St. Thomas' Five Ways: How to Prove God Exists w/ Fr. Gregory Pine, O.P. & Prof. Edward Feser

⭐️ Donate $5 today to help keep these videos FREE for everyone!
You can pay it forward for the next viewer: go.thomisticin...
Join Fr. Gregory Pine, O.P. of Aquinas 101, Godsplaining, and Pints with Aquinas for an off-campus conversation with Dr. Edward Feser.
St. Thomas's Five Ways: How to Prove God Exists w/ Fr. Gregory Pine, O.P. & Prof. Edward Feser (Off-Campus Conversations)
You can listen to the original lecture here:
/ demonstrating-the-exis...
Subscribe to our channel here:
www.youtube.co...
--
Enroll in Aquinas 101 to receive the latest videos, readings, and podcasts in your email inbox each week.
Sign up here: aquinas101.tho...
Help us film Aquinas 101!
Donate here: go.thomisticin...
Want to represent the Thomistic Institute on your campus? Check out our online store!
Explore here: go.thomisticin...
Stay connected on social media:
/ thomisticinstitute
/ thomisticinstitute
/ thomisticinst
Visit us at: thomisticinsti...
#ThomisticInstitute #ThomasAquinas #Catholic

[@marilynmelzian7370]

I always enjoy Feser. I find him clear and coherent. Thank you.

[@Thatsgay123]

Ask him To define racism or antisemitism, and see how clear he is. Ask him why saying that 6% of the population commits 50% of the crimes. Ask him if it’s fair that j e w S control a grossly disproportionate part of media.

[@ThomisticInstitute]

You're welcome! Thanks for taking the time to watch and comment. May the Lord bless you!

[@reasonablemind6830]

Hope Prof Feser’s upcoming book on soul will include an examination of “Near Death Experiences”

[@suntzu7727]

I don't think so. If he follows the route of Five Proofs as he says here, he is going to get much deeper into different arguments for the immateriality and immortality of the soul he has already talked about elsewhere. It's going to be purely philosophical arguments, like James Ross' argument from the indeterminacy of material signs vs the determinate character of at least some concepts and things like that.

[@eafowler777]

God bless you Dr. Feser! Your books and lectures have allowed me to understand these arguments and have acted as kind of therapy, slowly purging me my materialist worldview that lead me to atheism in my late teens to late 20s. It’s astonishing how much clearer the world has become (and lighter!) by coming to a basic understanding of scholastic metaphysics. I am so grateful for your work.

[@ThomisticInstitute]

We're so glad Prof. Feser was able to come on the show, and that his works have helped you! Thanks for taking the time to watch and comment. May the Lord bless you!

[@jmike2039]

Im an atheist but i really enjoy listening to Fr. Pine's wealth of knowledge on Thomism. Its a life long project and so i appreciate the platform for these discussions. Your debate/discussion with Joe was an amazing exchange.

[@matswessling6600]

why? its nothing but mental masturbation.

[@alanbreedlove7191]

This is a terrific interview for a novice like me groping towards the truth. It really takes off at the 30 minute mark with Fr. Pine's question and Prof. Feser's response. Thank you both and the Thomistic Institute.

[@ThomisticInstitute]

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

[@iqgustavo]

