The Argument Atheists Always Get Wrong

Out of all the arguments for God's existence, there is one that is consistently misunderstood by almost every atheist. The 5 ways of St Thomas Aquinas are complex and mutli-faceted beasts, found in his Summa Theologica. And this is a shame, because in learning about it we gain new insights into Aristotle, Theology, and what work "God" does in a metaphysical system.
Support me on Patreon here: patreon.com/UnsolicitedAdvice...
Sign up to my email list for more philosophy to improve your life: forms.gle/YYfaCaiQw9r6YfkN7
Article on Forms: plato.stanford.edu/entries/pl...
00:00 St Thomas Aquinas
02:08 He Likes to Move it Move it
06:00 Why? Just Cause
10:13 Is That Really Necessary?
14:45 Goodness, Perfection, and Plato
19:21 Oh the Finality!

[@unsolicitedadvice9198]

LINKS AND CORRECTIONS: If you want to work with an experienced study coach teaching maths, philosophy, and study skills then book your session at [e-mail]. Previous clients include students at the University of Cambridge and the LSE. Support me on Patreon here: patreon.com/UnsolicitedAdvice701?Link& Sign up to my email list for more philosophy to improve your life: forms.gle/YYfaCaiQw9r6YfkN7

[@jeremongrel]

Thanks for making these videos

[@atrapanasatromhtos9426]

Do a video about democracy the god that failed

[@shripperquats5872]

18:35 After all these years, I have actually built up to this idea or similar. Although not as a be-all-end-all, and with all my thoughts and ideas I take with a portion of salt (That is not to say that I believe in nothing because I take it all with a grain of salt, but that I am open to anything-- including its disproving/dismantling), it's still a very important idea and must not be taken as-is (as in, "god is math" or "math is god", I said it to myself like this; math is the language in which we speak to god's essence. If the universe is gods essence, it can be translated into math.), but as a basis for realizing the nature of the universe. Math and the nature of science as it is does not begin to explain the complexity of our basis here on earth, yet psychology-- an underdog science-- is a reflection of the properties of mathematics (i.e. when we say someone has 'integrity', they personally share qualitative properties with a material-world structure we would say has integrity [strong, holds up, resistant etc..], when we say someone is 'weak' they personally share qualitative properties with a material-world structure we would say is weak [push-over, twig, flake, etc..]) and its place in our minds and thus a reflection of our minds' place in this universe. When I am reading and contemplating personalities, cultures, anthropology/history, etc... I feel the same way I do when solving math equations. Except math are mere imaginary numbers on a paper or board, while history and personalities are very real things that did and do exist.

[@ECLECTRIC_EDITS]

It's not your fault you are an atheist. Freemasons indoctrinated you to be one. Before 1800 everyone was aware that there was a creator.

[@maybelive765]

Actually, it's not fine to strawman a theologian-now-saint to try to sway "the flock" to atheism. That is morally wrong on so many levels.

[@haziqshah3188]

Wow. For you as an atheist to be willing to discuss the topic of theism unbiasedly, with an open mind and heart on the basis of reason alone truly shows your integrity as a true honest thinker/philosopher. You really earn my respect. Hats off to you 🙌

[@unsolicitedadvice9198]

Thank you! I try to approach things in as good a faith as possible

[@Francesco-gf1sv]

Every atheist does... We are not any kind of hegemony you know?

[@tylerelissa6377]

Pretty sure there are a lot more open minded atheists than open minded theists. Takes a pretty closed mind to believe in something without any evidence

[@JohnD808]

@@tylerelissa6377lmao you guys just can’t help yourselves

[@tylerelissa6377]

@@JohnD808 am I wrong?

[@dswagler]

I made a drinking game out of this video. Every time he made an air quote, I took a drink. I deeply regret that now... 😂

[@unsolicitedadvice9198]

Haha!

[@michaelsorensen7567]

Even if your drink of choice was water, it's still hazardous

[@NPC-nn4qe]

I kinda wanna do this, now.

[@antoniopioavallone1137]

Catholic right here, I have appreciated your intellectual honesty.

[@TorturedMan-yg7wy]

He will soon be Catholic at this rate, his mind must be heavily oppressed by Satan to be so learned and still so blind. Pray for him.

[@SkoomaGodDovahkiin666]

Athiest here. How does it feel being the sanest type of christians?

[@yeetus_reetus_deeleetus]

Maybe you haven't been looking in the right places?

[@Sg190th]

​@@yeetus_reetus_deeleetus It's hard to when a lot of people on the internet are horrid, Religious or not.

[@nkoppa5332]

Yeah you like him leading people away from christ?

[@kenthefele113]

As a Catholic I respect how you steelman Classical Theism. Well done.

[@gregorsamsa5251]

As a non theist myself it's always a breath of fresh air to see another one of us approaching this from an angle of analytical rigor

[@notsocrates9529]

Oh my Science.

[@autohrap5884]

I’ve seen this same post somewhere else…

[@UHEBallOfSomething]

as a theist, I knew Aquinas would be a good theologian, but I never realized he's THAT good

[@trioofsixes]

He makes an amazing defense of deism. So good, I question his adherence to strictly christian doctrine and I wager he'd scoff at the catholics naming him a "saint".

[@hap1678]

Hey, I used to be Atheist and now I will be coming into the Catholic Church and St. Thomas is my patron saint. Read him, he’s SUPER good!!!

[@hap1678]

@@trioofsixesFar from scoff, St. Thomas loved the Catholic church and Jesus. He was devoted to the blessed sacrament. Also you could read Fr. Clarke Norris book on the “One and the Many”, St. Thomas explicitly defends the idea of a theistic God, who outpour himself into the universe. If you want a deep explanation let me know.

[@hollowpeace2005]

If you like Aquinas you should study Ibn Sina, he is the one who inspired Aquinas reviving the lost records of aristotle to the western world, Aquinas essentially took Ibn-sinas work and tweaked it a little

[@UHEBallOfSomething]

@@sumdumbmick ...I know, I'm not stupid... -_- ...and I just watched this video today anyway. Not like I read his work the instant I watched this video, give me time since I have other stuff to do anyway.

[@AsdrubaleRossi]

The problem is that among both theists and atheists, 99.9% of the population wouldn't be able to follow this video. It's full of people with their head buried under the sand on both sides, and both sides normally criticize each other pointing at the ignorance of these people on the other side.

[@brianmacker1288]

Thus next to no Christains understand Aquinas let alone believes in a notion of god consistent with these 5 arguments. In fact, these describe 5 different non-Christian gods.

[@joemiller7082]

And the and my problem with these arguments are the same as my problem to the others. It doesn’t rule out natural causes at all.

[@lovelyroy9273]

I stumbled upon your channel accidentally and your channel is a goldmine of ideas and philosophies

[@michaelboots6236]

This is slowly becoming one of my favorite youtube channels. Thank you for the good work and (slightly) expanding my reading list and expanding upon what I have read kind sir. Keep it up!

[@hellb6y]

brofist me bro

[@theycallmealex454]

Your pfp is hilarious

[@Tdisputations]

One thing to note is that it is often not really clear what laws are and that idea itself is very abstract. Thanks for trying to improve the debate.

[@highprince_official4982]

I respect the honesty and humility with which you approach these issues. I'm agnostic from Nigeria 👍

[@Razaqinnit]

Atheist from Nigeria 🤝🏾

[@normanclatcher]

American thinking of visiting Nigeria someday. 👐🏻

[@magecrafter7765]

Atheist from Nigeria 😂

[@Razaqinnit]

@@magecrafter7765 😂😂

[@Razaqinnit]

@@normanclatcher make sure you take malaria vaccine or something 😂💔

[@gmg9010]

As a Christian I clicked on this video thinking it was gonna be some snobby Christian who’d thought he found the ultimate trump card. Though I was pleasantly surprised when you said you didn’t believe.

