Pints With Aquinas - 07: Who created God?

Episode Date: May 10, 2016

First, whatever a thing has besides its essence must be caused either by the constituent principles of that essence (like a property that necessarily accompanies the species--as the faculty of laughing is proper to a man--and is caused by the constituent principles of the species), or by some exterior agent--as heat is caused in water by fire. Therefore, if the existence of a thing differs from its essence, this existence must be caused either by some exterior agent or by its essential principles. Now it is impossible for a thing's existence to be caused by its essential constituent principles, for nothing can be the sufficient cause of its own existence, if its existence is caused. Therefore that thing, whose existence differs from its essence, must have its existence caused by another. But this cannot be true of God; because we call God the first efficient cause. Therefore it is impossible that in God His existence should differ from His essence. Secondly, existence is that which makes every form or nature actual; for goodness and humanity are spoken of as actual, only because they are spoken of as existing. Therefore existence must be compared to essence, if the latter is a distinct reality, as actuality to potentiality. Therefore, since in God there is no potentiality, as shown above (Article 1), it follows that in Him essence does not differ from existence. Therefore His essence is His existence. Thirdly, because, just as that which has fire, but is not itself fire, is on fire by participation; so that which has existence but is not existence, is a being by participation. But God is His own essence, as shown above (Article 3) if, therefore, He is not His own existence He will be not essential, but participated being. He will not therefore be the first being--which is absurd. Therefore God is His own existence, and not merely His own essence.   ST. 1. Q3. A4. SPONSORS EL Investments: https://www.elinvestments.net/pints Exodus 90: https://exodus90.com/mattfradd/  Hallow: http://hallow.app/mattfradd  STRIVE: https://www.strive21.com/  GIVING Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/mattfradd This show (and all the plans we have in store) wouldn't be possible without you. I can't thank those of you who support me enough. Seriously! Thanks for essentially being a co-producer coproducer of the show. LINKS Website: https://pintswithaquinas.com/ Merch: https://teespring.com/stores/matt-fradd FREE 21 Day Detox From Porn Course: https://www.strive21.com/ SOCIAL Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/mattfradd Twitter: https://twitter.com/mattfradd Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/mattfradd MY BOOKS  Does God Exist: https://www.amazon.com/Does-God-Exist-Socratic-Dialogue-ebook/dp/B081ZGYJW3/ref=sr_1_9?dchild=1&keywords=fradd&qid=1586377974&sr=8-9 Marian Consecration With Aquinas: https://www.amazon.com/Marian-Consecration-Aquinas-Growing-Closer-ebook/dp/B083XRQMTF/ref=sr_1_4?dchild=1&keywords=fradd&qid=1586379026&sr=8-4 The Porn Myth: https://www.ignatius.com/The-Porn-Myth-P1985.aspx CONTACT Book me to speak: https://www.mattfradd.com/speakerrequestform

Welcome to Pints with Aquinas, Episode 7. I'm Matt Fradd. If you could sit down with St. Thomas Aquinas over a pint of beer and ask him any one question, what would it be? In today's episode, we'll ask St. Thomas the question, If everything needs a creator, who created God. Welcome back to Pints with Aquinas. This is the show where you and I pull up a barstool next to the angelic doctor and discuss theology and philosophy. Before we get into today's topic, our sponsor for today's show is Holy Apostles College and Seminary, which is a fantastic little Catholic college in Cromwell, Connecticut. They offer undergraduate, graduate, and seminary degrees in history, English, philosophy, theology, and pastoral studies. You can do it on campus,

or you can do it 100% online at this school, Holy Apostles College and Seminary, which is 100% faithful to the magisterium of the Catholic Church. So if you're not familiar with Holy Apostles College and Seminary, look them up because not only is it a fantastic college, their prices are also fantastic. Well, today we're going to be asking that school boy's retort, if everything needs to be created, who created God? You ever thought that? It's a good question. It's not a good question when we ask it of God, but it's an understandable question since everything that we encounter has an explanation outside of itself. And so when somebody says, well, God did it,

it's reasonable, if you don't understand what we mean by God, to ask the question, well, who created God? But once you understand what is meant by God, it becomes very apparent very quickly that it's a nonsensical question. So, in today's podcast, what we're going to be doing is reading from St. Thomas Aquinas on the simplicity of God. We're going to be talking about how God's essence is existence. We'll be talking about that a little. And then I would like to springboard from that to one of my favorite arguments for the existence of God, which is the argument from contingency. So, who created God? I remember when I was about 12 or 13, I asked that question and thought it was a rather brilliant one. I hadn't studied philosophy at that point, but when I did,

