To many people this makes sense, like me included. Thank you for bringing Aquinas' thoughts accessible this simple way! Although I do have to wonder if our ability for "rational" thought is less valuable than we tend to think. I say this because typically if you really listen to people, their arguments don't arrive from an actually place of reason, rather they come from a feeling or intuition, and the rational mind tries to explain that in anyway possible. So both the arguments for or against the existence of God have already been made up, and now it is only the rational mind trying to convince you further. I argue that the feeling comes always first, before the rational thought. Maybe it is related to this old metaphor on the rider and the elephant. Rider being the rational conscious and the elephant the irrational unconscious. What ever it may be, I choose to believe in God and in the goodness of Jesus, because it makes life more valuable and precious.
Just don't blindly take the advice of Jesus. He said to sell all of your stuff, including your computer, by the way, and give the money to the poor and then follow him and not worry about tomorrow, because the birds don't worry. Be careful in all things. If you truly read the bible and see all of the horrible stories, it doesn't mean that it's true, or good for that matter.
@@blackswan8653 I wrote I choose faith, in both God and Jesus. I don't think I wrote I believe blindly to anything. I read the bible often, and the chapter you mention, you have to understand he said that to this young man who inherited a lot of wealth and was uncertain of himself. This suggestion to this young man was directed to him. Not as a general advice, and the young man did not even follow this advice and walked away worried. The bible is a collection of deep meaningful teachings about the realities and possibilities of experience. A book is powerful, and needs knowledge and thought.
@@pekka1900 I made up excuses like that when I was a believer as well. It's really not a good book. It's a book written from the perspective of people who lived during the times they were written. If you take off your god goggles, you may see that. I threw you a soft ball with that example in the bible. Read Luke 19 -27 and tell me the moral of that story. Have a good day.
@@blackswan8653 I'm sorry you had bad experience, because of the bible. I hope you can remember that it's the people acting that is important, not the book, if people use the bible or any book for that matter to cause harm or misguide people, the problem is the people doing these things, not the source. I did read the chapter on luke 19:1-27. I'm going to think on that part, but I'm also going to consider it as a part of an over arching message, not as an independent short bad sounding story. But briefly, I think the message in that story was that sometimes when you think you are doing good is not the right thing, and if you are given you should give it forward, and the evil magistrate is a representation of the consequences of your actions, and you don't always know what the consequences are before hand. I don't think the moral there is that people in power can do what they want and the weak just suffer. People can interpret the stories as they want and this is where the patience and good will in humanity comes in. I wish you a good day too!
@@pekka1900 Maybe you didn't get the gist of the story. That evil magistrate was Jesus. Plus, you assume too much. I never had a bad experience because of the bible. You are correct, that people can suck especially the ones who follow that horrible book. I'm not harping on you in particular and I wish you well. I'd rather that you cherry pick the bible to only take the good parts out and dismiss the evil stuff, but not all people do that. Far too many people, (myself included once upon a time) use this book as an excuse to behave badly, for example the priests who took many of the African slaves into the country to enslave them here in America. The bible endorses slavery, teaches "otherism" and separates families. You have no idea of the damage done by this fictional book to the world. Clueless. You just make excuses for the atrocities.
The most important question( a corollary of the question ‘Does God exist?’) is Leibnitz question: ‘Why is there Something rather than Nothing?’= why is there anything at all, at all?
@@jimmunro2136 -it's just you chosing to reject God of your own free will, so who could prove you wrong? If i could ever prove the existence of God you wouldn't have free will would you?
@@jimmunro2136 - Good on ya, sit tight and hang on to your evidence, as i do mine. your/my 'evidence' is worth zilch on your/my death bed. that's where all will be revealed one way or the other. That's free will. i chose to use my free will to serve Him who shed His blood to forgive my sin, and on that i rest my case.
