Pints With Aquinas - 19: Give me an argument for the existence of God?

Episode Date: August 9, 2016

The first and more manifest way is the argument from motion. It is certain, and evident to our senses, that in the world some things are in motion. Now whatever is in motion is put in motion by another, for nothing can be in motion except it is in potentiality to that towards which it is in motion; whereas a thing moves inasmuch as it is in act. For motion is nothing else than the reduction of something from potentiality to actuality. But nothing can be reduced from potentiality to actuality, except by something in a state of actuality. Thus that which is actually hot, as fire, makes wood, which is potentially hot, to be actually hot, and thereby moves and changes it. Now it is not possible that the same thing should be at once in actuality and potentiality in the same respect, but only in different respects. For what is actually hot cannot simultaneously be potentially hot; but it is simultaneously potentially cold. It is therefore impossible that in the same respect and in the same way a thing should be both mover and moved, i.e. that it should move itself. Therefore, whatever is in motion must be put in motion by another. If that by which it is put in motion be itself put in motion, then this also must needs be put in motion by another, and that by another again. But this cannot go on to infinity, because then there would be no first mover, and, consequently, no other mover; seeing that subsequent movers move only inasmuch as they are put in motion by the first mover; as the staff moves only because it is put in motion by the hand. Therefore it is necessary to arrive at a first mover, put in motion by no other; and this everyone understands to be God. ST 1. Q2. A3. --- 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 19. 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, can you give me an argument for the existence of God? Welcome 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. and philosophy. And in today's episode, we're going to be discussing one of the ways or proofs that Aquinas offers, one of the five proofs, for the existence of God. And this is his first one, the argument from motion. So here's what I've decided to do. I'll read Aquinas' argument, read Aquinas' argument, and then I'll expand upon it and explain it. And the way I've decided to do that is by having a little fun with it. Instead of me just sort of stopping at every sentence and then trying to explain bits and pieces, I thought what I'd do is perform a Socratic dialogue. Now, what's a Socratic dialogue? Well, if you've ever read the works

of Plato, who was the student of Socrates, whenever he wrote about Socrates, he did so in the form of a dialogue. And so you have Socrates saying something and then his interlocutor saying something. So it's a sort of conversational way of writing. And for those of you who might be interested, I'm currently writing a book, which will be a Socratic way on the five ways of St. Thomas Aquinas. I've written a little bit about it on mattfradd.com, but it'll be a lot more expanded in the book. But I thought I'd just take a little bit of what I've written from the book, and I've still got a lot to work on for the book, so I'm sure the book will be much different, and share that with you. So what do you think about that? That's crazy, right? What am I doing? I'm performing a Socratic dialogue. And so in order to do that, I've got to come up with different voices so that you'll know who the atheist is and who the Christian is.

so that you'll know who the atheist is and who the Christian is. So, yeah, it'll be fun. I'll make an idiot of myself, but what are you going to do, you know? Let's read the first way. Now, this is from the first part of the Summa Theologica, question two, article three. Now, it should be noted, all right, that when people read the five ways of Aquinas, they sometimes think that this is all Aquinas had to say on the matter of these arguments for the existence of God, and that's just not true. These are a sketch. These are a summary of the arguments, which Aquinas actually wrote about in more and greater detail in other works of his, such as the Summa Contra Gentiles and others. So when you do read these, don't make the mistake of thinking this is all Aquinas has to say on the matter. But here we go. The first and most manifest way is the argument from motion. It is certain and evident to our senses that in the world, some things are in motion.

