Category: Apologetics

The Amazing Atheist vs. Aquinas: Conclusion

Welcome everyone to Deeper Waters where we are diving into the ocean of truth. We’ve spent the past few days looking at the YouTuber known as The Amazing Atheist and seeing how badly he misrepresents the arguments of Thomas Aquinas. For the sake of argument, Aquinas could still be wrong, but we can definitely say that TAA is wrong in how he presents the arguments. Today, we’re going to look at this and say “What did go wrong?” and “Why waste your time dealing with someone on YouTube?”

Where did this guy go wrong? To begin with, he’s one of those who thinks that just reading the text is always enough. In modern times, that can happen since we all know the culture and language. When reading a work from another culture and in another language, more study is needed. It could be other reading or talking to a teacher in the topic. I also believe the same is true of the Bible. We will without further understanding read our own culture and meaning of words back into the text.

As a Thomist, I can tell that TAA does not understand the arguments because he raises up objections that show a lack of familiarity. For instance, to say that Aquinas was unaware that existence is the basis for all things is to show supreme ignorance of Aquinas, whose whole metaphysical system was built on existence and its relation to God.

To understand the arguments, you need to know Aquinas’s view of metaphysics and his epistemology. You need to understand Aristotle as well seeing as Aquinas based his system on that of Aristotle. Does this mean a mastery of the topics? No. Not at all. All of us are still growing in knowledge. However, you need to understand that when Aquinas says motion, he means what Aristotle would mean by motion and not by what a post-Cartesian would mean.

Other examples of the ignorance of TAA include the replacing of God with blueberry muffins. At least the so-called Flying Spaghetti Monster would be a creature who would possess intellect. That TAA thinks you can easily replace God with such a concept is quite revealing. Also, he makes the statement often made about an infinite regress. Aquinas deals with this in Question 46. Does this mean I expect TAA to have read the whole Summa? No. However, an interaction also with those who are Thomists prior to his making a video would have cleared it up for him. Instead, TAA makes a video on a topic he does not know anything about thinking that a cursory reading of Aquinas is enough.

Not one Thomist out there would be convinced by this video. Even Anthony Kenny, an atheist who frequently takes on Aquinas’s arguments, would have told TAA that he didn’t know what he was talking about. Well if no Thomist would be convinced, why bother spending a week dealing with the guy?

Because others will be. At a check just now, the video has 67.358 views. No other video I see after that in response comes anywhere near that. Only one that I see crosses 1,000 and I’m not even sure if it’s really a response to that video as much as someone saying he doesn’t care about TAA. Now it could be a lot of those views are strong Christians coming back to debate on YouTube. However, it could be those who are not.

Some of you who are parents might say “Well my son would not search for a video by TAA.” No. Maybe not. However, he could go on YouTube to hear a song by a favorite Christian band and off in the related links section see a video calling into question some aspect of Christianity. He clicks that one out of curiosity and then if he’s further intrigued, like a porn addiction, starts clicking more and more and eventually finds his way to TAA.

If such a boy is uninformed in his faith, as too many are, myself included at that age, then he will not be prepared and will think “Wow. This is supposed to be my champion and this guy has no fear of him whatsoever and he seems to be making some good points!” In reality, the young boy has never read Aquinas and probably never will and will not seek out a counter-response.

There are also the atheists who are watching that video who will think that Aquinas has been dealt with by TAA and they themselves will never read the saint. This is also the case with Dawkins’s hideous treatment of the arguments in “The God Delusion.” I recall at this automatically the person who told me that David Hume had refuted Aquinas by asking the question “Who made God?” If anyone thinks this is a refutation to Aquinas, they only reveal their ignorance. It’s tantamount in his system to asking “Who made existence?”

Thus, I have written this series in the hopes that we will learn what to do more and why it matters. Be ready to research the other side. I frequently debate atheists, but I also have numerous books by atheists that I read. When Jehovah’s Witnesses and Mormons come to my door, I want to make sure that I not only know my arguments, but that I also know theirs, and I want to know their arguments better than they do. I want to know them so well that if I had to, I could argue for them myself.

Be willing to learn. Most of us don’t have that. We want to act in public as if we’ve read everything and know everything. I assure you Christian, just pick your favorite apologist. That person is still learning. They are still reading. There are still areas they’re studying and things that they do not know. They may be further along in their studies, but they are still studying. As I’ve said, my own writings on Aquinas will be further refined over the years as I learn more and seek to learn even more.

That could require going to a bookstore or a library, and I would prefer you do those instead of relying exclusively on the internet. If you have to, go to a college and take a course on the matter. A Seminary could offer a course on Thomas Aquinas that you could benefit from.

Be sure that education is going on, especially of your children, since unbelief is so pervasive on the internet. Statistics indicate that most children when they leave home, leave the faith also. You don’t want yours to be one of them. Don’t assume basic Sunday School is enough to equip them. It isn’t. Get good books and teach them the arguments and how to think and always allow them to doubt and to question. Do not punish either doubts or questions. Our faith is to be open to the hardest of inquiry. If you punish your child for doubting and questioning, fearing that you will not answer them, that says more about your view of your faith rather than the faith itself.

When you see what is going on in the atheist community with people like this, be ready to take a stand. Now for those who have never debated before, expect to get your tail kicked some. It will happen. Only take that as an incentive to study more. Feel free also to point people like TAA to blogs like this. (I would still love a chance to debate TAA on TheologyWeb on either of the five ways of his choice)

What we have in the video of TAA is tripe that ought to be convincing nobody, but unfortunately several will be convinced. Take a stand today. It is a stand for truth, and it is the truth that will last in the face of any objection. Aquinas told us that since Christianity is true, there can be no objection that disproves it. I believe he was right. Do you? Then live accordingly.

The Amazing Atheist vs. Aquinas: The Fifth Way

Welcome everyone to Deeper Waters where we are diving into the ocean of truth. We’ve been looking recently at the efforts of a YouTuber who goes by the name of “The Amazing Atheist” in his video “Thomas Aquinas sucks” who is trying to refute the five ways of Aquinas. There has been some mockery of Aquinas of course. I don’t have a problem with that. I just say that if you think you’re smarter than Aquinas, you’d better show it. So far, he hasn’t shown it. Tonight, we look at the fifth way and how The Amazing Atheist treats that and what a Thomistic response would be.

