Five Ways to Prove God Exists (Aquinas 101)

[@ThomisticInstitute]

If you're enjoying this video, we think you'll love our new SERIES on this topic! kzbin.info/www/bejne/pn26gZmtocR-oJY

[@PirateRadioPodcasts]

thx! Meanwhile: Q - Exactly, WHICH God exists? ODIN? THOR? SHIVA? HADES? MARS? SET, etc?

[@rmt3589]

@@PirateRadioPodcasts יהוה

[@YeshuaisnotJesus]

Lying on KZbin is easy.

[@John777Revelation]

For millennia, connotations of the word "God" have become so deteriorated. The terms Consciousness / Mind / Intelligence seem more relevant for these types of discussions. It seems that the concept of God is not experimentally testable. However, evidence for the effects of Consciousness / Mind / Intelligence are scientifically demonstrable. The illogical, irrational, and unreasonable position of claiming that there is No Universal Mind / Consciousness / Intelligence (i.e. Atheism): The fallacy is the assumption that something is true (i.e. Universal Mind / Consciousness / Intelligence does not exist) unless proven otherwise. The Claimant making a negative claim (i.e. Universal Mind / Consciousness / Intelligence does not exist) cannot logically, rationally, and reasonably prove nonexistence. Because, for a Claimant to know that X does not exist would require the Claimant to possess 100% knowledge of all things with 100% certainty and 100% accuracy (i.e. omniscience). Even mainstream secular scientists claim that approx. 95% of the Universe is still unknown (i.e. Dark Energy and Dark Matter). Of the remaining 5% of the Universe, only 0.0035% exists within the visible light spectrum which the human eye is capable of observing. Moreover, of all that is made of atoms and capable of being observed in this "Material" universe, 99.999999999% is actually empty space (i.e. "Non-material"). Therefore, there is much, much more that humanity does not know about the Universe and Reality than it does know. Based on just this information, the position of claiming to be Atheist is shown to be illogical, irrational and unreasonable. *_“… Everyone who is seriously engaged in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that the laws of nature manifest the existence of a spirit vastly superior to that of men, and one in the face of which we with our modest powers must feel humble.”_* Albert Einstein (1879 - 1955), founder of modern physics (Theory of Relativity inter alia) and 1921 Nobel prize winner *_“All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particle of an atom to vibration and holds this most minute solar system of the atom together. We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent mind (i.e. Observer). This mind is the matrix of all matter.”_* Max Plank (the Father of Quantum Physics) Modern scientific discoveries in Genetics (i.e. biology) have shown that functional / coded / digital Information (i.e. DNA code) is at the core of All Biological Systems. Without functional / coded / digital information, there is No biology. The only known source (i.e. cause) in the universe that has been Observed (i.e. Scientific Method) in nature to be capable of producing functional / coded / digital information, such as that found even in the most primitive biological systems, is mind / consciousness / intelligence. The fact that DNA / genes (biological coded information) exists at all shows that a Consciousness-'Intelligence-Mind' is involved in the initial introduction and subsequent propagation of living systems. Un-directed random material natural processes have never been observed in nature or experimentally demonstrated to be capable of producing Functional / Coded / Digital information such as that required for biological systems, even at the most primitive levels of biological life. *_"Language: All Digital communications require a formal language, which in this context consists of all the information that the sender and receiver of the digital communication must both possess, in advance, in order for the communication to be successful."_* (Wikipedia: Digital Data) Inherent in DNA is language. Language is scientifically proven to be the product of only Mind/ Consciousness / Intelligence. Laws of the Universe exist Independent of anyone's personal beliefs in the existence of the Laws of the Universe. Just as man-made laws govern society globally, Universal Laws govern the entire Universe. Un-directed random material natural processes have never been observed in nature or experimentally demonstrated to be capable of producing any form of laws. As scientifically confirmed, non-material laws are the product of only Mind / Consciousness / Intelligence. The “World’s Most Notorious Atheist” and World’s Icon and Champion Advocate for Atheism for over 50 years, Antony Flew, finally concluded, *_“I now believe that the universe was brought into existence by an infinite Intelligence. I believe that this universe’s intricate laws manifest what scientists have called the Mind of God. I believe that life and reproduction originate in a divine Source. Why do I believe this, given that I expounded and defended atheism for more than a half century? The short answer is this: this is the world picture, as I see it, that has emerged from MODERN SCIENCE.”_*

[@TimBigler]

if only the one true christian God, somehow split in 3, but hey, he is God, he can do anything, right? anyways, he could come down, again, and just straighten everything out... or is he afraid of being double crossed?

[@ckokomo808]

As someone raised Catholic and moved away from the Church and faith, I found myself wondering/wandering in other spiritual directions. Upon reflection, I found myself with a “hole in my heart” seeking something which I didn’t understand. At first, I dismissed it as just my upbringings and “brainwashing”. I wandered into Yoga and some New Age ideas. These had inklings of spiritual Truths which satiated my heart on a surface level, but I found myself moving on. Much like the prodigal son, I am finding myself on the road back home- back to the Church. There are still plenty of doubts, but people/channels/The Church Fathers are places in which I’m finding knowledge and more importantly, wisdom. Thank you for sharing the brilliance of St. Thomas. I will continue to watch and (hopefully) grow closer towards God.

[@ThomisticInstitute]

Thanks so much for sharing this! We hope our work helps you to know and love God more! God bless you.

[@Gwido7]

May the Holy Ghost guide you, brother and make you come back home to the Catholic Church.

[@NinaZemlock]

You just LITERALLY explained EXACTLY what I’m going through! It’s like I wrote that comment lol .. good luck on your journey!!

[@j-joe-jeans]

It sounds like you had this emotionally charged home and filled it with things of desire over what is true. Is satiating desire really more valuable than truth to you?

[@j-joe-jeans]

@@NinaZemlock Why follow a path of blind faith over one of intellectual honesty and objective truth?

[@rosiegirl2485]

This brings St. Josephine Bahkita to mind. She was an African child who was brought into slavery, in the 19th century, following the killing of her parents. She had never heard of the Christian God. Though she would look up at the sun and the moon, and say, who ever made those has got to be very powerful! As she grew into a young women, she was bought by an Italian man who brought her back to Italy to care for his young daughter. At that time, she stayed at the convent with the nuns, who introduced her to the Christian God, for the first time. She ended up joining those Sisters...and amazingly went on to become a Saint! One would have thought she would have been consumed by anger and hate, following the abuse she suffered at the hands of her captors..but she wasn't! It's a beautiful story of love! 🌹

[@steffen2165]

Who gives a fuck about a dumb slave

[@gfujigo]

Slavery is evil. Period. Her captors and enslavers will pay for their evil. God does not ignore injustice.

[@rosiegirl2485]

@@gfujigo Slavery is evil...what your missing is that God allowed it..to bring a good out of it. St. Bakhita was very loving. She touched everyone she came into contact with. In the end...evil did not win!

[@electrictroy2010]

THERE ARE 100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 suns just like ours. Even if a superbeing existed, no way could he create that immense universe. AND there’s no reason he would care about our sun more than all the others. We are just a speck of dust in the grand scale of the cosmos .

[@heartyhaha]

You have a truly beautiful perspective. However, please mindful of what you share, what you have shared opens moral wounds. I struggle to imagine many a slaves' resignation to their fate as "a story of love". Yours faithfully, A displaced immigrant who's family was torn apart by men of faith and "educated" by the Jesuits. I believe in God in hopes that one day we may meet and I may ask, is it truly just to impose existence on the unwilling?

[@gestiperiferici]

Thank you from the bottom of my heart for your course and channel. I’m studying for an exam on medieval theology and I’m so grateful for these videos, both informative and peaceful! They help me to understand better the books I’m studying!

[@sasutchi5695]

To whom did Aquinas wrote the 5 ways of knowing God??

[@electrictroy2010]

THERE ARE 100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 suns just like ours. Even if a superbeing existed, no way could he create that immense universe. AND there’s no reason he would care about our sun more than all the others. We are just a speck of dust in the grand scale of the cosmos .

[@janusg8680]

@@electrictroy2010 I think you are contradicting yourself, by saying that a superbeing is limited, i.e. not a superbeing.

[@mikek4040]

@electrictroy2010 if you had 1 trillion dollars in bills made up of 1 billion dollar bills would you say the same thing?

[@RonJohn63]

@@electrictroy2010 certainly someone as smart as you knows that gods are supposed to be supernatural, and what "supernatural" means.

[@neliborba101]

The intelligence behind the creation is God. His power is not perceived by human beings but is there all the time. God is intelligence and almighty power, He permeates all things.

[@petermeyer6873]

"His power is not perceived by human beings but is there all the time" To say this as a human beeing is just as logic as to claim: "Im sniffing the fart, that nobody let go"

[@danielortiz3713]

List starts at 6:20

[@blanklycharismatic7397]

Thank you.

[@stephenjohnson3163]

I love that Thomas Aquinas assures all the faithful that God exists as well as provides a way to know this ourselves.

[@handhdhd6522]

Faith: belief beyond reasonable doubt

[@Tzimiskes3506]

@@handhdhd6522 atheism - a belief

[@handhdhd6522]

@@Tzimiskes3506 how is atheism a belief if you don’t believe in anything??

[@Tzimiskes3506]

@@handhdhd6522 believe the oxford dictionary...

[@handhdhd6522]

@@Tzimiskes3506 a - absence, theism - belief of god, atheism - absence of belief if god

[@mordec1016]

A very brief summary of the line of reasoning which leads us to God: we know there are dependent things all around us - things which do not have to exist, and which therefore do not exist solely by themselves, but are dependent on causes. Fire, trees, people, planets, molecules, atoms, stars, and so on. Naturally, there must be a cause or explanation for why and how all dependent things exist. Even if there were an infinity of dependent causes, one producing another, this would still not be an explanation for why the totality of dependent things exist - why do all of these things and causes exist, rather than nothing, or some other totality of things? How can any totality - even if infinite in number - of dependent things manage to exist in the first place? The only explanation is if there is a Foundation of things which is itself independent, self-sufficient, necessary, unconditioned, which could not even in principle have failed to be. A Foundation which is the ultimate cause and ground of the existence of all dependent, conditioned things. Why is this Necessary, Unconditioned, Absolute Foundation of reality called God? Here are a few brief reasons. First, the Foundation is all-powerful, because it is the ultimate cause of all possible dependent things. Every existing thing and reality ultimately derives from this Foundation. Secondly, the Foundation, besides being necessarily-existing, self-sufficient, unconditioned, eternal, all-powerful, etc., is also very plausibly personal and intelligent, since A) all powers and realities ultimately derive from the Foundation, which means the Foundation has all powers and all its configurations, including intelligence, and B) the order and harmony of dependent reality, which has regular natural laws instead of chaos, and life, consciousness, complexity, and so on, makes it very plausible that the Foundation/First Cause is intelligent. Much more could be said, but I'll leave this here as a brief summary.

[@ThomisticInstitute]

You might chat through this with Pat Flynn. He has recently come up with a sketch that sounds very similar in its essential contours.

[@alexmcd378]

Do you hold a deist or theist position? Is this prime mover that you accept an unknowable creator (deist), or a personal god from a particular ancient holy text(theist)? If a particular god, how is the prime mover argument, as this argument is known, proof of your specific god instead of another? If one prime mover exists, then could not additional ones exist? How can you differentiate a universe caused by one original entity vs a universe caused by multiple entities working together?

[@mordec1016]

Alex McD 1- I'm a theist, but also a Catholic Christian. Proving the existence of an intelligent Creator doesn't automatically get us to Christianity, of course, for that other arguments would be required. The video (and my comment) are only about God, in a broad theistic sense; 2- I believe there can be only one creator, on the basis of further arguments. One which I find very powerful is Avicenna's tawhid proof of oneness, which Aquinas also uses: we have established the existence of a Necessary Being. Why couldn't there be more than one? Because if there were two Necessary first causes, say, NB1 and NB2, they would have to have some differentiae which makes them two distinct beings instead of one. They share a common nature - that of being a necessarily-existing thing -, which we might call N. But then NB1 is N+A and NB2 is N+B. A and B are the purported differences between NB1 and NB2. The problem is that there would be no explanation whatsoever for these properties - why does NB1 have A and NB2 has B? It cannot stem from N, since both of them share N, so if A or B were essential properties of N both necessary beings would have them, and so wouldn't be distinct. But if A and B are not essential, then they are contingent - but in this case, there's nothing that could produce the properties for NB1 and NB2, since that would make NB1 and 2 dependent upon whatever gives them their distinct properties, and as necessary beings and first causes they cannot be dependent. This is not a problem for contingent entities such as us, since we get our contingent properties from causes - I have my height because of the specific powers in the genes of my parents, etc... With a Necessary Being, all properties must be essential. They must always have them, independently, solely by their own nature. But we've already seen that this cannot be the case, since Nb1 and 2 share the same essence N, so all their essential properties would have to be the same. But then Nb1 and 2 cannot have any distinct properties. If they can't have any distinct properties, they can't be different, and if they can't be different, they're One and not two. So there can be at most one necessary being, Q.E.D. This argument can be very demanding logically, so be careful not to get confused. There are also other arguments for preferring only one necessary first cause instead of two, such as Ockham's razor, Gellmann's argument, etc. I suggest you watch Robert Koons's "why the first cause is God" video on Capturing Christianity here on KZbin; he discusses several arguments including in favor of uniqueness.