Logic dictates there is “Unlimited & Infinity” Or “l & 0”?!” God is the “Undebatable” or “Truth”?! “You enter This Earthly Space or Wholly Place as “l & 0”?! And You leave this Wholly Place as “l & 0” ?! That is Undebatable ?! God works “TRUTH”?! And is “Unlimited & Infinity” ........... You enter and leave unperturbed as “l & O”?!
Aquinas's answer is utterly _ludicrous_ because his five ways all fail miserably.... 1. The unmoved mover is a Special Pleading fallacy since it breaks the very rule it states must be taken seriously. 2. The argument from efficient cause is yet more Special Pleading because if the universe must need a cause then why doesn't God & if God doesn't need a cause then why must the universe? You can't have it _both_ ways! 3. The argument for a necessary being is perhaps the most ludicrous argument of all because it's a baseless assertion just like asserting that something called a _Realicorn_ must exist because it's the same as a unicorn but real by _definition._ Any fool can claim something is real _by definition_ can't they? 4. The argument from goodness also fails because just because we can judge something as good doesn't necessitate the existence of something as _ultimately_ good any more than we can tell that something smells doesn't mean there has to be something that's ultimately _smelly_ does it? 5. The argument from design was once the most respectable argument before Darwin proved that Natural Selection is clearly not a process any intelligent designer would employ because so much in life formed in completely illogical ways like our backward facing retinas causing unnecessary blind spots the size of six full moons - a 'design fault' abcent from invertebrate creatures like the squid & octopus - of did God think invertebrates deserved better eyes than _humans_ did?! L.O.L!
All of the five ways are variations or refinements of one argument: ex nihil, nihil fit. That argument still stands. The rest of your refutations are straw men, deliberately miscasting the meat of the argument in such a way as to make them easy for you to knock down.
@@ellistomago3369 *All of the five ways are variations or refinements of one argument: ex nihil, nihil fit.* Well you can _claim_ that they fit but it doesn't come as any surprise that you can't explain _how_ they fit. *That argument still stands.* But on what grounds? *The rest of your refutations are straw men, deliberately miscasting the meat of the argument in such a way as to make them easy for you to knock down.* Then why can't you explain in what _way_ they're misrepresentations if it's true that they really _are_ straw man arguments what exactly _is_ the "meat" of your argument which I've ignored if what you've said isn't merely an unsupportable _claim?_ Can you say or do you expect me to take your claim on faith when anything at all can be taken on faith?
@@ellistomago3369 *All of the five ways are variations or refinements of one argument: ex nihil, nihil fit.* How exactly? Can't you say? *That argument still stands.* Well you can _say_ it stands but it hasn't escaped my notice that you can't explain _why,_ which comes as no surprise. *The rest of your refutations are straw men, deliberately miscasting the meat of the argument in such a way as to make them easy for you to knock down.* If that were true how come you can't explain _why_ they're straw man arguments or do you expect your unsupported claim to be taken on faith? What _can't_ be taken on faith? *Nothing!*
@@paulbrocklehurst2346 The only way something emerges from nothing is if you presuppose the possibility given the laws of nature, which means you believe the laws of nature are eternal and self-existing, hence, not nothing.
@@ellistomago3369 *The only way something emerges from nothing is if you presuppose the possibility given the laws of nature, which means you believe the laws of nature are eternal and self-existing, hence, not nothing.* But there's no such _thing_ as _nothing_ otherwise it would actually be _something_ instead. That would mean there's no _emergence_ happening as there's nowhere from which those laws would need to come from. If you think they must come from somewhere then why doesn't a god need to come from somewhere too & if a god doesn't need to come from somewhere then why must laws need to? You can't have it _both_ ways!
These arguments have numerous flaws. First, the narrator's last sentence was "There He must exist". (obviously not true since God is a woman). But basically, Aquinas still lived in an era when the ideas of Aristotle had a major influence on Christianity,. The arguments of Aguinas tend to (from his pov) to support the "God" (The One, the Good) of Aristotle, and this Substance/Entity (The Unmoved Mover), is far from having the properties of the Judao-Christian Creator God. So for those trying to gain support for the Christian "Trinity", the arguments of Aquinas are useless.
