The Third Way: Another Take On The Argument (Aquinas 101)

What is the difference between necessary and possible beings? How does St. Thomas' third way prove the existence of God from the effect of "possible beings"? In this episode of Aquinas 101: The Five Ways, join Fr. James Brent, O.P., a Dominican friar from the Province of St. Joseph, as he presents another take on St. Thomas' Third Way for proving 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

[jessejimenez]

I greatly enjoyed this video, so please keep it up, but this one broke my brain. I think I gathered some bits of knowledge and wisdom here but I just can't be sure.

[davidcoleman]

This is a great explanation of the Third Way, and it helped me to understand more fully the more “popular” version. For me, the Third Way now falls completely into place.

[ryanhegseth]

Yeah, you just proved the existence of God.

[jimnewl]

Sorry, but this argument IS NOT a demonstration of the existence of God. It assumes that the existence of God as First Cause has already been proven, which in the SCG it has, and simply concludes that this First Cause must be necessary, and that because it is necessary, it must also be eternal.

This is why the argument appears where it does, and why its form differs from the form of the necessity argument that appears in the ST, which IS a demonstration of the existence of God.

[vileevilgonzalez]

Golf course if I told you that I have a personal relationship with somebody should be like 6 if not you are completely irrational and a lot of people say that they have a personal relationship with Jesus or we God said to write etcetera but the truth is that they don't have any relationship with any Jesus and would any God he's only imaginary they have a relationship with the believe in a metaphor

[Enigmatic_philosopher]

Here is the Third Way represented as a formal logical syllogism to reveal its fallacious reasoning:

1. All contingent beings require an external necessary being for their existence.
1. The universe contains contingent beings.
1. Therefore, a necessary being (God) exists.

Rendered logically:

1. ∀x (Cx → ∃y (Ny ∧ Ey))
1. ∃x Cx
1. ∃y (Ny ∧ Ey)

The major premise remains unsupported and controversial.

Additionally, the conclusion commits the fallacy of affirming the consequent:

1. If God exists, then contingent beings require his necessity.

1. Contingent beings exist.

1. Therefore, God exists.

1. Ny ∧ Ey → ∀x (Cx → ∃y (Ny ∧ Cyx))

1. ∃x Cx

1. Ny ∧ Ey

Revealing the syllogistic structure shows the argument's unjustified premises and invalid inference pattern.

[andrewferg]

The Mosaic Hebrew theonym יהוה‎ (YHWH) is derived from the existential verb hayah meaning "to be" indicating God as existence (or being) in and of Himself. Existence itself, logic, truth, or "to be" are ontological synonyms for the transcendent: that which is without beginning or end and which cannot 'not be' as demonstrate by antinomies like "there is no truth" or "nothing is". Existence in and of itself is the referent for the term God in classical theology: ipsum esse subsistens, the singularly self-evident axiom from which all else is derived. It is incoherent to posit existence itself to not be.

[jsaff]

I greatly enjoy these videos but I do wonder if this one is a bit more confusing than it has to be. I also wonder whether there is a third possible rendering of it. 1) We can focus on the fact of possible being and their cause and argue backwards to the necessity of a necessary being- such a line of reasoning would be analogous to Aquinas' 2nd Way. 2) we can focus on the present existence of possible beings, and argue backward to the cause of this existence- this seems to be what the video suggests as the second approach from the Summa Contra Gentiles and it seems to take for granted the eternity of the world and for that reason is a powerful argument for those who insist on the eternity of nature; 3) there is third approach, which also assumes the eternity of the world, and infinite possibilities- including the possible non-being of the world (nature)- which would have to be realized during the scope of eternity. Yet the world (nature) does exist, despite its possible non-existence considered as a possibility within the eternal, and if within the scope of eternity the world was once nothing (having realized all its possibilities), and yet it now exists, some necessary being must have caused its existence, as it is impossible that something should come from nothing of its own accord.

As is the case with each of the five ways, the eternity of the world is assumed thereby eliminating the objection that if nature is eternal, it is somehow uncaused. I think all three approaches are valid and fundamental fact that is inescapable, and perhaps more evident than the other underlying facts in the other proofs, is the contingency of everything in nature. Its an obvious fact that modern science corroborates. Causality and motion can sometimes be obscure to the modern mind, even though these proofs are also valid. But contingency is unquestioned and therefore easier to reason through.

[byron]

That is what William Shakespeare has in his mind what are the Possible beings and Necessary Beings which is God! When he penned it to his play To be or not to be! That is the question! K The possible beings are all the Created things The Stars the Planets and all creation on Earth k! Simple to understand k!

[thanderhop]

This version of this argument is very similar to the "de ente" argument. I sometimes find it difficult to see why the series considered in the first and second ways (causes of potentiality reducing to actuality or efficient causes respectively) really are per se ordered rather than accidentally ordered. In this case though, when you specify causes of "being" rather than of "becoming, " it is clear that what we are talking about really is ordered per se. This strength is also there in the de ente argument.

I think it would be helpful to emphasize more in the discussions on the first and second ways why the series we are talking about really are per se ordered. Indeed, it seems that when people explain what a per accidens ordered series is, they offer the example of a father begetting his son without his own father still needing to exist. That seems to be a case of a series of efficient causes that is ordered per accidens, so could be infinite, yet St Thomas says it is impossible to go to infinity in efficient causes. Maybe it is just the meaning of efficient cause that is confused?

[johnfisher]

However possible beings change in the process of generation. Some cease to exist as they are not generated, others do not as they are generated. Yet going backwards there is a point of origin. The uncaused cause is what we call God. All that exists is and comes to be, even time itself as the will of the uncaused cause.

[LordDorian]

On the topic of necessary beings, one can analogize it to the human species. We exist because our father and his father and his father before (individual necessary beings) existed so hence we exist. To find the pre table for what was before man leads you into another sphere of reasoning and yiu can do the same when applying this to the duscussion

[sisterelias]

By staying with the thread of Fr explanation, l got there by the end. It made me think of the rhetorical question posed in reply to a critic who stated emphatically that the world rested on the back of a gigantic tortoise.." and what does the tortoise stand on?" to which he was treated : oh you're very smart but it's tortoises all the way down.!

[stephrichards]

What an incredible intellect st thomas aquinas had.

[johngrayatkinson]

Despite all our Rage, we are still just a Cat in a Box

[alexandersupertramp]

The argument about numerous necessary causes was addressed by Aquinas because Aristotle believed the stars were fixed and incorruptible. We now know the entire universe is changing and corruptible. The entire universe is possible, contingent being. The numerous necessary cause argument is now a mute point.

[LordDorian]

Similar to a light switch indifferent to being on or off. Some being outside of that component would have to want to flip the switch

[cabrerascorner]

How would one argue that there can in principle be only one being which is necessary from its own essence?

[annakareninacamara]

#AskAFriar

When we say Jesus died and suffered because of the sins we commit today, I strongly believe it. But it makes me wonder: if He knew then what we commit now, did he already know how much we will still sin, and thus who will be saved and who won't?

Is there another way that he could have paid for an infinite ammount of injuries to His Name, without countability? Or since God is always in the present His pain transcends time? If so, it leads me to the same question of predestination/determination of those who will be saved.

What got me thinking about it was Venerable Bishop Fulton Sheen's quote on someone I can't remember now. It spoke about how Jesus is in the Cross to this day. Then he pays always for the same ammount of sin?

[ReneCordero-lu]

The only question that I have from this argument is "why there is necessarily only one necessary being?"