[@CLOCK-WORK]

Dude, That was the trump card

[@LLawliet-lw7uk]

This month luckily I found the gem on KZbin, saw every video of yours. This channel is exactly what filled the void in philosophy of KZbin's world❤ (btw I'm a hardcore theist).

[@marjamkiewdetoledomoraeski936]

I'm an 57' atheist and found very interesting this video , in a sense of really beeing intelectualy honest.👍

[@rs4208]

You're 57' tall?

[@marjamkiewdetoledomoraeski936]

@@rs4208 Years old🙄

[@Mirko_Doggen]

' is minutes tho

[@DILFDylF]

Also read as fifty seven foot atheist

[@marjamkiewdetoledomoraeski936]

@@Mirko_Doggen I know🙄 I'm a civil engineer since 1987... But I was writing in a hurry and thought that who would read, could have the speed and flexibility of thinking to imagine I was obviously refering to my age ..

[@purwahage1690]

Your channel is too good with lots of insights. I Always wait for your video. Great work 👍👍

[@unsolicitedadvice9198]

Thank you! That is very kind!

[@Gian.rd.98]

​@@unsolicitedadvice9198I challenge you to analyze an argument in favor of the existence of God. The argument would go something like this: That which exists has a beginning to its existence, or exists without a beginning. That which exists without a beginning is all absolutely actual, while what has a beginning is limited in its actuality. What is limited in its actuality, having a beginning, cannot exist without having a cause for its existence. For that which exists without having a cause for its existence does not have a beginning [since it is a contradiction to suppose that something that exists without having a cause for its existence has a beginning for it, for a beginning without a cause is a contradiction], and thus is all absolutely actual. Therefore, to suppose that what is limited in its actuality, having a beginning, exists without having a cause, is to suppose that something limited in its actuality is unlimited in its actuality, and thus a contradiction. Therefore, that which is limited in its actuality needs a cause for its existence. The cause of an existence must be sufficient for the actuality of it. A cause that is limited in its actuality would need a cause as well and, thus, could not have in and of itself the sufficiency for the actuality of another existence. That which is not in and of itself sufficient to produce the actuality of an existence is not properly the cause of this actuality [being only a dependent and secondary cause]. Therefore, [being necessary that it be sufficient for the actuality of the existence that it produces in order to be its cause, and for this needing to be sufficient in and of itself] the cause of an existence must be uncaused [since if it is a caused cause, it is not sufficient in and of itself, and so not properly the cause of an existence], which uncaused cause is necessary for the existence of that which is limited in its actuality. God is said to be an uncaused cause. Therefore, the existence of God is necessary. PS: Sorry for my English, I'm not native speaker

[@jnm4462]

I appreciate the charitable presentations you give. Although the “problems” pointed out have been addressed numerous times by the likes of Feser, it’s awesome to see non-believers online genuinely grapple with the subject in good faith

[@Jimmy-iy9pl]

Thank you so much for doing your homework and going to some of the current heavy hitters in the Analytic Thomist tradition for help making this video! More people should strive to steelman their opponents' arguments and views like that. Understanding the best the other side has to offer is what leads to real progress in philosophy.

[@davidrobinson7684]

Yes, that was Karl Popper's methodology; steelman your opponent's arguments then destroy them.

[@DJWESG1]

And that leads to triangulation in society and politics which opens the door to demons and monsters. As seen post 97.

[@christiangreff5764]

I am sceptical that there can be such a thing as 'progress in philosophy' given that lacks a measure of 'goodness'. Natural sciences hvae such a measure, namely 'closeness of model predictions to observable reality'. In philosophy though, a platonist might criticize me for dodging the real questions while I would answer that those are non-sensible questions in the first place; with no shared standard of correctness to tell which one of us was 'right'.

[@Jimmy-iy9pl]

@christiangreff5764 I think you're oversimplyfing the process of scientific progress, and there are types of science that share remarkable similarities to philosophy in the sense that arguments, analogies, and theory building are the primary means of debate adjudication. I agree that progress in philosophy is not exactly achieved the same way as it is in science. But it is possible. Mere disagreement is not enough to prove otherwise. There are some scientists that would maintain that the Earth is the center of the solar system, for example. What matters is if you can back up your views with solid arguments against the Platonist. But then you're in the process of doing philosophy.

[@goldenalt3166]

​@@Jimmy-iy9plScience uses experiment as the primary method of adjudication. Philosophy has nothing like it.

[@jaegermeister798]

The #1 takeaway I think everyone should take from this, whether atheist or theist, is no matter what answers we come to for ourselves, understanding these things helps us communicate with each other better. As an agnostic theist, I find it questionable how anyone embracing a strictly Darwinian view on life would find it wise to prioritise their desire to “be right” over trying to preserve social cohesion in society. Seems counter intuitive if you ask me. So I just care that people are actually discussing these subjects in good faith, irregardless of what answers people come to.

[@cameron4332]

the desire for truth is what made humans create tools, innovate, its why our species is so successful

[@rosemadder5547]

Some people are anarchists.

[@nemamiah7832]

How being "Darwinian" would move you towards "social cohesion is more important than truth"? Why?

[@nemamiah7832]

​@@vayu1302Oh, you could be one. It's just weird position of "I believe in god/gods despite the fact that I do not know if they exists or not to any degree of certainty". Theism-Atheism and Gnosticism-Agnosticism are two different scales.

[@cameron4332]

they are uncertain but god is the most likely conclusion in their mind

[@Y0ur_Fell0w_Art1st]

As an agnostic leaning athiest, I find your intellectual perspective quite fascinating and enlightening

[@joemiller7082]

You can be both at the same time!

[@lempuujjj2877]

Brilliant video ! and nice way of speaking too ! the way you explain and talk really is energetic hence it helps me keep attention .

[@adrianaslund8605]

Aristotle being puzzled by brokeness is hilarious to me. Im imagining him kicking over other people's amphoras like an asshole and going "How come It's broken? It wasn't broken before but now it is?"

[@luisdmarinborgos9497]

Aristotle predicted the probabilistic nature of QM

[@christiangreff5764]

@@luisdmarinborgos9497 Nah, at best that's a very primitive version of the idea of phase spaces. :P

[@jeffreyscott4997]

Everybody at his time was a bit confused about change. Nobody understood how "The Hot" could turn into "The Cold" It may seem obvious how that works, but the concepts your "intuition" uses to understand this - actually had to be discovered. And most were discovered (or if you prefer, invented) by Aristotle.

[@Eli-qh3pw]

Love your channel

[@unsolicitedadvice9198]

Thank you!

[@r3quiem.]

Amazing video. The 4th was quite mind boggling ngl but you covered it as well as possible

[@sal8182]

I love your videos, and the way you aproach the topics!!!!

[@CedanyTheAlaskan]

As a believer, I appreciate you! God bless, will be praying for you!

[@JoshYng]

The Catholics in here, including myself, applaud your representation of these arguments🙏

[@Michael-el]

That was really well done. Mind-opening.

[@steveweast475]

I AM THE STORM THAT IS APPROACHING

[@unsolicitedadvice9198]

Blimey!

[@Datscrazi231]

@@unsolicitedadvice9198i honestly didn’t think a devil may cry reference would appear in comments of a KZbinr about philosophy and thought experiments

[@legocreations1234]

Virgil mentioned let's goooooooooooo

[@BardovBacchus]

Wear a raincoat and your Wellies, and take your umbrella. You don't want to get your feet wet and catch your death

[@arthurwieczorek4894]

I AM THE STORM THAT APPROACHES. 'I am the wisdom from on high.'