I realized that the question wasn't good. Why is that? Well, simply this. What do we mean by God? Well, God is a necessary being whose non-existence is impossible. A metaphysically necessary being whose non-existence is impossible. whose essence is to exist. We'll get into that in a moment. But you can see that already, once you understand the concept God, you see the question doesn't work because you're essentially asking, okay, if everything needs to be created, who created the uncreated creator? Nobody. That's the point. It's the point. He is the explanation outside of which there is no other. You know, it would be like asking me, Matt, you say your brother's a bachelor, yes? And I'd say, yes, that's right. My brother, Tom, he's a bachelor. And you then say to me, okay, if he's a bachelor, what's his wife's name? You'd want to ask, you know, English is your first language, isn't it? Bachelor just means unmarried, and God means this sort of, as I say, a metaphysically

necessary being whose non-existence is impossible. Okay, let's talk a little bit about God's essence being existence and what on earth that means. This comes from the first part of the Summa Theologica, question three, article four, and it has to do with the simplicity of God. Here's what he writes. If the existence of a thing differs from its essence, the existence must be caused either by some exterior agent or by its own essential principles. Now, here's what I'd like to do, if you don't mind. I need to stop almost at every sentence and explain what's going on for fear that maybe, as I read this, it comes at you too quickly and we don't comprehend it.

So, let's say that again. If the existence of a thing differs from its essence, this existence must be caused either by some exterior agent or by its own essential principles. What does that mean? Okay. Well, first of all, what do we mean by existence and essence? Well, the essence of a thing has to do with its whatness, or as we say in Latin, its quiddity. Existence has to do not with its what-ness, but its that-ness, its weather-ness. What do I mean? Well, some things have essences but not existence, such as unicorns.

So an essence has to do with what a thing is. We know what a unicorn is, by and large, but it doesn't exist. So it has essence, but not existence. Some other things, like dogs, dogs have both. They have essences, dogness, right? That's the essence of a dog, I suppose. And they have existence. Now, some things have neither, such as married bachelors or square circles.

These have neither essence, because they're self-contradictory and they don't have existence because they're self-contradictory. So, very simply, the essence refers to what a thing is and existence refers to that a thing is or whether a thing is. So, Thomas is saying if the existence of a thing, right, it's thatness, differs from its essence, its whatness, this existence must be caused either by some exterior agent. So, if you think of my son, okay, the exterior agent that caused my son was my wife and I, okay? Thomas goes on, or by its own essential principles. So my son laughs. Yeah. That laugh that he does is caused by his own essential principles. So that's what Thomas

means up to this point. Okay. Let's continue. Now it is impossible for a thing's existence to be caused by its own essential constituent principles. For nothing can be the sufficient cause of its own existence if its existence is caused. So essentially, if a thing were to be the explanation for its existence, it would have to exist prior to its existence. And that's stupid. That's absurd. You cannot exist in order to bring about your own existence because you would have existed before you did that. That's pretty straightforward, even though it's couched in metaphysical fancy language. Let's continue. Therefore, that thing whose existence differs from essence, must have its existence caused by another. So that's true of you and me.

Our existence and our essence are what make us up as a being, but you notice that we don't have to exist. There was a time we didn't, for example. But as he says, therefore the thing whose existence differs from its essence must have its existence caused by another. So since our existence and essence differ, it must be caused by another. Okay, makes sense. But this cannot be true of God because we call God the first efficient cause.

Therefore, it is impossible that in God, his existence should differ from his essence. So you see what St. Thomas is saying here. He's saying God's essence is existence. His whatness is that he is. His essence is existence. So God does not receive any being, any perfection, any essence, or any existence from any other being, any creature. So, there's two types of things. There are things that exist because they were caused by another, and then there could be things that exist by a necessity

of their own nature. Now, let's just pause here for a moment and explain that. Because according to the law of the excluded middle, which is a fundamental law of logic, it simply says this. When you make an assertion, it's either true or it's not true. There's no in-between. So, if I say Paris is the capital of Australia, that's either true or it is not true. There's no in-between. There's no third option. And it just so happens that it's not true. Canberra, it happens to be the capital of Australia. So, when I say this, either a thing is caused by something outside itself, or it's caused by itself, or by the necessity of its own nature, that's what I mean. Do you see that those are the only two options? Because in regard to any being, all you have is that being and something

other than that being. Therefore, the only things that can bring about that being, as it were, or explain, we should say, not bring about, because again, that sounds like the contradiction we mentioned a moment ago, where a thing has to exist in order to bring itself into existence. But the only things that can explain anything, any being, is it can be explained by something outside of itself, or it can be explained by itself, by the necessity of its own nature. And here is where we begin to touch upon the contingency argument for the existence of God. I'm not sure if you're familiar with it, but essentially, if you could lay it out in an argument, it would go like this, okay? Premise one, whatever exists that does not have to exist requires an explanation for its existence.