[@alexmcd378]

@@mordec1016 I'm afraid that argument has never been very convincing. Why must all traits of a necessary being be necessary? Couldn't two necessary beings differ in their capacity to support dependent entities? They could differ in location, having access to dimensions of movement we cannot perceive. They could differ in moral compass, being benevolent, or malevolent, or amoral. And we are discussing an entity that would be beyond our comprehension of it existed, so it may well have differentiating traits we can't imagine.

[@alexmcd378]

Mordec 101 also, your own argument precludes the god of the Bible. If a necessary entity has only traits defined by N, then they are unable to change in any capacity since N cannot change. But the god of the Bible changes over time, from book to book and even within stories. He is repeatedly surprised by the actions of his creations, which means gaining knowledge, which is a change. What he considers immoral or an abomination changes over time. His own personality changes dramatically from old to new testament. And most dramatically, he changed from an evident god physically manifesting all over the place to a hidden god that doesn't measurably interact with the world in any way that is different from the laws of nature. These are changes in traits, which means these traits aren't necessary, which means the god of the Bible cannot be one with the necessary being that you defined into existence.

[@justfortomorrow89]

I am Mexican. I was raised catholic. I lost my way in my teens and became an atheist. I am now 34 and there is a strong conviction in my heart that sometimes I feel, and I wonder if it’s too late for me for God to accept me back 😢

[@adriandurancolombo2448]

It will never be too late, he's been waiting for you to comeback, and a good father never gets tired of waiting for his children 😺

[@grommetsfrog6596]

Impossible. The Church is waiting! You have an infinitely rich identity as a Catholic and from a long line of Catholics no less. Try the Traditional Latin Mass. It puts everything in its proper order through an unimagineable beauty. God bless you.

[@devmyster925]

when you take one step toward God, he runs to you. it’s never to late brother

[@Paladin_440]

Read chapter 15 of the Gospel of Saint Luke. The Lord does not forget those who return, nor think less of them.

[@mit15]

Don't believe it!! God will always welcome you back into the fold! The persistent idea of God not accepting us back after we fall is a trick by the Devil to turn us away from Him (God).

[@markrudis4419]

If i thought that i would be exposed to this kind of wisdom i would surely join the Catholic Church. Ive studied eastern wisdom for years and what i believe as a result is evidently what St Thomas taught. Thank you.

[@markrudis4419]

Subscribed.

[@shastasilverchairsg]

I dabbled in new age spirituality, nonduality etc and listened to "enlightened" gurus... got absolutely nowhere with all of their "nondual" nonsense about equanimity and "the watching conciousness". 5 minutes of going back to my childhood religion did more for me than 5 years of new-agey-Buddhist-Hindu-enlightened-impervious-to-pain-yogis.

[@markrudis4419]

@@shastasilverchairsg that is why there is more than one path to the Devine. Thomas Aquinas acknowledges the same verdict. My path is obviously different than yours.

[@eraimattei]

Buddhism brought me to the first clear ideas of life. But it's always the same. Only the highest forms of philosophy will bring you to enlightenment, that's why Thomas adored Aristoteles and ancient Greek philosophers. Of course we must understand these notions WITH christ but it's never a matter of imposing one idea unto another but only a continuous flow of historical thoughts.

[@toninobelimussi296]

@@markrudis4419 There may be more than one path to God, since there is a path from each of us to God (attracting each of us to Himself). But no path is true if it avoids Jesus Christ. At some point, either God became (also) Man (2nd Person of the Triune God) so that all of us, potentially, could be saved or - as many believe - that didn't happen or, if it did, somehow it was pointless because there are other ways to reach salvation. True Salvation comes from Jesus Christ, true God and true Man. Jesus Christ came to die for us on the Cross, but that doesn't mean "anything goes" since He warned "if you're not with me, you're against me".

[@antonjuust3662]

I know, the fear of the Lord is everything and good. Thank you good Man for stressing this point which is clear.

[@josephzammit8483]

kzbin.info/www/bejne/qqKymmuAi86Jm9U

[@robertm7071]

I have seen a number of descriptions of the Five Ways, all of which were fairly impenetrable to me. This is the first which explains it in a graspable form. Thank you, Father James.

[@ThomisticInstitute]

You're welcome! Glad you found it helpful.

[@proinloin]

the most comprehensive explanation I''ve ever heard in 31 years.

[@ThomisticInstitute]

Glad to hear it! Thanks for watching. God bless you.

[@crongusclips7836]

If this is the most comprehensive explanation you’ve heard in 31 years it just shows how little evidence there is of god’s existence. The video contains no real proof quoting the Bible as a source.

[@Dr.HowieFeltersnatch]

This entire video is a giant argument from ignorance fallacy. Basically, I couldn’t think of a better explanation for some phenomenon, so therefore God must have done it. This is irrational and leads you to wrong conclusions.

[@gfujigo]

@@Dr.HowieFeltersnatch How is the video a giant argument from ignorance? Is gravity an argument from our ignorance of how objects move? We can't think of a better explanation of how objects move so therefore it must be gravity. We don't even see gravity, we only see the effect of this phenomena. Einstein taught us to model it as space time being curved around masses. Yet, we don't see what is making it the case that space time reacts to masses by curving around them instead of doing something else. Are our cosmological theories and proposed entities (such as the inflaton field, etc.) simply an argument from our ignorance of the large scale structure of space and time? Also, what do you mean by the word "God"? This video makes sense. When you observe an effect, you infer a cause and you determine the nature of the cause based on the effect being observed. This is foundational scientific thinking. Here, this same thinking is being applied to all of physical reality and the attributes we observe. Theistic conclusions are actually quite modest. Here the conclusion is that there is a non-contingent cause of all reality capable of instantiating order, physical objects, laws, etc. This is so basic and rational a conclusion it's almost a tautology. What's wrong with this line of reasoning?

[@gfujigo]

@@crongusclips7836 How is there “little evidence” when all of physical reality is the evidence?

[@lokijam]

Thomas Aquinas was a most interesting man. His teachings should be more prevalent.

[@sasutchi5695]

To whom did Aquinas wrote the 5 ways of knowing God??

[@wms72]

I like Aquino's advice for sadness: cry, have fun, drink wine, take a warm bath and go to bed early

[@poweroftruth9258]

The Bible says in John 3:16-36 that whoever believes in the Lord Jesus Christ shall not perish but have everlasting life, the Bible also says in Romans 10:9 that those who declare with their mouth that Jesus Christ is their God, Lord, and Savior they shall be saved. Revelation 1:8 says that Jesus is the alpha and the omega. Luke and revelation is the ending times, and Jesus is returning back. So are you going to submit your life to him or no? Narrow is the path that leads to the gates of heaven, but only few people find it. The gates that is the path to destruction is where many people find it! Jesus loves you SO MUCH! That he died on the cross, and was resurrected from the dead 3 days later to give us eternal life.

[@way2tehdawn]

@@sasutchi5695 It was for theology students in the 13th century but yeah I mean anyone can read it now.

[@Mikesorrento3344]

It’s a scientific impossibility that something came from nothing. A book has an author, and a building an architect. Creation is proof of God. It would be scientifically impossible for there not to be a God. PS: There’s a Jesus as well. Humankind needs a Savior. Just look at us, look at the world. Trust me. I need a Savior.

[@Nymaz]

The other day I was driving down the road and saw smoke, yet I could not see the cause. Thus we can logically infer the existence of fire giants. How could you have smoke without fire giants? Therefor the most logical response is to worship Odin in order to entreat him to protect us from the fire giants.

[@whelperw]

Yeah, smoke analogy is kinda weak. Without former experience with fire and without ability to see how fire produces smoke, we wouldn't have a slight idea what cause it. And I could add one idea to thoughts dumpster. You can produce smoke without fire, via chem reactions.

[@bydlokun]

but Odin has nothing to do with old pagan philosophers

[@richardscotland1]

Your ignorance is breathtaking. Nobody mentioned fire giants. Look up the dictionary reference for the word “inference”. Most people on seeing smoke will presume that the smoke is coming from something that is on fire, they infer from the smoke that fire is the probable cause of the smoke, after all it would not be a common saying that “there is no smoke without fire” if that were not usually the case. Of course something else, other than fire, could be the cause of the smoke. Now the driver of the car can only assume that the smoke is caused by the fire unless he investigates further, in which case, if he examines the source of the smoke he will be able to tell for sure one way or the other. Order, design and purposefulness in nature infer a creator, they do not prove his existence that will require further investigation, which will itself require openness, instead of a closed mind and a little humility, both of which you apparently lack.

[@Nymaz]

@@richardscotland1 Read the Poetic and Prose Eddas. They mention fire giants with smoke billowing out from them. Therefor when we see smoke but can't see the source it is logical to infer that the smoke originates from fire giants. I'm sorry that in your arrogance you wish to deny the existence of fire giants and thus the existence of Odin, but it is said that in the days of Ragnarok there will be those that in their fear deny what they see in front of them. I understand how easy it is to let fear control you, but I hope that you will let go of your fear and see the truth.

[@narragarrathunder-rider8146]

Thank you for easily explaining the fallacy of the Aquinas argument for the existence of God with this simple comparison.

[@WhiteScorpio2]

Your sore throat analogy is perfect. Because just because we have a sore throat, doesn't mean we know what causes a sore throat. And all the reasons we came up with before science actually figured stuff up were not even close to the truth. Also note that illnesses were often thought to have supernatural causes, until science figured the natural one, as is always the case.

[@liliencalvel6151]

Many yrs. ago in my early twenties I started to lose belief in the existence of GOD. One day I begun to question the human body and its functions and complexities. I questioned nature in the same way. Then I questioned the universe in all it's orderly fashion. When I questioned these things it was from that day forward that I knew that there had to be a GOD. Over the yrs. I realized that our very existence proved that there was a creator. I learned that you cannot throw lots of small sized stones on the floor and that they will fall in place to form a circle with two stones in the place of eyes, one in the place of a nose a those in the place of a mouth. If one was to see this face made from stones they would know that someone who was there put all those stones in place to make that face.

[@dominicpardo4783]

The argument of incredulity is the most easily dismissed.

[@liliencalvel6151]

@@dominicpardo4783 Many humans love to live in sin; so they would rather choose not to believe in GOD so that they do not have to acknowledge that their sins are wrong

[@dominicpardo4783]

@@liliencalvel6151 A. Define sin. B. I'm agnostic. Because I've never been presented with sufficient evidence that any god exists.

[@liliencalvel6151]

@@dominicpardo4783 I nor anyone can help you with that. Nor will I waste my time. Nothing beyond what is in this video or in the comment that I first wrote is going to convince you of anything. If those are not sufficient evidence for you that there is, than I am afraid that nothing will ever convince you. I will just say that you came into existence from thin air. It is much easier to get you to accept that. I will not go into telling you that one day GOD will judge you because you don't believe in him. Hope for your sake that he is not real. I would not place my bets on that hope. Goodbye.

[@liliencalvel6151]

@@dominicpardo4783 I wish you well in life Dominic. Hope that you find answers to your questions

[@UnconventionalReasoning]

This presentation of ways to try to prove the existence of god is one of the best videos to help promote the atheist mindset.

[@Vector-X777]

How so? Please do tell. I can prove that God exists by many means. Simply by life experiences.

[@UnconventionalReasoning]

@@Vector-X777 prove: "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means".