[@genericascanbe3728]

I like this video, I have two suggestions though for future videos. 1. Refute these arguments in a video. 2. Make a video about your thoughts on "Industrial Society and its Future" by Ted Kascinski. (The Unabomber manifesto, it is actually very captivating to read). It is your choice entirely, I just wanted to suggest these ideas as I think they would be fascinating to see your interpretations, and analysis.

[@Programmable_Rook]

Didn’t he refute these arguments directly after presenting them? Sure, there may be other ways to refute them, but is that not mostly redundant?

[@CatholicQuartet]

Thank you for clarifying those points. God bless!

[@MinhNguyen-sz7jy]

Is this "atheist misunderstaind" or "theist fail to explain Aquinas"? I don' see atheist actively disprove Aquinas, just theist bring Aquinas to prove God.

[@unsolicitedadvice9198]

Ah yeah, there is a fair bit of that too - misunderstandings all round

[@coffinmyface4237]

​@@unsolicitedadvice9198another thing is that we atheists really like to argue with what weve been given, the simplistic and bad attempts at logical gotchas with no actual sense behind them are incredibly common, and because they are our in groups usually make fun of the argument itself because the watered down anti intellectual garbage is the depth of our knowledge on the point that's attempting to be made

[@pansepot1490]

Let’s be real. Either believers or not, this is a topic for philosophy nerds. Can’t expect Christians who hardly ever open or know what’s inside their Bible to know anything about Aquinas. Can’t expect regular atheists to care about a dude who had nothing to do with their being or becoming atheist.

[@Simon.the.Likeable]

@@pansepot1490 Yes, I consider myself an agnostic atheist because I reject the god of Abraham as a fictional character from the mythology of the ancient Hebrews. I do enjoy the considerations of philosophy as an intellectual pursuit though.

[@Julian0101]

​​@@pansepot1490 Yeah, it is always funny how apologists bring these arguments/thinkers as if believers started believing by reading them first instead of believing already and then reading them.

[@siryert]

Big props to your honesty, humility and hunger for truth. It is a breath of fresh air to hear from an atheist. Additionally, I appreciate your explanations. They are some of the best I've heard of the 5 ways. I must ask though, because you used the phrase, "lover of truth," why you pursue truth as if it is a good that can be attained? How do we know that truth is good?

[@joemiller7082]

No one said it has to be a “good.” The truth is the truth and we should strive to know as many true things as possible. Good OR bad.

[@siryert]

@@joemiller7082 I completely agree that "the truth is the truth." Something must be itself. That is the most fundamental tenant of logic and epistemology. However, I was pointing out that a declaration of value was being placed on the nature truth. In your response, Joe, you used the word "should" regarding striving for truth. Use of that word is a value judgement as well. A "good" is something that is worthy of pursuit. You substantiated this point, but did not address how you could know truth was a good from the confines of the video essayist's ideology. To be clear I'm not talking about whether a particular truth is a desirable or undesirable thing to know. I'm addressing philosophically speaking whether truth as a concept is good.

[@Programmable_Rook]

@@siryert​​⁠​⁠​⁠​⁠​⁠​⁠If I may weigh in, I would argue that the pursuement of truth is positive. The benefits it brings to humanity, the ending of ignorance it brings, and the understanding it creates are all in support of this. However, I would also argue that the pursuement of truth is a value of its own. Also, presuming you made your case on the grounds that morality is derived from a supernatural source, what makes your deity a more valid source of morals than any random person? Power does not necessarily indicate high intelligence, wisdom, truthfulness, goodness, or much anything else, nor do any of these values necessarily indicate any of the others.

[@johnoshaughnessy670]

I really appreciate your approach to this topic. As a believer I often find others who espouse strong belief in God to be woefully uncritical when reflecting on Christian thought and philosophy. An outside perspective rendered with such thoughtfulness and honesty is refreshing in this modern social climate so often marked by ignorance & divisiveness. For a non-believer, or as you say more specifically, an agnostic atheist, to voluntarily educate the public on the actual strength in Aquinas' arguments shows both integrity and impressive intellect. And for this you have earned my updoot and subscription. Have yourself a great day brother! (Or perhaps evening? I assume you are in the UK. Either way- enjoy!)

[@prudentsage]

Thank you for the insight. Knowing the other side of the coin really gives a depth of layer in the perspective of being just human.

[@BrandonStewartCS]

I am from the present. Great video, brother.

[@unsolicitedadvice9198]

Ah thank you!

[@daanschone1548]

Depends on your speed relative to me. Actually it is very unlikely we share the same timeframe.

[@watchman2866]

Thomas Aquinas formulated several arguments for the existence of God, which are often referred to as the "Five Ways" or the "Five Proofs." These arguments are found in his seminal work, the "Summa Theologica." Here's a brief overview of each argument: *1 The Argument from Motion (First Way):* This argument is based on the observation of motion in the world. Aquinas reasoned that since everything in motion is put into motion by something else, there must be a "First Mover" that initiated all motion without being moved itself. This First Mover is identified as God. *2 The Argument from Efficient Causes (Second Way):* Aquinas argued that everything in the world is caused by something else. However, this chain of causation cannot regress infinitely; there must be a First Cause that initiated all causal chains. Aquinas identified this First Cause as God. *3 The Argument from Possibility and Necessity (Third Way):* Aquinas observed that things in the world come into existence and go out of existence, but they are contingent-they don't have to exist. However, if everything were contingent, there would have been a time when nothing existed. Therefore, there must be a Necessary Being whose existence is not contingent but necessary. Aquinas identified this Necessary Being as God. *4 The Argument from Gradation of Being (Fourth Way):* Aquinas observed that things in the world vary in degrees of perfection, goodness, and truth. This implies the existence of a standard of perfection by which all things are measured. Aquinas argued that this standard must be God, the most perfect Being. *5 The Argument from Design (Fifth Way):* Aquinas observed that natural things in the world act for an end or purpose, even if they lack intelligence. He argued that this purposeful arrangement suggests the existence of an intelligent designer who directs things toward their ends. This designer is identified as God. The only way to win an argument is to be correct. It can't be about the knowledge or lack of knowledge of the participants. Imagine all the arguments over a lifetime where people thought they won based on each other's knowledge. If you rerun all those, social, political, and sporting arguments, what would they show?

[@pcifc]

The arguments 1,2 and 3 came With a conclusion that brokes his own premisse. The universe itself could be The first mover, The first cause and the necessary being (if god can break The premisse, why not The universe?)

[@pcifc]

The argument of perfection is Just ridiculous, god should be The most evil, most fat and most stupid too.

[@pcifc]

The argument of design is ridiculous too. A good designer never would design so full of empty spaces and worsts conditions of Life.

[@SergioLopez-yu4cu]

​​@@pcifc, yo haven't understood any of the arguments. I won't spend the time to explain all the arguments but: - First three arguments say contingent beings need an external cause; God isn't a contingent being. - The perfection argument doesn't imply God should be fat, bad... There are, according to Aquinas, ideals (characteristics that are perfect per se), God has all ideals, not all possible characteristics.

[@pcifc]

@@SergioLopez-yu4cu yeah, but same way the universe couldn't be a contingent being the perfection argument doesn't make sense at all, why should exist something that is all perfect?

[@user-um7cf8nt1q]

Відео сприяє мисленню: багато про що потрібно подумати, багато чого потрібно дослідити та вивчити. Дякую Вам за те, що мотивуєте до мислення! Дуже цікаве та глибоке відео!

[@user-hf6hp9ou3v]

Извиняюсь за схождение с темы, но будучи человеком с извращенным чувством иронии, мне предвиделось крайне забавным поучаствовать в создании ветки из русского и украинского комментариев в море английских.

