The Five Ways

[Murchad99]

4).. real justification, using example superlatives that are actually comparative. Perfection is as much an abstract and unprovable concept as infinity, and has equal standing.

5) Design has been a fantastic argument for Theism, because every time science demonstrates how something came to operate as it does or the inherent randomness of the universe and the trial and error struggle of life with tenuous states of equilibrium, the line is moved back and the design becomes "greater, more complex".

[Murchad99]

2 (continued)... The argument then goes on to define a boundless being that has always existed as the first cause, after working so hard to chip away at the concept of infinity.

3) Argues something cannot come from nothing, everything must come from something, and by abstract reduction there must be something that is excepted from all the other rules for no other reason than because it allows us to complete the argument.

4) This argument sets objective maximums and minimums with no

[Murchad99]

Short version:

1) Unwarranted assumption that motion is not a fundamental state, based on limited human experience. We now understand motion in relative terms, so there is no provable objective state of rest.

2) This argument attempts to disprove infinity by ignoring the definition of infinity. In every observable example upon which physical causality is based, any "beginning" we choose is arbitrarily defined, as it is itself the result of multiple (perhaps countless) contributing causes.

[pippochap]

Let it be known in truth, that anyone commenting on this video that thinks they got a wise answer to these 5 ways, lives in delusion and false pride. this is an old argument that has been debated by the smartest of men and can not be proven wrong in philosophy. Listen closely to what is said. St. Thomas is not feeding you lies or telling you you must believe in God. Everything you hear here on this video is truth that can only be denied by the un-truthful and false at heart.

[poikilotherm1]

@pippochap This is not a rebuttal, you have presented no counter points, you have simply stated that I am incorrect and have quoted common biblical turn of phrase such as: "Let in be known in truth", "false pride", "can only be denied by the un-truthful and false at heart."

[pippochap]

@poikilotherm1 That is correct

[poikilotherm1]

@pippochap Continued...

These are typical arguments presented by advocates of the bible, as it focuses not on logical deduction and reasoning when coming to conclusions about reality but rather on the declaration of unquestionable truth and untouchable holy morality without the need for justification, thereby sidestepping the need to back-up one's claims and arguments with actual evidence.

[pippochap]

@poikilotherm1 Have you listened to the Video? Not once does it mention "Declaration of unquestionable truth" or "Holy Morality". To argue that this video does NOT focuse on logical deduction and reasoning is absurd! To find whats heard here unlogical or without reason is unlogical and unreasonable with in its self. Nothing said on this video is presented as faith, but rather as reasonable logic. Is it fear of God or of Christianity why you attack this basic logic? Don't be scared!

[poikilotherm1]

@pippochap The logical reasoning in this video is flawed for a multitude of reasons, many of which I have pointed out in my original post. Clearly you have nothing of substance with which to validate your argument and have now resorted to arguing in circles and making utterly ridiculous and rather embarassing statements like "Is it fear of God or Christianity....? Don't be scared!". I think I have proven my point and no longer wish to engage in an argument that is clearly going nowhere.

[Murchad99]

@poikilotherm1 "have now resorted to arguing in circles and making utterly ridiculous and rather embarassing statements"

Ah yes, the textbook definition of theological philosophy.

[poikilotherm1]

What you are really saying is: "These are a set of rules. However there is a flaw in these rules. The only possible explanation for this is the existence of a magical super-being that is exempt from these rules". That is not a logical step, it is a great leap of faith, a far more logical approach would be to ask firstly if you are really understanding the rules correctly, secondly are the rules completely correct and thirdly do they apply in all situations.

[pippochap]

@poikilotherm1 LOL!! Read the Summa. Do you really think your the firt one to argue this way. These 5 ways have been debated for centuries. The Summa of Thelogica answers the argument you are giving. Better arguments have been presented over the years, and your argument never even made out of the 13th century.

[poikilotherm1]

Being unable to explain something which appears to be an infinite regression does not mean that a logical conclusion is to simply state that there must be some sort of omnipotent deity that is somehow excluded from the set of rules that caused the apparent infinite regression in the first place.

[poikilotherm1]

I may not have understood these arguments, correctly but from what I can gather it seems they all share a common flaw, they are all infinite regressions. For example, you say that motion must be induced by an initial mover and that this initial mover must then be God, however this very same argument can be applied to God himself, i.e. who is God's "initial mover"? This same logic can be applied to the other 4 arguments, i.e. if a designer must exist who designed the designer? etc.

[posty92]

@poikilotherm1 The whole point is that you cannot regress infinitely and God is the point you reach when you must say something must have always been in existence.

[SnarkyFuzzFox]

I like all the people commenting on this video not knowing that this is Thomas' five ways argument. XD lol

[mooseflier]

It's sad that people feel the need to find evidence for their faith. Faith ceases to be faith if there is evidence for it. People like this really just have a very weak faith.