Let’s see how he sums up the fifth way first off:

#1-Among objects that act for an end, some have minds whereas others do not.
#2-An object that acts for an end but does not for itself have a mind must have been created by a being that does have a mind.
#3-So there exists a being with a mind who designed all mindless objects that act for an end.
#4-Hence, God exists.

Let’s see what Aquinas himself said:

The fifth way is taken from the governance of the world. We see that things which lack intelligence, such as natural bodies, act for an end, and this is evident from their acting always, or nearly always, in the same way, so as to obtain the best result. Hence it is plain that not fortuitously, but designedly, do they achieve their end. Now whatever lacks intelligence cannot move towards an end, unless it be directed by some being endowed with knowledge and intelligence; as the arrow is shot to its mark by the archer. Therefore some intelligent being exists by whom all natural things are directed to their end; and this being we call God.

As should be evident from what has been said, TAA has once again not understood this argument. For instance, creation is nowhere mentioned. Aquinas is not interested in dealing with a divine watchmaker like Paley’s argument. His is entirely different from that one.

For instance, Paley wants it to be probable that there is a god. Aquinas wants it to be a certainty. Paley is interested in design inherent in the objects. Aquinas is interested in design as a whole. Paley does not have final causes in his argument per se. Aquinas bases his entirely on them. Paley does not tell you about the nature of the designer too much. Aquinas has it as the God of classical theism.

What about evolution? It would be a non-question at this point. Now keep in mind Aquinas does not care if Paley would be right or not, so this argument does not say ipso facto that Paley was wrong. Evolution is seen as a threat sometimes to Paley’s argument. Aquinas would not see it as a threat at all. In fact, it would be a case of The Blind Watchmaker of Richard Dawkins winning the battle but losing the war. One can imagine Aquinas being around today, reading the book and saying “Cool theory! I can go with that! Thanks for demonstrating my Fifth Way further Professor Dawkins!”

For Aquinas, in this way, God is entirely immanent in the creation. It is not to be like a watchmaker making the watch and then leaving it be. It is more like God is a musician playing a song. The universe is his song and as long as the musician is playing, the song is around. If God ever ceased being, the universe, and everything else, would go out of existence.

Getting back to the argument and seeing how TAA botches it, Aquinas is arguing from what is seen. Why do thinks act regularly? Why do they act in the same way provided there is no outside interference? Chance would not bother him because even chance has a background with some regularity to it. It is chance what numbers come up when the dice is rolled, but laws of physics could determine such and even still, there is final causality in the roll of the dice.

Now when it comes to why you or I act for a purpose, that is easy enough to understand, but why is it that something else does? For Aquinas, only agents act for an end. It does not mean however that everything that is has a purpose, as there can be some offshoots that don’t have a purpose from that action. Thus, when Dawkins asks, as he did recently in a debate where Craig was involved, the purpose of a mountain, a good Thomist can say “Maybe there isn’t one” and be consistent. Note also that because a purpose is unknown, that does not mean there is none. This is a classical mistake. Theists are accused of saying “We don’t know how that happened, therefore God did it.” I condemn such an attitude as well. A naturalist like Dawkins however can say “I don’t know why that is, therefore there is no reason why it is the way it is.” This is what happens with the problem of evil also.

Aquinas contends that the reason some things are acting for a final cause is that there is an efficient cause outside of them providing that cause to them. TAA wants us to ask why this has to be a being. Why can’t it just be an accident. Aquinas would say that an accident cannot explain final causality and regularity in nature.

If something didn’t have a mind, it too would need to be directed by an agent and thus it could not be the efficient cause guiding the final causes. If it had potential, it would have had to be made for a purpose and again, we meet the same problem. Aquinas’s solution? There is a being who does not need an efficient cause of His being but rather is the efficient cause of all other beings and provides final causality to the universe and this, we know to be God.

Thus, we have seen that TAA just hopelessly messes up the arguments each time. Why is this? We shall see tomorrow as we conclude.

The Amazing Atheist vs. Aquinas: The Fourth Way

Welcome back everyone to Deeper Waters where we are diving into the ocean of truth! We’ve lately been going through a video made by The Amazing Atheist on YouTube where he claims that Thomas Aquinas sucks. For all interested, so far, I have not heard from the Amazing Atheist and my attempts to post on the wall of this video have failed. My challenge is still here for him to come to TheologyWeb and challenge me on the way of his choice. Tonight, we’re going to look at TAA’s take on the Fourth Way.

#1-Objects have properties to greater or lesser extents.
#2-If an object has a property to a lesser extent, then there exists some other object that has the property to the maximum possible degree.
#3-So there is an entity that has all properties to the maximum possible degree.
#4-God exists.

TAA thinks even this is too stupid, although he has not understood it of course, and so he wants to change it to understand beings by grades.

#1-There is a gradation to be found in things. Some are better or worse than others.
#2-Predications of degree require references to the uttermost case.
#3-The maximum in any genus is the cause of all of that genus
#4-Therefore there must also be something to which all beings is the cause of their goodness and all other perfection and this we call God.

Again, let’s see what the master himself said:

The fourth way is taken from the gradation to be found in things. Among beings there are some more and some less good, true, noble and the like. But “more” and “less” are predicated of different things, according as they resemble in their different ways something which is the maximum, as a thing is said to be hotter according as it more nearly resembles that which is hottest; so that there is something which is truest, something best, something noblest and, consequently, something which is uttermost being; for those things that are greatest in truth are greatest in being, as it is written in Metaph. ii. Now the maximum in any genus is the cause of all in that genus; as fire, which is the maximum heat, is the cause of all hot things. Therefore there must also be something which is to all beings the cause of their being, goodness, and every other perfection; and this we call God.

What’s interesting for the first version TAA gave is that he gave the standard objection that Dawkins gave when Dawkins asked if there’s a most smelly being of all. TAA asks if God is the fattest and the skinniest of all, the gayest and straightest, etc. That seems to be his objection.