[@ChudLite-vh6zk]

Здравейте, мои сънародници от Изтока.

[@marekkrajewski9662]

You made me realise that modern philosophy just avoids difficult problems, and after hearing your discussion of Aquinas, that Pascal's wager still stands.

[@Programmable_Rook]

What do you mean “Pascal’s wager still stands”?

[@excalibro8365]

Pascal's wager was never a valid argument. There cannot be a fifty-fifty chance in a world where thousands of concept of deity have been made. A person can only devote him/herself to a single god entity out of thousands, so even a theist has near zero chance of being right.

[@Programmable_Rook]

@@excalibro8365 Plus, it’s not even an argument for the existence of a deity. It’s an argument for believing in the existence of a deity, regardless of whether or not it’s real.

[@user-ld9tf4td8s]

The problem with Aquinas' Arguments is simple "we call that first thing 'god'." It never answers why we'd place a label with a bunch of particular moral, philosophical, and ideological baggage upon a concept when we could just label it what it is "If we call the universe 'god'..." It's not god. It's the universe "If we call the laws of reality 'god'." It's not god. It's the laws of reality "If we call metaphysics 'god'." It's not god. It's metaphysics A god is something specific. Playing word games is a form of intellectual dishonesty God: a sentient supernatural being having agency over at least some facet of reality Unless you can prove the thing you are asserting we should label as god meets the criteria of sentience, supernaturality, and agency; It isn't a god This is why worshiping a personification of the Sun doesn't prove the personification is real just because we can prove the Sun is real Also the rejection of Dawkins' Argument is false. To understand the concept of "smelliness" does require an exemplar. If you had no sense of smell you would have no conception of smelliness. We can demonstrate this by asking you to imagine what the sense of magnetoreception would be like. We have no clue, but to birds it's normal. So what is smelly? A thing that is smelly. And therefore there can be a thing that is maximally smelly which all other smelly things can be compared. Arguing "but that's not trancendental" is Special Pleading. You simply don't like it because it makes your argument look bad

[@truthseekers1620]

@user-id9tf4td8s that would be called pantheism. but there is only one true God

[@jadongrifhorst6221]

I’m pretty sure he addressed this in the video when he said that Aquinas spent the rest of his book going into the actual properties of God; these arguments just make space for God or a god-like thing. So, obviously on their own, the arguments do not necessitate God, but rather some thing we call God but may not actually be God. You are right no this. However, what are the properties of the “thing” Aquinas describes? To be simplified to an extreme degree, this thing must be maximally good, and the uncaused infinite cause, among other things. Is there something else besides God that this description applies to? Possibly, but I haven’t heard the answer. Now, the video does go into objections which are valid objections to the arguments, so I’m not saying these arguments prove God or anything, but those are just my thoughts.

[@DavidelCientificoLoco]

Wrong God exist outside of the universe not inside

[@jns8393]

​@jadongrifhorst6221 'Maximally good'. Good is ill defined and somewhat subjective. We now get into the Euthyphro dilemma.

[@jns8393]

​@@DavidelCientificoLocoIf a god can interact within the universe then we should be able to detect and measure this.

[@Nicole32778]

I have like 15 books of the greatest literature in American history. I was praying and randomly picked up the summa theologica and that was about a week ago. I have been reading it and have very excited about the text. I find it incredibly interesting that I happen to find your video on the same topic in such a short period of time. The timing is divine I never googled anything about the book

[@omp199]

It's called a coincidence. I experience coincidences all the time, and I am not religious at all. Everyone experiences coincidences. It doesn't mean anything. It's like rolling a die repeatedly and not really paying attention to the numbers, and then as the evening draws on suddenly noticing that three sixes have come up in a row and getting alarmed about it. It doesn't mean anything. You expect that sort of thing to happen from time to time, just by chance.

[@biedl86]

I'm so glad I found your channel!

[@parisafarin6686]

i feel attacked in every way possible

[@unsolicitedadvice9198]

It is friendly fire, I promise

[@normanclatcher]

I accept.

[@Konakaidwkdkdsksee]

i am from the future great video bro

[@unsolicitedadvice9198]

Why thank you future person

[@user-iu4dq6wm1t]

This is so refreshing! I got so tired of coming across arrogant Atheists that completely misrepresented arguments for god and just dismissed them out of hand. It just showed them as insecure and uneducated on the topic. You come across as a much more honest and humble person who could actually have fruitful engagements with people. I'd love to see you sit down with a channel called Though Adventure Podcast or sit down with Hamza Tzortis and discuss his book like the channel "Ahead of The Curve" did, another more honest and educated individual.

[@mosesknerl6681]

I have been thoroughly impressed with your ability to explain and the passion on which you do it with. I rather enjoyed this a lot! God bless you my fellow enjoyer of philosophy.

[@wesbaumguardner8829]

In order for information to be held in some metaphysical capacity, there would have to be some metaphysical structure that would allow that to happen. Then there would have to be some other metaphysical structure to allow the first metaphysical structure to occur/exist, and so on and so forth ad infinitum. That is the problem with the first cause hypothesis. There always has to be a set of circumstances before the set of circumstances one is evaluating which allowed that set of circumstances to occur. Once you break the causal chain by claiming something can be caused by nothing, you really have no reason or need for causal relationships at all as random things can spontaneously arise out of nothing. If it happened once, it can happen again. Then you must determine which things/events actually have a cause, and which ones are causeless. You cannot just presuppose things always have a cause once the premise of the un-caused cause is accepted.

[@mbmurphy777]

So although I am not a materialist, I don’t think that there can be any convincing argument for the existence of God. And that would be by design. The argument goes something like this: God wants us to follow him and love and obey him by free choice. Through faith. If God just appeared in the sky or if God’s existence were provable, then we would be compelled by that knowledge and not really have much of a choice. Yes, the argument is somewhat circular and depends on the existence of some amount of free will. But I’ve never understood the need to “prove God‘s existence“, because it sort of defeats the whole purpose.

[@revi8300]

As someone who's coming closer and closer to being a Christian once more, I highly recommend you read this since it's relevant to the video. "On the feast of St. Nicholas (in 1273), St. Thomas Aquinas was celebrating Mass when he received a revelation that so affected him that he wrote and dictated no more, leaving his great work the ‘Summa Theologiae’ unfinished. To Brother Reginald’s (his secretary and friend) expostulations he replied, ‘The end of my labors has come. All that I have written appears to be as so much straw after the things that have been revealed to me.’ When later asked by Reginald to return to writing, Aquinas said, ‘I can write no more. I have seen things that make my writings like straw.’ … Aquinas died three months later while on his way to the ecumenical council of Lyons". Also saying "If God just appeared in the sky or if God’s existence were provable, then we would be compelled by that knowledge and not really have much of a choice." is kinda weak. Even if you see proof of something first-hand, you can choose to believe that what happened really happened, or try to explain it away using "Oh it was just an hallucination" and such. When I was an atheist and I was talking to other atheists, they'd speak about how they wouldn't be Christians no matter what. Never underestimate our ability to be stubborn to ideas that are contrary to our belief systems. If you really search for truth then you should be open to anything, if you do this then good for you, many don't, I didn't do it before either. Regarding the need to prove God's existence, I don't get that one either. To me it's either childish ("My belief is right, yours is wrong!!!", or sociological in nature (People using bad arguments/logical fallacies to win an argument that proves their belief, confirmation bias basically).

