Aquinas and the Cosmological Arguments: Crash Course Philosophy #10

About | Information | History | Online | Facts | Discovery

1. People always point out how my hypothesis contradicts the second law of thermodynamics, but if the universe is an isolated system, the only way for there not to be an infinite regress is if time is a loop. It's either that, or cause and effect are not innately relevant to time, and the past doesn't exist (note the present tense usage), in which case the initial cause was nothing more than two forces pushing against each other in what was originally known as the present, a "time" which changes shape but is not a directly observable dimension like height, width, or length. There's also multiverse theory, but even that falls victim to an infinite regress to what universe spawned the first one. I suppose another solution of this infinite regress issue is the idea that the laws of this universe don't apply to every universe, and they gradually change due to factors we cannot observe due to our being limited to just this one universe at the moment. In one of these universes, the second law of thermodynamics may not apply, and entropy will decrease as universes are gradually created to produce more and more orderly universes until there is a loop of created universes.
2. Im a fluke? that sounds like something my dad told me
3. You know... I believe that there is a God, in the Abrahamic sense, but if God doesn't exist then I am ok with that because when I die nothing will happen. At least I had found something that gave my life direction. The idea that my God is the wrong God, and/or there is another God(s) that exist that will eternally punish me for not believing in that God(s) is what terrifies me.
4. So God is quite literally a scape goat for all of philosophy's problems?
5. why the whole world can't be contingent? i can't see a reason why the whole universe must have existed
   Also, his Argument from degrees reminds me of Descartes' argument, but not so good
6. i would say the existence of god is un-debatable. Because if god does exist he/she/apache must be this higher being that doesn't abide by our law, even our deduction or any valid arguments wouldn't prove or disapprove anything. so far i'm neutral. i can't approve or disapprove the existence of god.
7. Aquinas cosmological argument never intended to define the characteristics of the being called God, but it established in practical terms the possibility of His existence. Just like arguing that I could exist and not stating my physical features. Therefore he was right at that, absolutely right at his arguments which he limited only to the possibility of a God being existence through the acts of His works. So the counter argument s absolutely derailed from the focus of His argument. Aquinas was right. I mustn't know all of Abraham Lincoln physical features before I could admit he did exist, whereas there are evidences of political and national efforts that points to him, but never characterized him. Like having seen this video I can tell this course exists and someone brought into being, but I do not know the physical features of the person who wrote the source code of this page, that never denies nor distills the Truth that someone of your kind do actually exist.
8. I wonder why theists try to prove the existence of God. Wouldn't it cause the religion to stop being religion anymore?
9. I don't quite get the infinite regression criticism hear. He said that Aquinas took it as a given that an infinite regression was impossible, BUT if an infinite regression were possible, then Aquinas would be wrong. HOWEVER, Aquinas didn't just take it as a given. He layer out perfectly valid reasons as to why an infinite regression couldn't be possible, and then proceeded with his argumwnt, therefore, this criticism seems flawed because it didn't adress aquinas' argument AGAINST infinite regression
10. all of his argument about God can be replaced by the Big Bang
11. "You're basically a fluke."
    
    Gee buddy, thanks. My self esteem really needed to hear that.
12. SquareSpace - Suck it Web design!
13. 3 is a good argument
14. An objection to polytheism would be that if there were multiple Gods there would always be dispute. If they all were in perpetual agreement, is the collective not the one God and the distinct simply parts? If there is dispute, something so delicate and perfect as the universe would never have come into existence. God must be one God, and as it turns out, there are not many religions which have just one God. Namely, Islam, Christianity and Judaism. And as it happens, Jews, Muslims and Christians all worship the same God, the God of Abraham. The only dispute is the role of Jesus. Jews think the Messiah is yet to come, Christians believe Jesus is the Messiah, Muslims believe Jesus was simply a prophet, like Muhammed. I believe Jesus is who he said he is which is why I am a Christian.
15. His first 2 arguments basically go like this:
    Nothing is forever.
    Everything started somewhere.
    That start is God.
    However, this is weak because, why can't there be an infinite regress? Example: If the Universe ended with some event that sucked everything into an infinitely small space, which thus caused the Big Bang and than everything else.
    
    The argument of contingency says everything could have not existed. But is it not existed, or in this case, us, then we couldn't talk about it. And thus, this argument only makes sense if we couldn't talk about it. Besides, he didn't prove why we are contingent.
    
    
    Argument from degrees- Everything is perspective from something else. 50 is small to 100000, but big to 1. It's only based on your other experiences. For example: Your born in Africa and live there for half your life. Then, your moved to, say, Georgia. You might say it's cold, but Georgia is hot to someone who lived half their life in the Arctic. So, we don't need a perfect start, so long we have 1 measure of everything.
16. But god doesnt have to be caused because he is outside and independent of time and matter.
    
    Also an explanation doesnt need an explanation, we would need an explanation for the explanation of the explanation and so on and so on.
    
    For example if astronauts would find some sort of machinery on mars they could come to a conclusion that an intelligent source had put it there without knowing what the intelligent source was or how it came into being.
17. God is infinite. If you see an infinite regress, you are presupposing an infinite God.
18. I'm doing this next term in my philosophy class. time to get ahead!!
19. Dominos are like Chekov's Gun.
20. Thank you so much for these videos!! This might just help me pass my Philosophy final tomorrow :((((