[@Vector-X777]

@@UnconventionalReasoning whoa boy brace yourself, I have a lot buddy. Well for starters God's name is engraved in our hearts and every human who has ever lived knows this deep down they know who God is. The bible says this and when you are your lowest of lows you will remember that his eternal holy name is JEHOVAH. Here is your proof bud. So I grew up in a religious Cult called the Jehovahs Witnesses. Later I found that this religion is false and they do not recognize Jesus as God in the flesh. While I was young I grew up to be respectful and kind and learned the bible and how to pray but I never really understood why we had to pray or sing to God. So I would pray and pray and sing and nothing would happen. I would pray and keep praying and still nothing would happen. So around the age of 15 I started to feel like God wasn't listening so I became resentful and eventually hateful towards God. I then started listening to heavy metal and that's where the Devil took over, I found out later on God was with me the whole time but I was too blind to see. After discovering heavy metal I began listening to heavier and more evil stuff. My mind became rotten and I began to rebel and thought I was a God. I began to read into the occult and quickly was thrust into a world of darkness. Here's the thing God doesn't answer right away but guess who does. The devil welcomed me with open arms ready to deceive me. I immediately started seeing signs that pointed to the devil. Numbers, names, symbols you begun to become obsessed with the occult. Keep in mind I was raised to know who God and Satan are so I knew what I was getting myself into. Anytime I would do something for the devil or anything bad I could feel almost as if my soul could feel the wrong doing. Every time I called on a demon or a fallen angel you could feel air a presence that is friendly at first but after years these creatures reveal their true colors and forms. Again I knew who I was in contact with. The thing that really terrified me though is when I first read the Lesser Key of Solomon "The Lemegaton" I saw that the most powerful name even over all the Archangels who constrain all of the demons of hell his name is JEHOVAH. There it was in an occult book. I saw that the devils recognize this as the absolute truth then I was screwed. I know what you will probably say "demons and magic don't exist and the lesser key of Solomon is bogus". Then why have secret societies and sects have used teachings from the fallen ones since the beginning of man. Those same societies are made up of the richest most powerful men on the planet which control and influence everything we consume. This fact cannot be denied by anyone. The elites "secret societies" know who God is. They refer to him as the grand architect of the universe. I used to meditate and do deep trance work and was very good at it. Through these medications often I would be attacked by the very spirits I was calling upon. And anyone who says that's not real is just delusional cause that's like not believing someone who broke their arm in the past. You KNOW as a human when you are being spiritually attacked, it's in your spirit. I know now that God was warning me of my destruction if I kept down this path. On a couple of occasions my Satanic pendants that I wore just fell off of my neck and when I looked for them they were completely gone. Disappeared nowhere in sight. I was questioning if the devils were abandoning me too, given I had driven every human being in my life away at the time. So I had nobody. I felt like God was trying to get a hold of me through my experiences with these demons showing me that there was still hope. Then he showed me a vision of the heaven where I would go, he also showed me the hell would go to as well. Trust me when I tell you once in hell the devils torment you with the thing that you fear most. At this point I didn't know what to do so I was trying lsd and mushrooms here and there, Salvia also. Had some pretty crazy visions but the last time I tripped I took lsd and decided to drink half a bottle of rum while I was at it. At first it was all cool, I was watching tippy videos on KZbin and one popped up where the guy started talking about angels and demons and then he started talking to me through the screen saying my name. I don't remember what exactly but I remember him pointing right at me and saying my name specifically. I then got freaked out and shut the TV off. I went to the bathroom and remember looking in the mirror and reminded that I've heard people say you shouldn't stare at yourself in the mirror when you are tripping. There is a reason for this. Me being a Satanist at the time I already knew I had a demon in me and when I called it forth in the mirror I saw it Staring right back at me. Right into my very soul. I could feel the hate, not just hate for me but for all of mankind. I could feel the ancient hatred that it carried for us. I could see the shape of its face with mine too almost like a machine that will cloak itself in the movies, How you can kinda see the transparency of the cloak the demons face was like that. It had horns and a horrible evil smile like he gets to eat me which is exactly how I started to feel. I immediately started thinking no, no this can't be happening I then fell to the floor because I felt like I was falling into an endless pit, mind you this is happening in the spirit now. I could feel my soul falling into hell and it pulling me like a magnet down. You know this is the spirit because it feels 1000 times more real than the physical. You can feel God wrath on you but you also feel the devils wrath now. The worst part of the realization is that you know at that point that you rejected God and that you served the devil your whole life and that you are going to hell. I literally felt and heard the devil coming for me so I did the only thing I could think of. I called on the mighty name of Jehovah and the son Jesus and instantly I was brought out of that spiritual hell and was back lying on my living room floor. I was shivering and still scared. God saved me but I was still left to wallow in my darkness for a couple days. I began my long journey back to God after that. I honestly believe whole heartedly that God was with me the whole time cause there were definitely time where I would get stopped from going too far into Satanism. I thank God now for allowing me to go through all of that because now I know how the enemy works through and through. I believe now that God put me here to warn people of the evil of the left hand path whatever it may be called. Satanism, voodoo, new age, crystal work, divination, tarot reading its all the same and it's very dangerous. I have other proofs too but I've typed enough for now. God bless.

[@Vector-X777]

I wrote a painstakingly long reply to your question to prove God exists and youtube deleted my comment. I wish to explain to you vit my efforts are in vain. Curse youtube for deleting my comment. Peace and blessings to you my friend.

[@UnconventionalReasoning]

@@Vector-X777 I sympathize, youtube has deleted some of my long comments as well. I would have enjoyed responding to yours.

[@nian89]

While I'm not a Catholic I will always hold Thomas Aquinas in high regard. He was a truly great man

[@DocReasonable]

St Thomas Aquinas considered it virtuous to burn heretics, and favoured the option of burning them alive. All manner of activities constituted heresy. It was heretical to eat meat on Friday, to read the bible, to know Greek, to criticise a cleric, to refuse to pay Church taxes, or to deny that money lending was sinful.

[@banquo80s99]

Wow. Fr.Brent makes it so simple. Thanks, Father...God bless TI

[@PirateRadioPodcasts]

Q - WHICH God exists? ODIN? THOR? SHIVA? HADES? MARS? SET, etc?

[@ackyl1991]

The True One True GOD the one who created this World. Odin thor or whatever is an instrument for confusing others to believe that there is other god, just as satan wants

[@narragarrathunder-rider8146]

All of them at some point in time. But don't forget about The Goddesses, ASHURA, ISIS, APHRODITE, HERA, etc.

[@outs78]

There’s only one way to know of a god’s existence, and that demonstrable evidence must come from god himself in person in a peer reviewed setting for all to experience. Books, feelings or personal experience don’t count.

[@planteruines5619]

but if it does , then people will basically have no choice ...

[@outs78]

​@@planteruines5619 No choice of what? To believe without evidence (faith) is the mentality of a child believing in santa, and anyone who believes otherwise is an idiot. Heaven based religions survive only because gullibility and credulity. Try again.

[@planteruines5619]

@@outs78 faith is not based upon affirmation but question that were answered , anyway some people just will never acknowledge His existence, and no proofs will suffice , maybe you need to ask , after all , what does it costs you ?

[@outs78]

@@planteruines5619 I was born and raised in that shit. faith is voluntary ignorance (play pretend). There is nothing you can say that I didn’t already use when I was a nondenominational christian. Only the indoctrinated (abused) and stupid rely on faith in an unproven spiritual world. now go lose somewhere else.

[@duncanbryson1167]

​@@planteruines5619 If any deity proved its existence to me, I would chose to NOT worship it, especially the alleged Abrahamic deity.

[@tyler12382]

1. order of motion in nature 2. cause and effect 3. contingent beings 4. degrees or perfection 5. things without intelligence act for the sake of ends

[@grrsss8335]

Romans 1 was the final nail in the coffin made of doubt that made me an atheist. The thing that completely convinced me the writers of the bible had no idea of what they were talking about.

[@mit15]

I hope you will someday come back into the fold! Which part of the excerpt did you find troubling? Salutation 1 Paul, a servant [a] of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle, set apart for the gospel of God, 2 which he promised beforehand through his prophets in the holy scriptures, 3 the gospel concerning his Son, who was descended from David according to the flesh 4 and was declared to be Son of God with power according to the spirit[b] of holiness by resurrection from the dead, Jesus Christ our Lord, 5 through whom we have received grace and apostleship to bring about the obedience of faith among all the Gentiles for the sake of his name, 6 including yourselves who are called to belong to Jesus Christ, 7 To all God’s beloved in Rome, who are called to be saints: Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ. Prayer of Thanksgiving 8 First, I thank my God through Jesus Christ for all of you, because your faith is proclaimed throughout the world. 9 For God, whom I serve with my spirit by announcing the gospel[c] of his Son, is my witness that without ceasing I remember you always in my prayers, 10 asking that by God’s will, I may somehow at last succeed in coming to you. 11 For I am longing to see you so that I may share with you some spiritual gift to strengthen you- 12 or rather so that we may be mutually encouraged by each other’s faith, both yours and mine. 13 I want you to know, brothers and sisters, [d] that I have often intended to come to you (but thus far have been prevented), in order that I may reap some harvest among you as I have among the rest of the Gentiles. 14 I am a debtor both to Greeks and to barbarians, both to the wise and to the foolish 15 -hence my eagerness to proclaim the gospel to you also who are in Rome. The Power of the Gospel 16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel; it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who has faith, to the Jew first and also to the Greek. 17 For in it the righteousness of God is revealed through faith for faith; as it is written, “The one who is righteous will live by faith.” [e] The Guilt of Humankind 18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and wickedness of those who by their wickedness suppress the truth. 19 For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. 20 Ever since the creation of the world his eternal power and divine nature, invisible though they are, have been understood and seen through the things he has made. So they are without excuse; 21 for though they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their senseless minds were darkened. 22 Claiming to be wise, they became fools; 23 and they exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling a mortal human being or birds or four-footed animals or reptiles. 24 Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the degrading of their bodies among themselves, 25 because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen. 26 For this reason God gave them up to degrading passions. Their women exchanged natural intercourse for unnatural, 27 and in the same way also the men, giving up natural intercourse with women, were consumed with passion for one another. Men committed shameless acts with men and received in their own persons the due penalty for their error. 28 And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind and to things that should not be done. 29 They were filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, covetousness, malice. Full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, craftiness, they are gossips, 30 slanderers, God-haters, [f] insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, rebellious toward parents, 31 foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless. 32 They know God’s decree, that those who practice such things deserve to die-yet they not only do them but even applaud others who practice them.

[@douglasstrother6584]

That the laws of Physics are best expressed mathematically points to a Supreme Mathematician. The singularities in our expression of the fundamental laws of Physics demonstrates that we still don't have it totally correct. That subspaces are a fundamental topic in Linear Algebra gives generalized examples of n-dimensional spaces embedded in m-dimentional spaces, where m > n. Georg Cantor's work on infinite sets: the Natural Numbers {1, 2, 3, ...}, the Integers { ... -2, -1, 0, 1, 2, ...} and the Rationals {p/q} where p & q are integers with q ≠ 0, show that distinct infinite things can have the same size.

[@mertonhirsch4734]

My dad was an Orthodox Christian priest but he taught 7th and 8th grade religion at a catholic grade school along with English and Social Studies. The first day of 7th grade religion class was the 5 ways of Thomas Aquinas. There was also one by Anselm., and Ontological argument, and there was also an argument called the ladder of perfection. Maybe that was Aquinas's argument of degrees.

[@icouch]

4:55. "something is responsible". there is a scientific explanation for the world, that is all we need

[@fredriksvard2603]

There are explanations of how things behave but not of what they really are, or how things came to be, why there is something rather than nothing. We dont know what consciousness, black holes, dark matter, quantum stuff either and gravity is hazy.

[@el34glo59]

@@fredriksvard2603 Exactly

[@martinlutherkingjr.5582]

How do you identify whether you’re dealing with a genuine god as opposed to a counterfeit one?

[@m.935]

Genuine God can rule over/change/"skip" physical laws of the universe He created (command waves to stop with His Word, raise people from the dead by command, resurrect Himself and so on-what Jesus did). But you still have freedom of choice to accuse Him of not being genuine despite all the evidence or choose that it is not enough evidence for you because of what you think God should be and do, and what shouldn't (i.e. putting yourself in the position of God/original sin/pride). But to be clear, God has no counterfeit.

[@gfujigo]

If there can be more than one, we are not talking about God.

[@SATISFYPLANET]

Marian apparitions should help you decide who is the real God; there are countless Catholic miracles that our world just ... sweeps under the rug. I will never understand that.

[@randee4550]

All are counterfeit, because they're all fake

[@tedsexton5406]

Explanation of the 5 ways begins at 6:21. They are only "sketched" and appear to be very similar. However, proof #5 seemed extremely powerful. Thank you for this video. I was looking for a deeper explanation, but the truth is I'll just have to read the Suma for myself.

[@ThomisticInstitute]

Thanks for the comment, Ted. Yes, this video is more of a prologue and a sketch than an in-depth exploration of each theme. We do hope to do some videos that take a closer look at the five ways, though, so stay tuned!

[@clauortizmateos5374]

Thank you very much for sharing! I just suscribed and I will stay alert of every video! God bless you

[@ThomisticInstitute]

God bless you too!

