Aquinas & the Cosmological Arguments: Crash Course Philosophy #10
video description
Date: 2022-04-04
Related videos
Comments and reviews: 10
marcos
The problem with atheism is it takes transcendent value out of people - you are basically a fluke. - If I am a fluke, not jump off when things get hard, I mean w are all flukes, after all, coming from a big bang we can say that we call come from stardust so what's the point of it all why be good? And maybe your subconscious can make you feel wrong about it, but then again, what's the point. This is why having the idea of a God that gives us transcendent value is good because it pushes people to be a force of good in the world. I mean, what better do you have to do. The idea of God cuts out all the bs of having multiple gods, which complicate the process of becoming a force for good in the world. (being a rock or an egg does not bring anything useful to the world except maybe aesthetic beauty) after all, even if we take the route that there is not a God with feelings, most of this messiah figures are a sum of a bunch of admirable people into one and why not be admirable and honorable and respectful and all the ways you can describe messiahs across time. I mean, if you don't believe in God, then your world is full of pointless misery, so why not end it all. Well, maybe because maybe if we all try to be admirable people, then we can do away with needless resentment, and we could start a loop of positive actions that can maybe bring heaven on earth. Now I also happen to believe that there are way too many -coincidences. - for someone not to be watching however even if there's not there is a reason for being on earth that's better than any other purpose and that's to make the world a better place, so to bring the kingdom of God to surface. ( my apologies for any misspellings and weird sentence structures )
reply
The problem with atheism is it takes transcendent value out of people - you are basically a fluke. - If I am a fluke, not jump off when things get hard, I mean w are all flukes, after all, coming from a big bang we can say that we call come from stardust so what's the point of it all why be good? And maybe your subconscious can make you feel wrong about it, but then again, what's the point. This is why having the idea of a God that gives us transcendent value is good because it pushes people to be a force of good in the world. I mean, what better do you have to do. The idea of God cuts out all the bs of having multiple gods, which complicate the process of becoming a force for good in the world. (being a rock or an egg does not bring anything useful to the world except maybe aesthetic beauty) after all, even if we take the route that there is not a God with feelings, most of this messiah figures are a sum of a bunch of admirable people into one and why not be admirable and honorable and respectful and all the ways you can describe messiahs across time. I mean, if you don't believe in God, then your world is full of pointless misery, so why not end it all. Well, maybe because maybe if we all try to be admirable people, then we can do away with needless resentment, and we could start a loop of positive actions that can maybe bring heaven on earth. Now I also happen to believe that there are way too many -coincidences. - for someone not to be watching however even if there's not there is a reason for being on earth that's better than any other purpose and that's to make the world a better place, so to bring the kingdom of God to surface. ( my apologies for any misspellings and weird sentence structures )
reply
John
-God should be subject to those same stipulations-. like, why? God is transcendent from the creation and is not subject to the rules imposed inside the creation. It's misunderstanding God's nature as the Creator to think God (I refuse to use personal pronouns) would be subject to our understanding of cause and effect. I say Aquinas' argument, coming as it does from a position of belief, nonetheless stands strong when you understand God is not limited by the trappings of logic, or physical laws, as we are. This is not to say that God is -special- and exempt, like in the ontological arguments, but simply to recognise that a painter is three dimensional while the painting is only two. It's the same with God - God is transcendent. When you closely observe the miracles attested as divine, they become quite simple to achieve if you are free of dimensionality. It is easy to enter a closed room if you inhabit more than our four dimensions.
reply
-God should be subject to those same stipulations-. like, why? God is transcendent from the creation and is not subject to the rules imposed inside the creation. It's misunderstanding God's nature as the Creator to think God (I refuse to use personal pronouns) would be subject to our understanding of cause and effect. I say Aquinas' argument, coming as it does from a position of belief, nonetheless stands strong when you understand God is not limited by the trappings of logic, or physical laws, as we are. This is not to say that God is -special- and exempt, like in the ontological arguments, but simply to recognise that a painter is three dimensional while the painting is only two. It's the same with God - God is transcendent. When you closely observe the miracles attested as divine, they become quite simple to achieve if you are free of dimensionality. It is easy to enter a closed room if you inhabit more than our four dimensions.
reply
Elliot
My arguments against infinite regress
1) there is at least one possible event that increases entropy
2) if the past is infinite that event will have occurred infinite times
3) the laws of physics state entropy cannot decrease
4) therefore if the past is infinite then there would be no order
5) we exist -I think therefore I am-
6) we are ordered (at least somewhat)
7) therefore order exists
8) therefore the past is finite
I can't think of any counterarguments except the law of entropy being wrong or I think therefore I am being wrong, both of which seem fairly solid
Alternatively
1) if the past is infinite every possible event will have occurred
2) it is possible to destroy the universe
3) we exist (cogito ergo sum coming in clutch once again)
4) therefore the universe has not been destroyed therefore the past is finite
reply
My arguments against infinite regress
1) there is at least one possible event that increases entropy
2) if the past is infinite that event will have occurred infinite times
3) the laws of physics state entropy cannot decrease
4) therefore if the past is infinite then there would be no order
5) we exist -I think therefore I am-
6) we are ordered (at least somewhat)
7) therefore order exists
8) therefore the past is finite
I can't think of any counterarguments except the law of entropy being wrong or I think therefore I am being wrong, both of which seem fairly solid
Alternatively
1) if the past is infinite every possible event will have occurred
2) it is possible to destroy the universe
3) we exist (cogito ergo sum coming in clutch once again)
4) therefore the universe has not been destroyed therefore the past is finite
reply
Jason
To be an unmoved, uncaused, necessary and contingent, perfect being, God must exist in a dimension in which we cannot perceive or even conceive the idea of His existence. His existence must be in a realm where infinites and impossibilities can exist and one in which He can occupy all states of being and nonbeing, with no beginning or end, removed from influences in other dimensions He must also exist in, yet able to influence aspects of those dimensions as well.