[@Wartensteiin]

Even if God appeared right in our eyes, people would explain it away by various means

[@mbmurphy777]

@@revi8300 yes I’ve heard the argument that if God appeared to them, some people would claim it to be a delusion. I’m not talking about just that. I’m talking about that if God came out and proved his existence by- I don’t know- creating a new planet in front of our eyes or performing various miracles unexplainable by physical laws, the vast vast vast majority of people would take that as proof that God exists. If you really knew that God existed, would you do anything other than what he asked? Only insane people would send in front of an obviously omnipotent omniscient being I would think. If God truly wants us to follow him by faith, then why would he create a universe in which it were possible to “prove“ his existence?

[@user-hf6hp9ou3v]

In most religions, only the church/cleric class/another analogue of those want you to obey god. It's hard to believe that god wanted to put those institutions into power through their sharing of sacred knowledge and rituals related to him, which the god(s) supposedly bestowed only upon them. It may have a meaning, but if god or god-like law governing our universe existed, it is improbable we would be able to understand their reasoning (or nature, if there is no reason). There still might be proof of god even if none of the religions or beliefs were even distantly correct about it. If we are governed by god or god-like law, then we may be likely to discover it through researching laws of the universe, possibly even metaphysical ones.

[@ASH-su6nb]

well Satan disobeyed god, he despite knowledge of him, Adam and Eve did as well, hell the bibel is chalk full of stories about people that actively knew god existed and disobeyed anyways. Doesn't seem like knowledge of his existence prevents sin/not following him. (Obviously assuming these are true stories/interpretation. I personally dont)

[@EarnestApostate]

Thanks for helping me understand these arguments better. Especially the 5th one, I never understood that one and dismissed it just as you suggested (though I didn't go to the pub every time).

[@boghanisthinking]

From your perspective, I'm in the past (specifically 16:46 BST) Great video!

[@Araanor]

This video just made methink that, had Aquinas been born today, he would have been an Atheist, he just lacket the knowledge of science that we have today and based is very good arguments on the information that he had in his day.

[@nkoppa5332]

How much arrogance do you have to assert that lmao

[@Araanor]

@@nkoppa5332 haha. You can call it arrogance, but it’s what I got out of the video. All of his arguments were based on the most current and widely accepted knowledge of the time and with his logic he came to these conclusions based on the best knowledge of the time. Had Albert Einstein or Stephen Hawkins lived in his time, they would very likely have come to similar conclusions.

[@nkoppa5332]

@@Araanor No evidence, more blabber. None of aquinas' arguments need empirical science at all, they are based on observation of nature, which assumes entities and properties, no matter how big or small.

[@marshallmussarela943]

​​@@AraanorAgain. Arrogant assumption. Einstein or Hawking can't hold a candle to Aquinas in the matter of philosophy even today, imagine at that time, considering Aquinas was a saint, always in contact with the support of the grace of God, the sacraments and scholastic education. You can't be naive to assume a saint from 1000 years ago would be an atheist today, it's already impressive that the Church and science of the time could produce a virtuous intellectual like him. Compared to scholastic Christendom, our times are quite miserable despite the last century progress on science and technology, considering we are yet to see someone like him again.

[@Araanor]

@@marshallmussarela943 Look it’s completely fine that you disagree with me, I get that your beliefs mean a lot to you and I respect your right to hold them. But I really don’t se why calling me arrogant for holding my opposing beliefs is productive.

[@XDRONIN]

The problem with Metaphysical Arguments from Aristotle to Aquinas is not that they are silly, but that these arguments are based on a completely mistaken or rather misunderstood view of the Universe, a simple example of this is that for both Aristotle and Aquinas, the Earth is the Center of the Universe and they are both trying to make sense of that into their metaphysics

[@XDRONIN]

@@Just.arandom1 Perhaps you are missing the point. Philosophers such as Aristotle and Thomas Aquinas use metaphysics to explain the physical world they couldn't fully comprehend, *for Example:* How do you explain the Earth at the Center of the Universe? _That can't be by coincidence,..._ Why are the Stars in the night sky seemingly arranged & permanent? _That does not make sense if the Universe was not created._ *BUT,* in Thomas Aquinas's view of the Universe through metaphysics, it makes "Perfect Sense" that Earth and the stars are, in fact; arranged in such a manner. *Now,* in light of modern science we know all that is wrong but, to Thomas Aquinas (or Aristotle) that is the best possible explanation that makes sense of everything in the Universe

[@XDRONIN]

@@Just.arandom1 It's not about their science being wrong, their metaphysics is wrong because their view of reality was wrong If you believe in a world where Demons, Magic, and the Earth is the Center of Everything, your explanation for that "Reality" would be flawed, this is how Aquinas reached his conclusion to lay everything in terms of a Hierarchy System as the best explanation for the Universe, and in that Universe where the Earth is at its center, Aquinas's "makes Sense"

[@XDRONIN]

@@Just.arandom1 If your entire view of Reality is incorrect, *and NOT just physics,* then the explanation you are trying to achieve through metaphysics about this "Reality" is going to be wrong

[@XDRONIN]

@@Just.arandom1 *When did I defend Kant?* I don't think the center of reality is the human mind or that there is no way of knowing reality or that reality has a "center" at all

[@XDRONIN]

@@Just.arandom1 1) When did I say that Reality has to correlate with my view? Show me where I said that? 2) The video specifically talks about people who misunderstand and/or misinterpret Thomas Aquinas's metaphysical arguments and in Thomas Aquinas's view Physics (or Reality) is just a subset of Metaphysics (or a higher Reality) 3) *And for the record,...* My personal view is that Reality ultimately just *IS* and we are subjective observers, Reality does not revolve around us and it is independent of us and there is no higher reality or metaphysical reality

[@RicardoMunoz-gf2sv]

Great video and content. Could you make a video expanding more on the criticism to this arguments?

[@Emin.V.Aliyev1]

Thought provoking as always

[@mbmurphy777]

The famous British atheist Richard Dawkins, author of the book “The God Delusion,” said in a recent interview that he identifies as a “cultural Christian” and prefers Christianity to Islam, although he clarified that he does not believe “a word” of the Christian faith. In the interview with Rachel Johnson broadcast on March 31 on LBC, Dawkins said he was “slightly horrified” to learn that Oxford Street in London was promoting Ramadan, the Muslim month for fasting, instead of Easter. Dawkins went on to explain: “I do think we are culturally a Christian country. I call myself a cultural Christian.” “I’m not a believer, but there is a distinction between being a believing Christian and a cultural Christian,” Dawkins noted, adding: “I love hymns and Christmas carols and I sort of feel at home in the Christian ethos, and I feel that we are a Christian country in that sense.” After expressing his satisfaction at what he perceives as a decline in the number of Christians, the famous atheist noted that he “would not be happy if, for example, we lost all our cathedrals and our beautiful parish churches.” “So I call myself a cultural Christian and I think it would be truly dreadful if we substituted any alternative religion.” billmuehlenberg.com/2024/04/01/hope-for-the-secular-west/ With a number of public figures either becoming Christians recently or at least moving in that direction - Tom Holland, Jordan Peterson, Douglas Murray, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, and Naomi Wolf to name a few - The author and poet Paul Kingsnorth surprised his readership when he announced his conversion in 2021. Russell Brand is now calling himself a Christian and says he plans to get baptized. Ayaan Hirsi Ali says she has embraced Christianity after realizing she was ‘spiritually bankrupt’. The tech pioneer Jordan Hall recently went public about his conversion to Christianity. Significantly, both Ayaan Hirsi Ali and Jordan Hall have mentioned the influence of Tom Holland’s thesis that Christianity is the foundation on which the ethics of the West sits.

[@falsebeliever8079]

That's interresting, but what's your point?