🎯 Key Takeaways for quick navigation: 00:02 🎙️ Father Gregory Pine and Professor Edward Feser discuss Aquinas' Five Ways to prove God's existence. 02:50 📚 Professor Edward Feser is a philosophy professor at Pasadena City College, author of multiple academic books, and is working on a book about the soul. 07:15 🧠 Understanding Aquinas' Five Ways requires a metaphysical mindset, as they are rooted in philosophy of nature and metaphysics, not modern natural science. 14:46 🌏 You can approach Aquinas' arguments without delving into modern epistemological debates by focusing on contingency and necessity. 17:17 🏭 The nature of the physical world is essential for certain arguments, like the Fifth Way (teleological argument), which relies on Aristotle's understanding of final cause. 21:52 💡 The amount of background metaphysics needed before presenting Aquinas' arguments depends on the specific argument and how controversial the metaphysical concepts are for the audience. 22:21 🤔 When approaching Aquinas' five ways, people often expect either too much clarity or too little depth. It's crucial to approach them through someone who can explain the background metaphysics to ensure correct understanding. 24:25 📚 Aquinas' five ways are not exactly Feser's five proofs. Feser believes they all work, but some require more background metaphysics to appreciate fully. 27:09 🧐 The first way, Aquinas' "unactualized actualizer," is often the most intuitively compelling of the five ways and requires less background metaphysics. 31:17 🤯 Philosophy should be a pursuit of truth, especially ultimate explanations. This approach naturally leads to theism as it involves the concept of a necessary being. 36:09 😡 Contemporary intellectual debates often focus on ego and partisanship rather than the pursuit of truth, hindering meaningful philosophical discussions. 38:15 🧘‍♂️ Cultivating tranquility of mind is essential for engaging in philosophical discussions and contemplation effectively. 42:25 📖 To explore these topics further, you can visit Edward Feser's website (edwardfaser.com) for articles, books, and resources. The Thomistic Institute offers courses on Aquinas' five ways and related subjects.

[@johnharrison7030]

Thank you

[@gaspersignorelli3724]

This is the best interview with Feser I've heard and one the best period. It helps greatly having such an intelligent and well educated interviewer.

[@Ali124hdkflc]

Feser is amazing.

[@tomgreene1843]

He is, have you seen his discussions with Oppy?

[@Ali124hdkflc]

@@tomgreene1843 I have!

[@tomgreene1843]

@@Ali124hdkflc Hope to get some of his writing.

[@deniseazevedo48]

Congratulations. Now, I am reading his excellent book about New Atheism. I am from Brazil

[@bradwalton3977]

Good discussion. I have always respected Feser's learning and intelligence, but now I also admire his depth as a human being.

[@orangutan8617]

I can't wait to read Ed's new book on the soul!

[@tomgreene1843]

The conversations between Feser and Oppy on utube are good. I think F is honest about the power of these for the modern reader.

[@aisthpaoitht]

Thank you so much

[@ThomisticInstitute]

You're welcome! Thanks for taking the time to watch and comment. May the Lord bless you!

[@ironymatt]

19:50 - gutting the argument is precisely the point, for those committed to their own ego over objective truth. The median level of maturity in academia is in freefall as a result.

[@JakeLindqvist]

This was awesome. Thanks guys!

[@ThomisticInstitute]

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

[@Kwisatz-Chaderach]

Dope. Set your Fesers to fun!

[@ThomisticInstitute]

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

[@jhljhl6964]

If God exists, would it be necessary to prove it?

[@godfreydebouillon8807]

No, a vast majority of people don't even understand what a logical proof is, or that there's many, many of them from the greatest minds to ever live for the existence of God, but yet they still believe in and worship God.

[@keenanarthur8381]

Very interesting, now I want to learn more. When I was in college, my favorite professor was a Daoist philosophy professor who passed the year after I graduated. He taught us different historical points of view without necessarily telling us what opinion to have of them. On metaphysical issues I came to class with a theistic point of view, which he neither fully agreed with nor fully disagreed with but rather taught about how different points of view all depend on an assumed starting point (a philosophical cornerstone) which is necessarily a polarized human concept - a concept that may be useful insofar as it gives us something to intellectually build upon, but which is also potentially subject to philosophical deconstruction. So, from an apophatic contemplative perspective, the best way to know God or the Dao or the Ultimate Reality is through abiding in the silent presence beyond polarized concepts. "The way that can be spoken of is not the eternal Way, the name that can be named is the eternal Name."