God is not a woman. God is the Divine Person. Where do you get that information from? Also, although I am not a follower of Aquinas, I submit that he was a great medieval theologian and philosopher. His arguments for the Trinity are hardly useless.
Aquinas starts with the unfounded assertion that a "god" gave us the ability to understand things. First mistake. An unmoved mover is like saying an "undone doer" or an "unreal realization", a walking talking contradiction in terms or a "timeless spaceless" being. The infinite regress argument then comes into play when you have to ask who started the god, or what moved the god or what created the god. The argument where fried chicken is god, is ridiculous. Assume nothing. Verify everything, including your god.
Interesting what you say but of course the old question where did God come from means you and I simply don't understand eternity. Apparently energy which we csn harness is not something we understand and it is eternal. Well how can something be eternal, We all perceive an idea of God, we try and quantify God in almost human form. Supposing God is simply an eternal conscious energy entity? Again, I can't comprehend anything without time so there is no way I can understand eternity. Did energy have a beginning? Well science says thar energy cant be created nor destroyed and science sees energy and mass as interchangeable. I do like what you say as we all have different views and feel the older I get the less I know.
To many people this makes sense, like me included. Thank you for bringing Aquinas' thoughts accessible this simple way!
Although I do have to wonder if our ability for "rational" thought is less valuable than we tend to think. I say this because typically if you really listen to people, their arguments don't arrive from an actually place of reason, rather they come from a feeling or intuition, and the rational mind tries to explain that in anyway possible. So both the arguments for or against the existence of God have already been made up, and now it is only the rational mind trying to convince you further. I argue that the feeling comes always first, before the rational thought. Maybe it is related to this old metaphor on the rider and the elephant. Rider being the rational conscious and the elephant the irrational unconscious.
What ever it may be, I choose to believe in God and in the goodness of Jesus, because it makes life more valuable and precious.
Just don't blindly take the advice of Jesus. He said to sell all of your stuff, including your computer, by the way, and give the money to the poor and then follow him and not worry about tomorrow, because the birds don't worry. Be careful in all things. If you truly read the bible and see all of the horrible stories, it doesn't mean that it's true, or good for that matter.
@@blackswan8653 I wrote I choose faith, in both God and Jesus. I don't think I wrote I believe blindly to anything.
I read the bible often, and the chapter you mention, you have to understand he said that to this young man who inherited a lot of wealth and was uncertain of himself. This suggestion to this young man was directed to him. Not as a general advice, and the young man did not even follow this advice and walked away worried.
The bible is a collection of deep meaningful teachings about the realities and possibilities of experience. A book is powerful, and needs knowledge and thought.
@@pekka1900 I made up excuses like that when I was a believer as well. It's really not a good book. It's a book written from the perspective of people who lived during the times they were written. If you take off your god goggles, you may see that. I threw you a soft ball with that example in the bible. Read Luke 19 -27 and tell me the moral of that story. Have a good day.
@@blackswan8653 I'm sorry you had bad experience, because of the bible. I hope you can remember that it's the people acting that is important, not the book, if people use the bible or any book for that matter to cause harm or misguide people, the problem is the people doing these things, not the source. I did read the chapter on luke 19:1-27. I'm going to think on that part, but I'm also going to consider it as a part of an over arching message, not as an independent short bad sounding story.
But briefly, I think the message in that story was that sometimes when you think you are doing good is not the right thing, and if you are given you should give it forward, and the evil magistrate is a representation of the consequences of your actions, and you don't always know what the consequences are before hand. I don't think the moral there is that people in power can do what they want and the weak just suffer.
People can interpret the stories as they want and this is where the patience and good will in humanity comes in.
I wish you a good day too!