However, this objection fails and TAA could have just done what I did to find out why. You read more on the topic or you talk to someone who knows more. Instead, TAA goes on about how dumb Aquinas is and that refuting Aquinas is kindergarten stuff. Well, I suppose building straw men of arguments could be something a kindergarten student would do.

However, let’s get to the kinds of traits Aquinas is talking about. Note that he uses the example of fire being the maximum cause of heat. Why does he do this? Because in the medieval worldview, fire was understood as the ultimate cause of heat and the maximum heat could be found in fire. Note that Aquinas is giving an analogy here. He is using that which is understood to point to that which is not understood.

Thus, he is talking about divine attributes ultimately and so it should be obvious then that smelliness and fatness and other such qualities are not to be included. Do we have any idea what qualities he is talking about? Indeed we do. Aquinas is explaining the transcendentals.

At such an argument, TAA doesn’t even attempt a refutation. For him, just saying it’s dumb is enough. However, we must look at this more. If you have something that is of your essence to have that is a perfection, then it will be had to the maximum. Cats are fully cats. Horses are fully horses. Humans are fully human. Humans cannot have being to the full or goodness to the full for we do not have all that that entails.

God does however and God is the cause of all the degrees that we see in other beings. He is what is called the supreme being. Keep in mind that in Aquinas’s system, qualities like truth and goodness are convertible with being. He would agree with Augustine that insofar as we exist, we are good. Thus, when you speak of a being with maximum truth, goodness, nobility, etc., you speak of one with maximum being.

If a being has all perfections to the maximum, there can be no other that has that, especially since its existence is its essence. After all, how will the other being differ? Will it differ by having a perfection the other does not have? Then whatever one the other does not have, it is not the maximum of perfections.

Keep in mind also that for Aquinas, this does not just mean there could have been a God at one point that got degrees of goodness started and then went away. No. God is eternally active and is the cause of the gradation we see of goodness in beings today. As long as we have degrees of goodness, there is a maximum goodness that is out there and this, everyone knows to be God.

I will grant however that the fourth way is a hard argument to understand and I suspect that given a year or so my writing on it will be more in-depth. However, at this point, I believe this is also the closest we have to the moral argument and it’s one I wish would be used more often. After all, we sometimes ask atheists “How can you determine good actions without God?” That’s a good question! Still, let’s make it better. How can you determine the goodness of anything, even good results, without a standard of goodness?

TAA has given the standard Dawkins reply, which is interesting since he refers to Dawkins as someone smarter than him. I do not doubt that, but I also realize this shows me more about TAA’s thinking. Dawkins is a scientist. He is not a philosopher or a theologian and you need training in those areas to be able to really understand Aquinas’s arguments.

After all, if you do not understand the arguments and think you do, you could embarrass yourself in the face of someone who knows them better.

Much like TAA would with any Thomist he’d meet.

Tomorrow, we shall look at the fifth way.

The Amazing Atheist vs. Aquinas: The Third Way

Welcome everyone to Deeper Waters where we are diving into the ocean of truth. We’ve spent a lot of time lately looking at the YouTuber known as “The Amazing Atheist” and his review of the five ways of Thomas Aquinas. Tonight, we’re going to look at the “job” that he did on the third way and see how lacking it is.

First, his summation of the argument.

#1-Contingent things exist.
#2-Each contingent thing has a time at which it fails to exist. Contingent things are not omnipresent.
#3-So if everything were contingent, there would be a time when nothing would exist, call this an empty time.
#4-That empty time would have been in the past.
#5-If the world were empty at one time, it would be empty forever, a conservation principle.
#6-So if everything were contingent, nothing would exist now.
#7-But clearly the world is not empty
#8-So clearly there exists a being who is not contingent.
#9-Hence God exists.

Let’s see what Aquinas himself says:

The third way is taken from possibility and necessity, and runs thus. We find in nature things that are possible to be and not to be, since they are found to be generated, and to corrupt, and consequently, they are possible to be and not to be. But it is impossible for these always to exist, for that which is possible not to be at some time is not. Therefore, if everything is possible not to be, then at one time there could have been nothing in existence. Now if this were true, even now there would be nothing in existence, because that which does not exist only begins to exist by something already existing. Therefore, if at one time nothing was in existence, it would have been impossible for anything to have begun to exist; and thus even now nothing would be in existence — which is absurd. Therefore, not all beings are merely possible, but there must exist something the existence of which is necessary. But every necessary thing either has its necessity caused by another, or not. Now it is impossible to go on to infinity in necessary things which have their necessity caused by another, as has been already proved in regard to efficient causes. Therefore we cannot but postulate the existence of some being having of itself its own necessity, and not receiving it from another, but rather causing in others their necessity. This all men speak of as God.

What Aquinas means by the possibility of to be and not to be is that such objects contain within themselves the potentiality of corruption and can corrupt to the point where they cease to be, that is, cease to be as they are. Keep in mind that for Aquinas, matter only exists when it is combined with form to make substance.

Aquinas says that that which is possible not to be is at some point not. What does he mean? He means that if anything has within it inherently such corruption, it was not at one time as it was depending on another to bring it into being. It is very important to learn what these terms mean and again, I refer the reader to Feser’s guide for an excellent treatment of the five ways.

Aquinas tells us that if all things were like this, there would be a time when there was nothing. Why? Remember Aquinas is open to a universe without a beginning. What he means then is that given infinite time, every potentiality would happen. We cannot speak of an infinite amount of time and that which is possible not happening.

Thus, since everything that is contingent in this way depends on something else bringing it into existence, then there must be something that is not contingent. At this point, the modern atheist can often think “Ah! Well let us suppose the universe is necessary! The third way is refuted!”

Well, no.

Note that Aquinas says that every necessary thing either has its necessity in something else or not. Why? How much sense does this make? What Aquinas means by necessary however is not what modern philosophers mean by talk of possible worlds. What he means is everlasting. As long as something has been, this has been.