Number two, the physical universe doesn't have to exist. Number three, therefore the universe requires an explanation in something that must exist. Four, God is the only being that must exist. Five, therefore God is the explanation for the existence of the universe. Therefore, God is the explanation for the existence of the universe. So that's the bare bones of the argument. Let's look into each premise. So this first premise, whatever exists that doesn't have to exist requires an explanation for its existence. This reflects the human perception that there are reasons for the existence of things we see around us. I mean, when you think about it, this is actually what drives science,

yeah, as well as every other branch of study. It's the great question, why? This question applies to anything that doesn't have to exist or that could be different from what it is, okay? And again, when I say things that don't have to exist or things that could be different than what they are, I'm referring to contingent beings. Remember a moment ago, I talked about a thing can either be explained outside itself or by itself. That's another way of saying a thing can either be contingent or necessary. So, if something doesn't have to exist or if something could be different to what it is, then it is a contingent being. For example, when astronomers discovered red-colored stars, they tried to explain their existence.

Now, to say that there isn't an explanation, I don't mean that we don't know the explanation, but to say that there actually isn't one. Imagine that. No, no, no, there's no explanation. That strikes at the foundation of rational thought. It's to reject the whole premise that underlies the quest for knowledge. The first premise of our argument, I think, therefore, seems pretty secure. So does the second premise, which you'll remember is that the physical universe doesn't have to exist. If we look around us, physical universe,

we see that it's filled with all sorts of stuff. Stars, galaxies, people, cars, mountains, rocks, pacifiers, whatever, Beethoven. And we see that the things within it, within the universe, obey certain laws. And those physical laws have certain constants or unchanging values. So, for example, the constant C in when we say E equals mc squared refers to the speed of light, or 186,000 miles per second. This fact about light never changes, and so that's what we mean when we call it a constant. Now, there are other constants such as the gravitational constant. So gravity is, which when we say the gravitational constant, we're referring to the fact that gravity is so strong and not stronger or weaker. Now, we experience three dimensions of space and one dimension of time, not more or less. That's interesting. Why? Why is that the case?

Now, remember, we might say we don't know, but that's a very different thing to saying that we can't know. Now, at one time, it seems that the universe didn't contain stars and galaxies. So since that's the case, why do those objects exist now when they clearly don't have to? If they did have to, they would have always been, but they haven't always been, therefore there has to be a reason. Now, all of these matters are subject to scientific inquiry. And what they reveal is that the physical universe as a whole is contingent. So, again, what I mean is that the universe is one way, but it could be another, or it could simply not be at all. It therefore needs a reason for its own existence. It needs an explanation.

So very briefly, this is, I know we're delving into deep waters. Let's inquire a bit further, though, and ask about what could explain the way the physical universe is. So, whatever it is that can explain the universe, it must be greater than the physical universe. It must be something beyond space and time, beyond matter and energy. But with the power to create each of these and to establish the laws that they obey. It would be something that explains its own existence and could not fail to exist. Now, once again, that sounds a lot like God, what philosophers call a necessary being. God could not be different from what he is. God's essence is his existence. Again, God is necessary. Everything else is a contingent,

contingent might not have been, as Peter Kreeft, I've heard once put it. So, God could not be different from what he is, and that's essentially what the third premise states, right? Therefore, the universe requires an explanation for something that must exist. Therefore, okay, we can say this is something our intuition also tells us. There must be an ultimate explanation, one that doesn't depend on anything else, and that's one that explains everything else. There must be something fundamental, something that grounds all the contingent things we see around us, and thus there must be a necessary being. And by that, we mean God. Now, have we proven Christianity? No. Have we proven that God has revealed himself to humanity?

No. But I think the contingency argument is at least enough to refute atheism. Now, let's say a little bit about deductive arguments for a moment, okay? Because, first of all, what is a deductive argument? Well, without delving into it too deeply, when we talk about a deductive argument, we mean it differs from an inductive argument. So, we have deductive argumentation and inductive argumentation. Inductive argumentation begins from particular instances and draws a kind of universal conclusion. Okay, so your dad died, my grandma died, everyone that we have known who has gotten to a certain age eventually dies, therefore all men are mortal. That's an inductive argument. Induction is essentially the scientific method.

That's why scientific conclusions are always tentative. They can always change as more evidence comes in. Now, deduction is different. Deduction starts from at least one universal proposition, and it gets us a specific conclusion. So, for example, the classic one is, all men are mortal. Now, that's a universal premise there. We're making a claim about everything, right? All men are mortal. Premise two, Socrates is a man. Conclusion, therefore, Socrates is mortal. So, with induction, we have relative certainty, depending on how good the argument is and how much data we can bring into it. And with deduction, if the premises are true, we have absolute certainty whether you like it or not. Now, does that mean that we have to be 100% certain of every premise? No, it doesn't.