@@pekka1900 Maybe you didn't get the gist of the story. That evil magistrate was Jesus. Plus, you assume too much. I never had a bad experience because of the bible. You are correct, that people can suck especially the ones who follow that horrible book. I'm not harping on you in particular and I wish you well. I'd rather that you cherry pick the bible to only take the good parts out and dismiss the evil stuff, but not all people do that. Far too many people, (myself included once upon a time) use this book as an excuse to behave badly, for example the priests who took many of the African slaves into the country to enslave them here in America. The bible endorses slavery, teaches "otherism" and separates families. You have no idea of the damage done by this fictional book to the world. Clueless. You just make excuses for the atrocities.
Strange there’s only 21 comments( plus mine) to the most important question ‘Does God Exist?’. Very few interested. God Help Us😂
'most important to whom '? 🧐
the question may be important but perhaps some think the answer provided by this guy is trivial
The most important question( a corollary of the question ‘Does God exist?’) is Leibnitz question: ‘Why is there Something rather than Nothing?’= why is there anything at all, at all?
Is it just me? Aquinas seems to be drawing a very long bow to assume god.
it's just you
@@chhmar99utube No, I think my instinct is spot on. Neither he nor anyone else has proven the existence of a god.
@@jimmunro2136 -it's just you chosing to reject God of your own free will, so who could prove you wrong? If i could ever prove the existence of God you wouldn't have free will would you?
@@chhmar99utube No, it's just me choosing to follow the evidence.
@@jimmunro2136 - Good on ya, sit tight and hang on to your evidence, as i do mine. your/my 'evidence' is worth zilch on your/my death bed. that's where all will be revealed one way or the other. That's free will. i chose to use my free will to serve Him who shed His blood to forgive my sin, and on that i rest my case.
It's is a real debating question
I would prefer Paul the Apostle's answer to this question as seen in romans chapter 1.
the barren speculations of a medieval scholastic are pointless
Logic dictates there is “Unlimited & Infinity” Or “l & 0”?!” God is the “Undebatable” or “Truth”?! “You enter This Earthly Space or Wholly Place as “l & 0”?! And You leave this Wholly Place as “l & 0” ?! That is Undebatable ?! God works “TRUTH”?! And is “Unlimited & Infinity” ........... You enter and leave unperturbed as “l & O”?!
The unanswerable ?
Aquinas should have retorted . Well lets ask him?
He keeps saying something out there, why not in here ? 🤔
Who start z starter will be perhups z final qusetion ?!
Why who and no what? And what caused the first cause?
That's the reason from necessity; something must necessarily exist whereas all other things that exist depends on prior cause
@@SuperTonydd But how do you know that "something must necessarily exist?"
@@ronniecortex4936because you exist!!
@@yourstrulychaos947 Apples have a taste therefor water must have a taste. _wait a second_
That's by definition is the uncaused cause.
Aquinas's answer is utterly _ludicrous_ because his five ways all fail miserably....
1. The unmoved mover is a Special Pleading fallacy since it breaks the very rule it states must be taken seriously.
2. The argument from efficient cause is yet more Special Pleading because if the universe must need a cause then why doesn't God & if God doesn't need a cause then why must the universe? You can't have it _both_ ways!
3. The argument for a necessary being is perhaps the most ludicrous argument of all because it's a baseless assertion just like asserting that something called a _Realicorn_ must exist because it's the same as a unicorn but real by _definition._ Any fool can claim something is real _by definition_ can't they?
4. The argument from goodness also fails because just because we can judge something as good doesn't necessitate the existence of something as _ultimately_ good any more than we can tell that something smells doesn't mean there has to be something that's ultimately _smelly_ does it?
5. The argument from design was once the most respectable argument before Darwin proved that Natural Selection is clearly not a process any intelligent designer would employ because so much in life formed in completely illogical ways like our backward facing retinas causing unnecessary blind spots the size of six full moons - a 'design fault' abcent from invertebrate creatures like the squid & octopus - of did God think invertebrates deserved better eyes than _humans_ did?! L.O.L!
