of evil is the attempt to solve another paradox of God creating rock so heavy He himself wont be able to move. So I would say logical paradoxes are building bricks of reality, but I am not sure laws of logic could exist independently, because our dreams show us worlds without logic and make us face Hamlet's dilemma.

@ttlsolo6671 Жыл бұрын

whatever your argument is, no need further explanation no need brilliant demonstration, no need anyone experiment, no need anyone testimony, the right and untrickable way is his action to your own life. And that's all

@SirRyanChadius Жыл бұрын

Move DUH

@mintavia Жыл бұрын

Huh? I dont know if I am smart enough to use this argument.

@paulgibbons2320 4 ай бұрын

This is just an expansion on the premise if something exists it must have a creator. It's problematic though. Because we have never known a time where things have not existed. People speculate about it endlessly. The begining. The time before creation. But the reality is we were all born into a world already in motion. We opened our eyes and everything was already in place. Grass, trees, home house, food, water, family all existed before we did. The question becomes about what is ultimately eternal. The concept of what is eternal is what most people struggle with. Time is the first thing we choose to measure the world with. But you can't measure what is eternal with it. People might ultimately speculate that only god is eternal. But the existence of God only creates the further question. What was before God. So you ultimately create a chicken and egg paradox which does not really answer life's mystery at all. (Which is a good thing). But the universe energy and elements could all be eternal. Locked in eternal interaction. (I know about chemical decay) We have all seen the tree or plant grow from the seed. We have all seen lava form the rock. We have all seen baby's grow and be born almost from nothing. We have seen things formed and created visibly, seemingly without an unmoved mover. What we have not witnessed is something magically appear before our eyes. None of what I just said says there is not a God by the way. It's not an arguement against god. All this says is that the unmoved mover is not an adequate descriptor. For most people.

@tedgrant2 9 ай бұрын

It's an interesting fact that we are still trying to prove a god exists. I suppose the problem is that we don't have enough data. If we had enough data, we wouldn't need arguments.

@user-yt8gj5zc2d Жыл бұрын

@AskAFriar It seems that this first mover just popped into existence and that we’re giving it qualities that we can’t make sense of. This defies the laws of physics that nothing can be created or destroyed and we warrant this by saying it’s not in physical reality. If we can put any properties on this first mover, we can also say there exists a necessary being that set the infinite universe into perpetual motion. Again we can’t explain with reason how this thing is. Also, how can it not be in the physical world but still interact in the physical world? Can it release power and not change bc of that release? Perpetual motion and first mover seem like impossibilities or smthg you can’t reason.

@typedeaf Жыл бұрын

Socrates knew that he was ignorant of most things. I think that Aquinas thought himself more wise than Socrates in that he knew something about God that no one else had know. Well, if Aquinas was correct, then unfortunately where he excelled in divine knowledge, he compensated for with a lack of ability to articulate. His arguments appear to me as to many suppositions. "God created man, because something had to create man, therefore it was God." If what God is, is supernatural, meaning, existing beyond the laws of the natural laws of nature (Newtonian laws), and we are creatures wholly bound to the laws of nature and with few senses at our disposal to discern empirical data from this bound system, then how could we hope to comprehend something outside of sphere of existance? How could a 2D would comprehend a 3rd dimension, yet alone accurately and succiently describe it in simple terms?

@alphazero5614 10 ай бұрын

The problem is not so much in their structure (thomistic arguments), but how they have sometimes been caricatured or presented in overly simplistic terms.

@user-ug2hk3go6i Жыл бұрын

I'm not my Mom's favorite?

@andydee1304 9 ай бұрын

Sounds to me like the "unchanged changer" is an argument AGAINST God's existence because it proves that EVERYTHING changes therefore the existence of something that doesn't change is definition, impossible. If everything is moved by something else, an unmoved mover CANNOT exist, unless you can explain how something can be unmoved, which will contradict your initial premise.

@juanranger4214 5 ай бұрын

The unmoved mover is unbounded by natural space and time, which is why it is called “unmoved”.

@andydee1304 5 ай бұрын

@@juanranger4214 Explain how something can be unmoved without mentioning time. If something is outside of time, then they cannot be temporal. If something is not temporal, it can never have an affect on anything that is temporal.