[@mbmurphy777]

@@falsebeliever8079 well it’s interesting enough on its own to spur consideration. But for me it underscores the fact that there are no solutions, only trade-offs. You can’t expect humans to not replace one system of ethics and thought with something else. And the problem is that the something else is typically worse than the western liberal values that we all know in love. These western liberal values are direct outgrowths of the Judeo Christian system of ethics which are duty-based ethics underlined by the idea that humans are all created and therefore beloved of God, and therefore deserve respect, rights, and are not to be used as a means to an end. Nasty things seem to happen historically when an ethic that places individuals and their rights as subservient to some other collective goal like race, nationalism, class, equality, religious sect, etc. Anytime an idea becomes more important than human lives and individual human well-being. We’ve seen this experiment played out multiple times over the last couple hundred years and particularly in the 20th century… with the dechristianization of European elites in the 1800s: We saw the rise of social Darwinism, free market Uber alles in the potato famine, Malthusian ethics, rise of nationalism, communism, Nazism, etc. Most recently we have seen the rise of woke authoritarianism in the west. Group identity is paramount, and individual identity is subsumed in the name of top down enforced “justice”. I see this is a way to make a utilitarian case for a duty-based ethical system, as we have seen through history that a duty-based ethic centered around the sanctity of the individual seems to lead to the least dystopian type of society. This is after all at the end of thousands of years of civilization or experimentation And societal evolution. Duty Based ethical systems require grounding. And in the west, that grounding has been the Judeo Christian ethical system, which gives us a reason why individuals matter and why they are important and why their rights should not be infringed.

[@falsebeliever8079]

@@mbmurphy777 Sir, you should work on making your responses more concise. I would normally have loved to discuss this more, but the prospect of reading 5-8 paragraphs and carefully considering each point before writing a response is unappealing. Thank you for responding though.

[@mbmurphy777]

@@falsebeliever8079 fair enough. Although that’s not a typical response. It’s just involved argument so it takes a little time to get it all out there.

[@jns8393]

​@@mbmurphy777I agree that western ethics are largely grounded in Judaism/Christianity but don't see or feel the need to worship any associated deity. Furthermore, when Christianity was at its peak in Europe individual rights were routinely ignored and trampled on.

[@Tata-ps4gy]

Hi! I would like to congratulate you and praise you. I am theist, actually, I'm a prophet of God, so I disagree with your theological position. However, I won't let that disagreement blind me from your achievements and virtues. In this video you showed not only intelligence and thoughtfulness but, far more important, an unwavering and pure love for Truth. As Truth is one of the names of God, this video is literally a form of worship toward The One. Trust me when I say it will be accepted and God isn't annoyed in the least for your ignorance of His whole list of attributes. (Actually He does not feel emotions but you get what I mean). I just wanted to express my admiration for your work. I watched other videos in your channel and they are very good. Keep it up!!!

[@BlockyBookworm]

You're a prophet? Truth is one of the names of God? Well, as a prophet of God myself, God doesn't care at all, has no real name, and doesn't speak to people

[@doplr8711]

Goofy boi

[@Here4TheHeckOfIt]

I'm sure this was a challenging topic for a lot of folks. Thanks for posting.

[@amritanshidawar8179]

love that he jokes time to time to keep our attention and prevent out mind from spiraling

[@skurt9109]

Am i one of the few Christians subscribed to this channel?

[@MrBeastjebuz]

Nah, im Christian. Jesus Christ loves atheists too, I hope anyone reading this can read the Book of John in the KJV. I believe Heaven is a free gift because this is what the authors of the Bible teach and what GOD proclaims. Romans 5:16 is one of my favorite verses to prove eternal salvation is a free gift. Also Ephesians 1:14 and Ephesians 2:8-9. I could give hundreds of verses supporting Free Grace Theology aka OSAS (Once Saved Always Saved)

[@schnitzelfilmmaker1130]

Nah I’ve been subscribed for a while now too

[@skurt9109]

@@MrBeastjebuz So you are a protostant?

[@skurt9109]

@@schnitzelfilmmaker1130 Great to see

[@monarchblue4280]

Nah. You're not alone, lil bro. :)

[@Nox-mb7iu]

Try the transcendental argument next. It's way more misunderstood.

[@zinzincoetzee1934]

Religious or not religious, you're smart as hell maximizing viewers by keeping it neutral.

[@MrJeffrey938]

Calling the platonic form of an equilateral triangle "the abstract idea of an equilateral triangle" would necessitate that it be an abstraction of something more existentially fundamental. The entire notion of platonic forms rests on there being nothing more existentially fundamental. (*very aware that I'm not the one trying to squeeze all of these ideas into a 26min, easy to understand video. And seriously, well done. I've just subscribed)

[@magicznyignacy380]

This is such a relatable video to me. As an atheist, I am terribly disappointed with the discouraging primitivity of many atheist thinkers and youtubers when it comes to understanding the arguments of their opponents. I hardly ever hear criticism from atheist intellectuals of misunderstandings. Not to mention such childish and absurd arguments as the omnipotence-benevolence paradox. I can't fathom how seemingly intelligent people can believe if a god that's both benevolent and omnipotent existed then we'd all be in a state of perpetual bliss, suffering no hardships in life, never having to deal with any evils of the world. I know children younger than 10 that have a higher level of moral development than "pleasure good, suffering bad". It's gotten to the point that I feel a little hesitant of admitting I'm an atheist. As always, I am amazed with the consistent quality of the videos you make. You're single-handedly increasing the value of philosophy youtube by at least 70%.

[@Alex-vm6ef]

As someone of faith who has had many frustrating interactions w/ the types of atheists you've described, I appreciated reading your words + appreciate your commitment/sincerity in wrestling with these questions we all have 😁

[@mitthrawnuruodo1730]

I fully agree. I loath the argument “if god existed why does he allow suffering” and it’s these types of arguments that turn me off from talking with atheists.

[@_Sloppyham]

This is such a subjective topic though. I can look at some of the most horrific situations being forced upon innocent people and I do not see the good that can come out of that. Sometimes I see arguments like “but there’s certain characteristics that people obtain only through suffering” but that just falls flat in many ways for me. I don’t believe Omnibenevolence as a concept can actually exists, but if some god did claim the title I would look at them with incredulity due to the suffering aspect alone.

[@Alex-vm6ef]

@@_Sloppyham I think you highlighted the issue, subjectivity. We will always view the issue with bias, even the very foundational bias of being an individual being + a human. If we were the judge to decide if the suffering of the world were right or wrong, I believe we would need to recuse ourselves even if our knowledge was unlimited bc of this proximity.

[@_Sloppyham]

@@Alex-vm6ef then with this understanding I question why someone would even engage with these types of discussions?

[@HJRC_]

The "uncaused cause" is somehow exempt from their rule of causality lol

[@christopherlabbe6543]

You’ve looked at the argument incorrectly.

[@HJRC_]

@@christopherlabbe6543 xD

[@not-a-cupid-stunt]

​@@christopherlabbe6543Yea. God doesn't need a cause. He just (magically) is.

[@christopherlabbe6543]

@@not-a-cupid-stunt Did you not watch the video, I thought the creator was clear on not looking at this in that manner. I find it so weird how the comments are reactive, I didn’t say whether the argument was good or bad or anything of the sort. I simply said you’ve interpreted the argument wrong, because, the creator made it so clear to point that out. Weird, how you’ve reacted in a sarcastic tone on a comment that wasn’t warranted for the response.

[@christopherlabbe6543]

@@not-a-cupid-stunt I can appeal my own argument if you’d like, but I mean, the argument wasn’t made in that manner and that was clearly disclosed in the video.

[@dataman6310]

One of the key things about Aquinas is that the "Five Ways" make up about 0.03% of the Summa Theologica (1 out of 3,125 articles). The rest of the work is some of the most brilliant and fascinating theology ever written if you're interested.