[@philliprobinson7724]

Hi T.I. Very good video. I did philos. 101 about 50 years ago and still enjoy tinkering with thinking. 6/ Three proofs of God from freewill premise. Thomas Aquinas didn't develop a "proof of God from freewill", despite freewill being a unique characteristic of life. Non-life (rocks) can only follow deterministic laws and cannot make choices, only life has the possibility of freewill. I assume freewill exists because the difference between non-life and life is stark and undeniable. This leaves "hard determinist" materialism in a quandary. 1/ If life is solely material life, then before life began, life and freewill must have been determined to begin to exist. However "a freewill that is determined to begin to exist" is a contradiction, because by definition, determinism cannot choose to change itself into freewill. The quandary is resolved by accepting that originally life was non-materialistic, which proves God. 2/ Carbon forms four covalent bonds and is the defining element in organic chemistry. Materialists claim carbon with its four "choices" is in a limited sense "alive", but if this is true it means life is built into the physical universe pan-theistically, which also proves God. 3/ Without freewill, consciousness has no function and would not have evolved beyond the simple "stimulus-response" reflex of an amoeba. Even in an evolutionary universe, there's a necessary link between freewill and God. Freewill is atheism's "Achilles heel", explaining why atheistic materialists vehemently reject freewill, and must argue the absurdity that there's no philosophical difference between non-living matter and living matter. Thomas Aquinas' "proof from first cause" indicates he was locked into the apostle Paul's concept of deterministic predestination, which was official Church dogma. This probably explains why he didn't develop a proof of God from freewill. Like many other great mediaeval thinkers, his work was subject to strict ecclesiastic approval. Thanks for your good work. Cheers, from soft determinist, P.R.

[@nigelhunter4230]

Even though I'm protestant theologically I did appreciate this exposition of Aquina' s 5 points. Thank you.

[@ThomisticInstitute]

Excellent! You're welcome.

[@nigelhunter4230]

My theological position is contained within the Westminster Confession of Faith and I protest against heretical teaching or rather earnestly contend for the faith. See Jude 3. Albert! I don't worship the Jews. I pray for their salvation.

[@nigelhunter4230]

@Doge di Amalfi We will all have to give an account of our sins. You're either saved or unsaved.

[@Zwei4815]

@@DirtyHairy01 "With words like these you make the patients incurable, rather than curable." --St. Peter Canisius.

[@toninobelimussi296]

If a Protestant admits that Jesus instituted the Holy Sacrifice (Eucharistic Sacrament) so that He would make Himself available to His followers, Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity; if a Protestant admits that the Holy Virgin is the Co-Redemptrix, if a Protestant admits that the Church is the Mystical Body of Christ i.e. One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic, I salute that Protestant. I'd also argue that there are heresies aplenty to fight, even nowadays (courtesy of our Judas-loving Pope and numerous homosexuality-inspired members of the clergy), but that they are best fought by following in the steps of Christ, not Luther (who ended up literally hating Christ and adoring s8n), see kzbin.info/www/bejne/hpK5l6x_m85mhZY.

[@citadelcoronel]

in my experience God teaches and guides me inch by inch in this journey so that I could follow him…

[@arthurcuesta6041]

Praised be the Lord for the wisdom infused in Aquinas. The argument of the Uncaused Cause was enough to break the despisable Humean view of causation and Descartes empirism, heavy weights during my conversion. "For an accidental category 'cause' can't exist in a 'non-being', i.e., nothing." Saint Thomas Aquinas, pray for us!

[@cnault3244]

Can you guess why it is the ARGUMENT for the uncaused cause and not the EVIDENCE for the uncaused cause? Btw, the argument doesn't get you to that cause being a sentient deity. It could be natural. As for a god, that argument does not get you to the god of the Bible.

[@arthurcuesta6041]

@@cnault3244 One can see you're not very bright. I assume the "evidence" you mention would be an empiric one, right? Funny how if you argue that knowledge can only be empiric (as in "the rest are merely arguments") you incur in a paradox, as that affirmation is aprioristic (and therefore not empiric). Logic is irrefutable, cringe "science" man.

[@cnault3244]

@@arthurcuesta6041 "One can see you're not very bright." One can see you know you don't have any good arguments or evidence, which is why you resort to a childish ad hominem attack. " I assume the "evidence" you mention" Why do you feel the need to put the word evidence in quotation marks? It's like you are implying there is evidence and something which is not evidence so it must be designated by typing it as "evidence". "would be an empiric one, right?" To be evidence it would have to be something which can be examined and verified. " Funny how if you argue that knowledge can only be empiric (as in "the rest are merely arguments")" You seem confused. At no point did I state the arguments used are not knowledge. I pointed out that the arguments are not evidence. If they were, they would be presented as evidence rather than arguments. Are you a Christian? If so, why would you care about these arguments? These arguments don't get you to the god of the Bible or to Christ.

[@arthurcuesta6041]

@@cnault3244 Ad hominem only happens if I justify my argument by means of the offense, like "you're wrong because you're not very bright". Calling you dumb and then proceeding to refute you isn't ad hominem. You should know what sentences mean before using them. Because empiric evidence is only one kind of evidence, which you would know had you studied epistemology. There's no confusion, you purposely made a distinction between these two as if they had different epistemological values. Well made and logic-proof arguments are evidence, even the Greeks knew that. Yes, I am Christian. And although these arguments don't direct me to Christ, atheist lies do turn others from Him. It is necessary to refute and crush lies, wherever they appear.

[@cnault3244]

@@arthurcuesta6041 Having stated you are a Christian, you should stop wasting time on Aquinas' arguments, which do not get you to the god of the bible or to Christ. Being a Christian, you must believe the Bible story of Christ's resurrection. What evidence do you have to prove that story?

[@kathiesalter8936]

Thank you @Thomistic Institute, I enjoyed this. Just beginning module 3 of 101, getting my teeth into the weighty stuff at last, having been studying how to think. Great course.

[@ChiefCedricJohnson]

Luke 11:28 But he said, Yea rather, blessed are they that hear the word of God, and keep it. 1 Corinthians 14:33 For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints. 1 Corinthians 14:34 Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law. 1 Corinthians 14:35 And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church. Luke 6:38 Give, and it shall be given unto you; good measure, pressed down, and shaken together, and running over, shall men give into your bosom. For with the same measure that ye mete withal it shall be measured to you again.

[@electrictroy2010]

THERE ARE 100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 suns just like ours. Even if a superbeing existed, no way could he create that immense universe. AND there’s no reason he would care about our sun more than all the others. We are just a speck of dust in the grand scale of the cosmos .

[@SedContraApologia]

Go TI! Bless you and this content. Biggest fan!! Happy New Year and I am benefiting so much from your hard work and it enables me to pass it on! My career is in addressing and helping people who’s lives depend on getting through the issue of “ How can I believe in God?” In a very real way. Specifically those suffering with opiate and alcohol addictions where belief in a high power is non negotiable for a beginning point within the process of recovery. These videos bring up in a general way a place where you can start someone on seeing the world both philosophically and with reason! Bless you and thank you for all you do!

[@ThomisticInstitute]

Ian, we're delighted to hear. That's super encouraging. All the best in your work! God bless you.

[@norala-gx9ld]

What a fantastic service and indispensable work of spiritual mercy this is. Thank you so much, and thanks be to God for the Dominicans.

[@thomasjust2663]

This video shows how my thinking has evolved over time, when I was a teenager I rejected the church's teachings because I didn't like just being told that gd exist's with out a reason, as I aged and read many secular books, I started to faintly think there must be someone directing everything, now I believe there is a god, but I still have questions as to how it relates to the Catholic church's view of the trinity, so like this explanation says, it's a work in progress, for the time being it has been enough to make me a practicing Catholic, even do I still have many questions or things I need to understand...thanks for the video and I will subscribe to the podcast's

[@ThomisticInstitute]

Our pleasure! Keep plugging!

[@ThomisticInstitute]

@fynes leigh Have you watched this video (kzbin.info/www/bejne/mZbOiJSVjsmUq6M)? It's a basic exposition of Aristotle and St. Thomas's teaching on the matter . . . coming at it from a bit of a different angle. I'll get to your other comment here shortly. Cheers!

[@ThomisticInstitute]

@fynes leigh Yikes, okay, this link should work: kzbin.info/www/bejne/mZbOiJSVjsmUq6M

[@MarcovonAntoni-jb6bh]

The Most Holy Trinity is out of the domain of knowledge of the philosophy, even if it had inspired philosopher and theologians. Trinity belongs to the domain of the Christian faith. Philosophy has demonstrated the existence and the uniqueness of God, but it never ha demonstrated its being of three divine persons. And that it is strange because the Trinity is God Himself: to say we can't rationally demonstrate God of three divine person would mean to say He could be reasonably made differently, of one single person like the philosophy normally thinks Him to be. But concerning the Logos, His not to be capable to be derived from nature as a Triune God would be a great deception, needy to be solved.

[@Lerian_V]

@@MarcovonAntoni-jb6bh I think Bishop Barron gave a good framework: Philosophical framework - kzbin.info/www/bejne/eH7YcmOho5Z6edU Theological framework - kzbin.info/www/bejne/f3LVn6CjrLaietE

[@mossy3552]

I found God.. then signed up for hmforces. Was given the bible. I need nothing but his saving grace. Keep open your heart and mind.

[@clarefinelli2251]

God created us in his image. There is an unseen part of our nature that resembles God. This gives us the ability to recognize him in his creation and in the causes and effects all around us. Just as all animals are able to recognize each other distinct from other animals, and stay together in flocks and herds, humans are able to recognize their Creator distinguished from all creation and flock to Him. This is, of course, subject to all the limitations spoken of in the talk.

[@H4zards1]

Thank you

[@andrewpaul3130]

Blessed be God forever for the Thomist. Love from Singapore.

[@ThomisticInstitute]

Greetings to you in Singapore! Thanks for watching and commenting, and may the Lord bless you!

[@canisrah]

I really needed this. Really needed it. Thank you so much. It is such a work of mercy just going to the trouble of preparing, filming and circulating this video. God bless you.

[@electrictroy2010]

THERE ARE 100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 suns just like ours. Even if a superbeing existed, no way could he create that immense universe. AND there’s no reason he would care about our sun more than all the others. We are just a speck of dust in the grand scale of the cosmos .

[@arthurcuesta6041]

@@electrictroy2010 Lmao dude spends most of his day angry at Christian's. Christ keeps winning.

[@Adam-lw8lv]

@@electrictroy2010 cringe

[@Ritamichaels1]

Very interesting to learn this Thomistic approach to our belief in God. Is it true that the Holy Spirit infuses us with the gift of faith in God when we are baptized? And, this gift of faith can be blocked when we commit a mortal sin and do not repent of it? I ask this because I cannot remember a time when I did not believe in God. And, to think if it were not for the Sacrament of Confession, I might not have this gift of faith anymore. I thank God every day for this gift, and also, thank my parents who cooperated with God to have me baptized as a very young baby. What greater gift could God and my parents have given me, except for the gift of life itself? Praise God!

[@theo9952]

As a natural born agnostic, I cannot rule out the existence of "GOD" whatever this may be. What I do not understand, is WHY such a supreme entity should have anything at all to do with our naive man-invented religions. Especially the Abrahamic ones.

[@Jtalkin_46]

That's only because you haven't been taught about Divine Revelation.

[@theo9952]

I suppose you mean that I have not been brainwashed enough, to accept religious absurdities as "the truth", don't you ? Well actually during my school years I was subjected to two hours a week of catechism at school and the lesson was obligatory. So i can say that considerable effort was put for about 10 years, in order to turn me into a religious nincompoop of the kind who is ready to believe that humanity and dinos co-existed and all that happened just 6000 years in the past. But it did not work at all with me mate ! In fact all this indoctrination brought the opposite results.I happen to be allergic to bulls**t.

[@Jtalkin_46]

@@theo9952 No I legitimately thought you had no clue as someone "born agnostic" and were open to rational dialogue. Since everyone in the world is "brainwashed" besides you I have a genuine feeling that you're just here to be a teenage atomic warhead.

[@Jtalkin_46]

@theo9952 You are a teenage atomic warhead. Get over it.

[@RonJohn63]

1:09 That's still relies on believing the Bible. 4:30 Six hundred years ago, the invisible cause would have been malicious spirits or imbalanced humors. 5:36 It can also be crushed by a lack of hard evidence, plus all the knowledge we've discovered in the last 150 years about Physics, Chemistry and Psychology. Also, the intro/outro music are from the decidedly atheist animated show Futurama.