@juanranger4214 5 ай бұрын

@@andydee1304 He is not outside of time, He is unbound by time and space, like the author of a book is to the characters of his book.

@andydee1304 5 ай бұрын

@@juanranger4214 that doesn't explain a thing because every single author who has ever existed has existed in time. ALL OF THEM. The other problem is that characters are fictional, we're not fictional. Your God sounds fictional, but we're not.

@shreddedhominid1629 4 ай бұрын

@@juanranger4214 This is a meaningless assertion. To say that something that 'exists' is 'unbounded' by space and time is logically incoherent. Next you're going to tell me God is 'unbounded' by logic, lmfao.

@ResumodeLivros Жыл бұрын

Thanks, but portuguese please

@ThomisticInstitute Жыл бұрын

We're working on it -- please stay tuned! Thanks for watching, and may the Lord bless you!

@ivancarmo878 11 ай бұрын

Although we don't see this argument as palpable, evident, manifestior, OG Aquinas called it anyway because it was for him Imagine how intelligent this guy is.

@tedgrant2 Жыл бұрын

"The physicists assure us that individual quantum transactions have no cause". (Russell/Copleston radio debate)

@godfreydebouillon8807 10 ай бұрын

That's called question begging. They do have causes, because everything that changes has a cause. If you find that statement (the one I just made) to be question begging, so is it's inverse (or contradiction) "some things do not have causes". Those are called categorical contradictions (Universal positive vs particular negative) and if one is true the other must be false, therefore he must literally prove the assertion "some things do not have causes". If it seems quantum transactions have no cause, then you either haven't found it yet, or it's ultimately God, and voila, you finally understand this argument. "Everything that changes has a cause" is a metaphysical axiom. Bertrand Russell coming along and saying "no, they don't", is not a refutation. Citing such a silly "refutation" shows you really don't understand the subject. His refutation is no more sophisticated than if one were to refute the metaphysical principle "Mathematical laws are universal" and Bertrand Russell "refuted" that by claiming "nope, they're only universal inside this galaxy". WTF? That's not a "refutation". Is it just conveniently "quantum transactions" and only quantum transactions that need no cause and are able to change themselves, or do planets do things like change their own rotation and orbit, with absolutely no other input, or a ball hops itself off a table and starts rolling around with no cause? Special Pleading is not an argument. I, obviously, being one thing, can jump off my chair and start moving around with no outside cause, and that's the subject you need to understand, but don't. That's called local motion, where various parts cause potentials of other parts to become actual. Taking "quantum transactions" (our vast ignorance of quantum mechanics is always the atheist "trump card"), when there's over a dozen contradictory interpretations of quantum mechanics, which Bertrand Russell knew literally nothing about, and treating that ignorance as some sort of "refutation", well it's just lame. But that's atheism, very lame and extraordinarily irrational.

@tedgrant2 10 ай бұрын

@@godfreydebouillon8807 Copleston said that scientists assume every event has a cause. Russell was merely pointing out that this may no longer be the case. "A man may look for gold without assuming there is gold everywhere".

@tedgrant2 9 ай бұрын

@@godfreydebouillon8807 There must be something that has no cause. Otherwise there would be an infinite series. And we don't like infinity !

@tedgrant2 9 ай бұрын

@@godfreydebouillon8807 The question for me is not "Does God exist ?" Assuming a god does exist, my question is which religion is true ? Over 3000 religions exist now and many more have been abandoned.

@tedgrant2 9 ай бұрын

@@godfreydebouillon8807 I haven't got time to investigate every religion. Every now and again, somebody invents a new one. What am I to do ? Drop everything and start afresh ?

@zakirnaikahmaddeedat3651 10 ай бұрын

Did God say he was trinity?

@alphazero5614 10 ай бұрын

Yes.

@zakirnaikahmaddeedat3651 9 ай бұрын

@@alphazero5614 where?

