What's Wrong With St. Thomas Aquinas' First Proof for the Existence of God? (Aquinas 101)

Does God exist? Where's the proof? This is one of the great questions, and St. Thomas Aquinas takes it head on with his famous “Five Ways” or “Five Proofs” for the existence of God. But, what's wrong St. Thomas Aquinas' first proof for the existence of God? What is the weakest link in St. Thomas Aquinas' argument? In this episode of Aquinas 101: The Five Ways, join Fr. Philip-Neri Reese, O.P., a Dominican friar from the Province of St. Joseph, as he presents a critique of St. Thomas Aquinas' first argument for the existence of God.

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

[MBarberfanlife]

Most people don't understand that when Aquinas says "infinite" series, he's not talking about a linear series (nor is he talking about the beginning of the universe). He's talking about a vertical series HERE and NOW. Such a series obviously can't be infinite because nothing would actually be explained; it would be like saying an infinite amount of boxcars could move a train, but there's no engine! Or, for example, it would be like saying an infinitely long chain could hold up a lamp, but there's no hook or ceiling!

[zzc]

to be fair, there is such a thing as an ice-cream sandwich

[angelicashen]

The opening animation of Plato and Diogenes was hilarious that made me burst out of laughs in my bed😂 You are doing better and better on visualisation! Thank you for popularising theology and philosophy in an easy and attractive way. Praise the Lord!

[mattisonhale]

There can't be an infinite regress of finite secondary causes because _that_ begs the question of causal explanation of all change.

There can't be an infinite number of dominoes that fell because ultimately one is attempting to explain why ANY domino falls... For that, you need a finger.

[TK-pesf]

Two great examples of accidental/essential causal series that I hadn't heard before. Very nice!
Series of torches = accidental causal series, can be infinitely long in theory without problem.
Light coming through glass boxes= essential causal series, can NOT be infinitely long.

Awesome work!

[cameronturner]

These videos are so clear. Thank you Fr Phillip Neri and everyone part of making these.

Also I love the rubbing of thumb and fingers together during the word "palpable" :D

[KR-rjvf]

I like your point that reason cannot prove change even though our senses can observe it.

[realDonaldMcElvy]

If you really want to ask this question as philosophically as possible, it would follow along the lines of a few questions.

1. Is there at least 1 catalyst of causality?
(A catalyst is something that causes change upon something else without changing itself. For example, an enzyme can break down a carbohydrate without breaking down the enzyme itself. Causality is the concept of cause and effect. It is the definition of B Theory Time.)

To be even more specific, the 1st question could be asked as follows...

Is there at least 1 Fundamental Catalyst of Causality?

2. Can there be a "Super Task" of Causality?
(A Super Task is defined as such, that an infinite amount of Cause or Action can be completed within a finite amount of time. For example, dividing a line in half, and then dividing one of those sections in half, and so forth, in such a way that each division of segments takes half as long to cut as the previous segment. [1/2 in 60 minutes, 1/4 in 30 minutes, 1/8 in 15 minutes, 1/16 in 7.5 minutes, ... 1/Infinity in Infinitesimal time.])

3. If 1, & 2 are both true, can there be a Fundamental Catalyst of Causality that is also a "Super Task" of Causality?

For example, someone could say that the Big Bang was an expansion of Time (Space-Time) from a "Super Task" of Causality that is the Universe itself, due to the limit of the Speed of Causality (Speed of Light in a Vacuum) relative to variable distances in space. This could be described as the Hertz of a Photon between 2 Ideal Mirrors and the variability of the distance between them. The Mirrors merely increase or decrease in distance, and Causality itself becomes a Fractal from Infinitesimal to Infinity. Of course, Quantum Mechanics has plenty of things to say about that idea, like Plank Time and Plank Space. Finally, an idea like that would be Pantheist, but still worthy of discussion.

Remember, there is A Theory Time, and then there is B Theory Time (Causality). Someone could easily claim that A Theory Time is just an "Accident" of B Theory Time.