[@safyullahjawid8592]

I can't explain how enjoyable this is ❤❤❤❤

[@Haqueip]

I think you are the most honest atheist I've ever seen😮

[@unsolicitedadvice9198]

Ah thank you! I aim to be as good faith as possible when looking at things

[@Haqueip]

@@unsolicitedadvice9198 I actually ment it, it's literally amazing to actually see it😊

[@schnitzelfilmmaker1130]

Alex O’Connor and Joe Schmid (technically agnostic) are great too. In any case I had one of those weeks dealing with atheists that made me lose hope in humanity. This video helped restore that a bit.

[@Haqueip]

@@schnitzelfilmmaker1130 Agree!!

[@i2keepitrealInreseach]

​@@schnitzelfilmmaker1130 Why do you deal with atheists? Religion is rotten.

[@ASH-su6nb]

I think alot of people can't wrap their mind around the idea of that when people use a certain language they are presupposing certain ideas, when someone who is not well read on Aristotelian metaphysics, reads aquainus, they probably come up with with a very different understanding of he is saying. I wouldn't even say its only on the atheists, most theists that use these arguments don't understand they are in one form or another presupposing a position that alot of people just arent aware of.

[@tamjoseph1251]

Though you are an atheist, you explain Aquinas' work even better than the religious😂 Thank you. If one day someone want to know about 5 ways, I will recommend them this footage. The sad thing is: nowadays i almost know none seeking for the ultimate truth. People only talk about food, outwear, money, fake environmental problems......

[@donaldclifford5763]

Thanks so much for the head rush, and insight.

[@ToothbrushMan]

Atheism is NOT thinking there is no God. It's is not being convinced there is a God.

[@The6thMessenger]

I don't think restating the Five Ways as you did made it any different than before. It's just god-of-the-gaps as first-mover. It's all easy to just play around with concepts like this, but there's a reason we base our conclusions on reality and sound scientific theories -- it's because they work. My atheism is grounded on the fact that we cannot truly know anything completely, and these people working with only a little picture of the universe, akin to being stricken with Dunning Kreuger effect, and argues in a way mired in confirmation bias that their entire thought system is built to beg the question.

[@alena-qu9vj]

Scientific theories are only working in a very limited portion of our complex reality, which of course comprises not only matter, but also emotions and other unmaterial phenomena. In fact, our emotions are "working" uncomparatably stronger than out scientific theories - those in fact only serve to them. We are using very scientificaly advanced technologies to kill our neigbour owing to our emotions - faith being one of them.

[@kornelszecsi6512]

You still didn't get it, these are not scientific questions, no one cares about science in these questions, the question of the first principle is neccessary.

[@xenophanes4898]

"Because they work" seems a pretty intellectually non-rigorous, even unserious, qualification for belief. If this means, "gives me more gadgets," then it is unlikely that this category is coextensive with what can be profitably understood. It's not that unlikely a priori that one could show that God exists, if he does. After all, the universal cause of everything has ubiquitous effects, so we might expect the really common features of everything to tell us certain things about him. Lastly, there's nothing intellectually disgraceful about asking how and why something that one knows to be the case, is the case. If there were, you'd have to fault Russell for looking for the logical foundations of arithmetic. You seem to suffer bias so severe that unlike Aquinas, who could state very well the arguments contrary to his position (that is how all his articles begin) you cannot extend the least modicum of charity to thinkers who disagree with you on this issue.

[@The6thMessenger]

@@kornelszecsi6512 You mean it's just all about being smart assess without achieving anything, and feeling superior for it? Yeah, obviously.

[@The6thMessenger]

@@xenophanes4898 "seems a pretty intellectually non-rigorous, even unserious, qualification for belief." Yeah, but it works. "It's not that unlikely a priori that one could show that God exists, if he does." Almost like it's a pointless endeavor, because it's not testable. "Lastly, there's nothing intellectually disgraceful about asking how and why something that one knows to be the case, is the case. " Sure. But you know what is? Saying something is the case, when it's not really provable to be is or isn't the case. "you cannot extend the least modicum of charity to thinkers who disagree with you on this issue." Because it's pointless. It's just people being smartasses doing mental gymnastics, feeling smart and superior, without actually achieving anything of value. They are the same sort that could define their diety into existence, on the hair-brained idea that existence must be part of it. The same sort that will define omni-potence as "anything that which is possible", and that "possible" by the way must be "logically possible" -- it's all excuses.

[@michaelmcdoesntexist1459]

New subscriber. Great video.

[@4D-Weather_Man]

As a Christian this an interesting insight, you have earned a subscription my friend

[@thewallstreetjournal5675]

“It’s almost as if science said, ‘Give me one free miracle, and from there the entire thing will proceed with a seamless, causal explanation.’ The one free miracle was the sudden appearance of all the matter and energy in the universe, with all the laws that govern it.” -Rupert Sheldrake

[@CornwallisCornwall]

That's not a very good quote. The existence of the universe just is how it is, it's not a miracle.

[@AB-xi9im]

​@@CornwallisCornwalllol imagine how far science would have come if scientists just said it is what it is

[@grantdillon3420]

I understand how the author of this quote could conceive of science this way, but it's backwards. Science starts by observing what can be observed and making models that explain the observations. Once science gets to the end of observations, science can't make any more models. So in terms of beginnings or metaphysics, science actually just doesn't say anything.

[@CornwallisCornwall]

@@AB-xi9im Just as far as it has come now. That is what scientists say. Read @grantdillon3420 's answer, it explains how science works, and it's not dependent on miracles.

[@CornwallisCornwall]

@@AB-xi9im I also think you misunderstood what I meant. Scientists use actual evidence and observations. They take the universe as it is, they don't try to invent purely theoretical metaphysical theories to explain observations.

[@DonaldAMisc]

Your beginning introduction is one of the reasons why I never understood the hype around atheists like Christopher Hitchens. I've listened to some of his debates and read some of his writings, but honestly he comes off less a serious intellectual and more a pompous sophist. Personally I tend to appreciate works by atheists like Jonathan Haidt who give religion a more fair critique, not arguing its irrationality but proposing a possible evolutionary reason for its existence. It's because of individuals like him (or film directors like Terrence Malick who make beautiful philosophical/religious films) that give me an appreciation for what religion has to offer, despite not being religious. 🙌

[@_Sloppyham]

I think the hype around Christopher Hitchen’s was having someone who was willing to say what was on many people’s minds, and most people aren’t going to think about deep philosophical topic. He was someone was who charismatic and outright stated that what religious folk consider all good can only be seen as immoral. That was the reason for his hype.

[@youngKOkid1]

I’m not familiar with Jonathan Haidt’s specific criticisms; however, I will point out that there’s no contradiction between evolution and belief in God. Further, even if there’s an evolutionary reason why people believe in God, that doesn’t mean God doesn’t exist.

[@classicsciencefictionhorro1665]

@@youngKOkid1 Evolution kills the Christian God.

[@randomusername3873]

Calling out the evils of religion is always worthy of praise

[@marshallmussarela943]

​​@@randomusername3873You mean atheism*. Christianity built western civilization morality, education, philosophy, science and law. While secularism is destroying all that. But it's basically taken for granted that a gaslighted atheist would have no knowledge of history whatsoever. Be honest with yourself and read a book or two about patristics and scholastic Christendom and the infinite number of contributions of Christian religion, mate.

[@mundea]

thank you, Joe

[@grantdillon3420]

Something that I don't know if you directly address is that there are also many epistemological criticisms of what Aquinas was arguing. Also you said "I hope they don't start from a position of unbelief," and what I suppose you probably mean by that statement is starting from a position of believing that no God exists. However, I don't know if you would agree, but I would say that starting from an initial position of non-acceptance of arbitrary claims is rational since doing otherwise involves believing potentially false things by default.