[@dlakebavis1665]

Every one of these points is easily refutable by just looking with a critical eye, which is nearly impossible for anyone invested in a religion. 1, while this point is true, it is twisted, there is a force behind everything, but that force does not have to be some intelligent being, a rock needs a force to fall, but it does not have to be human or some other being. 2, cause and effect is pattern recognition, for us to understand causes and effects, we need to observe both the causes and effects, the examples he uses are not valid examples at all, we know there is a fire under the smoke because we have observed fire making smoke, the cause and the effect, with the creation of our universe, we have not seen a cause, only the effect. 3, this point implies we do not know therefore god, the god of the gaps argument. 4, there is no standard for perfection, if there were, there would be no disagreement on subjective matters, for example, peoples tastes in foods, there is no favorite food that will be everyone’s favorite and the perfect food, perfection is subjective and therefore does not exist,. 5, things without much intelligence can and do work for the sake of an end without anything of a higher intelligence directing them, for example, plants, they work to survive and pass on their genes to a new generation, other beings might interact with a plant, but they do not have to direct it for it to survive and pass on its traits

[@godaninja]

Yup God or intelligence could easily be interchanged with chaos and you would get the same exact results as well

[@xc869]

God must be intelligent because the force from which everything proceedes is necessarily the actus purus (pure act, with no potentiality), the definition of perfection. Perfection includes intelligence. The difference between a physical being moving another physical being and God, is that God moves the world by creating it, and he can't be inferior to his own creation.

[@theCatholicInfluence]

These ways are wonderful! I'm new to the teachings of Aquinas. I had never heard these ways. Quite lovely, I must say. Thank you for creating a video that outlines this and sharing it with the world.

[@magdelenemasih494]

Thankyou very much for sharing about the life of St Thomas of Aquinas. Such a great Theologian abd a saint. Praise the Lord.

[@ChiefCedricJohnson]

Luke 11:28 But he said, Yea rather, blessed are they that hear the word of God, and keep it. 1 Corinthians 14:33 For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints. 1 Corinthians 14:34 Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law. 1 Corinthians 14:35 And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church. Luke 6:38 Give, and it shall be given unto you; good measure, pressed down, and shaken together, and running over, shall men give into your bosom. For with the same measure that ye mete withal it shall be measured to you again.

[@electrictroy2010]

THERE ARE 100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 suns just like ours. Even if a superbeing existed, no way could he create that immense universe. AND there’s no reason he would care about our sun more than all the others. We are just a speck of dust in the grand scale of the cosmos .

[@admiralmurat2777]

May God grant you many years Fr. James Brent.

[@sochuiwonpriscillakhapai7251]

This is such a wonderful explanation, Thank you. Liked and subscribed.

[@ThomisticInstitute]

You're welcome! Thanks for watching. God bless you!

[@iqgustavo]

🎯 Key Takeaways for quick navigation: 00:00 🤔 Thomas Aquinas presents five ways or proofs for the existence of God in his work, the Summa Theologiae. 01:22 🌟 Human beings can know the existence of God not only through faith but also through natural reason and observation of the beauty and goodness of the natural world. 02:47 🧠 Our natural knowledge of God can vary in clarity and development, but it is attainable through rational reflection on the natural world. 04:11 🔍 Aquinas's five ways are based on inferring the existence of God from the observable effects in the natural world, using similar reasoning as inferring invisible causes from visible effects. 08:25 🌍 God is present in the world, moving and directing everything, according to Aquinas's five ways. These proofs provide a way to contemplate God's presence in creation. Made with HARPA AI

[@erravi]

Great video!!!

[@ThomisticInstitute]

Thanks!

[@ThomisticInstitute]

Spread the word!

[@Wishyouwerehere435]

No ill will intended but I took another journey. I had doubts my whole life and never received truly rational answers to honest questions. When I was about 40 I asked god to forgive me if I stepped away from religion and started from scratch. I truly thought I would find the true god/ religion. Instead, in my honest attempt to find god, I realized that in the history of the world, no god has ever been proven to be true. I learned that "faith" means believing in things that can't be proven. Slowly I developed the courage to move away from religion and into a more rational life. Part of my journey was sad because religion was a huge security blanket in my life. I realized that heaven/ hell were most likely fiction and that I had been fooled. However, most of it has been beautiful, peaceful and transcending. I am now good not because I want to go to heaven, but because "its the right thing to do." My critical thinking skills have changed my life for the better in so many ways. I realize that many need and are happier with that kind of security blanket and that's ok. I am forever grateful to my parents, family, friends and education that I am not one of those people. Love to all.

[@cosmo588]

I wish you all the best. Being a good human because it’s the right thing to do, and not for any other reason or notion, is a beautiful feeling.

[@peaveawwii1]

Thanks so much for sharing this. I wished I could have started studying this when I was younger

[@billc3114]

I have heard people now days say that the 5 causes are wrong or out of date. They like to pont to things like "matter can't be created or destroyed" if that even applies or is true.

[@josephjackson1956]

4:30 is a great example of how we can know of God’s existence even with the veil present.

[@twokidsmovies]

legitimately one of the worst analogies I have ever heard. This is a logical fallacy, and a false equivalency. No "one" must be behind the world around us first of all, and second, the example he gave is utter nonsense. We can actually test to see if you have an infection in your throat to prove it is really there in order to back up your subjective experience of having a sore throat, you cant do that with god because A) there is no natural way to prove he exists, and B) there is no evidence for his existence other than faith based assertions which we know are not a reliable pathway to the truth.

[@Eric_01]

I would also add that SCIENCE and medicine can literally prove the source of a sore throat. We know that virus exists, not because of faith, but because they are not invisible as the video claims, you can see them clearly under a microscope. We even know exactly what Covid-19 looks like at the cellular level and how to combat it with science, not prayer. That the most prevalent argument for the existence of god is merely that other things exist falls flat on its face every time. Even the smoke and fire analogy is laughable because we have all seen fire, we can make fire, and it is not invisible merely because it's out of your line of sight. C'mon, man.

[@notdonaldst]

Thank you for posting this video Fr. Brent. Watching it was like walking into a church. Hearing the truth spoken, particularly about Truth itself is like eating a piece of the sacred bread reserved for the Holy of Holies. Only it tastes more like divine pie. Thinking on Divine things like feeling the warmth of the burning bush (was it warm if it didn’t consume?). I can’t study metaphysics without being drawn into the presence of God; even when just watching your videos. I blame it on my guardian angel. I think he just keeps “poking me with his elbow” whenever the subject of our beloved comes up; well, God Himself, and anything He has done, will do, or is currently doing.

[@mauriciorv228]

I was taught these 5 reasons at my Catholic high school!

[@jpggfg]

It assumes a particular definition of God that is, a theistic definition. The way one determines whether or not God exists or whether God's existence is even an issue, depends on how one chooses to define God. Ultimately, the issue is not whether or not God exists but how one chooses to perceive God.

[@davidrasch3082]

I have to listen more than once to grasp what is said as I am older(age 70). Older, not intellectually challenged. I find my experience helps add depth to these presentations.

[@martam4142]

Well done! :)

[@smokeymcpot69]

You're adorable!

[@ChiefCedricJohnson]

Luke 11:28 But he said, Yea rather, blessed are they that hear the word of God, and keep it. 1 Corinthians 14:33 For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints. 1 Corinthians 14:34 Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law. 1 Corinthians 14:35 And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church. Luke 6:38 Give, and it shall be given unto you; good measure, pressed down, and shaken together, and running over, shall men give into your bosom. For with the same measure that ye mete withal it shall be measured to you again.

[@tofu_golem]

About the "innate" belief in God, I absolutely love this argument. Nothing screams of desperation like trying to argue that people who disagree with you secretly agree with you. Please keep using this argument when you talk to people who don't accept your truth claims.

[@maryjohnstone4777]

Such a wonderous video thank you! Beautifully delivered/explained! Praise be to God ,for all you Priests for all your energy in putting it all together,to enlighten n help us to know God.

[@ThomisticInstitute]

You're welcome! God bless you.

[@electrictroy2010]

THERE ARE 100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 suns just like ours. Even if a superbeing existed, no way could he create that immense universe. AND there’s no reason he would care about our sun more than all the others. We are just a speck of dust in the grand scale of the cosmos .

[@yousufnazir8141]

Nature is itself a proof of the existence of God as the divine laws of nature with unknown source of complexity of the intelligent design

[@pup1008]

Nope! It's all been explained naturally &, surprisingly, wasn't all poofed into existence 6700 years ago & to then subsequently come off a boat 4500 years ago after your geographically & culturally ordained flavour of god got the programming wrong in the first iteration!

[@ThomisticInstitute]

Related Videos: Against Physicalist Reductionism: kzbin.info/www/bejne/q3akkK2cbNppm9U Scientific Evidence Against Reductionism: kzbin.info/www/bejne/qn-tk5uHi7utbqs Creation isn't what you think it is! kzbin.info/www/bejne/aqCbnnp-g56nZ5I Yes, there is a Theory of Everything: kzbin.info/www/bejne/qJ_doqBmbsaXna8 What is Faith?: kzbin.info/www/bejne/aKuXqH55qKlob7M Does God speak through Signs?: kzbin.info/www/bejne/h3yclaKepat8nqc

[@Aaqe]

To the Thomistic Institute: This list of videos appears to be an indirect reply to my long comment published 9 days ago for which I have not received a reply from the Thomistic Institute. If this is the case, I find your attitude poor and indecent. It is like a student asking a question and the teacher sending the student to the textbook. This is bad practice. Once again I am stating that you cannot prove the existence of God and that Christianity is about faith and not proofs of the existence of God as you are trying to do deceiving us. Our faith does not need this kind of interference. God does not fall in the domain of science and no proof exists to confirm his existence. Once again I am letting you know that I expect a reply from you and a revision of the title of your video that reduces God to five proofs. Are there proofs of God in the Bible? What did Thomas Aquinas actually wrote regarding your claim of proofs for the existence of God?

[@Aaqe]

Only fools are on a mission to prove the existence of God. The Thomistic Institute has decided to ignore my comments about their video confirming what the people who run it really are.

[@archangel_metatron]

Infinity ♾️ is a closed loop because the beginning is the end and the end is the beginning. God is the first and the last. The beginning and the end. The Alpha and the Omega. God is the singularity responsible for the Big Bang and according to the many laws of conservation that singularity had to be equal to or greater than all of the mass, energy, and information/intelligence in the universe past, present, and future combined and since things are neither created or destroyed only transferred or transformed this means God became the universe. God is Omnipresent, Omnipotent, and Omniscient. God is everything everywhere. cmsw.mit.edu/angles/2015/is-the-universe-actually-a-giant-quantum-computer/ www.t-systems.com/de/en/newsroom/best-practice/01-2019-realtime/the-universe-is-a-quantum-computer Jesus is the only created being by God which is what is meant by only begotten son of God. Through Jesus all things were made. 1 Corinthians 8:5-6 5 For even if there are so-called gods, whether in heaven or on earth (as there are many gods and many lords), 6 yet for us there is one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we for Him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, through whom are all things, and through whom we live. Jesus will return after Jerusalem gets nuked by the abomination which causes desolation mentioned in Matthew 24. Prophets are angels. Revelation 22 6 The angel said to me, “These words are trustworthy and true. The Lord, the God who inspires the prophets, sent his angel to show his servants the things that must soon take place.” 7 “Look, I am coming soon! Blessed is the one who keeps the words of the prophecy written in this scroll.” 8 I, John, am the one who heard and saw these things. And when I had heard and seen them, I fell down to worship at the feet of the angel who had been showing them to me. 9 But he said to me, “Don’t do that! I am a fellow servant with you and with your fellow prophets and with all who keep the words of this scroll. Worship God!” 10 Then he told me, “Do not seal up the words of the prophecy of this scroll, because the time is near. 11 Let the one who does wrong continue to do wrong; let the vile person continue to be vile; let the one who does right continue to do right; and let the holy person continue to be holy.” The Earth is Hell in the future. It gets hit by an asteroid and pushed toward the sun. Isaiah 13:13, 2 Peter 3, and Revelation 9. After death is defeated Jesus returns the kingdom back to God. 1 Corinthians 15 This is the beginning of the kingdom of God. Then and asteroid will strike the Earth Revelation 9. It will open up the bottomless pit and knock the Earth out of its orbit toward the sun. The Earth is Hell is the future. The only escape is in the New Jerusalem. It will take the best of humanity and the glory of the nations to a new Earth. This is the beginning of the kingdom of heaven. Peter was given authority over who goes and stays by Jesus. Protestants are antichrist according to 1 John 2:18-19 ...for they went out from us showing that they were not of us, for if they were of us they would have stayed with us... When you die you sleep until the day of resurrection. 4 And I saw thrones, and they sat on them, and judgment was committed to them. Then I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded for their witness to Jesus and for the word of God, who had not worshiped the beast or his image, and had not received his mark on their foreheads or on their hands. And they lived and reigned with Christ for [a]a thousand years. 5 But the rest of the dead did not live again until the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection. 6 Blessed and holy is he who has part in the first resurrection. Over such the second death has no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with Him a thousand years. Hell is what Earth literally is in the future. Death will be defeated first. In Revelation 9 a falling star also known as an asteroid will penetrate the crust of the dark side of the Earth pushing it out of its Goldilocks orbit toward the sun. The Earth will eventually burn up with all of humanity brought back to immortal life. The finest of mankind and the glory of the nations will go into the New Jerusalem which is approximately 1500 miles x 1500 miles x 1500 miles and it will go to a New Earth. 2 Peter 3:10 But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night, in which the heavens will pass away with a great noise, and the elements will melt with fervent heat; both the earth and the works that are in it will be [d]burned up. 11 Therefore, since all these things will be dissolved, what manner of persons ought you to be in holy conduct and godliness, 12 looking for and hastening the coming of the day of God, because of which the heavens will be dissolved, being on fire, and the elements will melt with fervent heat? 13 Nevertheless we, according to His promise, look for new heavens and a new earth in which righteousness dwells. 21 Now I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away. Also there was no more sea.