Could it be that the universe is the end of the deal then? No. That is because the universe contains matter and matter cannot be the end deal. Matter is pure potential and as was said, it has actuality by being combined with form to make a substance. We could not say the substance is what has always been either because substances are always coming and going out of existence.

Thus, if matter is everlasting, it has to be combined with something else and that combination does not come from itself or it would be the cause of its own coming into existence, which is nonsense.

Now The Amazing Atheist thinks that what Aquinas has forgotten is existence. He tells us about the equipment necessary to make a YouTube video and then says that if you have a hard drive, you can bring back those items that are needed to make a video into existence. Existence itself is the hard drive. It is the universe that is used.

In saying this, he makes the universe the necessary being, which we have said won’t work, but even more embarrassingly, he reveals that he has not read Aquinas at all since he says that Aquinas is unaware of existence as the fallback position. In reality, being, that is, existence as existence, was the central doctrine of Thomistic thought. Only someone completely uneducated on Thomistic thought would make such a basic mistake.

Of course, The Amazing Atheist also gives the same canard of “Well why can’t it be a simple particle? Why must it be a complex God!” This one has been made by Richard Dawkins as well and when someone advances this argument seriously, you can rest assured they have not really read theology and they definitely do not understand Thomistic arguments.

As we said with Dawkins when we reviewed “The God Delusion” and as we said when we reviewed the simplicity of God in the Summa Theologica, if someone will simply read on ahead in the Summa, they will find that this is the very next doctrine God deals with. God is not complex in his being, but rather He is simple. People like The Amazing Atheist and Richard Dawkins and others assume a more materialistic understanding of God which goes against what Aquinas believes. Now you can say Aquinas is wrong in His concept of God, but you must give a reason why his philosophy on this matter is. Aquinas gives arguments for God’s simplicity based on his doctrine of being. Why are they wrong?

Honestly, in listening to this part of the video, I had to laugh when The Amazing Atheist made the statement about existence. Let this be a reminder as we will see later on this week that one really needs to understand the points one criticizes, lest one publicly embarrass themselves.

Tomorrow, we shall examine the fourth way.

The Amazing Atheist vs. Aquinas: The Second Way

Welcome everyone to Deeper Waters where we are diving into the ocean of truth. Lately, we’ve been looking at the, ahem, “work”, of a YouTuber who calls himself The Amazing Atheist. What we’ve found amazing so far is his inability to grasp Thomistic arguments and think that he’s refuted them. Last night, we looked at how he did in dealing with the first way. Tonight, we’re going to look at the second way.

What does he say about this one?

#1-Some events cause other events.

Then says “That argument is exactly the same as your motion argument. I’m not refuting the same argument twice.”

Actually, refuting it the first time would be nice, but anyone watching right now his video should just be ready to realize that even if they don’t know Aquinas, that he surely at least would not put forward two different arguments not knowing that they were the same argument.

So what did the angelic doctor say?

The second way is from the nature of the efficient cause. In the world of sense we find there is an order of efficient causes. There is no case known (neither is it, indeed, possible) in which a thing is found to be the efficient cause of itself; for so it would be prior to itself, which is impossible. Now in efficient causes it is not possible to go on to infinity, because in all efficient causes following in order, the first is the cause of the intermediate cause, and the intermediate is the cause of the ultimate cause, whether the intermediate cause be several, or only one. Now to take away the cause is to take away the effect. Therefore, if there be no first cause among efficient causes, there will be no ultimate, nor any intermediate cause. But if in efficient causes it is possible to go on to infinity, there will be no first efficient cause, neither will there be an ultimate effect, nor any intermediate efficient causes; all of which is plainly false. Therefore it is necessary to admit a first efficient cause, to which everyone gives the name of God.

The first argument is about motion. This argument is about a specific kind of motion which revolves around bringing things into existence. How are things brought into existence? There are similarities to be sure, but to simply say that they are the same argument is to show a profound ignorance.

What is an efficient cause? For a refresher of what we discussed Wednesday, the efficient cause is that which brings something into being. Aquinas at the start says that for something to cause itself is nonsense. Why? It would have to exist in order to bring itself into existence. Only that which has actuality is in capable in any sense of acting.

There are a number of instrumental causes that can be used to get to the final effects that we see today, that is, our existence. Aquinas does not care if it is one or many. For Aquinas, the evolutionary debate today would be a non-question. Aquinas would just say “If God did it fiat, fine. If He didn’t, then evolution was the instrument that He used.”

In other words, the evolutionists can freely win the battle for evolution and still lose the war.

This also gets us into the existence/essence distinction. Let us take the idea of a unicorn. The unicorn only exists as far as we know in our minds. However, were the idea to become actualized in the extramental world, we would see the existence of a real unicorn.

For each of us, we have a human nature that is actualized and the distinction of that nature is made known by the matter that we possess. For angels, there is no differentiation by matter, so Gabriel is the essence of Gabriel and that is actualized by adding existence. (Of course, existence is added to our essence as well)

What about God? Well he doesn’t need a cause seeing as He is uncaused. He is existence by nature. This is a point we will look at again tomorrow in discussing the third way. There is no existence that needs to be added to essence for Him. In God, they are one and the same.

Keep in mind that when God is the efficient cause for the existence of other things, it says nothing about the temporality of those things. There could have been an everlasting past still. First cause does not mean first chronologically necessary but first fundamentally.

TAA doesn’t have much to say today, which is probably good on his part. Fortunately, we do, and we will say more tomorrow on the third way.

The Amazing Atheist On Aquinas: The First Way

Welcome everyone to Deeper Waters where we are diving into the ocean of truth. We’re spending our time now looking at a video by “The Amazing Atheist” where he thinks he’s debunked Aquinas. Last time, we laid down a preliminary and then noted how TAA thinks that he’s smarter than Aquinas by an order of magnitude. (That’s not me saying it. He says it himself in his video of “Thomas Aquinas Sucks.” Be warned he does use profanity.)

Having laid a background for our study, we are now going to see how badly TAA does not understand them.

Let’s look at how he summarizes the first argument.