I just think that's unrealistic. But if the premises seem to us more plausibly true than their negation. Now, remember, we talked about the law of the excluded middle. So, when you make a statement such as whatever exists that does not have to exist requires an explanation for its existence, that's either true or it's not. If it seems more plausibly true, then you can go ahead and accept that. So I'd say as you look perhaps at these arguments for the existence of God, be they cosmological arguments, moral arguments, ontological arguments, whatever they are, if you just look at the premises and you might think to yourself, yeah, that premise seems more true than not. So I can go on to the next one, I can go on to the next one. And if the conclusion follows from the premises, that is to say, if it's a logically valid argument, then we've got good

reason to hold it, to think it's true. Now, you might look at the premises and say, no, I don't think we've got good reason to think that, and therefore the conclusion doesn't follow. So evangelical philosopher who has repopularized the Kalam cosmological argument is Dr. William Lane Craig. Many people are familiar with him online. And the way he states the Kalam cosmological argument is as follows. It's a syllogism. It has two premises and a conclusion. It's deductive. It says this. Premise one, everything that begins to exist has a cause for its existence. Premise two, the universe began to exist. Conclusion, therefore the universe has a cause for its existence. That's a logically airtight argument. So in those situations, we have to ask ourselves the question,

are the premises more likely to be true? Are they more plausibly true than not? Well, let me ask you. Premise one, the universe began to exist let me ask you. Premise one, the universe began to exist. Oh, sorry. Premise one, everything that begins to exist has a cause for its existence. That seems pretty obviously true. I mean, do we really want to say that things can pop into existence out of nothing? That's ridiculous. Do we want to say, as St. Thomas Aquinas said in what we read earlier, that things can cause themselves to exist? Well, if we say that, we've spoken nonsense because we've said this thing that existed then brought itself into existence. So I'd say, yeah, okay, it's true. Second premise, the universe began to exist. Now, I don't know if that's true. I mean,

I accept that it's true through revelation. Certainly, there's a lot of scientific evidence that people tell me about that leads me to think that we've got good justification by science to think that the universe began to exist about 13.7 billion years ago. I'm not sure if that's true. I don't know if we're, as they say, part of a multiverse. I don't know if more evidence will come to light that'll then begin to lean in the other direction and say maybe the universe is older or there was something prior to it? I don't know. I mean, I'm just Matt Fradd sitting in my chair in my office. What do I know? I, like you, am dependent upon experts in these fields to tell me what science is discovering. But it seems like it is true. Okay, so I'll go on that. Yeah, right. That's

more probably true than not. Conclusion. Therefore, something caused the universe. I like that. Okay. I can accept that. I don't know if that has to do with Christianity. At this point, I'd have to flesh out the argument, but I'm not sure if this thing is a mind, right? And not just a force. Of course, Craig has good arguments for thinking that it is a mind. But you see, we can accept these. And what we can do, and I think for most of us, we don't believe in God's existence because of cosmological arguments, because of moral arguments, because of ontological arguments. We accept God's existence because we just think that He exists. It's sort of like how we think the external world exists. Or the reason you're convinced, right? You're listening to me. You're convinced that Matt Fratt exists. Well, how do you know that? You're just

hearing me through your earphones. Maybe I don't exist. You might say, well, I've met you. Well, maybe I'm a sophisticated robot. How do you know I have an interior world? How do you know that I'm a person? It might just appear that way. Maybe we're in the matrix. But unless you're given good reasons to think that the matrix is true, then you're justified believing that Matt Fradd exists. I think so too with God's existence.

I think many of us just believe in God like that. That as we encounter the world, as we pray, as we ask these questions like, what's the explanation behind it all? We come to accept the existence of a being like God, or just God. So, I hope that's been somewhat of a help for you. As I say, I know we're delving into some deep philosophical territory, and I would encourage all of you to read the Summa Theologica, question three in the first part, article four. So, why don't I just do my best to sum up what I've been talking about in regards to essence and existence,

because if there's one thing I want you to take away from this podcast, it's that. Okay, so here we go. You listening? Wake up. Hello. Okay, good. Everything that exists has two principles that explain its being, essence and existence. So in all beings, except for God, these principles are both required in order for the actually existing individual thing to exist. Each is distinct from the other, yet this distinction is real, not merely a logical one. So remember what I said, essence has to do with whatness, what a thing is. Existence has to do with that a thing is. Now, God's essence is existence. He doesn't receive existence like you and me and this computer in front of me and this book in front of me. These all received existence. God doesn't receive existence. He is existence. So that's

enough for today. May God bless you. And please, I want to just do a big shout out to everyone who has rated Pints with Aquinas on iTunes. And I would ask if you haven't, would you consider doing that? Because it would really help more people see the show. Go to mattfradd.com to learn more about me.

See me on Twitter. Follow me on Twitter at Matt Fradd and tell other people about this podcast and let me know what you think about it. I hope that it's been a blessing to you. May God bless you, friends.