[@Aaqe]

@@archangel_metatron OH, what a lecture! Does it come from Google?

[@archangel_metatron]

@@Aaqe wouldn't that be nice. Unfortunately, too many believe something other than the truth.

[@peternoah9680]

the world was not made for us we were made from the world

[@Fr33manTV]

Everything must have a creator, except the creator? Sounds like special pleading. Better to just settle for, "We believe there is a God because we want to," (not because it is rational).

[@eapooda]

What a way to strawman the argument. If you actually read the syllogistic form of the argument you will clearly see that no inference is made that EVERYTHING must have a creator. I encourage you to respond to my comment and cite from Aquinas’s arguments where the word everything is used.

[@michaeladams3917]

10:45 pm Re: The Five Ways I wonder if Necessary vs. Possible could be broadened. It seems to me that the ultimate Possibility is God’s overall source of all that God conceives: that all that is within the standard we call Goodness is Possible and Necessary. All of God falls within the realm of Good as the measure that He allows but will not conceive for himself. I see God as the ultimate Source possibility for Goodness/Love. Mike Adams

[@billc3114]

I love this cartoons and pics of Aquinas in our modern world. 😁

[@El-Plan]

Yes we need more light from our Christian brothers !

[@eric6345]

Great Video. I'm hoping that The Thomas institute expands to other Christian Theologians and Apologists beyond just Thomas Aquinas. Aquinas is not the only Theologian out there to study.

[@paulgibbons2320]

Prove is a very strong word. Accepting there is a God does not necessitate religion.

[@tropifiori]

Thanks Father

[@ThomisticInstitute]

You're welcome!

[@crongusclips7836]

@@ThomisticInstitute To be considered proof tho doesn’t there have to be some kind of scientific evidence involved?

[@joseph20606]

The quality of this videos is breathtaking

[@aaronbrown8377]

"He did not affirm that the existence of God was undeniable" Then this entire video is a waste of time. By definition, God is almost impossible to falsify. Which is to say, we can't prove it wrong so we can't prove it right. I think it was Carlyle that made the point that divine inspiration or a miracle is only evidence of God to the original recipient, to everyone else it is heresay. Edit: No, I think that was Thomas Paine.

[@crongusclips7836]

Fr the majority of the comments on here are a big circle jerk

[@xenphoton5833]

Would you consider the point about "divine inspiration", whoever may have said it, to be in favor of the existence of God or does it promote non-belief?

[@aaronbrown8377]

@@xenphoton5833 Well, it's Thomas Paine so... non-belief.

[@el34glo59]

Right.....

[@Thedisciplemike]

Depends on how your define God

[@utfan971]

Alright, guys, I didn't came here to dunk on your faith or anything. Just getting this out of the way: I don't really care if you believe in a god, multiple gods, or none at all, since most gods are defined in a way that the question of their existence cannot be definitively and soundly answered. But trying to prove theism with logic? Boy, am I gonna dig into that one. Another thing to note, taking "proof" in quotation marks below may sound condescending, but it's not me who chose those names for statements that are not proofs, but arguments at best, and sometimes simply assertions. So "proof" number zero (?), upon which all others are based, goes as follows. "Some perceptible effects have imperceptible causes. Our world is perceptible and I perceive it as beautiful, great and orderly, therefore there must be an imperceptible cause behind it." Except the conclusion of such a statement does not logically follow from its premises. Something being beautiful, great and orderly does not necessitate that there be an imperceptible cause behind it; Leonardo da Vinci's paintings and designs are beautiful, great and orderly, yet the cause behind them was very much a perceptible human being. And even if accepted as a sound argument, it wouldn't prove theism, especially specifically Christian theism. One could try to steelman this argument by expanding it to the watchmaker analogy, as in "watches are complex, and are created by a much more complex sentient creator; natural world is extremely complex, therefore it must be created by a sentient creator that much more complex", but that's a false analogy (things sharing one property (complexity) doesn't mean they necessarily share another (having a sentient creator)). We know watches are created by sentient beings not because of their complexity, but because we have abundant evidence of that being the case, and none to the contrary. And this analogy too, would not prove theism even if accepted as sound. "Proof" 1 (and 2!) is the old and beaten "unmoved mover" assertion, which is usually presented as an actual argument, but here, it's just an assertion, so refuting it is as easy as swinging the Hitchens' razor: "That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence". Again, I'm going to steelman this to an actual argument, which usually goes like this: "Everything that is in motion has a cause; the chain of causality cannot continue indefinitely; therefore, there must be an unmoved mover". The problem with this argument is that it suffers from Special Pleading by not giving adequate justification for exemption of the "unmoved mover" from the rule set by premise 1. And guess what? Even if accepted, it wouldn't prove theism. "Proof" 3 is just a matter-of-fact statement that's put in a context that makes it look like it's supposed to prove theism when it spectacularly fails to. No adequate criteria is given for things "not needing to exist". Also, yes, inasmuch as we can observe, everything that exists has a cause for its existence, but all your work on actually proving the presence of any god in the equation is still ahead of you. "Proof" 4 is fallacious in a number of ways. First one I don't recall the name for, but let's call it false extrapolation. Observing things with different degrees of perfection is not sufficient evidence for there necessarily existing a perfect being. But even if this part of the argument was accepted as sound, there's still a non-sequitur: some being being perfect does not necessarily make it a source of all other being. And even if THAT was accepted as sound, then there's another problem: it still fails to prove theism, the argument is only made for a perfect being, not a god. "Proof" 5 basically goes like this: "Things without intelligence cannot work towards an end unless a higher intelligence is guiding them; Bees have no intelligence, but work towards an end regardless; therefore there must be a higher intelligence directing them." This suffers from the term "intelligence" being used in different senses in premises 1 and 2, constituting the equivocation fallacy. In premise 1, "intelligence" is meant as "a level of cognitive ability sufficient to advance toward a given objective" while in premise 2, "intelligence" means "a level of cognitive ability comparable to that of higher animals such as mammals or humans". However, if you use consistent definitions, it suddenly turns out that bees DO have enough natural cognitive ability to go about their life cycles, which makes premise 2 fall apart. But even if this argument was accepted as sound, it would not prove theism, only some kind of "supreme mind" that guides all things. Who said it's necessarily a god? Maybe it's some kind of super-AI from a distant star system? Also, this argument completely ignores evolution by natural selection as a fully humanly understood process that has no intelligence in any sense to speak of whatsoever, yet is very successful in its goal of creating beings that are most fit for their immediate environments, making premise 1 a false premise.

[@PeterMurrayj]

A very interesting reply. I was disappointed at the end when I didn't see a more logical solution. Certainly belief in the unprovable big bang theory isn't more likely or provable?

[@utfan971]

@PeterMurrayj thanks, but I didn't write this reply in order to prove any theory of mine, only to refute the "proof" of Christian theism presented here. Also, the Big Bang theory has much more evidence going for it than the idea that some dude in the sky created the world in 7 days, during which he somehow managed to create light three days before he created the source of said light, aka the sun. In fact, the Big Bang theory is currently the most plausible theory of the world's origin. Also, the difference between a theory and a religion is that the former does not require belief. A theory is just that: a theory. It offers an explanation backed by factual evidence. Religion offers you symbols, characters and fictional stories to believe in.

[@marrth649]

I have a question, how would you differentiate something that is designed (like a car, boat,etc.) vs something that is natural (like a tree, plant, etc)

[@kelvinvillegas5310]

What did Aquinas think of the ontological argument?

[@kelvinvillegas5310]

@fynes leigh Thanks for your comment that actually made me think of what he might have thought about it. (Note: I am wondering what he thought of the ontological argument as formulated by St. Anslem. The ontological argument can only work for God, if it works. It is not suppose to work for any X or Y) First, it is not true the it is fallacious to derive is from ought. Well, you would see it as true if you follow Hume and other Moderns in rejecting Teleology. However, in my view (and we could spend more time on this) the moderns seem to misunderstand what teleology is suppose to be. Anyways, the point of teleology is that the nature of something dictates what is good for it. Given that a the nature of a tree is to grow and have have fruits it needs nourishment (water & sunlight). In other words, because it is in a certain way (it has a certain nature, it ought to have nourishment . Secondly, a key view of Aquinas is the distinction between essence and existence. It is only for God that his existence is identical to his essence. That is, it is only for God that his essence includes existence. Other essence do not necessarily have to exist and so do not include existence in their essence. That seems to be at least inspired by the ontological argument. What I take the ontological argument to be getting at is that given the essence/nature of God, He can not fail to exist. Aquinas at least is adding to that by saying that it is because his essence includes existence that that is so. What I am not sure is what Aquinas thought of St. Anslem's ontological argument. I haven't seen anywhere that he addresses it. He does not count it among the five ways so that at least a clue that he doesn't think too much of it.

[@ThomisticInstitute]

He doesn't think that it obtains. He gives it as an objection in Ia Q. 2, a. 1, obj. 1 and refutes it in his reply to objection 1. You can read his reply here: aquinas101.thomisticinstitute.org/st-ia-q-2#FPQ2A1THEP1

[@kelvinvillegas5310]

@fynes leigh I am happy to give an example of something that I said, but I'm sure what you would like an example of.

[@kelvinvillegas5310]

@@ThomisticInstitute Thank You!

[@ThomisticInstitute]

@@kelvinvillegas5310 Sure thing!

[@kkurova9345]

Actually, studies have shown that bees are much more intelligent than once thought

[@dinukabimsarabodaragama716]

So basically, St.Thomas Aquinas, just used the God of Gaps as a proof to the existence of the God, ain't he?

[@freddan6fly]

He also defined god into existence like a prestup. That is pretty silly.

[@kennylex]

If you "prove" that your god does exist then your god have to be natural and within our realm, that will then create the question if your "religion" is correct and needed, like how is it possible for humans (priests and monks) to change that gods will by praying, if praying would work, then it is the human that is controlling god and maybe also be the creator of that god/religion. Have a nice day.

[@JB-ou6fl]

I studied St. Thomas Aquinas' five proofs in college and this video explains them very well.

[@electrictroy2010]

THERE ARE 100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 suns just like ours. Even if a superbeing existed, no way could he create that immense universe. AND there’s no reason he would care about our sun more than all the others. We are just a speck of dust in the grand scale of the cosmos .

[@apologiaromana4123]

@@electrictroy2010 Is that a serious argument?

[@follower2thelord43]

@@electrictroy2010 We are a unique thing among all the Cosmos, the naturalist odds a single protein would come about as a building block of life is 10^93 and the odds that would form a functional cell is 1/10^300+. If you want to know how large that is, it’s literally a transcendent mathematical possibility, the imagine you stock pile those odds of that SINGLE cell surviving to create all the diverse life we see and “mutating” for no apparent reason to create all the great creatures of life. We are special, we are a perfect distance away from the sun, with the Sun and the Moon being just the right distance away to eclipse each-other, to be the only known planet in all of Cosmos to sustain life, and whom the many arguments prove God is at work initiating and maintaining all of reality with his divine will and mind. God is the causes of causes, he is causality itself, and causes everything else to be able to cause things, it is only by his self explanatory existence that we can exist as well. God is not only real, but is the source for reality, and is the ultimate truth of everything.

[@mikeb9048]

Would love to hear a talk contrasting and comparing Aquinas with Nagarjuna. Good video.