[@MountAthosandAquinas]

It amazes me the common core found nested in the different theistic traditions and expressions. If God exists then we would expect his footprints to be found not only in the visible creation (which is as a garment) but even more so in the realm of the Intelligibles where the intellect finds its connatural object. That God is “hidden” as nameless and beyond intellection and sensation is a concept widely taught in the mystical tradition of the Church. “The name above every name.” The nameless one from whom all names derive their existence. God is all in all and at the same time none in none. “It’s the glory of God to hide, and it’s the glory of kings to seek and find.” The infinite sea of substance from which all Essences, differentiations, and energies receive their conjunction and existence. Your teacher seemed like a smart man.

[@avechristusrexx]

Feser 💪

[@keenanarthur8381]

I started reading professor Feser's book. In grad school I studied with a number of Hindu and Buddhist professors, so the chapter on the Aristotelian proof is reminding me of debates between Hindus who believe in a fundamental Reality or universal consciousness and Buddhists who believe in dependent origination. So, while the Aristotelian proof seems to cohere fairly well with the Hindu view (that there 'must' be a first cause), the Buddhist response to that would be that all things exist in an interdependent matrix of causes and effects, and are empty of inherent existence (or void of self-existence separate from other dependently originated phenomena). In Feser's example (in the book) of a coffee cup resting on a desk resting on a floor resting on the earth, the coffee cup's state of resting on the desk is not only dependent on the Earth but also on the atmosphere - if atmospheric conditions on Earth were more similar to, say, Venus, the coffee cup and the desk could not exist as such. So the coffee cup arguably has multiple causes. Furthermore, the Earth itself is not one single entity, but an aggregate of countless particles (which themselves are mostly space) that are bound together by the force of gravity. Abstracted to a universal level, in the Buddhist model there is no one "thing" that causes everything else, but rather all particular things in the universe are empty of independent existence from everything else that exists. That's not to say that the idea of a first cause is "wrong" (I actually tend to agree with the theistic model), but to say that I'm not sure that's the only possible model to rationally explain the nature of reality. So, while I choose to believe in God, it seems like there's an existential leap of faith involved in accepting one internally coherent model over another - and that the concept of 'God' has a particular (positive) polarity to it, and so does the (negative) Buddhist concept of 'emptiness.'

[@SaintNektarios]

The problem with dependent origination is that there is an infinite amount of interdependent causes without any initial cause which doesn't seem possible. There has to be a beginning point. An infinite regress cannot cause anything. Try reading Feser's writings on Thomas Aquinas and first cause.

[@keenanarthur8381]

@@SaintNektarios why would that not be possible? The argument you seem to be making is that it’s not possible because you don’t agree with it. An infinite cycle of interdependent causes seems just as plausible as an infinite God. Trading one infinity for a different infinity is hardly proof. They’re not even necessarily mutually exclusive concepts. For example Hindus believe that there are countless universes that go through massive cycles of millions of years in which the Godhead creates, preserves, and destroys that universe within itself in a similar manner to how a dreamer dreams up a reality before awakening. So there’s no beginning to the infinity of time in that view, only a beginning to particular universes. Speculating that there’s only one beginning to one universe seems like putting limits on what God is capable of.

[@aisthpaoitht]

You are confusing physical causation (for which, everything you say is true) with philosophical causation, for lack of a better word. A statue is actualized out of bronze only in a mind. Likewise, humans are actualized in God's mind out of formless matter. Aquinas and Feser address this.

[@godfreydebouillon8807]

Right, multiple causations is not the issue though. You can fully admit that without the desk the coffee could not be suspended where it is, at this moment correct? Nor without the floor, the earth etc, right? There could be multiple chains, but if any one link breaks in any chain, the whole effect is not sustainable.

