Refuting Aquinas' 5 Proofs of God's Existence

In this video, I respond to Thomas Aquinas' 5 Proofs of the Existence of God.

[PessimisticIdealism]

To say that "A is A" refutes the correlativity of "necessity" and "contingency" is a non sequitur. Here is a valid and sound argument by Alexander Pruss & Joshua Rasmussen that demonstrates that there is some necessary concrete thing that is not contingent. It is not an argument for "God, " per se, but it is immune to the criticisms that you make against the others. "Existence" and "Being" are abstractions. To say that Existence is something that exists would be false, rather it is Existen**ts** that exist.


"One might object to the assumption that there is an aggregate or sum of those things that is distinct from the parts, making up some kind of composite object. This worry is partially what invites the following even more modest version, which doesn't even assume there is a *set* of such things. Here is another more technically rigorous example, whereby “concrete thing” we mean something that possibly causes something." (It bypasses all of Hume's critique by not taking the universe as a "whole" or a "thing" that is distinct from its parts).


(1) For any particular contingent concrete things, there is an explanation of the fact that those things exist.
(2) Considering all the contingent concrete things that exist, if there is an explanation of the fact that those things exist, then there is a necessary concrete thing.
(3) Therefore, there is a necessary concrete thing.” In the next footnote is a symbolic formulation.


(1) ∀x's[[∀y(y ∈ x's) → C(x)] → EE(x's)].

(2) (∃x's(EE(x's) ∧ ∀y(C(x) → y ∈ x's))) → ∃yN(y).
(3) ∴ ∃xN(x). [Necessary Existence)


Interpret the predicates as follows:

‘EE(x's)’ reads ‘there is an explanation of the fact that the x's exist’.
‘C(x)’ reads ‘x contingently exists and is concrete (causally-capable)’.
‘N(x)’ reads ‘x is a necessary being’—i.e., ‘x necessarily exists and is concrete (causally- capable)’ • ‘y ∈ x's’ reads ‘y is one of the x's’.

[PessimisticIdealism]

Regarding your view of time, it seemed nearly identical to Aristotle's view of time. However, if "Time is just the measurement of motion, " then we have problems. If that understanding of Time is correct, when we read the face of a clock we are measuring Time by the motion of the hands; but Time is nothing more than the measurement of motion. So Time is then a measurement of what itself is a measurement of Time, and this is a vicious circle.