Now, whatever is in motion is put in motion by another, for nothing can be in motion except it is in potentiality to that towards which it is in motion. Whereas a thing moves in as much as it is in act. a thing moves in as much as it is in act. For motion is nothing else than the reduction of something from potentiality to actuality. But nothing can be reduced from potentiality to actuality except by something in a state of actuality. Thus, that which is actually hot as fire makes wood, which is potentially hot, to be actually hot and thereby moves and changes it. Now, it is not possible that the same thing should be at once in actuality and potentiality in the same respect, but only in different respects. For what is actually hot cannot simultaneously be potentially hot, but it is simultaneously potentially cold. It is therefore impossible that in the same respect and in the same way, a thing should be both mover and moved. That is, that it should move itself. Therefore, whatever is in motion must be put in motion by another. If that by which it is put in motion be itself put in motion,

then this also must needs be put in motion by another, and that by another again. But this cannot go on to infinity, because then there would be no first mover, and consequently no other mover, seeing that subsequent movers move only in as much as they are put in motion by the first mover, as the staff moves only because it is put in motion by the hand. Therefore, it is necessary to arrive at a first mover put in motion by no other, and this everyone understands to be God. So that's what Aquinas has to say. Now, let me read this dialogue for you. Now, I was just thinking, what am I going to do here? I can't put on different accents. This is all I've got. I could try and do an American one, but everyone would make fun of me. So here's what

I'm going to do. I'm going to give the atheist a sort of snide voice like this, and the Christian a nice, pleasant voice like this. Why? Because I'm biased. Deal with it. Okay. Here we go. Are you ready? Buckle up, people. Here we go. Are you ready? Buckle up, people. All right. So Brad and Sarah, they meet in the coffee shop.

Brad comes in, takes a seat with his latte and sprinkles, sits down, and he says, Sarah, the last few times we've met, you've tried to show me why my reasons for being an atheist aren't any good. But do you have any positive reasons for thinking God exists? You do believe God can be proven, right? Well, it depends on what you mean by prove, Brad. I don't think proving God's existence is like proving 2 plus 2 equals 4. Only in mathematics can you get 100% proof about anything. But I do think that we can logically move from what we observe to the conclusion God exists.

Ah, so you admit that you can't be certain. Well, can you be certain about something without having 100% of it proved? Look, I'm just saying that if we believe most things in life, like the reality of the world and that we're not just bodies in the matrix, that our parents love us and aren't just pretending to because of some sinister plan, that Yemen exists, even though we've never been there.

You haven't been to Yemen, right? No. Well, almost everything we believe cannot be proven with mathematical certainty. And why should we expect them to? We believe most things in life because of the fact that we've got good reasons for them. And if we've got good reasons to believe in God, then we should just believe in God, just like we believe in those other things. in God just like we believe in those other things. Okay, well, lay them on me, these reasons of yours. I'm an open-minded guy. What I'm after is the truth. Okay, there are lots of different reasons to believe in God, but I think the most powerful reason is that only God can explain fundamental features of reality. I'm not saying that God explains things science hasn't figured out.

I'm glad to hear it. That would be the God of the gaps fallacy. Right. No, I'm saying that certain features can in principle only be explained by God. Have you ever heard of the five ways of St. Thomas Aquinas? Ha, funny you should mention them. Yes, I've just been reading about them. Surely you can do better than them, Sarah.

Well, what makes you think they aren't good arguments? I thought you told me yesterday that you read The God Delusion. Dawkins completely demolishes Aquinas' arguments. I actually have a copy of it here. Listen. Listen to this. Here's what he writes. The five proofs asserted by Thomas Aquinas in the 13th century don't prove anything and are easily, though I hesitate to say so, given his eminence, exposed as vacuous. And then he goes on through them one by one and he knocks them all down yes i you're right i have

read the god delusion but i think dawkins misunderstands rather than demolishes uh aquinas's arguments as you say look dawkins commits the straw man fallacy that is he refutes a weaker version of his opponent's argument. I don't know if he did this intentionally, but as a biologist and not a philosopher, I think he just misunderstood Aquinas as many atheists are prone to do. Well, how about we start with the first way