@carolusaugustussanctorum 4 ай бұрын

@@zakirnaikahmaddeedat3651 «And He said: Let *Us* make man to *Our* image and likeness: and let him have dominion over the fishes of the sea, and the fowls of the air, and the beasts, and the whole earth, and every creeping creature that moveth upon the earth.» (Genesis I, XXVI); «And when he [Abraham] had lifted up his eyes, there appeared to him *three men* standing near him: and as soon as he saw them he ran to meet them from the door of his tent, and adored down to the ground.» (Genesis XVIII, II); «Going therefore, teach ye all nations; baptizing them *in the name of The Father, and of The Son, and of The Holy Ghost.* » (St. Matthew XXVIII, XIX); «In the beginning was The Word, and The Word was with God, *and The Word was God* » (St. John I, I); «Thomas answered, and said to Him: My Lord, and *my God* .» (St. John XX, XXVIII); «And there are three who give testimony in heaven, The Father, The Word, and The Holy Ghost. And these three are one.» (I St. John V, VII); etc.

@carolusaugustussanctorum 4 ай бұрын

@@zakirnaikahmaddeedat3651 «And He said: Let *Us* make man to *Our* image and likeness: and let him have dominion over the fishes of the sea, and the fowls of the air, and the beasts, and the whole earth, and every creeping creature that moveth upon the earth.» (Genesis I, XXVI); «And when he [Abraham] had lifted up his eyes, there appeared to him *three men* standing near him: and as soon as he saw them he ran to meet them from the door of his tent, and adored down to the ground.» (Genesis XVIII, II); «Going therefore, teach ye all nations; baptizing them *in the name of The Father, and of The Son, and of The Holy Ghost*.» (St. Matthew XXVIII, XIX); «In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, *and the Word was God*» (St. John I, I); «Thomas answered, and said to Him: My Lord, and *my God*.» (St. John XX, XXVIII); «And there are three who give testimony in heaven, The Father, The Word, and The Holy Ghost. And these three are one.» (I St. John V, VII); etc.

@whatshappening3327 Ай бұрын

I agree with the definition of God but I don’t agree with this being actually logical. Because he is just saying that something has to be changeless that causes change. And I agree that if there wasn’t a changeless god then reality wound be chaos because there would be nothing stable. In a universe where change is the only constant, we all crave for something that doesn’t change and is reliable and we hope that the first cause of everything is Changeless. Because like I said, reality wound be hell and chaos would be the immortal truth. But he is really just saying …first cause must be unmovable because I said so. It doesn’t prove why the first cause is changeless. He just declares it.

@sirzorg5728 7 ай бұрын

My issue with this argument is the assertion that there must be a prime mover that is not moved. An infinite chain of movers with no beginning seems to be a possibility. I believe in God through faith, but I don't think the prime-mover argument as presented here is flawless. I cannot defend my faith rationally. I have tried, but ultimately it doesn't work. I maintain my faith through the recognition that reason alone is insufficient to understand everything that is true. In fact, many of the most important things that are true cannot be rationally defended. Here's my criteria for a "God": God is an intelligence that created all true things, either directly or indirectly (e.g. I wrote this comment, but God created me, therefore God indirectly created this comment). To deny this, there are three ways: God is 'an' intelligence -> you could try the claim that there are many non-derivative causes of all true things. This would make you a polytheist. I think this is wrong because there is clearly only one set of things that are true, and there are no contradictions between true things. This is why I reject polytheism. God is intelligent -> you could try the claim that a prime mover doesn't need to be intelligent. I believe this is the claim of most athiests, who believe that unthinking forces created the universe. I don't have a logically rigid argument against this, instead I must feel it out. I don't believe that the prime mover can be unthinking, because of the beauty in the universe. A sunset with wisps of orange cloud on a blue-red sky is a beautiful work of art. Random noise does not create works of art, unless it is constrained by formulae and such that are crafted by intelligent beings such that it can be morphed into art. The beauty of the universe is why I reject the argument that the prime mover is not intelligent. This reason is also the reason that I reject the Gnostic claim that God is evil, because God makes gorgeous works of art. The beauty of the world is omnipresent, and I don't believe that the being that created this beauty for us could possibly be evil, let alone unintelligent. Finally, you could deny the existance of a prime mover, through the infinite-chain loophole I mentioned earlier. This is the hardest argument to reject. Infinite series that have no beginning are well-defined in mathematics. E.g. there is no "first number greater than 0", because you can always find a number halfway between your current number and 0. This is partially because God, if he exists, must be inherently infinite (based on the infinite nature of truth). God is "an intelligence", which is also infinite. To attack this, I would point out that the chains of causality can be separated into discrete sets, such as decisions. If I punch you in the face, so you swing back at me, you could be pedantic and say that my fist hit your nose becasue an infinitisimal amount of time earlier, it was moving towards your nose, which is becasue an infinitisimal amount of time before that, it was moving towards your nose, such that there is an uncountable infinity of "causes" between me deciding to punch you and me actually punching you. This isn't useful, because the important causes are discrete decisions made by intelligent actors. These are countable, which means that unlike the uncountably infinite number of numbers between 0 and 1, a set would have a first member. This does not completely solve the problem, because there are infinite countable sets that have no beginning. To attack this, we need to prove that all that is true has a beginning. **I haven't solved this part yet.**