[@Enigmatic_philosopher]

Here is an attempt to use formal logic notation to clarify some of the philosophical problems with the Five Ways as presented in the video: 1. The argument from motion Let M = There is motion in the world Let A = Actualization of potential Let U = An unmoved mover exists The argument seems to be: 1. M 1. M only if A 1. A 1. A only if U 1. Therefore, U The problem is that premise 2 relies on an outdated Aristotelian physics that viewed all change as actualization of potentials. This could be represented as: ~(M only if A) Since premise 2 is questionable, the argument is unsound. 2. The argument from causation Let C = Contingent beings exist Let N = A necessary being exists The argument seems to be: 1. C 1. C only if N 1. Therefore, N The problem is that premise 2 assumes infinite causal regresses are impossible, but modern cosmology suggests they are possible, which would undermine the need for a necessary terminating cause. This could be represented as: ~(C only if N) Since premise 2 is questionable, the argument is unsound. This illustrates how using formal logic notation can help clarify the underlying structure of arguments and exactly where problematic premises are located. Similar analysis could be done for the other Five Ways to pinpoint additional issues.

[@godfreydebouillon8807]

That isn't even remotely accurate. The nature of change is METAPHYSICAL, and this does not in any way whatsoever rely on Aristotelian physics. As opposed to modern day atheist physicists who will sit there and make metaphysically vacuous statements such as "change is an illusion" or "change is all there really is"? So no, these arguments have nothing to do with physics, and a coherent view of physics presupposes them. These concepts are no more similar than claiming Einsteins failed cosmological model was the "basis" for the theory of relativity. No, they had nothing in common. Good try though... He explains this around 8:00 where he explains that "physics" as used then is not the same as the word "physics" we use today. that we u

[@Enigmatic_philosopher]

@@godfreydebouillon8807 I don't want to have to explain the entire philosophical paradigm that is clearly unfamiliar to you in order to explain this. It might be more productive if you presented a specific argument you have and I can address that.

[@godfreydebouillon8807]

@@Enigmatic_philosopher lol, yeah, you're going to "explain" it to me. Again, the FACT that change is the actualization of potentials is not "outdated" physics any more than "math is universal" is outdated physics anymore than "the truth of propositions are universal" is outdated physics. The FACT that everything that exists has a range of potencies, and can never be actualized outside of its essence is simply not up for some scientific debate. H2O when combined have the potential to FORM (formal causes) steam, water or ice, and never gasoline, acid or slime. This isn't some theory in physics, it's based on logical possibilities, enumerations and ranges. Even IF scientists discovered that H2O has some other state than we are currently aware of, it would mean that there's simply a potentiality we are currently unaware of. It'd be like missing a prediction of a comments trajectory and thinking you just "falsified" the universality of math. Uh, no. So, just no. Modern physics does not have anything whatsoever to say about Aristotelian metaphysics whatsoever. Modern physics is utterly dependent upon a coherent metaphysical framework which is acquired using logic and reasoning, NOT SCIENCE.

[@bennyredpilled5455]

@@Enigmatic_philosophercope

[@Enigmatic_philosopher]