Thomas proposes, or the argument from motion. What do you take that argument to mean? Why don't you refresh my memory? All right. Everything we observe is a combination of the potential and the actual. Water is actually wet and potentially solid. Wood is actually hard and potentially flammable. Whenever something goes from potential to actual, it must be activated by something else. Sorry to interrupt, Sarah. When you use the words potential and actual, I want to make sure I'm understanding you correctly, you mean by potential

the ability of something to be different than it is, right? And by actual, you mean the state something is in? Yes. Potency refers to what something can be, while actuality refers to what it currently is. Okay. Great. Keep going. Oh, no, that's fine. Thanks for clarifying. So when something goes from potential to actual, it must be activated by something else. Water doesn't freeze itself, wood doesn't

light itself on fire, but this chain can't regress forever. If we keep saying that what actualised the potential in one thing was something else, then we keep shifting the explanation backwards without explaining anything. Okay, well, give me an analogy. All right. Consider a train, okay, with an infinite number of boxcars. Is it moving or standing still? Well, boxcars can't move themselves,

so it must be still. Now, a moving train, however, requires a car that moves itself and all others. Likewise, our universe, being one of change and motion, requires something that is pure actuality and has no potential whatsoever. This is God. Okay, I have two responses. First, even if you're right and an infinite regress is impossible, claiming that whatever stops the regress is God is unhelpful at best, I think. You've proven very little about the God you believe exists. Well, we can call the solution to our infinite regress the first cause or pure actuality, infinite regress the first cause or pure actuality and then later if these terms we can see if later on these terms refer to the classical definition of god so you don't have an objection against the

argument so much as an application of its conclusion what do you mean by pure actuality well pure act refers to something that doesn't lack anything, something that doesn't wait for another to give it something it already does not possess. OK, well, my second point is that I have no problem with an infinite regress. What's the issue? Mathematicians in the 21st century don't fully comprehend infinity. Why assume a medieval monk got it right? Well, it's not enough to say we don't fully comprehend infinity, why assume a medieval monk got it right? Well, it's not enough to say we don't fully comprehend infinity. One could say we are always learning about many concepts.

But what mistake does Thomas make in his argument? Isn't it possible that the more we've learned about infinity since Thomas has confirmed rather than refuted his position? Look, I'm not a mathematician any more than you are. I just don't see the problem in having causes that stretch back forever. You ask, what mistake does Thomas make? Well, he too quickly rules out the possibility of an infinite regress of movers. If you want to hang your hat on Thomas's medieval views, that's fine. I'm not convinced. Well, let's try a simple thought experiment. Imagine a chandelier. Yeah, it's one link short of reaching the ceiling. If you let it go, it falls, right? Yes, sure, it would fall to the ground. Okay, now suppose the ceiling is thousands of feet high, so you add 10,000 more links to the chain. But it's still

one chain short, so, and this is important, the chain is only being held up by other links. With 10,000 links it still falls. I'm following. Okay. Well, let's think of a higher ceiling. How about a million more links or a billion? If it doesn't reach the ceiling, it still falls. Now, suppose there are an infinite number of links in the chain. After every link, there is another. But the ceiling is always one link away.

You'd have an infinitely high AC bill for this ridiculously big home. That's your point, is it? Let's be serious. I'm sorry. Continue. Well, even with an infinite number of links, those are the only things holding up the chandelier. If we agreed that billions or trillions of links in the chain can't by themselves hold up the chandelier. If we agreed that billions or trillions of links in the chain can't by themselves hold up the chandelier, then how could an infinite number of them do that?

We've already seen that adding chains doesn't help solve the problem. To keep the chandelier up, we need something that doesn't depend on anything else to stay up. Chains by their nature can't do that, but a ceiling can. Okay. Well, the same is true in the universe. An infinite number of movers doesn't explain why there is motion. Only an unmoved mover, something that grants motion to all, but receives it from none, can explain that. So at the end of the day, you either have to accept an infinite regress, which I think there are good reasons to think is not possible, things moving themselves for no reason, or an unmoved mover.

