How St. Thomas Proves God's Existence Through Efficient Causality (Aquinas 101)

How does the argument of St. Thomas Aquinas' second way for proving the existence of God work? How does St. Thomas Aquinas prove the existence of God through efficient causality? In this episode of Aquinas 101: How to Prove God's Existence Through Efficient Causality, join Fr. Cajetan Cuddy, O.P., a Dominican friar from the Province of St. Joseph, as he presents how to prove God's existence through efficient causality in St. Thomas Aquinas' second way.

Subscribe to our channel here:

--

Aquinas 101 is a project of the Thomistic Institute that seeks to promote Catholic truth through short, engaging video lessons. You can browse earlier videos at your own pace or enroll in one of our Aquinas 101 email courses on St. Thomas Aquinas and his masterwork, the Summa Theologiae. In these courses, you'll learn from expert scientists, philosophers, and theologians—including Dominican friars from the Province of St. Joseph.

Enroll in Aquinas 101 to receive the latest videos, readings, and podcasts in your email inbox each week.

Help us film Aquinas 101!

Want to represent the Thomistic Institute on your campus? Check out our online store!

Stay connected on social media:

#Aquinas101 #ThomisticInstitute #ThomasAquinas #Catholic

[anthonyw]

making a very complicated concept and argument by St. Thomas very easy to understand. God bless you all

[alexhutton]

Well said Father . Thank you for this insight 🙏

[tomcha]

Yet, some people refuse to accept this plain and irrefutable logic. They hold on to the argument God doesn't exist because science can't prove it (while not realizing it is beyond its capabilities) and refuse to look at this argument of pure logic that contradicts their unstated belief that only science must be able to provide answers - that they will simply not accept any truths that are not derived from their accepted channels.

[killianmiller]

When I think about how we can know that God exists, I liken it to this question: how would characters in a story prove that an author exists?

[GHCODPvZ]

Hi there, I have a question. Does the argument still work if the chain of causation would be circular? Then you would not have an infinite chain of causes but X depending on Y and Y depending on X for example. An explanation would be appreciated as I have been struggling with this question for over a week

[MarshBrik]

the piano example is fantastic. great video

[truthdrome]

Excuse me for this stupid question, but if God has not a cause, how can we explain the generation between the Father and the Son, or the procession of the Holy Spirit? Maybe - but it's only a thought of mine, that I would reject if heretical - God, being outside space and time, is His own cause.

[proinloin]

You have made very difficult philosophical terminology intelligble. You have the voice for it, and the demanour to broadcast it. Thank you very much. From and Imbecile.

[Joxxol]

If the piano player stops playing, the music stops. In what sense does the first uncaused efficient cause maintain creation?

[feraurelio]

La causa eficiente es contraria a la causa ineficiente. La causa eficiente logra su objetivo observando que está bien. La causa ineficiente también es causa, pero contraria a su objetivo y considerada engendro del males

[WORDversesWORLD]

Glad I don’t need man to prove anything to me.

[Enigmatic_philosopher]

Here is a philosophical critique of the arguments presented in the video "How St. Thomas Proves God's Existence Through Efficient Causality (Aquinas 101)" from a classical theistic perspective:

This video provides a helpful introduction to Thomas Aquinas' Fifth Way argument for God's existence, which argues from efficient causality. Aquinas contends that in any causal series or chain, there must be an initial or prime mover that causes change without itself being changed. For the world of contingent beings, this prime mover is God.

Some potential critique points:

- The argument relies on the premise that an infinite causal regress is impossible, but some philosophers dispute this and propose alternative models like causal finitism or potential infinite causal chains. More would need to be said to conclusively rule these alternatives out.

- Showing the need for a prime mover or first cause only establishes a deistic concept of a distant creator, not necessarily the personal God of classical theism. More arguments would be needed to bridge this conceptual gap.

- Defining causality in terms of change risks reducing God's role to just originating the chain of changes, rather than sustaining each contingent being at every moment. An act/potency metaphysic helps address this but requires separate development.

- The video presents the argument at an introductory level and could delve more into historical formulations and objections from philosophers over the centuries to develop a more robust picture.

Overall, the video provides a clear initial presentation of Aquinas' efficient causality argument, but a more comprehensive philosophical analysis would incorporate counterarguments, address alternative models, and situate the argument more precisely within the classical theistic tradition.

[roquerincon]

uncaused cause, first efficient cause - Jah

[hsha]

3rd time around and I think I'm starting to get it. Thank you, Father. What an amazing resource.

[fbayoutube]

You look and sound like a monk. But wait, you are a monk! Thank you, Father!

[markralph]

Question the first cause of all causes may not be visible otherwise it could be see as an Effect, for this to be primordial cause and let the others causes exist in some free state, this first cause must at some point stay hide but still interract with all part of the existence since it give is existence to all causes. Am I right ?
If it is so, can we say that revealing primordial cause, is not only impossible through the experience sine experience stand on visual knowledgeable experiment and for the primordial cause it is required to be untouchable through any physical sens or even physical way. Does it implies that proving God's existence is trying to prove the existence its self as the primordial cause? which mean for me an impossible task

[mitchb]

Apparently St Thomas never heard of circular logic

[antoniomoyal]

Very good as usual.

But in my opinion God has a cause; He is his own cause. Being God is in the essence of being God. If, following Aristotle/Aquinas, a cause is defined as the reason for the existence of a being, then we can say God is His own formal cause. God is who he is because it is necessary that God is how He is.

Now to say "everything has a cause" incurs in the categorical mistake of identifying "cause" with "efficient -hence external- cause". If the equivocation is clarified, yes, we can say God has a cause in Himself. This is also the case when arguing a succession of causes; it is assumed we refer to efficient external causes.

Laus Deo!

[d.o.]

The winner is the one who counts how many “cause”es there are in this clip! 🫢