⁠@@godfreydebouillon8807 To maintain the integrity of a metaphysical claim while simultaneously arguing for its independence from physics implies a degree of circular reasoning. It suggests that such a claim is true in a way that is immune to empirical evidence, but this very assertion relies on a kind of metaphysical postulate that it itself tries to defend. The evolution of science, particularly physics, has often led to revisions in our metaphysical understanding. Take, for instance, the shift from Newtonian mechanics to Einstein’s theory of relativity, which fundamentally altered our concepts of space and time. These empirical advancements challenged the existing metaphysical frameworks and necessitated new ways of conceptualizing reality. Moreover, the very nature of scientific inquiry is to test hypotheses against observable phenomena. If a metaphysical theory is claimed to be beyond such scrutiny, it sets itself apart from the foundational principles of scientific methodology. It asserts its own veracity without allowing for the possibility of falsification or modification in light of new empirical data. In philosophy, this resistance to empirical evidence is problematic because it doesn’t allow the metaphysical claim to be engaged with or potentially refuted by new discoveries. To say that a metaphysical theory cannot be influenced by physical findings is, in a way, to presuppose its absolute truth without subjecting it to the rigorous examination that characterizes robust philosophical and scientific inquiry. It assumes a kind of epistemic immunity for metaphysics that is itself a metaphysical stance needing justification. Thus, suggesting that metaphysics is unaffected by the empirical realm raises a fundamental question: If a metaphysical claim cannot be revised in light of new empirical evidence, on what grounds can it claim to represent reality? Without addressing this question, the assertion of metaphysical immunity to empirical findings risks begging the question and circumvents the critical dialogue between metaphysics and empirical science that is central to the growth of knowledge. Part II The metaphysical approach to understanding reality, particularly in relation to Aquinas’s Five Ways, indeed aims at providing an ultimate explanation, seeking the unconditioned beyond the contingent phenomena we observe. As Kant has critiqued, this metaphysical pursuit, while integral to our rational nature, is fraught with what he calls “transcendental illusion,” the error of presuming that our subjective principles necessarily hold objective reality. This illusion can be seen in the propensity to extend our rational principles beyond the bounds of possible experience, leading to metaphysical speculations that claim certainty where there is none (as discussed in Kant’s Critique of Metaphysics). Furthermore, the debate between rationalism and empiricism, as highlighted by the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, emphasizes the importance of experience in shaping our concepts and knowledge. The empiricist stance, which challenges the notion that reason alone can lead to superior knowledge, is particularly instructive when considering the premises underlying Aquinas’s arguments. While the rationalists hold that certain knowledge can be innate or acquired independently of experience, empiricists argue that our understanding is ultimately grounded in empirical reality. Therefore, while metaphysical principles may guide inquiry, they must remain open to revision in light of empirical discoveries. The metaphysical concept of motion as actualization of potential, for example, may have been coherent within the Aristotelian framework but needs reconsideration in light of contemporary physics. Similarly, the notion of an essential “necessary being” as the terminus of causal chains must contend with modern cosmological theories that allow for the possibility of infinite regress or self-contained universes. In sum, while we cannot dismiss our metaphysical interests or the rational pursuit of the unconditioned, we must approach them critically, aware of the limits of our knowledge and the potential for illusion. A philosophy that remains responsive to empirical findings respects the empirical thesis’s insistence that experience is our only source of knowledge in certain subject areas. Thus, a robust critique of Aquinas’s Five Ways should involve a nuanced understanding that while metaphysical reasoning is an important facet of philosophical inquiry, it must not be disconnected from empirical insights. This dynamic between metaphysics and empirical evidence is a crucial point of engagement in contemporary philosophy, ensuring that our metaphysical frameworks evolve with our growing empirical understanding of the universe.

[@RobLewis3]

I am very proud to say that I understood at LEAST 1% what was said here. Maybe 2% 😂

[@matswessling6600]

there isnt any to understand. just word salad.

[@ronaldrrootiii6040]

The problem I have is that if God is so mighty and everywhere and made everything and above everything wouldn't we just be arguing things about him but it would be common knowledge that he exists and not arguing his mere existence itself? It's like the example of when you see smoke you know there's a fire even if you can't see the fire you see the evidence of the fire by the smoke but if you've never actually seen God and no one has actually shown you God then he isn't like the fire because the fire you know is there cuz you've seen fire before you've never seen God so you can't say the evidence of him is for sure from him but you're just guessing that the evidence is from him

[@piotrkowalczyk9393]

Crux sancta sit mihi lux non Draco sit mihi dux vade retro Satana numquam suade mihi vana sunt mala que libas ipse venena bibas.

[@cnault3244]

How to prove god exists? Step one: present a clear valid definition for god. ( a valid definition will contain no logical fallacies or unproven assertions) Step two: present evidence for the clearly defined god that can be examined and verified

[@godfreydebouillon8807]

That isn't how logical proofs, mathematical proofs or metaphysics work. The things you suggested are what you do if you want to find out if some contingent being may exist. You find someone scientists and they go around looking for Bigfoot scat to support someones hypothesis that he exists. That isn't what this is, you're on the wrong channel. You sound silly.