So I'm happy to take your thoughts on that, and then maybe we can look at the other ways? OK, look, I don't mean to sound flippant, but I'm not buying it. First, using a mundane example like a chandelier is misleading. Frankly, I'm not saying you're intending to be misleading, but I think it is misleading. Yeah, we understand how everyday things like chain links and chandeliers and even gravity work, but to say that we therefore conclude that the universe must be like a ceiling seems a little trite. We know so very little about this universe. I'm not going to be convinced by

these sorts of examples. Maybe there could be an infinite number of movers, and if there is, guess what? Whether that makes sense to you or not, you'll just have to get used to it. That's reality. Deal with it. It might be absurd. Well, do you have any other ways for this argument? Well, Aquinas does offer four more, but I'd like to stick to this one for a little bit. You said, Brad, that you were an open-minded guy and willing to be proven wrong. Yet when confronted with evidence for God, you say there's lots we don't understand. So I have a question for you. What would be something in theory that would show

God exists that you couldn't respond to with, we don't understand how everything works, so maybe it's not God? You see, Brad, it just seems to me like your atheism has something in common with certain religious beliefs. Namely, it can't be falsified. Oh, that's easy. God could appear in the sky right now and with a big booming voice say, Brad, I exist. You are wrong to be an atheist. Sarah's right. Listen to her. You doofus. I'd also be convinced by one shred of evidence, to be an atheist. Sarah's right. Listen to her. You doofus. I'd also be convinced by one shred of evidence, to be honest with you. Look, 5,000 years ago, there were no doubt people who had arguments for why the Earth was flat, or more recently, that the sun revolved around the Earth. In both cases, though, their arguments may have sounded compelling, but they were wrong.

Evidence is what should change our beliefs, not thought experiments and word games. Brad, sorry, go back for a moment. Really? A big booming voice? That would convince you? How do you know it's God and not aliens, the government, or an eccentric billionaire saying it's God. I mean, just it saying it's God doesn't really tell us anything. Also, do you think we understand everything about sound or how the brain processes sound? Finally, shouldn't God provide reasons that show he exists

that all people can access, such as the natural world around us. But let's say an infinite past universe of movers is possible. I still don't think that disproves Thomas's arguments. Because while the second way relies on this principle, the third does not. I think I just believe it were God. Well, I was going to say that it'd be more plausible than aliens but i don't think that well let's say there were no signs of aliens and i had no signs of being mentally deranged i think i just accept it was true whether or not i think you think i should or not i think i just would you say god should provide reasons that he exists that everyone can access ah yeah i think that's another reason to think he doesn't exist,

since if he did, surely he'd know what would convince people and he'd do that. But okay, why don't we move on to these other proofs? That, ladies and gentlemen, is the end of the Socratic dialogue. I hope you enjoyed that. I tried in the dialogue to make it a sort of a real-life exchange. I mean, when you and I get into arguments with people who disagree with us, it's not like they're changing their mind on the spot. I think you and I both are like this, right? When our worldview is being threatened, we tend to dig our heels in. If we feel threatened, we might try and find a different rabbit trail to run down, so we have to avoid having to answer

certain things. But that, I hope, will give you some context and a little more understanding of what the first way of St. Thomas Aquinas is all about. Now, if you're listening to this episode and you haven't yet listened to my previous episode, the one right before this on metaphysical terminology that St. Thomas uses. You should go back and listen to that and then try and read Thomas's Five Ways because I think you might understand them a lot more. So that is it for this week. If you'd like to learn more about Aquinas' arguments for the existence of God, I'd recommend you get the book Aquinas by Edward Fessor. get the book Aquinas by Edward Fessor. It's a fantastic little book that gets in to these five ways. I would also recommend you get Fessor's book, The Last Superstition. He talks about the

five ways of Aquinas and goes into good detail on each of them. And when my new book is out on the five ways of Aquinas, you can get that as well. And I hope that will all be a bit of a blessing to you. So that's it for me this week. If you like the podcast, would you please do me a favor and rate it? I know it's just a few clicks for you, but it means a lot to me. By you rating the podcast, it comes up higher when people search things like God and Aquinas and that sort of thing. So I'd really appreciate that. If you have any questions, you could email me at matt at pintswithaquinas.com or shoot me a message over Twitter and visit me at mattfradd.com.

Until next week, God bless you. And I battle with my consciousness. I battle with my selfish flesh. Whose wolves am I feeding myself to? Who's gonna survive? Who's gonna survive?