Sorry, but there is no evidence for God. You'll just have to build your faith.

[Mencia747]

@mooseflier 1 Peter 3:15- "Always be prepared to make a defense to anyone who calls you to account for the hope that is in you, yet do it with gentleness and reverence." I do not know what you mean by "faith", but I hope you do not mean that sort of faith that is meant in the modern age. That faith of blindess, which has no reason to it. We are called to know why we believe what we believe. Perhaps there is no direct evidence for the existence of God. That does not mean, however that all reason

[mooseflier]

@Mencia747 Quoting the Bible to support its divine-ness... you're the first to do that!

You can wave your hands put on a show all you like, but when it comes down to it there is no evidence for God. At least not any verifiable evidence... if there were, you can bet your ass that theists would scream it to the world. But there isn't, plain and simple. And any time real science is done in an attempt to support it, such as double blind prayer tests, they fail miserably.

Build your faith!

[Mencia747]

@mooseflier I never said that there was "verifiable evidence". I actually said that in my commentary. I simply said that faith cannot be blind, there must be some reason for my believing what I do. Further, I did not use the Bible to support its divinity, but simply to show that the Bible itself supports the idea of having reason to believe.

[mooseflier]

@Mencia747 You can have a reason to believe, but it's not necessary. You're implying that there is no such thing as blind faith, but we know there is for plenty of people. Nor do the reasons for believing need to be factual or true.But all in all, my statement is still correct... if you have evidence for faith, then there is no reason to call it faith. People seek evidence to support their faith when they have a weak faith. Pretty straight forward.

[Mencia747]

@mooseflier (continuation) can be discarded. We must have faith, and reason for that faith. I may as well believe in any religion if there is no reason to believe in any of them. I may as well not believe at all. If you have some sort of private or personal moment with the Lord from which you now know that He exists, I do not mean to diminish that. I mean to say that not everyone has a moment like this. Even the Apostle Paul had a moment like this (Acts 9:1-9) and he spent the rest of his

[Mencia747]

@mooseflier (continuation) life defending his faith and the entire faith of Christianity. Faith and Reason.

[firebird002458X]

proven? that's proof? maybe if your a complete moron, think outside the box you small minded people, god is just a crutch for everyone who is scared of the unknown, like death. your "god" gives weak minded people something to believe in when they feel weak. God in not real. everything in this video only relate to the world we live in, the universe does not revolve around our race, planet, or our beliefs. Our pathetic greedy, killing race is are not the epitome of the universe.

[Velokid93]

@firebird002458X

What box?

[Mencia747]

@firebird002458X I implore you to not try to mask your very obvious ignorance of intelligent conversation through words like "epitome" that you may think add to your grandness. People can discuss their beliefs through rational discussion. Your methods seem no more proficient than those of a Christian Fundamentalist. You are acting not in the position of rational atheism, but of anti-theism. I understand if in your life you had to deal with ignorant Christians, but to succumb to ignorance

[Mencia747]

@firebird002458X (continuation) yourself is to be no better. You tell Christians to "think outside of the box", but it is very obvious you have closed and locked the lid on your own. No one said that "Our pathetic, greedy, killing race is are not the epitome of the universe". It is said that God is.

[watergatewasnotajoke]

This is almost verbatim from The Summa Theologica.

As a result this video was pratically useless to me. Next time it might be useful to add a commentary on either the objections or replies to the five ways

[nightmeer6]

@watergatewasnotajoke He was just stating the basics, so students could learn about it. He wasn't trying to go in depth himself, but rather just give an easy understanding to the "noobs" of philosophy. this way, if students don't want to have their mind completely fucked by The Summa Theologica, they can just watch this basic video that is still useful, even if it was an almost exact replica.

[Wrob99]

The five ways by Aquinas is a true gem in philosophy. Unfortunately, I find it is often unappreciated by many students.

[kajakpaddler92]

@Wrob99 Its unapreciated because it contradicts many things we now know about physics...

[Wrob99]

@kajakpaddler92 Can you be more specific? I deleted my last post because, after listening to the clip again, I'm not actually sure where you're coming from. These arguments are metaphysical, and I'm not sure what we know about physics that contradicts these statements. If you could elaborate, it would be much appreciated. I'm actually not religious, so I don't really feel like I have any stake in the outcome, but I would like to learn more about the contemporary model of physics.

[kajakpaddler92]

@Wrob99 Im glad to hear that! one of the things could be that our model of physics doesnt allow anything to be at absolute rest (for the uncertainty principle would be violated) also, you cannot use convectional logic when dealing with "critical points in nature" (e.g Very small or very high energy). If you are going to talk about the begining of the universe everything disolves into mathematics you cannot use language to explain it. I can show an easy example if you want.