[@markbirmingham6011]

Comment for traction🎉

[@TheProdigalMeowMeowMeowReturns]

I don’t like saying this, but it just has to be noted. Feser’s complaint about people being nasty and gratuitously aggressive and insulting in philosophy of religion is utterly ironic given the way he talks to and about people- including preemptively.

[@godfreydebouillon8807]

Yeah, but when he does that, he's referring to people who literally write books as "experts" on the subject but aren't even remotely accurate when they explain to their ignorant readers what the arguments are, as they "refute" them. As an example, Feser uses the analogy of the full rage these arrogant asses would display if some young 6 week creationist wrote a book as some "authority" on the matter of evolution and claimed the theory of evolution argues that a monkey gave birth to a human several million years ago. Most atheists are even MORE ignorant when they try to not just comment on, but they pass themselves of as the worlds foremost experts on things they literally know nothing about. The fact that they are abject ignoramuses is important for everybody to understand.

[@TheProdigalMeowMeowMeowReturns]

@@godfreydebouillon8807 sadly, no, Feser sometimes engages innocent people in the same way.

[@TheProdigalMeowMeowMeowReturns]

@@Psycho--Troll_Slayer Would that help ? Do you actually want that? Honestly, it's not a secret lol

[@TheProdigalMeowMeowMeowReturns]

@@Psycho--Troll_Slayer A tame example would be the nasty replies he gave Mullins a few years back. DBH is the same way.

[@hiker-uy1bi]

Am I right in thinking that one of the preeminent Thomistic philosophers in the world teaches at a junior college? What am I missing?

[@aisthpaoitht]

I am guessing it is for personal reasons. I don't think he has his ego attached to his institution.

[@sethapex9670]

I feel like the 5 ways are less powerful than something like the fine tuning argument because it forces opponents of God to posit a near infinite number of universes, and really an infinite number of multiverse to contain them that allow those universes to have the right variables in the first place, and an infinite number of layers above that. This is all required if you want to produce a universe like ours without intentionality.

[@jbayne8154]

You mean more powerful?

[@suntzu7727]

Aside from the fact that this is based on current empirical science which could be different with some next discoveries, the 5 ways don't depend on any of that, so they are more powerful. Let there be a near infinite number of universes even an infinite one (if you think that's possible), the 5 ways still work the same. That's also because of another major difference: the 5 ways and the other theistic proofs that Ed has defended demonstrate the necessity of God no matter how the world turns out to be, so God is necessary for any possible world to exist and God couldn't not have existed. That matters, not only because it makes the arguments much stronger than that from design, but because they prove the nature of God, while the design one doesn't. Even if you think the design one is sound and true, it only shows there is an intelligent designer. Could be an evil cosmic being, a cosmic extraterrestrial or whatever. Why is that designer God in the classical sense of the word and worthy of worship? Just because he is smart and powerful? How do you know it is not another contingent being of unknown origin with its own limitations and deficiencies? In no way does it show that He is the ultimate bedrock of reality, Being itself, the Good itself, or any of that. At best you end up with monopolytheism, namely you get a super powerful being, which is a god in the pagan sense of the world, it just so happens that there is one of those (being generous and not mentioning that the argument from design also leaves it open that there could be 7 designers).

[@aisthpaoitht]

​@@suntzu7727we'll said

[@gfujigo]

Ed Feser is awesome on proofs of God and Classical theism. Just awesome. Praise God 😊 I disagree with his politics though. 🤨 Nonetheless, he is still awesome and truly a gift to Christendom. I can’t wait to listen to him in this video.

[@henryvdl3692]

What are his politics?

[@gfujigo]

@@henryvdl3692 He is pro death penalty, and critical of attempts to care for the vulnerable. I disagree with him on these points and the Bible is clear about our commitments to mercy, forgiveness and caring for the vulnerable. Also, in his debate on issues with David Bentley Hart, I agree with David Bentley Hart on his critiques of Feser's stance on the death penalty and on the doctrine of the apokatastasis. (I also think David Bentley Hart is a great credit to Christendom and to humanity. He has deep spiritual insights.) Nonetheless, I think Feser is a great advocate and defender or Christianity and truly a blessing for the faith.