@jonashassel5404 Жыл бұрын

THE GOSPEL OF THE WORD OF ALMIGHTY GOD "is a great last day that He will save man" (the Coming of God Incarnate in the Last Days Brought an End to the Age of Grace. He Came Mainly to Speak His Words, to Use Words to Make Man Perfect, to Enlighten and Illuminate and Remove the place of the elusive God within the human Heart) Almighty God said KNOWING GOD'S WORK in THESE TIMES, in MOST PART, is KNOWING GOD INCARNATED in the LAST DAYS, WHAT HIS MAIN MINISTRY IS, and WHAT HIS PURPOSE to DO ON EARTH. I MENTIONED to My THOSE WHO SAID THAT GOD HAS COME TO EARTH (in the last days) TO GIVE AN EXAMPLE BEFORE LEAVING. ☀️ HOW DOES GOD SHOW this EXAMPLE? THROUGH SPEECH, THROUGH DOING and SPEAKING THROUGHOUT the LAND. This is the WORK of GOD in the LAST DAYS; He ONLY SPEAKS so that the EARTH BECOME A WORLD of WORDS, so that EVERY MAN MAY BE PROVIDED and ENLIGHTENED by HIS WORD, and SO that the SPIRIT of MAN AWAKES and he is CLEAR ABOUT the VISIONS. In the LAST DAYS, GOD INCARNATE CAME TO EARTH MAINLY TO SHARE HIS WORDS. 🙏 WHEN JESUS CAME He SPREADED the GOSPEL of the KINGDOM of HEAVEN, and FULFILLED the WORK of REDEMPTION THROUGH CRUCIFIXION. He ENDED the AGE of the LAW, and BROUGHT ALL the OLD THINGS to NOTHING. The COMING of JESUS ENDED the AGE of LAW and USED the AGE of GRACE. ☀️ The COMING of GOD INCARNATE in the LAST DAYS BRINGS the END to the AGE of GRACE. 🙏 He CAME MAINLY to SPEAK His WORDS, to USE WORDS to MAKE MAN PERFECT, to ILLUMINATE and ILLUMINATE MAN, and to REMOVE THE PLACE of DARK GOD WITHIN MAN'S HEART. ☀️ This was NOT the STAGE of WORK JESUS DID WHEN He CAME. WHEN JESUS CAME, He PERFORMED many MIRACLES, He HEALED and CAST OUT DEMONS, and He PERFORMED the REDEMPTION WORK of CRUCIFIXION. ☀️ AS A RESULT of THIS, IN HIS UNDERSTANDINGS, MAN BELIEVED that GOD SHOULD BE LIKE this. 😪 Because WHEN JESUS CAME, He DID NOT REMOVE the IMAGE of the DARK GOD from PEOPLE'S HEARTS; WHEN He CAME, He was CRUCIFIED, He HEALED and CAST OUT DEMONS, and He SPREADED the GOSPEL of the KINGDOM of HEAVEN. ON the ONE HAND, the INCARNATION of GOD in the TIME of the LAST DAYS REMOVED the PLACE of the OBSCURE GOD in HUMAN INTELLIGENCES, that is WHY the IMAGE of the OBSCURE GOD is NO LONGER in the HEARTS of MAN. ☀️ THROUGH His ACTUAL WORDS and ACTUAL ACTIONS, His ACTIONS THROUGHOUT the EARTH, and the unique real and normal work He accomplished with man, He CAUSES MAN TO COMPLETELY UNDERSTAND the REALITY of GOD, and REMOVES the LOCATION of the OBSCURE GOD in the HUMAN HEART. On the other hand, GOD USES the WORDS SPOKE BY His FLESH to MAKE MAN COMPLETE, and to FULFILL THINGS. THIS is the WORK of GOD that He WILL FULFILL in the LAST DAYS. 🙏 What you should know: 1. God's work is not supernatural, and you should not harbor notions about it. 2. You must understand the main work that will be accomplished by the coming of God incarnate at this time. 💐 He DID NOT COME to HEALING, or CAST OUT DEMONS, or to SHOW MIRACLES, and He DID NOT COME to SPREAD the GOSPEL of REPENTANCE, or WILLING the MAN of REDEMPTION. ☀️ That is BECAUSE JESUS HAS ALREADY ACCOMPLISHED that WORK, and GOD does NOT REPEAT the SAME WORK. 🙏 IN the PRESENT, GOD HAS COME to BRING the AGE of GRACE to an END and REMOVE ALL the HABITS of the AGE of GRACE. PRACTICAL GOD CAME TO SHOW THAT HE IS REAL. 