All of the five ways are variations or refinements of one argument: ex nihil, nihil fit. That argument still stands. The rest of your refutations are straw men, deliberately miscasting the meat of the argument in such a way as to make them easy for you to knock down.
@@ellistomago3369 *All of the five ways are variations or refinements of one argument: ex nihil, nihil fit.*
Well you can _claim_ that they fit but it doesn't come as any surprise that you can't explain _how_ they fit.
*That argument still stands.*
But on what grounds?
*The rest of your refutations are straw men, deliberately miscasting the meat of the argument in such a way as to make them easy for you to knock down.*
Then why can't you explain in what _way_ they're misrepresentations if it's true that they really _are_ straw man arguments what exactly _is_ the "meat" of your argument which I've ignored if what you've said isn't merely an unsupportable _claim?_ Can you say or do you expect me to take your claim on faith when anything at all can be taken on faith?
@@ellistomago3369 *All of the five ways are variations or refinements of one argument: ex nihil, nihil fit.*
How exactly? Can't you say?
*That argument still stands.*
Well you can _say_ it stands but it hasn't escaped my notice that you can't explain _why,_ which comes as no surprise.
*The rest of your refutations are straw men, deliberately miscasting the meat of the argument in such a way as to make them easy for you to knock down.*
If that were true how come you can't explain _why_ they're straw man arguments or do you expect your unsupported claim to be taken on faith? What _can't_ be taken on faith? *Nothing!*
@@paulbrocklehurst2346 The only way something emerges from nothing is if you presuppose the possibility given the laws of nature, which means you believe the laws of nature are eternal and self-existing, hence, not nothing.
@@ellistomago3369 *The only way something emerges from nothing is if you presuppose the possibility given the laws of nature, which means you believe the laws of nature are eternal and self-existing, hence, not nothing.*
But there's no such _thing_ as _nothing_ otherwise it would actually be _something_ instead. That would mean there's no _emergence_ happening as there's nowhere from which those laws would need to come from. If you think they must come from somewhere then why doesn't a god need to come from somewhere too & if a god doesn't need to come from somewhere then why must laws need to? You can't have it _both_ ways!
These arguments have numerous flaws. First, the narrator's last sentence was "There He must exist". (obviously not true since God is a woman). But basically, Aquinas still lived in an era when the ideas of Aristotle had a major influence on Christianity,. The arguments of Aguinas tend to (from his pov) to support the "God" (The One, the Good) of Aristotle, and this Substance/Entity (The Unmoved Mover), is far from having the properties of the Judao-Christian Creator God. So for those trying to gain support for the Christian "Trinity", the arguments of Aquinas are useless.
God is not a woman. God is the Divine Person. Where do you get that information from? Also, although I am not a follower of Aquinas, I submit that he was a great medieval theologian and philosopher. His arguments for the Trinity are hardly useless.
Aquinas starts with the unfounded assertion that a "god" gave us the ability to understand things. First mistake. An unmoved mover is like saying an "undone doer" or an "unreal realization", a walking talking contradiction in terms or a "timeless spaceless" being. The infinite regress argument then comes into play when you have to ask who started the god, or what moved the god or what created the god. The argument where fried chicken is god, is ridiculous. Assume nothing. Verify everything, including your god.
Interesting what you say but of course the old question where did God come from means you and I simply don't understand eternity.
Apparently energy which we csn harness is not something we understand and it is eternal.
Well how can something be eternal,
We all perceive an idea of God, we try and quantify God in almost human form.
Supposing God is simply an eternal conscious energy entity?
Again, I can't comprehend anything without time so there is no way I can understand eternity.
Did energy have a beginning? Well science says thar energy cant be created nor destroyed and science sees energy and mass as interchangeable.
I do like what you say as we all have different views and feel the older I get the less I know.
Argument from motion he clearly didn't understand relativity 😂
Even motion needs the First cause.
@muneebkhan7465 1st cause needs 1st cause
@mwizachavura8399 Not at all. It's like egg came first or hen came first. But something was first
This was a waist of time, and this doesn’t answer any thing