#1-objects are in motion.
#2-If something is in motion, then it must be caused to be in motion by something outside of itself.
#3-There can be no infinite chain of movers/movees
#4-So there is a first unmoved mover.
#5-Therefore, God exists.

Before we go on then, let’s see if this is a fair summary. Here is what Aquinas himself says in the Summa Theologica.

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.

Aquinas calls this the argument from motion. Remember that as we said yesterday, motion is the actualizing of potential. Aquinas says that our senses tell us that some objects are in motion. What is he getting at? For one thing, he’s making it clear that he needs something itself that is not part of the problem, something that is not being actualized. Second, he is dealing with the problem raised by Parmenides centuries before. How can change be possible? Parmenides was a monist who did not believe in the reality of change.

For instance, imagine something existing. How does it change? Does it change by being or by non-being? It cannot change by non-being, because non-being is nothing and nothing cannot change something. It cannot change by being because that would mean that being is changing into being. Aquinas’s answer to this ultimately was that there were degrees of being whereby things change.

Aquinas also starts with the senses because for Aquinas, knowledge begins with sense experience. He also does this since he is doing natural theology. He is not wanting to say at this point “Well the Bible says such and such.” This is what someone was to use when interacting with the person who did not accept Scripture.

For Aquinas, the putting of something into motion is due to the recipient’s potentiality, whereas putting something into motion is based on the agent’s actuality. The only way something can pass something on to something else is if that something somehow has the power to cause the effect.

You will not freeze something by putting it in fire because fire does not have the power to produce cold. Fire does have the power to produce heat. Two sticks being rubbed together also have the power to produce heat. God has within Himself the power to produce fire if need be as well. Thus, something must exist in the agent actualizing the potential either formally, based on its form, or as is sometimes said “virtually.”

Aquinas also says something cannot be something in actuality and potentiality both in the same sense. Now of course something could be hot and be potentially hotter, but it cannot be both hot in actuality and potentially hot. If it is hot, it is hot. Something cannot be both light and dark at the same time and in the same sense. This is simply the Law of Noncontradiction at work.

In reviewing how TAA describes this argument, he says nothing about what motion is and I have no reason to think that he has any clue how Aquinas refers to motion. One could speak of Newton’s laws of motion, but remember that Newton is speaking as a physicist and about how matter moves, and while Aquinas’s ways can include that, they do not limit themselves to only that.

This is a mistake many modern critics make as they go from metaphysics to physics and think that they’re disputing the metaphysics of Aquinas by arguing physics. Consider it part of the mistaken image that we have that because someone is a scientist, they are automatically an authority on anything that they comment on.

TAA is willing to grant his first and second premises listed above. The problem comes when he objects to the third premise in his way of looking at the argument. This is dealing with the infinite regress.

To begin with, he does not refer to the kind of infinity he is dealing with. TAA’s statement is simply “How does he know? We’re still trying to understand it today.” This is not an objection however. For one thing, it is a certainty as far as I’m concerned that TAA has never read Question 46 of the Prima Pars of the Summa which we pointed to yesterday to understand the kind of infinite regress that Aquinas speaks of.

Why does TAA not mention the two kinds of regresses that Aquinas knew of? It is because he does not know about them. In my last post, I referred to a number of works that one could read to further understand Aquinas. It is likely that TAA knows nothing of any of these people. One would hope he would at least read Anthony Kenny, an atheist critic of Aquinas, and get some idea of better arguments against Aquinas. (Although better is not saying much in this case)

We move on to step four where he says that this one is ridiculous since it contradicts the so-called second premise. What is ridiculous really is thinking that no great thinker throughout the ages who looked at Aquinas’s arguments failed to notice such a thing. In reality, TAA has made a simple mistake that most atheists make when attacking the horizontal cosmological argument. (Remember, this guy is supposed to be smarter than Aquinas by a magnitude)

When you read atheists, their literature will often say that the Kalam argument states that everything that exists has a cause. No Christian writer I know of defends such a premise. They say that everything that begins to exist has a cause. That which exists by nature does not need a cause.

TAA is making the same kind of argument here. Aquinas is talking about an unmoved mover. The unmoved mover is that which is not put into motion as it does not have any potential. This is a being of pure actuality. There is no contradiction as the argument talks about that which is put into motion and not that which is in motion by nature.

As for unmoved, this means unmoved by another. God is the most moving of all because it is by Him that all actuality is possible and he is the fundamental mover. Note Aquinas does not need God to be a first mover chronologically as he is open to a past without a beginning. Note also that TAA refers to the infinite chain again, the chain that he does not know about.

It is no shock that TAA refers to Aquinas as some moron living in the 13th century with no concept of modern science. Again, this is a problem that is frequently made as a metaphysical argument is made to be a physical argument. This is a sad condition many scientists get themselves into in that they can only think about something in scientific terms.

When TAA comes to the conclusion, he asks that even if we accepted everything before, why is it God. Why can’t it be a blueberry muffin?

And I thought the Flying Spaghetti Monster idea was dumb.

To begin with, a blueberry muffin is a material object and that which has some material component to its being always has potential to its being. Also, keep in mind that in order for something to actualize potential, it must exist in the agent actualizing either formally or virtually. Could the TAA tell me what actualizing he expects a blueberry muffin to do?

At least the Flying Spaghetti Monster would be an agent that could supposedly act of its own volition seeing as all living things are soulish to some degree. Plants have a soul that can take in nutrients. Animals have that power plus that of movement. Humans have those powers plus those of rationality. All other beings that are not soulish depend on something else entirely for their movement.

For TAA, a blueberry muffin sounds more plausible than God since he’s seen a blueberry muffin. I’ve also seen blueberry muffins, but I’ve never seen a blueberry muffin capable of creating a universe or capable of actualizing potential or possessing pure actuality. Maybe TAA has a recipe for blueberry muffins he needs to share.

Of course, we could say that if we are basing this on only objects we’ve seen, then we will need to throw out much of science since no one has ever seen many particles that we say are absolutely essential to the functioning of our universe. Does TAA think we need to replace those with blueberry muffins?