💐🙏 When Jesus came, He spoke few words, first of all, He showed miracles, showed signs and wonders, and healed and cast out demons, otherwise, He spoke prophecies to make people believe , and to help people see that He is truly God, and a gentle God who does not look at anyone. In the end, He completed the work of the crucifixion. GOD CURRENTLY DOES NOT SHOW SIGNS and WONDERS, NOR DOES He HEAL and CAST OUT DEMONS. When JESUS CAME, the WORK He DID REPRESENTED a PART of GOD, BUT IN the PRESENT TIME GOD CAME to PERFORM the STAGE of WORK that was APPROPRIATE, BECAUSE GOD DOES NOT REPEATE the SAME WORK; He is the GOD who is ALWAYS NEW and NEVER OLD, and BECAUSE ALL YOU SEE NOW are the WORDS and WORKS of A PRACTICAL GOD. ☀️🙏 From "The WORD Appears in the Flesh". holy book Fulfilled in "In the beginning He was the Word, the Word was with God, and the Word was God" (John 1:1). ... and "When I looked up, someone handed me a book wrapped in a scroll. I opened it and I read on both sides the prayers, lamentations, and curses." (Ezekiel 2:9-10). ... "His garment was stained with blood. He was called the "Word of God" (Rev. 19:13). The kingdom He brought down and set up in the highest in the sky so that it can occupy His creation in the universe and engrave on it the entirety of His Holy name "THE CHURCH OF ALMIGHTY GOD" 💐 fulfillment of (Mat, 16:18) "And I say as for you, you are Peter, on top of this rock I will build my Church, that even the power of death will not be able to overcome it.". ... and "The Letter to the Church in Philadelphia" (Rev. 3:7-13). ... And fulfillment of "The New Jerusalem" 💫 (Rev. 21:10) "The Spirit enveloped me, and the angel led me to the top of a very high mountain. He showed Me Jerusalem, the Holy City, which coming down from heaven from God." (1 Peter 4:17) "For the time has come in the house of God for the beginning of judgment in the house of God." 💌Calling and leading the sheep of God to His glorious Throne "THE CHURCH OF ALMIGHTY GOD"💐 to submit again to His authority so that He will continue to teach, guide and protect even in plague, famine and wild animals will not be moved by it and completely win this final battle with the big red dragon! "They say with a loud voice, "Salvation comes from the Lamb, and from our God who sits on the Throne!" (Rev. 7:10). ... "But you are a chosen race, a company of royal priests, a a nation dedicated to God, a people belonging to God to declare the wonderful things he has done. He is the one who calls you out of darkness into wonderful light." (1 Peter 2:9). ... and fulfillment that it will be built above the sky/KZbin in (Isaiah 2:2) "In the Last Day, the mountain on which Jehovah's temple stands will stand out above all the mountains. All nations will flock there. " 📨

@rafj75 Жыл бұрын

I believe in God.. But that philosophy is wrong.. The fact your 1st statement contradictcs your 2nd statement makes your claim already wrong.. If you say " everything " that will also include the so called god in your statement. Then you already concluded on your 2nd statement and included the word "MUST" without any basis.. "there must be an unmoved mover" If everything changes then where did you get your proof that there's an unmoved mover? Including the word must doesn't make it True.. you only assume that ther must be an unmoves mover.. I've heard better proof of the existance of God , but this one definitely doesn't qualify.