[@josephclark1431]

Can you cite where he stakes out not caring for the vulnerable? If he's against the Welfare State, that's definitely not the same thing

[@josephalbrigo4344]

With regards to the death penalty, his stance does have both biblical and historical church support. At the very least, his discussion on the principle is very interesting and the connection he draws to punishment generally is fascinating and well articulated

[@gfujigo]

@@josephalbrigo4344 I agree with your summary of his position regarding the death penalty. I simply disagree with his position and the reasons he offers. I still think he is an awesome person and a deep mind.

[@rolandovelasquez135]

How to prove God exists? For the genuine Christian the Lord God Almighty has revealed Himself completely in his Word. It's through a person. Jesus Christ of Nazareth. If that person really did say and do all the things the New Testament says he said and did and if he really and truly and literally did rise from the dead, then he is, in fact, the Son of God and God does exist. He and only he reveals the Father to us. And who knows the Father better than the Son? It's not a rhetorical question. But let me allow the Son to speak for himself: “I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but through Me. John 14:6 “Have I been so long with you, and yet you have not come to know Me, ...? He who has seen Me has seen the Father; how can you say, ‘Show us the Father’? John 14:9 And let us not forget that on the feast of St. Nicholas in 1273, Thomas Aquinas was celebrating Mass when he received a revelation that so affected him that he wrote and dictated no more. He even left his great work the Summa Theologiae unfinished. The reason he gave was, "All that I have written appears to be as so much straw after the things that have been revealed to me.” And let us also not forget that straw, typically, is the part of the grain harvest that is relatively useless, unfit for human consumption. To discover any theological truth you need go no further than the Word of God. Human reasoning has some value but ultimately it pales in comparison to the Word (Jesus): "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God... In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it. John 1:1‭-‬2‭, ‬4‭-‬5 If one does not know whether or not God exists he simply "has not comprehended it (the Word)" and he or she has not come to the saving knowledge of Jesus Christ and is not born again. “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God.” John 3:3

[@Enigmatic_philosopher]

Here is a philosophical critique of the video: The video presents an argument for God's existence based on Aquinas' Five Ways. However, the argument has some issues from a philosophical perspective. First, the Five Ways themselves face philosophical critiques. For example, the argument from motion relies on outdated Aristotelian physics that viewed all change as the actualization of potentials. Modern physics does not describe motion in this way, undermining the argument. The argument from causation presumes that infinite causal regresses are impossible, but there are models in modern cosmology that allow for them. The argument from contingency argues for a "necessary being" as the explanation for contingent beings, but necessary beings are arguably incoherent philosophical notions. Second, even granting the Five Ways, they only get to a very generic god, not the Christian conception of God. The arguments say nothing about this god being omniscient, omnipotent, morally perfect, or triune. Additional philosophical arguments would be needed to get to those divine attributes. Third, the existence of widespread disagreement about the Five Ways calls into question how objectively compelling they really are. If the Five Ways were clear, sound arguments, we would expect greater consensus among philosophers, not ongoing debate about their cogency. This suggests the arguments may rely on controversial metaphysical principles that not all philosophers accept. Fourth, the video does not address serious philosophical critiques and objections to the Five Ways. A robust defense of them requires grappling with these critiques, not merely rehearsing the arguments. The lack of engagement with counterarguments weakens the overall case being made. In summary, while the Five Ways present interesting philosophical arguments for God's existence, they face significant critiques in terms of their underlying metaphysics, their ability to establish the Christian conception of God, the lack of consensus around them, and the need to further defend them by addressing counterarguments. A compelling philosophical case would require bolstering the Five Ways to overcome these critiques. The video, unfortunately, does not do so.

[@martam4142]

Modern physics is not meta-physics. Modern physics studies existing (actual) matter and its behavior. Metaphysics explains what matter IS. Mixing them is a common mistake. And lots of scientists overstep their boundaries. Physicas and meta-physics are intimately related, but they are NOT the same.