That we cannot prove or disprove His existence without inclusions of infinites or impossible states is evidence that He must exist on some plane that is exempt from these prerequisites.
Therefore, the answer is yes.
reply
To be an unmoved, uncaused, necessary and contingent, perfect being, God must exist in a dimension in which we cannot perceive or even conceive the idea of His existence. His existence must be in a realm where infinites and impossibilities can exist and one in which He can occupy all states of being and nonbeing, with no beginning or end, removed from influences in other dimensions He must also exist in, yet able to influence aspects of those dimensions as well.
That we cannot prove or disprove His existence without inclusions of infinites or impossible states is evidence that He must exist on some plane that is exempt from these prerequisites.
Therefore, the answer is yes.
reply
kaioken123
If God is the one who actualized all potential, why would he need to be actualized? If something actualized God-s potential to be actualized, that thing would simply be God. Aquinas-s whole Argument was that God was the First member of The Essentially ordered series. The First Member of the essentially ordered series has to be something with no unactualized potential (is pure act, or else there would be something before it, to have actualized it-s potential, to which that thing would then be God. Something with no unactualized potential, doesn-t need its potential to be actualized.
reply
If God is the one who actualized all potential, why would he need to be actualized? If something actualized God-s potential to be actualized, that thing would simply be God. Aquinas-s whole Argument was that God was the First member of The Essentially ordered series. The First Member of the essentially ordered series has to be something with no unactualized potential (is pure act, or else there would be something before it, to have actualized it-s potential, to which that thing would then be God. Something with no unactualized potential, doesn-t need its potential to be actualized.
reply
Kristofur77
Origination of the universe might never be known, Brian Cox had a good point that meaning is unique to human beings, developed by us.
Thomas Aquinas was alive when Christianity embraced science because science was within the parameters of being, like beauty and love, it wasn't a threat to religious existence. I hope people would see the value in faith and science under one roof. They both have great value ignoring one for the sake of the other seems nieve, live like both exist, Thomas did, even if he was wrong I'll still follow him.
reply
Origination of the universe might never be known, Brian Cox had a good point that meaning is unique to human beings, developed by us.
Thomas Aquinas was alive when Christianity embraced science because science was within the parameters of being, like beauty and love, it wasn't a threat to religious existence. I hope people would see the value in faith and science under one roof. They both have great value ignoring one for the sake of the other seems nieve, live like both exist, Thomas did, even if he was wrong I'll still follow him.
reply
Forest
There are scientists that believe that there are spontaneous events happening at every second in which particles and antiparticles spontaneously spring into existence and then annihilate each other. They believe that an energy field has always existed, then, and the big bang was an enormous fluke in which a lot of particles and antiparticles spontaneously sprung into existence, and that is seen in the form of matter, dark matter, antimatter, etc. So wouldn't their god be the energy field?
reply
There are scientists that believe that there are spontaneous events happening at every second in which particles and antiparticles spontaneously spring into existence and then annihilate each other. They believe that an energy field has always existed, then, and the big bang was an enormous fluke in which a lot of particles and antiparticles spontaneously sprung into existence, and that is seen in the form of matter, dark matter, antimatter, etc. So wouldn't their god be the energy field?
reply
Peter
1. Aquinas does not claim to prove the existence of a Christian God with these arguments, just a God. I don't think it is fair to criticize him for something he didn't do
2. It seems logically necessary that infinite regresses cannot exist. It doesn't make sense to say that an infinite series of causes caused the world to exist the way it did.
3. Aquinas does not say everything is in motion, but everything moved is. If God is unmoved, he has no need for a mover
reply
1. Aquinas does not claim to prove the existence of a Christian God with these arguments, just a God. I don't think it is fair to criticize him for something he didn't do
2. It seems logically necessary that infinite regresses cannot exist. It doesn't make sense to say that an infinite series of causes caused the world to exist the way it did.
3. Aquinas does not say everything is in motion, but everything moved is. If God is unmoved, he has no need for a mover
reply
Ihsan
8: 30 that's a straw man argument. Aquinas stated earlier that God is the starting point, necessary, unmoved, unaffected, so does uncreated. The question isn't about who created God, bcs that would be an infinite regress and make God a contigent being, which isn't his argument at all. The question is then if it's true, how God exists without anything else exist in the first place. That's where you have to refute.
reply
8: 30 that's a straw man argument. Aquinas stated earlier that God is the starting point, necessary, unmoved, unaffected, so does uncreated. The question isn't about who created God, bcs that would be an infinite regress and make God a contigent being, which isn't his argument at all. The question is then if it's true, how God exists without anything else exist in the first place. That's where you have to refute.
reply
Luqman
The argument that there could be multiple gods or creator is a logical fallacy since if all the gods are all powerful, what stop the other God from destroying the other God's cosmos? Can one of the god create something which the other god cannot destroy? If it can't, then that God is not all powerful. If it can, then the other God is ot all powerful. If both are powerful, how can the world be in such an order?
reply
The argument that there could be multiple gods or creator is a logical fallacy since if all the gods are all powerful, what stop the other God from destroying the other God's cosmos? Can one of the god create something which the other god cannot destroy? If it can't, then that God is not all powerful. If it can, then the other God is ot all powerful. If both are powerful, how can the world be in such an order?
reply
Add a review, comment
Other channel videos