TAA says he has never seen God however. So what? Since God is not material in nature according to Thomistic thought, then of course God will not be seen. We only see God in an analogical sense. One will see God much the same way one sees that 2 + 2 = 4. How did we ever get to the point of “I’ve never seen God” somehow counts as an argument?

I conclude that TAA, again, does not have a clue about the arguments he critiques. Of course, he is more than welcome to come to TheologyWeb and challenge me on this if he disagrees.

The Amazing Atheist vs. Aquinas: Preliminary

Welcome everyone to Deeper Waters where we are diving into the ocean of truth. We have before gone over the five ways of Thomas Aquinas on this blog. However, on TheologyWeb, I was shown a link to a video on YouTube where The Amazing Atheist chose to take on Aquinas with the title of “Thomas Aquinas Sucks.” Well this was a challenge I could not turn down. Unfortunately, I could not put my own comments on the video, but I do know someone who wants to make a video in response to that and use some of my material. If anyone can let TAA know that I am dealing with what he said here, that would be fine.

To begin with, I just want to give a preliminary and then each day, we’ll look at one of the ways as TAA miserably fails to understand it, and then we’ll wrap it up with a conclusion.

TAA’s position in the video is one that it’s so bad I even hesitate to call it wrong. That would be granting the position some sort of substance which it does not have. In this preliminary, I intend to give some brief definitions of terms in Aristotlean-Thomistic thought and then give some more information on the five ways and how they ought to be approached by atheists today, including the new atheists who do not understand them.

The sad danger with someone like TAA making a video is that his opinion will be taken for granted since for some reason, I suppose he is seen as an authority on The web. Any Thomist watching the video would know that TAA did not have a clue. In fact, my own wife watching me watch this video said at one point, “You don’t have to scream.”

His cluelessness, to be blunt, will be repeatedly shown throughout my review as TAA claims that he is smarter than Thomas Aquinas by an order of magnitude and he can prove it.

So let’s see, Thomas Aquinas wrote around 80 books in his lifetime, was highly educated, knew Aristotle, Scripture, and the church fathers, interacted with the Muslim philosophers of his time, and yet, TAA is smarter than him?

Now keep in mind, you can admit someone is smarter than you and think that they are wrong. For instance, I would not hesitate to say Plato was a far greater thinker than I am. He was just wrong. The audacity of the claim that TAA is making should indicate to us that he has not done his proper study.

When we start looking at the five ways, we need to realize that these are summaries. Aquinas is assuming that you are familiar with the ideas of the time. To treat them as the argument entirely is like saying that William Lane Craig’s entire argument for Kalam can be contained in the syllogism of “Everything that begins to exist has a cause. The universe began to exist. The universe has a cause.” That is the argument of course, but it can be unpacked so much more than that. The same follows for Aquinas’s arguments.

Another mistake often made in looking at the Five Ways is to state that they do not lead to the God of Christianity who is omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, etc. Aquinas would say that they are not meant to. They are based on natural theology, what we can find about God from reason alone unaided by revelation. When you read an atheist or hear one making this argument, you can sit back and laugh some then and be assured this person has not read the Summa. After all, right after this, Aquinas spends hundreds of pages describing the God whose existence has been shown.

Why does he use the term God then? Aquinas is referring to that which is ultimate. He can say that whatever is at the end of the chain in each of his arguments, that is ultimate, and that is what will be called God.

Another mistake is to say that Aquinas assumes an infinite regress. In fact, he does no such thing. Consider what he says in the Prima Pars in answering article 2 of question 46.

I answer that, By faith alone do we hold, and by no demonstration can it be proved, that the world did not always exist, as was said above of the mystery of the Trinity (32, 1). The reason of this is that the newness of the world cannot be demonstrated on the part of the world itself. For the principle of demonstration is the essence of a thing. Now everything according to its species is abstracted from “here” and “now”; whence it is said that universals are everywhere and always. Hence it cannot be demonstrated that man, or heaven, or a stone were not always. Likewise neither can it be demonstrated on the part of the efficient cause, which acts by will. For the will of God cannot be investigated by reason, except as regards those things which God must will of necessity; and what He wills about creatures is not among these, as was said above (Question 19, Article 3). But the divine will can be manifested by revelation, on which faith rests. Hence that the world began to exist is an object of faith, but not of demonstration or science. And it is useful to consider this, lest anyone, presuming to demonstrate what is of faith, should bring forward reasons that are not cogent, so as to give occasion to unbelievers to laugh, thinking that on such grounds we believe things that are of faith.

Aquinas’s statement is that reason cannot demonstrate if the universe had a beginning or not. The reason he believes it did is because of Scripture. Aquinas makes a distinction between what can be proven by reason and what cannot be. Therefore, an infinite regress as often spoken of does not concern him and he thinks it is possible. (For the record, I do disagree here with Aquinas even. However, my position is irrelevant as it is not mine called into question but Aquinas’s.)

That’s because there are two kinds of regresses. The first which is found in traditional arguments to show the universe had a beginning is the per accidens chain. For instance, my wife and I both exist in this world because of sexual activity between each set of our parents that produced us. We love our parents, but if somehow, they all died suddenly, that would not mean that my wife and I could not produce children together. Our being able to bring children into the world does not depend on our parents. Once we are brought into existence and are on our own, then we are not dependent on them for that function.

On the other hand, there’s a per se chain. Consider a rock next to a leaf. A stick moves the rock. A hand moves the stick. The rock because of this movement moves the leaf. If you take out any part of the chain, the leaf cannot move. The movement of the leaf is dependent on the chain as a whole and the chain as a whole is dependent on a fundamental movement. Why? All agents in movement in the chain are dependent on something else for their power to move. You can’t have a chain of instruments without someone playing them.

Speaking of movement, let’s talk about that. Before we can however, we need to be clear on the idea of actuality and potentiality. Actuality is simply put, that which is. In actuality, I am sitting down right now. Potential is capacity for change. I have the potential to stand. If I stand, I am standing in actuality and have the potential to sit. There is nothing in Thomism that is pure potential as it would not then “be.” There must be something actual about it for it to be.