[@Enigmatic_philosopher]

@@martam4142 In scrutinizing the metaphysical arguments presented in the video, particularly Aquinas’ Five Ways, it’s vital to consider the critiques from a contemporary philosophical perspective. Firstly, the concept of causality in Aquinas’ First and Second Ways presents a fundamental problem. Aquinas uses the principle that everything has a cause to conclude there is something without a cause - God. This seems self-contradictory. While Aquinas argues that all things we experience have causes, it’s not a contradiction to suggest there’s a first cause of a different kind, unseen by humans. However, this notion raises the question of why an infinite regress of causes is deemed impossible or unacceptable. J. L. Mackie challenges the First and Second Ways by criticizing Aquinas’ use of Aristotle’s ‘reductio ad absurdum’ reasoning. Mackie suggests that an infinite chain of causes isn’t absurd and is a viable possibility. In an infinite chain, every event has a preceding cause, meaning nothing is left needing an initial cause. This undermines the necessity for a first cause or God. Mackie also objects to the Third Way by disputing Aquinas’ claim that if everything were contingent, there would have been a time when there was nothing. He proposes the possibility of an infinite series of overlapping contingent things, implying there’s never a time when nothing exists, eliminating the need for a ‘necessary being.’ Bertrand Russell argues against the First and Second Ways by pointing out the fallacy of composition. Just because every part of something has a property doesn’t mean the whole has that property. Similarly, just because every event in an infinite series has a cause, it doesn’t mean the whole series needs a cause. This casts doubt on the necessity of a first cause for the universe. David Hume adds that we cannot know anything about the universe’s creation, as humans have no experience in creating universes. He suggests that the universe itself might be the uncaused ‘first cause,’ questioning why God should be favored as the ultimate explanation. If we assert God as the cause of the universe, we then face the infinite regress of questioning what caused God, and so on. These critiques highlight that while Aquinas’ arguments may have been compelling in their historical context, they face significant challenges when viewed through the lens of contemporary philosophical thought. The issues of causality, infinite regress, and the fallacy of composition bring into question the validity of Aquinas’ metaphysical approach in proving the existence of God.

[@martyfromnebraska1045]

Ed’s getting old :( I’m getting old.

[@TheProdigalMeowMeowMeowReturns]

54 is still young

[@damianwhite504]

The only real way you can prove God, is to yourself

[@kyler9323]

Waaayyy toooo much IQ on this stream

[@michelangelope830]

I have explained the atheist fallacy infinite times and i would do it one more time. The more humanity pretend to be dumb the more deaths as a result. Future generations would understand easily the obvious truth. Atheism assumes God is sky daddy or the imaginary friend with a terrible temper living in the sky that do religious miracles interfering reality for prayers and concludes wrongly that the creator of the creation doesn’t exist. The quote "We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further." by renowned atheist Richard Dawkins exemplifies the fallacy or error of reasoning. An analogy of the quote would be that a perfect painting was discovered and different religious people believed that it was made by different painters with some of their attributes made up, and that they deserve to be worshipped, and atheists didn't believe that any of those painters existed, concluding that the painting has no painter. That none of the painters made up by religious people exist doesn’t mean that the painting was not painted by a painter. An atheist is an organ asking for evidence that the body exists. The difference between a lie and a mistake is that the mistake is rectified because is not done in bad faith. Arguments are refuted with arguments in good faith to be honest. Laughing or calling 'crazy' doesn't count as argument unless it is explained what is funny or irrational. What is news if the discovery that atheism is a logical fallacy is not?

[@bradwalton3977]

quo saepius Gregorium Pine conspicio, eo magis amoriferus ille mihi videtur. idem tamen de Edwardo Feser dicere non possum.

[@vgrof2315]

Blah, blah, blah. Sadly, all for nothing.

[@Kenji17171]

Why?

[@PhilSophia-ox7ep]

Profound rebuttal. You must have been captain of the debate team....at your remedial highschool.