[@SergioLopez-yu4cu]

Not believing in God ≠ Believing God doesn't exist. It is rational to not believe in God at first, sure, but believing He doesn't exist is the same thing as believing in Him, a matter of faith.

[@kimmyswan]

The “laws of nature” are not something we’ve discovered, they are descriptions of what we observe. We could reformulate the question “what created and sustains the laws” to “could the laws have even been different”? Or “why would God create a universe with “laws” at all?” And even “Why assume that non-uniformity or chaos is the normal state of the world, and hence requires no explanation?”. Perhaps our presuppositions about uniformity inform our need for an explanation.

[@Puketapu]

Brilliant summary.

[@bigboyrenki]

I think the primary difference between theism and atheism is that theism believes the foundation of reality is personal, while atheism believes it is not

[@michaelogbole7369]

This was a lot to wrap my puny head around. Thank you🤣

[@Row_of_E]

Leather Apron Club vibes, and I'm here for it

[@Thedrummaman76]

So I'm only 30 seconds in, this is the first video of yours that I've watched. Already I got to pay my respects I know I'm about to hear some intellectually honest shit 😤👌🏾

[@spiralsausage]

Thought my algo had gone haywire, but this is nice

[@SiqueScarface]

19:00 As someone who has studied Mathematics at University, I have some issues with that notion. It is definitely pre-Hilbertian. David Hilbert once said, that he does not care if we are talking about points, lines and planes, or about tables, benches and beer mugs. If they fit the axioms, they are the same. This approach to Mathematics is called Formalism, and at least since Bourbaki, it's the prevalent way to look at Mathematics.

[@mihaleben6051]

3:12 yup. Thats one law of thermodynamics

[@sparkyy0007]

As a Christian, I find your analysis both refreshing (from the common lazy arguments and misrepresentations), and very honest. Well done. Truth is, no matter how deep one goes on either side, the arguments for both theism and materialistic atheism ultimately end in circularity but only one in my opinion is internally consistent. One can never prove logic is logical without using a logical test, a circular dilemma. Same problem with reason or mathematics, unprovable and must be taken as given...but why. One cannot even prove words have meaning without using those very words. But why would we expect the irrational process of naturalism to create anything rational. Logic, reason, maths or language are conspicuously born of rational thought, never by random process. Therefore theism, while circular, is internally consistent. Naturalism is not. I don't think God is the conclusion to any syllogism, on the contrary, he is the only reason any syllogism can exist. Peace and love in Jesus Christ God bless you all.

[@evanthesquirrel]

Your point about meeting Aquinas on his terms has parallels with my reason to returning to faith. I decided it was fruitless to apply my own idea of what God might be and instead started trying to understand what the men and women of the Bible meant when they talked about The Lord. These are my genetic and memetic ancestors who took great efforts to preserve their words. The least i can do is to assume they meant what they said.

[@xxCrapNamexx]

Found it easy to follow because I went down the monadism rabbit hole recently. It's quite interesting seeing how the development of ai, simulation theory and recent neuroscience are circling the zeitgeist back into platonic and aquinian thinking.

[@tennicksalvarez9079]

They are? Where did u get that notion?

[@lurx2024]

The mass of a Quantum particle only has a probable existence throughout a small region of space, and it only truly exists by the interaction of another particle.

[@Otome_chan311]

This video is so crazy to me. I'm an ex atheist who even up until this video thought Aquinas' arguments to be dumb and easily refuted. Yet with these more proper explanations it turns out I had arrived at like 3 of them independently on my own as part of what convinced me of God's existence. There's some other stuff I arrived at as well, but I'm shocked at how many I arrived at.

[@Fenrisson]

Going to pub after giving an answer seems like a sweet deal.

[@adammyers3453]

Fun fact, the fourth argument, somewhat similar to Anselm’s Argument has more or less been proven if you assume that exemplars exist.

[@mahadevraamesh1582]

blud can u give me any advice on how to understand any of this i just feel dum looking at this (I have a good amount of time as holidays)

[@reluctantheist5224]

If you have the money, get a children's book on the topic you want to start with..and don't be ashamed of getting a children's book. A children's encyclopedia might start you off. It is hard to know where you want to start though. Who was Aquinus , Plato and what did they say may well be covered in that. If you feel I am insulting your intelligence , I'm sorry. It is a method I use though. Everybody has to start somewhere.

[@Asankeket]

Fascinating. I don't pretend to understand all of that, especially the fourth argument escapes me, but I take issue with one fundamental assumption: that abstract things exist anywhere independently from our minds. I would level this cricitism also at Platonist notions of mathematical concepts. IMO concepts are generalizations based on observed similarities in the world around us as we perceive it. A real thing is not an instance of an idea, but the idea is derived from similarities of things and only exists in our minds. We generalize because it is energy-efficient to do so. If we were forced to deal with every item's particularities our heads would explode from the heat generated by our brains. Well, not really, but you get the idea.

[@user-hf6hp9ou3v]

I can only argue that we see the similarities and recognise patterns which already exist - nature creates (or compels us to create) something that is similar to that elusive perfect idea (golden ratio may be a good example of such pattern). From here we may argue that there is some natural law which exists because of god(s), or a divine law which in itself is the god-like concept governing all matter and/or thought.

[@CornwallisCornwall]

All five of the arguments are destroyed when you reject the existence of the abstract. There is no evidence of the existence of the abstract. Abstract ideas are merely the product of the brain allowing humans to dominate through abstraction.

[@steveOCalley]

Every secular philosopher should read Aquinas. His method of exposition is excellent. He argues for the separation of church and state. Lib.3 Q95

[@for_fox_aches]

Rest assured the majority of us will watch. Probably twice in my case. Your breakdowns fit my brain.

[@lisleigfried4660]

Not bad at all. I especially like how you suggest that a different view involves legitimate metaphysical alternatives which fundamentally different as opposed to simply pretending that medieval metaphysics are nonsense by way of mere misunderstanding or rhetoric.

[@MyltraGaming]

1) For the first argument even accepting Aristotle proposal it can be easily countered look at law of conservation of energy it basically come downs to energy neither can be created nor be destroyed only transformed. If you want to call it god the fine by me but it is no god as portraited as omniscient and all those stuffs. 2) Fundamental law of physics doesn't depends upon anything per se it just exist and we build our logic around it so laws of physics doesn't change our understanding of it changes. 3) like I said energy is not contingent and to change energy into mass there is already scientific explanation called laws of conservation of mass and energy it basically says that mass can be transformed into energy and vice versa and energy never contingent (energy does not cease to exist) and the answer for what is the sort of thing that is necessary in itself goes to energy not a being and if you want to call energy god then be my guest. 4) Triangle is triangle because we named a thing with properties like 3 side, 180 degrees sum of all angle a triangle not cause it is grand it us basic logic and even in his argument he says we (as in human) are limited by our sense and our ability to think also relies in sense so our thinking is limited then we don't know what actually is there because we cannot think hard enough and named it god and called it a day. 5) Everything tends toward lowest energy state to be literal but yea everything tends towards energy and energy tend towards everything the final metaphysical cause is energy fuckking energy. And for the laws of physics metaphysically everything tends toward lowest energy state where a thing spends minimum energy the least energy And back then it maybe no it was good argument but now it is just big words ment to confuse non of these point are valid, Unless he means that energy it in itself is god then yea he is true but anything else is meh,

[@CornwallisCornwall]

@@MyltraGaming yeah, these medieval arguments suck.

[@aaronperalta3560]

17:33 Lol it's making me sleepy, still interested in this though.