*philosophy

Adding video to channels (Philosophy) - requested by rottenseed.

The first two "proofs" sound more like a believer explaining the personal concept of God as a system of faith to someone who's never heard of it, rather than any kind of proof of God's existence. If that were the circumstance, then I would readily accept them both, just as I would accept a Daoist's explanation of her faith.

Great piece by Dawkins, but that music sample thing at the end was unnecessary and much too loud.

I did not know this was allowed. Just a book cover and an audio clip....I love philosophy but still....

Keep in mind, as you read this response, that I've been drinking. Any errors, I hope, can be blamed on the pernicious evils of that blackgaurd Jack Daniels, whose intoxications cloud the minds of men, but (happily) sometimes open the thighs of women.

That said, I spoke briefly with someone from my department of study on the topic of Aquinas' proofs of God before my graduation ceremony (B.A. in Philosophy) this last Saturday.

I feel fairly confident in what I learned, since the individual I spoke to had spent a semester studying Aquinas at Oxford last year. He explained to me, after my mentioning the utter failure of Aquinas' Five Ways, that they were severely misunderstood by modern thinkers. As it turns out, Aquinas did not say that time, or even causality, cannot infinitely regress. That claim, which is simply false from a logical standpoint, was never stated by Aquinas. Indeed, he is famous for stating that, without faith, there is simply no reason to believe that the universe has not existed, as Aristotle claimed, forever, infinitely reaching into the past. (This was, of course, prior to Big Bang cosmology) I felt rather stupid when this was pointed out to me; it's such an obvious contradiction that I couldn't believe I had overlooked it. Aquinas certainly wouldn't have.

The version Dawkins proposes is actually the Kalam cosmological argument, not Aquinas'.

The version Aquinas presents is far closer to Leibniz's cosmological argument, which depends on the Principle of Sufficient Reason (PSR)--the claim that everything has a reason for its existing and being the way it is. Alcohol floods my brain ever stronger, so I can't hope to do justice to the argument. I shall leave it as an exercise for the reader. Suffice to say that, if one accepts the PSR, the existence of God ineluctably follows--or at least the existence of an Ultimate Reason for Everything, which amounts to the same thing.

Note that I have not claimed that the existence of the Abrahamic God is proven this way. Not only do I not believe in such a God, I do not believe that this kind of argument could prove such. Nor did Aquinas. Which is why he said it was a matter of faith.


In short, Dawkins fails because he utterly misunderstands Aquinas at a basic level. Which is somewhat forgivable, because everyone does. You have to understand Aristotle in order to understand Aquinas, and that is something that few attempt these days.

Isn't there a *books channel now?

Adding video to channels (Books) - requested by jimnms.

*dead

This published video has been declared non-functional; embed code must be fixed within 2 days or it will be sent to the dead pool - declared dead by eric3579.

Awarding kronosposeidon with one Power Point for fixing this video's dead embed code.