@frederickanderson1860 3 ай бұрын

Jesus claimed clearly when you see me you see the father. We don't need a theological explanation from any man . He was crucified because he disturbed the religious leaders that he knew the God they worshipped in their own human speculation.

@jbtechcon7434 Жыл бұрын

Unlike you, I've actually been to the Dominican Republic. Those people aren't gong to bore anyone with any philosophy lecture!

@hitman5782 11 ай бұрын

After learning decades about all the different theistic arguments i think i can say with confidence that there is not a single rational argument, let alone proof or convincing evidence, of any god or gods.

@alonsoACR 10 ай бұрын

>of any god or gods If there's anything solid about these, is that if there's a god it can only be one. We use the same word with Zeus as we do with the Christian God, but these are COMPLETELY different in definition and nature. However, if perchance this was honest, I encourage you to read a proper book about it. I'll be glad to recommend one (or some). Just tell me, how well-versed are you in philosophy? Were you introduced to the Greeks? You don't need to be but some books are heavy on jargon. This topic can go really deep, Aquinas called his book "suitable for beginners" in his preface!

@hitman5782 10 ай бұрын

@@alonsoACR No philosophy will ever make anything supernatural any more real. Do you know what would make it real? EVIDENCE! Do you have any? No, you don´t, and i could accept that, but what i really do not understand is how intelligent people are even able to believe in gods when they are not even able to present a single ARGUMENT why this or that god should be more real than all the other. This includes you by the way.

@alonsoACR 10 ай бұрын

@@hitman5782 i was trying to give you the arguments why do you have to say I have none :( "no evidence" is pretty bold, pretty much anything can be considered evidence so first, may I ask what type of evidence would convince you? think up a few scenarios and tell me which one would have you kneeling at the nearest church cheers

@hitman5782 10 ай бұрын

@@alonsoACR Asking decades for nothing but a single rational argument for this or that god to be more real than all the countless other gods we humans invented, and never getting one is what makes me say that you have none. Oh and of course the fact that you still not even tried to present one is a good indicator as well. Yeah sure if you call stuff such as "anecdotal evidence" evidence then of course we have evidence for absolutely everything including aliens, ghosts, monsters...you name it, but i was talking about demonstrable, testable evidence. Even if i would know that the Christian god is real why would i kneel at a church? The Christian god is a perfectly evil monster and in no way worthy of any worship and even if he would be worthy, which of the over 39.000 different denominations should i follow?

@hitman5782 10 ай бұрын

@@danubs8385 Very simple, it is just bullshit. In fact it is nothing more but the good old "nobody knows how the universe came into existence therefore my god". Every single time in human history when we as a species have not been able to explain the cause of something there have always been people screaming "that was my god", but the problem is that this assumption is not only not explaining anything, but every single time when we later figured out the actual cause, it never was a god or something supernatural.

@larrycarter3765 Жыл бұрын

Obviously this invisible, forever hiding guy does not exist!

@alphazero5614 Жыл бұрын

Mr. Carter, God is not a physical being that lives inside our world.

@matswessling6600 21 күн бұрын

is this a parody? stating that something is evident is a very clear sign that it probably isnt. (and no there is no valid proof for an "unmoved mover")

@crawfordrhoderick2942 Жыл бұрын

After his six beer you believe anything.

@patriotsru.s.2642 Ай бұрын

" . . . a god . . ." ????

@aaaaaauyt Ай бұрын

Existence of “a god”, not necessarily the Christian god. That is the first step… then someone needs to argue that the Christian God is the God… so there are two questions needs answered..

@johnedwinoliver6842 Жыл бұрын

Focus on the Words of Jesus.

