St. Thomas' Third Way: You Didn't Have To Exist—But You Do! (Aquinas 101)

Why does anything exist at all? 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 St. Thomas' Third Way to prove 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

[FiliusMariae]

You can't even fathom how much good you're doing with these videos. May God Bless you always! Thank you!

[FrJohnBrownSJ]

Fr. Jim Brent, O.P. is my favorite Dominican.

[TheRealWallaWalla]

Thank you so much for making these videos. They have helped me discover my faith.

[SeaJay_Oceans]

Thank you for defending logic, thought, and reason ! Truth sets us Free ! 1 = 1 .

[antoniomoyal]

Brilliant as usual. Not using 'contingency' is a good choice.

[fltaylor]

Finally a new video by Fr James Brent. He’s very intelligent and articulate… his videos are very compelling.

Thank you, father!

[winstonbarquez]

We do not see the human mind and yet we know that it exists through its manifestations. The same could be said of the divine mind.

[jimnewl]

I think you're misunderstanding St. Thomas' argument. As you mention in the video, this is a tricky argument to parse, and the reason is the wording of the first conclusion, which reads as follows:

"Therefore, if everything is possible not to be, then at one time there could have been nothing in existence."

It's the words "could have been" that are the source of the trouble. You translate them in this video as "was, " in essence claiming that he's concluding that if everything is possible not to be, then there was necessarily a time when everything was not. But that's not the argument.

Here's what Thomas is actually saying: Everything that is possible not to be at some time is not. But if that's the case, and we assume that everything is possible not to be (since otherwise we are already admitting the existence of a necessary being), then it's *possible* that there was a time when everything was not. Let's assume there was such a time. In that case, nothing would now exist, because nothing can be brought into existence except by something already existing. Yet obviously, things exist. Therefore, it's impossible that there was a time when everything was not.

But if it's impossible that there was a time when everything was not, then, per the reductio, it's impossible that all beings are possible not to be. Therefore, there is at least one necessary being. Etc.

[jsaff]

This video is awesome. This is personally my favorite of the 5 proofs and I believe it is the most uniquely Thomistic and also the most appealing to our times. It actually has helped lead me through many personal difficulties whereby things seemed hopeless...but I don't have to exist, yet God wills that I exist and that I bear such crosses, therefore, it must be for some eternal good.

[harrytuccikatahdin]

Even with the help of these videos Aquinas' Summa Theologia still dizzies my head. I can only imagine how difficult it was to understand in his time without YouTube explanations.

[michaelart]

Our LORD, GOD and SAVIOUR did create the simplest fabric (H²O) to sustain all of life here on earth.
Just as the Jordan and the Euphrates are made of this fabric, so to also are the Bow and the ELbow.
🌱LIFE IS BUT A VAPOUR (H²O)🌹

HOLY BIBLE
Habakkuk 3:9
Thy bow was made quite naked (bare),
according to the oaths of the tribes
(oaths were sworn over your arrows),
even thy word, Selah.
Thou didst cleave (divided) the earth
with rivers.

🙌ALLELUIA🙌
A-men' 🌿

[dennis]

What would you say to the person who says that as you have shown that nothing can cause itself: then, how can God exist if He could not have been caused? He was not caused, and he could not have caused himself to be therefore, where did He come from

[acohan]

There is actually no way to prove a potential without actualize it. . Which would of course negate the potential nature of the statement. . Ie. The only way for me to definitively prove that I "could have been" a school teacher would be for me to actually become one. . There is also no proof that things did not have to be the way they are . . (Einstein one asked if God had any"choice"in the creation of our universe)

[nickw]

I think that this is actually the strongest argument for the existence of God. So much so, that you can also use it to argue for God’s consciousness.

[cadenbuschur]

Absolutely brilliant. Thank you for the work you do. God bless!

[benjouras]

How would Aquinus response to someone who posits that the celestial bodies do not have their necessity caused from outside themselves? That they are themselves uncaused causes? I understand that we now understand the contingency of the stars and planets, but if he can grant the existence of caused necessary beings, what reason is there to believe that such things as physical laws are caused as opposed to uncaused?

[lonelylad]

The existence of the self is necessary because to experience nonexistence does not exist, therefore the self must exist and by extension God because God's existence can be inferred from the self.

[miguelmaravi]

Could you please put together and sequentially these videos about the Existence of God
Thsnks,

[Rudi]

This sounds like the nonsensical sophism of the theistic.

[angelicashen]

How does the 3rd way work in Anthropic Principle and multiverse hypothesis 🤔