[@throughaglassanalytically1679]

Thank you for the excellent exposition on this. I appreciate the work that the Thomistic Institute has put in to make these concepts more clear and accessible. I totally agree with point about false philosophies, specifically how many of the "New Atheists" completely misunderstand/misinterpret the 5 ways (for example Richard Dawkins confusing an essentially ordered series with an accidental one). However I am wondering about whether the institute has engaged with the critiques of Aquinas' 5 ways put forward by serious contemporary analytic atheist philosophers, such as J.L. Mackie, J.H. Sobel and Graham Oppy, all who have provided forceful critiques of Aquinas in their works?

[@bradleymosman8325]

I think that Carl Gustav Jung helped us when he said, "God's existence does not upon our arguments." (Memories, Dreams, and Reflections) Do we think that God will come into existence because we've made the best argument? For me, God is encountered through my personhood. Jesus died on the Cross as a Person, not a theory. The Arguments are merely a way of talking about God. And it seems to me that arguments for God's existence stand on their own. Atheist arguments are merely rebuttals. When God is the subject, they have nothing of their own. They depend upon the theists but the theists don't need the atheists.

[@johnteron7020]

Thank you dear father James Brent, op...

[@ThomisticInstitute]

Thanks for watching! May the Lord bless you!

[@gabrielbcsilva]

Great explanation i have been searching for a video like this. God bless you. Abraços do Brasil 🇧🇷

[@ChiefCedricJohnson]

Luke 11:28 But he said, Yea rather, blessed are they that hear the word of God, and keep it. 1 Corinthians 14:33 For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints. 1 Corinthians 14:34 Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law. 1 Corinthians 14:35 And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church. Luke 6:38 Give, and it shall be given unto you; good measure, pressed down, and shaken together, and running over, shall men give into your bosom. For with the same measure that ye mete withal it shall be measured to you again.

[@ankushkaul6909]

After a search of two complete days, I finally ended up on this video n started understanding what St. Aquinas work was? Thanx

[@jared_really]

“One way to know God’s existence is by taking it on faith based on what the Bible says”… close KZbin, go to your local library, find a dictionary, and look up the word irony

[@alexmcd378]

Unfortunately Thomas Aquinas based his arguments for a god on logical fallacies. The prime mover argument for example, begins by asserting all motion has a cause, and then asserting that a infinite regression is impossible. Therefore an initial unmoved mover, an uncaused causer, must exist, and that prime mover is the Christian god. Let's let that stand for a moment, despite its flaws. How does the existence of a prime mover point to your god specifically? It could be any other creator deity, current, lost, or never known. If a prime mover can exist, then why couldn't more than one exist? How do you tell if a universe was caused by one creator, or a group working together? Or even a group working against each other? Finally, the prime mover argument could equally well be used as evidence for a then undiscovered natural law, that it is the nature of a universe to start, to use the language of the era. Random aside: apologists currently define omnipotent and omnibenevolent as God being able to do anything that is logically consistent and and is true to God's nature, correct? If it is God's nature to be consistent, then God would not violate his own natural laws. The laws of physics are God's natural laws. Physics does not allow for motion to be created without an equal opposing motion; the mover must be moved. Physics also does not allow for interaction with something that is outside of "time and space", or space-time as it's known in physics. Therefore, to set the universe in motion, God would have to violate his own laws and therefore violate his own nature, and thus could not create the universe. If Thomas didn't predate Newton by about 500 years, he might not have made that mistake. If God is not consistent, then how can we know anything at all when the creator can change things on a whim? Then looking at the fallacies of the argument, the conclusion that your god, which ever it may be, is the prime mover is special pleading. Why your god and not a preceding god-creating entity? Why does the buck stop here? The assertion that an infinite regression is impossible is just that, an assertion. He presents no evidence for it, but assumes common sense, which is not evidence. Even our best understanding of cosmology today doesn't rule that out. It's possible this universe we know is one of a sequence, starting with a big bang, ending with a big crunch and rebounding outward with a new big bang. And his assertion that all things must have a causing entity is assumed without evidence. The argument, "things must have a causer, there are things, therefore there is a causer" is circular reasoning, mixed with some god of the gaps. All things having a cause isn't a universally accepted belief either. Spontaneous generation of life comes to mind, the idea that dead matter will spontaneously create fully formed complex life, like grain and cloth in a bucket will become mice. And we have discovered things in physics that would have looked uncaused to dear Thomas. Like virtual particles, matter / antimatter pairs that create themselves, separate for a moment, then recombine and annihilate, leaving the laws of physics intact, and are the source of Hawking radiation. In short, Thomas assumed a creation in order to prove a creator using circular logic.

[@rishavzzz]

Hello Alex. You seem to have put some good thought into this so I will respond as faithfully as I can. It will take some time though. And it appears it will take multiple comments too. I do not think you have been presented the argument properly, so I will need to explain that for the response to make any sense. I recommend reading Thomas's Summa yourself at some point. A good place to read it is newadvent dot org slash summa. It goes into further topics such as the attributes of God we can arrive at through his definition. I hope that this will be of interest to you. I think that being on this video at all shows you care about the truth, most atheists such as Dawkins, Harris, and Dennett don't even attempt to treat it fairly. "asserting all motion has a cause" He does not assert this. He asserts that some things are in motion. Motion here means motion through Aristotelian categories of being. The act/potency distinction and essential vs accidentally ordered causal series are critical parts of the argument. "How does the existence of a prime mover point to your god specifically?" It doesn't. He believes in divine revelation and miracles through history. With this, it seems reasonable to pick Christianity over the other monotheistic religions, namely Judaism and Islam. "If a prime mover can exist, then why couldn't more than one exist?" The argument goes as follows. Suppose there were two, then there would have to be something that distinguishes them. But whatever distinguishes them is itself a metaphysical property that falls under the scope of the argument. Thus from one of the two must this concept of difference between them originate from, and thus they cannot both be fundamental. "If it is God's nature to be consistent, then God would not violate his own natural laws." This is a good point regarding miracles. I am not well read of Thomas's opinion on miracles so I can't say much. However I may point out that "Physics does not allow for motion to be created without an equal opposing motion" is not very relevant here. This is not physical motion through space and time, but metaphysical motion through being. How things change in general. Since the laws of physics themselves are contingent on the universe existing in the first place, the prime mover acts before they are set in place, and thus no contradiction occurs at all. "If Thomas didn't predate Newton by about 500 years, he might not have made that mistake" Ironically Newton was in fact very consistent with Thomas, unsurprising considering his piety. His ideas of kinetic (actual) and potential (potential) energy are directly motivated by Thomas's, and his fundamental F=ma is just a mathematical description that only an external mover (force F) causes a change in motion of another (acceleration a). "Then looking at the fallacies of the argument, the conclusion that your god, which ever it may be, is the prime mover is special pleading. Why your god and not a preceding god-creating entity? Why does the buck stop here?" As mentioned earlier, this is not special pleading, because no assertion is made that everything requires a mover. The assertion is that some things move. "The assertion that an infinite regression is impossible is just that, an assertion." Infinite regression is possible. However, an infinite and essentially ordered regress is impossible. I shall make an argument at the end when I summarize the argument in my own words. "Even our best understanding of cosmology today doesn't rule that out. It's possible this universe we know is one of a sequence, starting with a big bang, ending with a big crunch and rebounding outward with a new big bang." Thomas is not arguing for a temporal causal series. As in this series does not stretch back in time, it does not involve time at all. He actually believes there is no way to logically argue whether the universe had a beginning or not. This is in severe contrast to the Islamic theologians such as Al Ghazali and his Kalam cosmological argument. Again at the end i will make it clear. "Like virtual particles, matter / antimatter pairs that create themselves, separate for a moment, then recombine and annihilate, leaving the laws of physics intact, and are the source of Hawking radiation." The quantum vacuum state is not a state with "nothing in it", rather it is the lowest allowed energy state of some given quantum field theory. For example in quantum mechanics, we can describe a system analogous to the harmonic oscillator from classical mechanics. We define a quantum Hamiltonian containing quantum operators in analogy with the classical situation. In solving this system we obtain discrete solutions, and notable the lowest energy solution allowed is not the zero function. But now the point, is that we can come up with many different theories that also have a non trivial vacuum state. Some theories even have multiple vacuum states! The most important concept in modern physics, spontaneous symmetry breaking, actually depends on infinitely degenerate vacuum states which are unseen, to then arrive at things like the Higgs boson. I do not believe that calling the quantum vacuum empty is very accurate. I understand you believe this though, I only know otherwise because I am a physicist.

[@rishavzzz]

Now I will present the logical argument myself. There's two parts to it, 1. A logical argument regarding certain causal series, and 2. A metaphysical model that applies to reality and in which the logical argument can be applied. The logical argument part is usually where the confusion is so I will explain that. Hopefully you will see why objections like "Who caused God?" or "Why must and infinite regress be impossible?" are not very strong. I will make an analogous argument first. Suppose you have a television that is powered on which is plugged into a power strip, which itself is plugged into another power strip, and so on, until you can see no further, just power strips stretching out into the horizon. This situation with televisions, power strips, and a power source contains the various logical elements needed. We see that some things are moving, the television. We see that the object moving the television, the power strip. And from the properties of these movers we can deduct the existence of a power source, the prime mover. The essentially ordered part is the key. By that we mean that the television does not power itself, it receives power from the first power strip. But we know that power strips don't power themselves (plugging a power strip into itself), thus it must receive power from the second. And so on. We see that if we break the line at some point, say we unplug the second power strip from the third, then not only does the second power strip lose its ability to power, so does the first, and so then the television will turn off. Each member depends essentially on the one before it. Saying an infinite regress is possible here is saying that a television be powered by just plugging a bunch of power strips into each other, but that is not the case. It doesn't matter how many you have, the power strips only transfer power. Thus there must be some power source. Thomas's own argument is as follows. Say you are moving a stone with a stick. The stone does not move on its own, it only moves because of the stick moving it. But the stick does not move on its own, it depends on your arm moving it. But your arm doesn't move on its own, it depends on the various biological chemical processes of your body. But these biological processes don't move on their own, they depend on more fundamental quantum processes. And so on. It's essentially ordered because if you stop moving your arm, then the stick stops, and so does the rock. Here you can see the argument is not about something going back in time forever, all these processes occur at the same exact time, but they are causally linked. Now the question regarding infinite regress being impossible should be clear. It's all because the series is essentially ordered. An accidentally ordered series can go on forever with no issue. An example of an accidental series is cooking pasta. You have a flame, a pot, water in the pot, and pasta. To cook the pasta, you must ignite a flame to make the pot hot, and then the pot makes the water hot, and then the water cooks the pasta. This is accidentally ordered because if you shut off the flame after the pasta is cooked, the pasta remains cooked. If you shut off the flame after the water gets hot, the water can still cook the pasta. If you take the pot off the flame after it has gotten hot, it can still heat up the water. The ability to move of each element does not depend on what moved it to remain. Once something is hot, it can heat up other things. Another example is pushing over dominos. Once you start the series, you can remove a domino that has already fell over and it won't change anything, the rest of the dominos will fall. Now lastly the question regarding "Who caused God?" Hopefully it makes sense why this doesn't make sense to ask. Take the analogy of the powered television again. Because of the situation, we must logically arrive at the existence of a power source. The question is now translates to, "What powers the power source?". Nothing does necessarily, the only reason we need a power source to exist is because everything else does not create power, they only transfer power. The argument is about necessity, we know certain things about the television and power strips which necessitates something to then power them. Nothing necessitates that something to then be powered itself. Let me make another argument in case it isn't clear. The natural numbers, the counting numbers 0,1,2,... and so on, have a property called being well ordered. Each non empty subset of the natural numbers has some least element. If I give you any subset of naturals, we necessarily have some least element within that subset. The "Who caused God?" statement is then "What is smaller than the least element?". The answer is the same, nothing. We arrive at a least element through a logical argument about everything but the least element, then we arrive at the existence of a least element.

