The basic fallacy is in using simplistic word play to try to prove the existence of some preconceived idea of a god based on primitive, incomplete observations, rather than looking at the facts as we know them today and describe by inference what led to them, which coincidentally is what scientists are trying to do.
All due respect to Prof. Baggini, this presentation is embarrassing. Any serious study of arguments for theism must engage with premodern epistemological and metaphysical frameworks; addressing them in the anachronistic manner he does so here only mutilates the reasoning to the point that no serious judgment can be made on them (positive or negative). Hume was a clever chap, but he was not a serious student of ancient or medieval thought, and to flippantly dismiss these arguments on his authority itself resembles a kind of fideism that any critical mind ought to reject.
3:00 Wow, I didn't expect this to be this bad. To put it simply, he has presented a complete strawman of "the Cosmological argument". As was said in the video, there are many different versions of the argument, but no version has the premise "Everything must have a cause". You will not find that premise in any of the Cosmological Arguments put forward by theistic philosophers, including Aristotle, Al-ghazali, Aquinas, Scotus, Leibniz, Clarke, Taylor, Swinburne, Craig, Pruss, Feser, Rasmussen, etc.
@jimmylad11show Aquinas's argument is that everything that is reduced from potency to act (which is what he means by "movement") is actualized by something already actual. There cannot be an infinite regress of actualizers, because that would be an essentially ordered series as opposed to a hierarchically ordered series. Think of the difference between books stacked one on top of another vs dominoes falling one by one. In the second series there doesn't necessarily need to be a first cause (Aquinas argues). But in the first case, when every subsequent member in a series is being actualized by a previous member, there needs to be a terminal point, or else the books wouldn't be able to be stacked at all. Similarly, there has to be an end to the chain of actualizers. And this final actualizer must be purely actual, with no potentiality. The implications of having a purely actual actualizer are discussed at length by Aquinas and subsequent defenders of the first way. That is the basic outline of Aquinas's first way. There are plenty of criticisms of it, and plenty more to be said. But, as I hope is very clear, nowhere in the argument does Aquinas say "everything has a cause". Instead his premis is closer to "anything that goes from potential to actual has to be actualized". The same is true pretty much every version of the Cosmological argument defended by philosophers: non of them say "everything must have a cause". Thank you for the question and letting me clarify my point.
@@aaronmueller5802 “There cannot be an infinite regress of actualizers, because that would be an essentially ordered series as opposed to a hierarchically ordered series. Think of the difference between books stacked one on top of another vs dominoes falling one by one. In the second series there doesn't necessarily need to be a first cause” I don’t understand your analogy wouldn’t there need to be someone to start the domino chain? So it’s not so much a sequence but rather a grounding of being itself like you say the books so it’s not like it’s going somewhere perse in a direction but is playing on this idea of sustaining. Let me know if I’ve got this wrong. Futhermore when you say “this final actualizer must be purely actual, with no potentiality” Does this mean that God can’t have unactualised potentialities? Doesn’t this limit God? It makes it seems he couldn’t help but make the world he didn’t have a choice but to actualise a potentiality yet we know creation is from love not necessity
@@aaronmueller5802 also I’m not sure you’re right because my text book philosophy course explicitly states the second argument is a first cause “The second way: atemporal causation The argument from atemporal causation is similar. Aquinas identifies a series of causes and effects in the universe and observes that nothing could cause itself as this would mean it would have had to exist before it existed and this would be logically impossible. Again, Aquinas rejects an infinite regress of causes and argues that there must have been a first cause which started the chain of causes and this first cause is God. Written logically the second way is: P1 Every event has a cause. P2 Nothing can be the cause of itself. P3 If we imagine that this order of causes goes back infinitely then there would be no first cause. P4 (reductio ad absurdum) If this were true then there would be no causes at all, but this is false. C Therefore, there must be a first cause and this is what we call God.”
@jimmylad11show Sorry, I should have been more clear. The difference between the books and the fominos is that the Dominos act in a sequence. After the first Domino knocks down the second, it's done. By the time the chain of dominos gets to the tenth domino, the first domino is of no importance. It could still be there or it could be destroyed. Either the example of the books, the tenth book on top is currently being actualized (sustained in it's position) by all 9 books below it. The domino example is an example of an accidentally ordered series. The book example is of an essentially ordered series. Aquinas's argument is that an essentially ordered series cannot be infinite. He does think an accidentally ordered series can potentially be infinite. I disagree with him there, but I'm just trying to give you Aquinas's view. As to your question about how God could do things if he has no potential to actualize, it is a very good question that Thomistic philosophers have had to answer. I will admit that I'm not knowledgeable to give a clear answer, but I would reccomended you check out Brian Davies An Introduction to the Philosophy of religion, or Ed Feser's book Five Proffs for the Existence of God, especially chapter 6.
The basic fallacy is in using simplistic word play to try to prove the existence of some preconceived idea of a god based on primitive, incomplete observations, rather than looking at the facts as we know them today and describe by inference what led to them, which coincidentally is what scientists are trying to do.
Don't accuse people of "simplistic word play" when you can't even use the word "fallacy" correctly
@@aaronmueller5802 No, call it an informal fallacy if you like, but using word play which doesn't hold up to scrutiny is a fallacy.