@frederickanderson1860 Жыл бұрын

God's ways are not our ways or his thoughts. So waste of human philosophical assumptions.

@rembrandt972ify 3 ай бұрын

I'll never understand why Catholics admire a villain like Aquinas who was wrong about everything he wrote.

@SuperGreatSphinx 2 ай бұрын

Villain?

@rembrandt972ify 2 ай бұрын

@@SuperGreatSphinx You know, Aquinas, you wrote, "Women are defective men" and claimed the church had the right to murder people who didn't believe the correct things. These statements are wrong and wicked.

@rembrandt972ify 2 ай бұрын

@@SuperGreatSphinx You know, Aquinas, the man who wrote, "Women are defective men" and claimed the right of the church to kill those who didn't believe the right stuff.

@C.S.S.M.L.. 2 ай бұрын

@@rembrandt972ify Saint Thomas Aquinas pray for us!

@rembrandt972ify 2 ай бұрын

@@C.S.S.M.L.. I hate to break this to you, but he's dead.

@gybx4094 Жыл бұрын

I know God exists, but I just don't know if God cares about creation.

@tohan3867 Жыл бұрын

Of course he does. God cares for every single human being on earth. He is directly involved in our lives, even if it’s hard to see. I truly pray that as your life progresses you will be able to see just how much God loves you

@bandie9101 Жыл бұрын

my 3 y.o. daugther not only denies that I care at all for her, but if i explain to her why am i far from home and earning money to pay stuff, she would be sure that i even make up words to justify her lonelyness. if you know G exists, learn who is He as a person (well, 3 of Him), get an accurate image of Him, so you can imagine how would the world and your life in it be like if He would not care, and how when he does. my first instinct is if G chose the world to exist rather than non-existence, what is His quality which "makes" Him to create? (it's a bit theologically misleading to say "something makes G to do something" because there is nothing besides G and the creation, so it must be G's essence which causes creation) a perfect being who by the virtue the fact that he is perfect, he does not do mistakes, so if he created the world, there must be a good reason for it. so i can not imagine that he created us then he just ignores. more likely it's me who can not comprehend that cosmologically high level of reasoning why this-and-that event/behaviour in the world, which i disapprove, happens/is in this-or-that way.

@dann285 Жыл бұрын

2 Cor 5:21 "21 For He made Him who knew no sin to be sin for us, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him." He cares/ LOVES you.

@georgedecruz4717 Жыл бұрын

There is no God. Stop making complex nomenclatures to justify your imagination. Grow up

@SuperGreatSphinx 2 ай бұрын

Jesus Christ is in Heaven ♥️

@dopeydonaldtrump3744 Жыл бұрын

That's his favourite ???? 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣 How bad are the other ones ? Seriously ? That's it ?

@rjskeptic5273 Жыл бұрын

An argument is not a "proof" for a god. In fact not a proof for anything.

@reasonablemind6830 Жыл бұрын

The strongest and strictest kind of proof is what is called deductive argument. All other “proofs” including the conclusions you drawn from what you saw or what you touched, are not strictly proofs but are actually conclusions base on either inductive or abductive arguments. What you saw or touched could be your hallucinations, and hence they cannot be strictly prove that what you saw/touch are real. A strict proof is an argument such that if the premises are true, the conclusion is impossible to be false. Only deductive arguments can achieve that. No empirical touching or seeing can achieve that, as any inference/conclusion drawn from empirical seeing/touching is base on either an inductive or abductive argument which at best gives a conclusion that is probable but still possible to be false, even when all the premises are true. Cheers!

@rjskeptic5273 Жыл бұрын

@@reasonablemind6830 The words you're looking for are valid and sound. Proof is not used in philosophical arguments.

@alphazero5614 Жыл бұрын

What? Proof is a fundamental concept in philosophy, as it is necessary to establish the validity of arguments and claims in various philosophical debates, such as those related to ethics, metaphysics, and epistemology.

@rjskeptic5273 Жыл бұрын

@@alphazero5614 soundness and validity are used in philosophy, not proof.

@razoredge6130 Жыл бұрын

@@rjskeptic5273 What is wrong with the argument?