[@alexmcd378]

theplqa I look forward to reading this tomorrow. It's late here

[@alexmcd378]

@@rishavzzz To start with, I don't see your rationale here at all. ""How does the existence of a prime mover point to your god specifically?" It doesn't. He believes in divine revelation and miracles through history. With this, it seems reasonable to pick Christianity over the other monotheistic religions, namely Judaism and Islam." A prime mover exists, therefore Christianity? Or even to narrow it down to the Abrahamic religions. If this entity is giving revelation over time, then wouldn't the most recent religion be the most accurate? Perhaps Bahai? And if we're discarding the more recent revelations, by what method does one distinguish a real revelation from a false one created by fraud or by delusion? At most the prime mover gets you to deism, not theism. Your argument for a single vs multiple prime movers doesn't seem to hold either. The only required trait seems to be the ability to cause motion without that entity being caused/moved. It's trivial to imagine a variety of prime movers who differ in their capacity to "cause". So the universe that we see could have been caused (is being caused?) by multiple less capable causers working in harmony. You could have them differing in other ways as well. Very well, let us dispense with miracles and focus on cosmology. However, I would need to see a good citation for Newton basing any of his work on Thomas, or that he was pious. Neither mesh with what I know of him. Thomas may not be arguing for a temporal chain of causality, but the chain is nonetheless temporal. A cause and effect relationship can't propagate faster than the speed of light. In your example, something happens, then the quantum events happen, then the chemicals in the body move, then the cells move, then the arm moves, then the stick moves, then the rock moves. The time between each event in the chain is mind-bogglingly small, but it isn't zero. The entire discussion of vacuum state is unrelated. Whether a virtual particle pair materialized in a fictional dead zero energy vacuum, or squeezed itself in between the tiniest gaps in neutronium, they would still appear to be an uncaused thing appearing in our universe to the eyes of a 16th century monk. And you have extrapolated quite a lot about what I believe from a sentence that basically said Thomas wouldn't understand virtual particles. If you are going to assume what I believe, then at least go with scientific consensus and assume I'm referencing the standard model. I don't agree that the television analog is relevant. Gods and universes aren't TVs and power plants. The existence of a prime mover deity requires a breakdown of physics at some point, either motion without a force, or something outside space-time still interacting with space-time. TVs and power plants fall within physics. That's a pretty large difference that makes me doubt your analogy is valid. I think you left out some critical pieces of your description of Thomas's argument. You describe the rock>stick>arm>chemistry sequence, ending with "and so on". What is "And so on"? You then say that if you stop moving the rock, the rock stops moving. Where is the prime mover? How did we get to it? What I got from your argument was "Moving a rock requires a series of undefined length, and if you stop moving the rock, the rock stops moving." And, as I mentioned, a cause and effect can't happen at the exact same time, because that would violate causality / speed of light. Your argument about infinite regress doesn't seem relevant either. You're using terms I've honestly never heard of in physics or cosmology, but by your example, you seem to be describing a series that must be sustained with constant input of energy (kinetic, electrical, deific, I'm not sure where you're going), where as an accidental series is one that does not require constant input of energy. The only way I see this argument possibly being relevant is if your / Thomas' claim is that a caused universe must continually be caused, and if the causer stops causing then the entire universe will cease existing. And that makes even less sense to me, so I hope that isn't the claim. Everything we see in nature fits your example of an accidental series, with the exception of inefficiencies like friction sapping the energy in the system and increasing entropy. So I don't see how in any way Newton could have based Newtonian physics on anything Thomas said. Thomas sounds more in line with Aristotle's version of physics, where you had impetus instead of force and friction didn't exist. Your last point about how "what caused god" being a flawed question again, doesn't make sense. You return to the TVs and power plants example. But we have evidence that TVs require a power source to function. We do not have evidence that a prime mover is required for anything to exist. So the analogy is a poor parallel. A logical argument is not evidence or proof. At best it can give direction to likely areas for investigation. I'm not sure what your definition of motion is trying to get at. It seems to be unnecessarily complicating the issue. Citing Aristotle just means we now have to ascertain whether Aristotle's claims are true. All of your examples have used motion in the physical sense, either kinetic motion or the transfer of thermal or chemical energy and molecular motion. And they just seem to imply a poor understanding of physics. Pushing a rock does not stop because you stop causing it to move. It stops because of friction. Repeat your analogy in practically, though not entirely, frictionless space and suddenly it isn't an "ordered" series but an "accidental" one, or so I extrapolate from your examples. Does ordered vs accidental depend on your frame of reference then? I don't see how that would get us to a prime mover. And lastly, back to your restating Thomas's argument in your own words. I presume the rock-stick-arm-etc chain is supposed to somehow go all the way back to a prime mover, but you skipped that part in your eagerness maybe. I get caught up too. But we don't need a prime mover or even a soul to get there. The signals that cause the arm to move come from the brain. The brain sent that signal, and is able to send that signal because it is an ongoing sequence of bioelectric chemical activity, kind of like a computer. And like a computer, it was assembled from inert components before those components are then powered on. Just the factory for brains is more bespoke and, squishy. So the rock-stick-arm-brain-etc example can follow normal physics all the way back to the big bang without any need for a prime mover. And if the prime mover argument just boils down to, "a god must have started the big bang", then it's just the god of the gaps all over again. We don't know how it started, therefore god. Although, since we have no evidence prior to the big bang so far, we have no way to determine if a god is required vs it simply being in the nature of universes to start themselves. Or perhaps universes beget universes and our big bang was a literal birth of the universe. And even accepting that argument can't get you to any specific deity. All you can get is that there must be a universe creating entity somewhere/when/dimension. There could be a pandimensional octarine frog humming universes into existence to the tune of Miley Cyrus' greatest hits and it would still fit, if you'll excuse the frivolous hyperbole. I do hope you'll revisit what Thomas' argument in your words. I had to extrapolate for my reply, and I would not want to accidentally strawman you. But unless you come up with something really out of left field, I'm not seeing this being anything more than god of the gaps and argument from ignorance. The standard model covers macro events from the smallest fraction of a second after the big bang to the couple of likely ends to the universe without needing a prime mover. Going before or after that time period is not currently testable, so can't be evidence for anything, deity or not. And outside our current understanding of physics, it seems far more likely to me that there is just more physics instead of finding magic at the bottom of it.

[@alexmcd378]

@@rishavzzz And if you were curious, I'm a former deist. I became an atheist when I realized that there was no discernible difference between a created deistic universe and a completely naturalistic one. Either way, when I die, everything that is me ceases to be, and dying is the only way to test the difference. After that my belief drifted from deism to atheism over time, I guess since the former seemed to be just an unjustified sugar coating of the latter. But I'm content to live the best life I can, help as many people as I can, hurt as few as I can, and hope it's quick when I finally die.

[@gemum4219]

For some, increasing the playback speed to 1.5 may make videos easier to follow/understand. Is that the case for some of you?

[@randyhelzerman]

I don't know....maybe if there were **six** ways to prove that God exists I would be convinced......

[@randyhelzerman]

@@jannguerrero If there were 5 arguments for atheism, would you be convinced? How about 6? No? What about 7?

[@merikijiya13]

@@jannguerrero I think the problem of evil kind of crushes the biblical idea of god. Also Occums razor. Or the fact that there is no empirical evidence of god.

[@merikijiya13]

I can get you three ways and a half eaten butterfingers how about that?

[@merikijiya13]

@@jannguerrero I am sure beyond a reasonable doubt that the biblical god doesn’t exist. I can not say for sure beyond a reasonable doubt that something like a deistic god doesn’t exist. Occam’s razor eliminates the need for positing a god since existence could come about naturally. What do you mean by “began to exist”?

[@merikijiya13]

@@jannguerrero My basis for moral objections are subjective since there is no such thing as objective morality. God doesn’t explain anything though. It only adds more questions. In the Bible god supposedly created the universe from nothing. That doesn’t explain what happened at all. Now I’m just the question where did god come from, how did he make the universe, why etc etc. there’s no need to apply agency to the universe.

[@vicg5323]

Very interesting. As a scientist I use the scientific methods to measure all sorts of Gods works. If God did not exist than most of our world population is misguided to include many of the brightest minds.

[@merikijiya13]

What have you found to be “gods work” using the scientific method?

[@williamtell5365]

These proofs are historically interesting, but none of them have really stood the test of time and scrutiny, especially after Kant. Of them, the ontological argument is to me by far the most interesting.

[@oliverford5367]

And after Darwin and genetics, where it's better understood how things can evolve to look like they were designed without being designed. Design arguments have never been able to explain the flaws in the apparent design

[@imdeexpert5828]

Its the same as New Thought, through inductive reasoning and argument from what we know, we find nature of God

[@fernandocavalcanti4197]

Great video. Great course. Thank you

[@ThomisticInstitute]

Our pleasure!

[@ChiefCedricJohnson]

Luke 11:28 But he said, Yea rather, blessed are they that hear the word of God, and keep it. 1 Corinthians 14:33 For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints. 1 Corinthians 14:34 Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law. 1 Corinthians 14:35 And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church. Luke 6:38 Give, and it shall be given unto you; good measure, pressed down, and shaken together, and running over, shall men give into your bosom. For with the same measure that ye mete withal it shall be measured to you again.

[@seanlim222]

I think for most non-believers it's not about the question of doubting the existence of God, it's the complete rejection for the existence of a God that is just and good simply because of the pain and suffering they see in our world today.

[@STho205]

For those that do not accept the plan of The Father through mystery... Belief is irrelevant. The Serpent believed in God. Cain believed in God as Cain had conversations with God. Ciaphas believed in God (by profession). Plato did not believe in the God of Moses... And likely was never exposed to those text... Yet he postulated the essence of original sin in all humans....and if a completely essence-pious man appeared in The Republic then he would initially be celebrated, but eventually reviled, whipped, gouged, sentenced to death and crucified on a pole outside the city walls.... Then, and only then, be proven pious. That was written in 390BC.

[@seanlim222]

@@STho205 wow someone's been researching eh?

[@STho205]

@@seanlim222 thanks Well I read "The Republic" (book 2 BTW for that essay) in university 40 years ago. I read The old and new testaments when I was a kid, and recheck the text occasionally in case i remember something wrong. Pop culture references, other people talking, literature and movies often muddle our real study.

[@nicolasgamant7389]

Five way To prove god in a nuttshell : Look at the trees Believe the bible Use your brain Use bad analogy Jump to conclusion Ok i got it...

[@quentinblack256]

Forgot to ignore the Old Testament and all the killing and “how it was ok because it was a different time”

[@crongusclips7836]

@@quentinblack256 First degree murder is always ok if done for a good cause

[@justinnelson1565]

@@quentinblack256 God is HOLY and must punish evil, the OT emphasizes Justice, the NT emphasizes Mercy, but both contain Justice, Mercy and Humility

[@quentinblack256]

@@justinnelson1565 ok hitler.

[@justinnelson1565]

@@quentinblack256 hitler did not have the right to take life because he did not create it. God is Good and knows what is Good and is the Giver and Taker of Life. God has the right to take life.

[@georgerobertson9703]

Reason is our conversation with God ❤

[@pup1008]

When you're next on the phone to him, ask him to end childhood cancer could you?

[@philliprobinson7724]

Hi George. "Come let us reason together, says the Lord". (Is 1:18) Cheers, P.R.

[@palomarAI]

Terrific content, and outstanding even whimsical production accents that pair terrific with presentation in a really helpful way - thank you for these mini-seminars!!

[@ThomisticInstitute]

You're welcome! Thanks for watching. God bless you.

[@electrictroy2010]

THERE ARE 100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 suns just like ours. Even if a superbeing existed, no way could he create that immense universe. AND there’s no reason he would care about our sun more than all the others. We are just a speck of dust in the grand scale of the cosmos .

[@rm7097]

In the end the true question is, does the order exist without us? Does the mathematics, the ordered systems, the complexity that gave rise to us, exist without us. That ordered pattern is God. Life doesn’t have to be, order doesn’t have to exist in the presence of the second law of thermodynamics, yet it does. We can either believe that the ultimate consciousness exists in that pattern which gave rise to us or we can choose not to.

[@merikijiya13]

1. The second law of thermodynamics only refers to closed systems. The earth is not a closed system. Life is not a close system. 2. Belief is not a choice. Belief deals in conviction. Either you’re convinced of something or you’re not but you can not choose what convinces you and what doesn’t. I am not convinced god exist, that is not by choice that is simply a result of me gathering data and coming to a conclusion.

[@rm7097]

@@merikijiya13 The second law is universal, as in the entropy of the universe will always increase. And in reference to your second point, I would have to disagree, belief is a choice. There’s no conclusive way to prove that God exist or that a higher universal consciousness exist so we either choose to believe from our deduction or as many atheist do, and choose not to.

[@merikijiya13]

@@rm7097 The overall entropy in the universe increases but that doesn’t always apply to individual cases that receive outside energy. The universe is a closed system, life is not, therefor the second law doesn’t apply to it. There is a very simple way of showing belief is not a choice. All you have to do is sincerely believe that god actually isn’t real and that everything is all made up. You can not sincerely do so until you receive some information that convinces of that conclusion. You can not choose what you believe no more than you can choose how long your arms will grow.

[@quentinblack256]

“Can’t just use the Bible to prove the existence of god,” *proceeds to use the Bible as a source*

[@crongusclips7836]

😂 Hey the bible is a very credible source everything in there has been backed by science

[@lyterman]

I'm not sure you watched the whole video.

[@feiyon7694]

Ur the best on KZbin so far