The Third Way: How St. Thomas Argues for God’s Existence From Contingency (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

[andreassmith]

Excellent! Very clear, concise, and instructive.

[ivancarmo]

Nice video, made me understand it and English is my third language lol.
God bless!

[Lerian_V]

Argument from Contingency like I have never heard it before. Thank you so darn much Thomistic Institute. Awesone job Fr. James.

[MelanieLavoie-ehtf]

Lol my head was spinning! I’ll get it though, I have to watch it again. Thank you for your awesome videos!

[miilodude_]

That was a whole existencial crisis about living beings and life as we know, what an excelent class, i learn a lot because of this video.

[antoniomoyal]

Brillant as always. You provide such good subject matter for evangelisation

[aiantenor]

i see.. so that is efficient cause..thank you Fr. Brent. This is really clear and concise

[benjouras]

How would you respond to someone who posits that the Laws of Physics are in themselves necessary beings? Would that equate God to physical laws or is there a way to demonstrate the contingency of them?

[sergeantslaughter]

I absolutely love this video and *almost* 100% agree (99.9999) - all of this is moot if the PSR (or some version of the PSR) doesn't go through. Socrates defined reality thusly: to be is to do; but, Sartre defined it in the opposite direction. First, we need to decide which definition we are starting with and why. Essentialism? Existentialism? But, ultimately, whatever reason you give for one, you can give an equally valid reason for the other.

[knights]

In the Trinity we distinguish Father, Son, Holy Spirit. The Son's existence (though Eternal) is eternally generated by the Father, and likewise the Holy Spirit as it Procededs from the Father and Son. So how can we avoid saying the Son and Holy Spirit are not Permanent Composite Beings as their existence 'seems' to be dependent on the initial action of the Father (even if an eternal action)?

[PrimeTimePaulyRat]

This means that, unlike composite beings, God's Being comes from the very Essence of God.

[Enigmatic_philosopher]

Here is a philosophical critique of Aquinas' Third Way as presented in this video:

- The key premise that observable chains of causation must terminate in a non-contingent being is asserted without sufficient justification.

- Dismissing actual infinite regresses as an explanatory possibility requires more defense as some philosophers argue they are metaphysically possible.

- Equivocating between temporal causation and metaphysical grounding conflates distinct relations and muddles the reasoning. Not all dependence is causal.

- The video presumes the universe must have an explanation for its existence, but this principle of sufficient reason remains controversial in philosophy.

- Even if we accept a non-contingent ground is necessary, the argument does not establish this is the God of classical theism specifically rather than a more abstract necessity.

- The presenter fails to consider and rebut potential objections to the key controversial premises that are required for the argument to work.

Overall, this version of the Third Way relies on unsupported assertions regarding causal chains, total contingency, and the necessity of theism. It does not succeed as a deductive proof of God without addressing reasonable philosophical objections.

[johnbonnice]

Essentialism is highly controversial. Most contemporary philosophers find it inadequate. Personally, even though I have highest regard for St. Thomas, I recommend Kant as a philosopher that can be followed for his account of knowledge, language and the external world that can be harmonized with modern science rather than Aristotle.

[alecfoster]

Is there going to be a quiz on this? :(

[matheuspinho]

*a honest doubt:* why and how essences and existence are different? Once there's no thing outside existence - a.k.a: being, God - so, if essences exist they exist _inside_ being and they have already being

So, _it seens_ that everything that has an essense shoud exist

[billc]

But God does not need a cause. Or if he did, would it be himself?

[felixferra]

The use of "existence" is an enormous danger for essentialism. Definitely, this explanation should never be given in English.

[kravitzn]

Argument for the existence of God formula: find something for God to do, argue only God could do it, so God must exist.

This argument: give god everything to do.

But what if things could simply exist without some other things keeping them in existence? Makes sense to me.

[Theo_Skeptomai]

This is a fallacious argument of Special Pleading, and therefore, is not a sound argument.