@@andrewguthrie2 So do you mean something like an equivocation fallacy?
more important, what us ULTIMATE BS, especially in a capitalistic system
I am very surprised at a modern philosophical thinking to accept the cosmological non-event of infinite regress😳
All due respect to Prof. Baggini, this presentation is embarrassing. Any serious study of arguments for theism must engage with premodern epistemological and metaphysical frameworks; addressing them in the anachronistic manner he does so here only mutilates the reasoning to the point that no serious judgment can be made on them (positive or negative). Hume was a clever chap, but he was not a serious student of ancient or medieval thought, and to flippantly dismiss these arguments on his authority itself resembles a kind of fideism that any critical mind ought to reject.
You are wrong at every level.
@@classicsciencefictionhorro1665 how is he wrong? I’m curious why you say that?
No
more important, what us ULTIMATE BS, especially in a capitalistic system
3:00 Wow, I didn't expect this to be this bad.
To put it simply, he has presented a complete strawman of "the Cosmological argument". As was said in the video, there are many different versions of the argument, but no version has the premise "Everything must have a cause". You will not find that premise in any of the Cosmological Arguments put forward by theistic philosophers, including Aristotle, Al-ghazali, Aquinas, Scotus, Leibniz, Clarke, Taylor, Swinburne, Craig, Pruss, Feser, Rasmussen, etc.
What do they say then? I thought that was the whole point of Aquina’s first way from motion that there must be a first cause to initiate a movement
@jimmylad11show
Aquinas's argument is that everything that is reduced from potency to act (which is what he means by "movement") is actualized by something already actual. There cannot be an infinite regress of actualizers, because that would be an essentially ordered series as opposed to a hierarchically ordered series. Think of the difference between books stacked one on top of another vs dominoes falling one by one. In the second series there doesn't necessarily need to be a first cause (Aquinas argues). But in the first case, when every subsequent member in a series is being actualized by a previous member, there needs to be a terminal point, or else the books wouldn't be able to be stacked at all. Similarly, there has to be an end to the chain of actualizers. And this final actualizer must be purely actual, with no potentiality. The implications of having a purely actual actualizer are discussed at length by Aquinas and subsequent defenders of the first way.
That is the basic outline of Aquinas's first way. There are plenty of criticisms of it, and plenty more to be said. But, as I hope is very clear, nowhere in the argument does Aquinas say "everything has a cause". Instead his premis is closer to "anything that goes from potential to actual has to be actualized".
The same is true pretty much every version of the Cosmological argument defended by philosophers: non of them say "everything must have a cause".
Thank you for the question and letting me clarify my point.
@@aaronmueller5802 “There cannot be an infinite regress of actualizers, because that would be an essentially ordered series as opposed to a hierarchically ordered series.
Think of the difference between books stacked one on top of another vs dominoes falling one by one. In the second series there doesn't necessarily need to be a first cause”
I don’t understand your analogy wouldn’t there need to be someone to start the domino chain?
So it’s not so much a sequence but rather a grounding of being itself like you say the books so it’s not like it’s going somewhere perse in a direction but is playing on this idea of sustaining. Let me know if I’ve got this wrong.
Futhermore when you say
“this final actualizer must be purely actual, with no potentiality”
Does this mean that God can’t have unactualised potentialities? Doesn’t this limit God? It makes it seems he couldn’t help but make the world he didn’t have a choice but to actualise a potentiality yet we know creation is from love not necessity
@@aaronmueller5802 also I’m not sure you’re right because my text book philosophy course explicitly states the second argument is a first cause
“The second way: atemporal causation
The argument from atemporal causation is similar. Aquinas identifies a series of causes and effects in the universe and observes that nothing could cause itself as this would mean it would have had to exist before it existed and this would be logically impossible. Again, Aquinas rejects an infinite regress of causes and argues that there must have been a first cause which started the chain of causes and this first cause is God.
Written logically the second way is:
P1 Every event has a cause.
P2 Nothing can be the cause of itself.
P3 If we imagine that this order of causes goes back infinitely then there would be no first cause.
P4 (reductio ad absurdum) If this were true then there would be no causes at all, but this is false.
C Therefore, there must be a first cause and this is what we call God.”
@jimmylad11show Sorry, I should have been more clear. The difference between the books and the fominos is that the Dominos act in a sequence. After the first Domino knocks down the second, it's done. By the time the chain of dominos gets to the tenth domino, the first domino is of no importance. It could still be there or it could be destroyed. Either the example of the books, the tenth book on top is currently being actualized (sustained in it's position) by all 9 books below it. The domino example is an example of an accidentally ordered series. The book example is of an essentially ordered series. Aquinas's argument is that an essentially ordered series cannot be infinite. He does think an accidentally ordered series can potentially be infinite. I disagree with him there, but I'm just trying to give you Aquinas's view.
As to your question about how God could do things if he has no potential to actualize, it is a very good question that Thomistic philosophers have had to answer. I will admit that I'm not knowledgeable to give a clear answer, but I would reccomended you check out Brian Davies An Introduction to the Philosophy of religion, or Ed Feser's book Five Proffs for the Existence of God, especially chapter 6.
more important, what us ULTIMATE BS, especially in a capitalistic system