Motion then is the actualizing of a potential. This does not just apply to physical motion, although it does include physical motion. Thus, those who reduce the argument of the First Way to physics are simply mistaken. Aquinas has motion with the angels as an example and he does not believe angels are material. Now the atheist can say “There are no angels!” Very well. That may be said. However, if you argue against Aquinas’s view, understand that he allows for angels and if they have any change in any way, then motion is not purely material.

One must also understand causality in Aquinas which comes from Aristotle. Aristotle had four causes in his system. The first cause is the material cause. What is the object made of? The second is the formal cause. What is the form of the object? (A cat has the form of a cat.) The next is the efficient cause. What caused it to be as it is? The last is the final cause. Why is it the way it is? The medievals added two more. The instrumental cause is that through which something is. The exemplar cause is that after which something is, say a house is based on blueprints.

What about the transcendentals? These are aspects that all things have insofar as they have existence. Edward Feser in his excellent book Aquinas, which I recommend to everyone wanting to learn Aquinas, lists five transcendentals. They are thing, one, something, true, and good. Some Thomists add beauty to the list. Some include beauty under goodness. Each of these are convertible with being insofar as they cover some aspect of being.

For instance, something is true if it is real. God is the most real of all since He is being supreme and thus in turn the most knowable, as one can only know that which is true. Something is good if it is that at which all things aim. All things aim at perfection in accordance with their mode of being. Therefore, perfection is good and the most perfect is God who lacks nothing.

Being is of course the most important aspect of Aquinas’s thought. It is that which we have the most examples of and that which we know the least about. For Aquinas, all forms that exist in the real world are those forms that are conjoined with existence. Clark Kent can exist in the comics and TV shows and movies, etc. and in our minds, but does not in reality.

Also, keep in mind that in each of these, I am giving a brief synopsis. I encourage the reader to go out and do fuller study. I will be recommending books shortly.

Another statement I wish to make first however is that Aristotle and Aquinas did believe some things that were wrong scientifically. While this is true, for our purposes, it is also irrelevant. The metaphysics of Aristotle and Aquinas do not depend on the physics. The physics can be wrong entirely and the metaphysics sound. However, the physics does depend on the metaphysics. Those who wish to attack Aquinas should not attack his physics but his metaphysics.

I have already recommended the work by Edward Feser. In fact, if I could recommend just one work, this would be it. I also recommend works by Joseph Owens such as “An Elementary Christian Metaphysics,” and “An Interpretation of Existence,” There’s also Father John Wippel’s “The Metaphysical Thought of Thomas Aquinas,” “An Introduction To The Metaphysics of Thomas Aquinas,” translated and edited by James Anderson, and G.K. Chesterton’s excellent biography of Thomas Aquinas to know the man better.

Tomorrow, we will try to keep these ideas in mind and see how badly TAA botches the arguments.

When Bears Attack

Hello everyone and welcome back to Deeper Waters where we are diving into the ocean of truth! Readers are aware I have a blogroll on the side of my blog and today, I am pleased to announce a new blog. My wife is a great admirer of nature and animals, much more so than I am. She has also started her own blog now to remind Christians of the wonders of nature. It’s called Evergreen Glades and can be found here.

Speaking of her, the best man at our wedding, an excellent friend of mine, saw my blog yesterday on stoning children and said he prefers letting bears handle rebellious ones. Now he is a Christian in case any one is wondering, and he’s quite the apologist as well. What he’s referring to however is another story often raised up by atheists supposed to make Christians embarrassed about their Bibles. It’s found in 2 Kings 2:23-24.

23 From there Elisha went up to Bethel. As he was walking along the road, some boys came out of the town and jeered at him. “Get out of here, baldy!” they said. “Get out of here, baldy!” 24 He turned around, looked at them and called down a curse on them in the name of the LORD. Then two bears came out of the woods and mauled forty-two of the boys.

What’s going on here?

For one thing, these boys again were most likely not even boys. They were more like young men who were capable of inflicting some serious damage on the prophet if they wanted to. The same word is used to describe soldiers in the army. Considering Israel didn’t exactly live in peaceful times, they’d want there to be soldiers in the army ready.

Thus, the prophet could justifiably be seen as being in danger. There is more going on as well. This was just after the event of Elijah going up to Heaven in a whirlwind. The story would have been well known even if not believed by all and would have been a picture of the hand of God on the life of Elijah.

What the boys were saying was mockery first off. That would be enough actually. YHWH does not take mockery of Himself lightly and anything that would make YHWH be seen as less than holy would not be allowed. It would be a direct challenge to the honor of YHWH in the face of false gods in the area.

However, it’s more than mockery. It’s also a blatant disregard for YHWH and his rule in the lives of these men. They were in telling Elisha that he should go on up away just like Elijah did. They didn’t want to hear the message of Elijah and they don’t want to hear the message of his successor either.

This was the start of the ministry of Elisha and already it was being challenged and it was being challenged with violence. God’s response is to bring the stakes up to the level they brought them up. The young generation growing up would get the message that this messenger was to be heeded like Elijah was.

But they died!

Yeah. YHWH takes sin seriously. Why should I have a problem with that? I contend that the reason modern skeptics have a problem with this is that they do not see seriously the holiness of YHWH in the Bible. As long as they don’t see that, it will be their problem until convinced. We are under no obligation to lower the holiness of God to handle the outrage of skeptics.

Stoning Children

Hello everyone and welcome back to Deeper Waters where we are diving into the ocean of truth! We’ve been looking lately at atheist sound bites that are thrown around on the blogosphere without proper study. Our next one to look at for this blog will be that the Bible teaches us to stone children.

The text is found in Deuteronomy 21:18-21:

18 If someone has a stubborn and rebellious son who does not obey his father and mother and will not listen to them when they discipline him, 19 his father and mother shall take hold of him and bring him to the elders at the gate of his town. 20 They shall say to the elders, “This son of ours is stubborn and rebellious. He will not obey us. He is a glutton and a drunkard.” 21 Then all the men of his town are to stone him to death. You must purge the evil from among you. All Israel will hear of it and be afraid.

So obviously, if little Johnny does not clean his room, then the parents must take him out and stone him.

