Aquinas's 3rd Way

Thomas Aquinas's third way to prove God's existence. @PhiloofAlexandria

[mikardo]

Love this format. I’ve been watching your content for a couple of years and just wanted to say I really appreciate your work. Thank you

[al]

I consider this his strongest argument. Everything contingent needs to be ultimately contingent on a necessary Being

[janey]

Your presentation is scholarly. Thank you for this.

[Israel..]

"That domain will have a minimal element."
""Is a proper subset."
"Is really assumed by everyone up to the 20th century."
"Hard thing to deny it."
Really interesting approach. Watching this after learning about Plantinga's Modal Ontological arguments makes it clear why Set Theory and Modal Logic can become a siren song for some.

[MBarberfanlife]

I think the third way should be viewed like the first and second ways because that's the simplest explanation. In other words, Aquinas isn't talking about time or the beginning of the universe. He's saying there can't be an infinite (hierarchical) series of perishable things HERE and NOW, just like he says there can't be an infinite series of movers. This would also make sense because Aquinas' views were that the beginning of the universe was known by faith and not reason.

[wireless]

Big problem with these arguments making use of modal logic in my view, is that they tend to assume that the extensionality of modal semantics means that they are able to say something meaningful about the real world, rather than just providing a framework for us to think about the real world. This assumption is questionable at best.

It also invites the question “which modal logic most accurately represents the real world?”. You argue from S5 with in my view no convincing justification other than the convenient role it plays in the argument (and I’ve yet to see one in the literature). An argument could perhaps be made from utility - the fruitful application of modal logic in a variety of domains including some branches of mathematics and computer science, must mean that it is something more than word games we play? However, these applications are almost invariably weaker than S5.

[TK-quht]

You always serve up great food for thought! Now if you could serve up some Franklin Barbecue too everything would be perfect!! 😎

[myothersoul]

Another interesting and thought provoking lecture, I like it. : -)

7:42 "If something can fail to exist, there is a possible case where it does not exist". Isn't there a problem with the premise?


If it fails to exist it is not a thing, it's nothing. Something can not fail to exist because something is a thing. No things (aka not things or nothing) must fail to exist. All things exists. Some things, not much we can say about them other than they are in the categories of things and therefore exist. Thus something can not fail to exist.


Since the premise is always false, there is not much we can say about the conclusion based on the premise.


A premise of the 3rd way that could be denied is splitting the world into contingent and necessary things. It could be that everything always existed it just shifts and it's properties change but it always is. That everything could be called god (e.g Spinoza) or matter or spirit or stuff, the name doesn't really matter, only that it it is not destroyed or created.

[jackdarby]

Wow soo dumb. Cmon allavarum clap chey clap..👏