Time is the Accident of the Movement of Objects. - Theophrastus

[skullamania]

Call me crazy but that ice cream sandwich sounded pretty delicious

[jthai]

Oh man. This is really a clear logical explanation. Thank you Father.

[hglundahl]

4:38 And Leo XIII was unwilling to condemn Scotus and Suarez.

Scotus famously disagreed with St. Thomas on this one, because time is like arithmetic. It grows in one direction.

Now, St. Thomas would have classified stars as "fire, specifically light" and have considered that one constant way in which matter can be.

Since then, fusion means that what's emitting light in stars is a process, that goes _one_ way:

H > D, D > He.

This by itself means, the universe as we know it has to have a beginning.

[arbitrarium]

The fact that something is crazy, doesn't make it false, all supernatural things are crazy 😂

[klynchga]

So the way I understand it is that everything in the universe as an object contains both the potential and actual...it takes something actual to act on the potential of another object for that object to utilize its potential. Think of a bolt of lightning striking a log and creating fire. The fire only existed as potential in the log, but then something actual came along and released the potential. If every object no matter how big/small consists of both potential and actuality then there has to somewhere exist a being of PURE actuality...one that is fully realized an has no potential in their nature to actualize. This is one of the primary aspects of God. He is fully actualized and therefore is the 'unmoved mover' of classical philosophy. He is the cause of all things, the First cause of all things. He sustains existence from one moment to the next. Without Him all things would not be possible because they could never realize their potential without Him...again from one moment to the next.

It's really pretty simple and I think this video really overcomplicates one of the most beautiful and elegant philosophical arguments in history. Dr. Edward Feser explains this and other concepts in a clear and concise manner in his writings...I would urge anyone reading this to check him out.

[tonyl]

Reminds me of the debate between William Lane Craig and Jimmy Akin. Everyone should check that out. Interesting followup discussion between Trent Horn and Jimmy Akin.

[michellek]

Hmm, I think I have to watch this one again. I find myself thinking about "momentum" and physics. From there I started thinking about the light (photons) going through the glass rooms… and then suddenly I was thinking about the Transfiguration (Sunday 3/5/23 gospel) and then Jesus coming through the walls of the Upper Room after the Resurrection… And then my searching had me watching a video on positrons (not stuff learned when I was in high school) which after watching the video on e- and e+ (electrons and positrons) I came back to Plato+ and Diogenes-.

Now I have to watch this again and see if I can focus long enough, with the help of the Holy Spirit, to catch on.

[haydongonzalez-dyer]

Honestly, Icecream in between two waffles sounds really tasty

[leonardovieira]

Really, one cannot confuse beginning with first cause. Most people who question St. Thomas' proofs mistake one term for the other, when they are essentially distinct. Infinity denotes the absence of a term in a count. It is a concept intrinsically related to the complex, multiple reality of beings composed of act and potency (it is time). The first cause is necessarily immovable and eternal, it is a pure act, therefore simultaneous with all beings at all moments of time. God's creative act, first cause, did not happen "in the past", but happens now, sustaining all things in being, as it could have been from a beginningless past.

[SeaJay_Oceans]

IceCream Waffles is a sandwich, Blue Bunny is my favorite ! :-) Nothing crazy about a Klondike Bar, an ice cream sandwich, icecream coated in hardened chocolate.
WHAT WOULD YOU DO FOR A KLONDIKE BAR ? :-) A typical ice cream sandwich is also two large cookies, with ice cream between. So a hot dog is a sandwich.

[metatron]

"The principal argument used to eliminate such a regress is that in essentially ordered infinite regress of causes, only instrumental causes would exist, and, hence there would be no intrinsic causality in the series to produce the observed effect. The defender of this argument faces, however, this dilemma: if an instrumental cause is defined as a cause lacking intrinsic causal efficacy, one cannot preclude an infinite regress of instrumental causes each receiving its casual efficacy extrinsically from its predecessor but if an instrumental cause is defined as a cause depending ultimately upon a first cause, then it cannot be shown that the causes in an infinite regress are truly instrumental. (289, The cosmological argument from Plato to Leibniz).

[mikesarno]

Diogenes would have insisted that it's chickens all the way down!