Or is this again wrong?

The reality is that first off, this was not just a case of a little kid talking back to his parents, which would have been something serious in a culture where parents were actually to be respected. In our day and age, we glamourize youth and mock adulthood.

In that time, the sons were the livelihood of the family. They were the ones who would be the strongest workers out in the field. They were also the ones through whom the family line would be passed down. The loss of a son would have a huge impact on a family and so they would want to make sure that they did not lose one so carelessly.

Furthermore, in our day and age, we do have sons getting married or going off to college or both and leaving behind their natural family. In that day and age, it didn’t really happen. It would be common for someone to live with parents and grandparents still.

Thus, a rebellious son could include one who was a grown adult and was living with his parents. Why would they want to stop such a case? Because it is teaching rebellion to YHWH and his holiness and the one little contaminant could spread through the whole populace.

In fact, we have a clue in the text that this son is of age. He is described as a glutton and a drunkard. While we do know children can be problems at times, we do not normally see small children as being gluttons and drunkards.

Was such punishment serious? Yes it was. It was deadly serious. However, it was also extremely rare. Any child would have known about what the consequences were for going against YHWH. Left unchecked, such behavior would have reduced Israel to the level of the nations around it. (Many condemn the behavior of Israel without bothering to consider how Israel was in relation to the people around it.)

What’s required to know about the reality of this situation? Some serious study. Too often, skeptics have simply read something they don’t like in the Bible and then figured the whole thing must be wicked and evil. Such shallow thinking shows a lack of true research on their part.

Slavery

Hello everyone and welcome back to Deeper Waters where we are diving into the ocean of truth! Tonight, we’re going to look at another atheist sound bite, although I hope soon to move on to the ones we Christians use that irk me oh so much. Last night, we looked at the topic of supposed genocide briefly and saw the main example of Numbers 31 and that it’s highly exaggerated. What about slavery? How is it that the Bible condones such a practice?

To begin with, one point I usually make with atheists is that they also need a moral standard by which they condemn this practice. Very few people I find who profess to be moral relativists seem to live this out. They tend to be relativists about the morality they want people to tolerate in them and absolutists about morality they won’t accept elsewhere.

Also, let’s clear something up at the start. If you’re an American thinking about slavery in the Civil War era, drop that idea immediately. That’s not what’s going on in the Bible. Keep in mind in fact that some slavemasters in the South were quite good to their slaves and the slaves didn’t want to leave. There were some blacks in the Confederate army. The north was hardly innocent either with child labor and poor working conditions.

In our times, slavery was done on people seen as racially inferior and was often done to exploit them. In the Bible, it was quite the opposite. If you go to work sometime and you come home referring to your boss as a taskmaster, you’re not too far from the slavery in the Bible in some ways. It was more akin to the employee/employer relationship.

Everyone needed to work to live and the only place you can go to to get a job is to those who have the money to pay you. If you were a poor person in ancient Israel, you had to hire yourself out to someone to work. Seeing as your livelihood and his depended on work getting done, a contract of sorts would be required, even if just an oral one. This was the system.

It was a staple of the ancient world and no one could function without it. People had to work for other people. Around the time of the Romans, some slaves had enough to become teachers and other professionals. The philosopher Epictetus was a slave. This was also allowed in Israel as a slave could have his own income and resources.

“Yeah? Well you could also beat a slave without fear of punishment provided he live!”

Sounds like it’s treating a slave as mere property at first, but not at all. When a slave is referred to as property, it means the owner has rights to the output that the slave would produce. Your employer, if you are the common American worker, just as much expects certain output from you. That’s why he pays you.

Well what about this in Exodus 21?

20 “Anyone who beats their male or female slave with a rod must be punished if the slave dies as a direct result, 21 but they are not to be punished if the slave recovers after a day or two, since the slave is their property.

To begin with, you would be punished if the slave died. However, if the worker lives after a day or two, you weren’t. Why? The owner is being given the benefit of the doubt. He doesn’t want to lose that income from that slave and besides, if other future workers hear that X died under the treatment of Y, he knows he’s not likely to get replacement help.

The rod was also the system of discipline. We can scorn that today, as we prefer locking someone away in a cell for several years. It’s quite the difference as to us, solitude is seen as a great punishment. I believe the ancients placed great value on solitude.

But even if you beat your slave, notice what Exodus 21 later says:

26 “An owner who hits a male or female slave in the eye and destroys it must let the slave go free to compensate for the eye. 27 And an owner who knocks out the tooth of a male or female slave must let the slave go free to compensate for the tooth.

The idea is that if a slave suffers permanent damage under the care of the person he was a slave to, then that slave was to go free. That’s something any owner would keep in mind when it came to discipline! The owner’s reputation again would also suffer as a result.

Well that works for Hebrews. What about foreigners! The system was biased towards those who identified with YHWH!

Yeah. It was.

What? You’re expected to think that YHWH running a system would not want people in that system to be devoted to Him?

The simple solution for any alien would be to convert to following YHWH. Abandon pagan gods and join YHWH. Why should this be a surprise to us? There is nothing immoral about it. If you are in charge of an organization, you get to call the shots on who gets what kind of treatment.

Is this ideal? No. It is not. However, it would not have worked for YHWH to have overthrown the system entirely. The ancient world depended on it, the rich and the poor alike. His plan was to take a less than ideal system and eventually through the transference of holiness make it better.

“Well Jesus could have done something about it! Why nothing in the NT!?”

The NT does tell slaves to work hard, but it also tells masters to treat their slaves well. Why nothing explicit? The gospel was not to be about overthrowing a political system, but rather the kingdom of the devil. It was through such transformation that slavery would eventually be overcome. This was through the work of people like Bathilda, wife of Clovis II, and William Wilberforce.

I recommend works like Kaiser’s “Towards Old Testament Ethics,” “The Rise of Christianity” and “The Victory of Reason” by Rodney Stark, articles at Tektonics.org, and the work at the Christian-thinktank.com, including a whole in-depth article on this topic.

The question to the atheist critic is, “What exactly have you read about slavery in the ANE?”