Arguing on the Aristotelian proof on YouTube's comments section (and why a lot of Internet Atheists are ignorant of Classical arguments of God)

There's this video on You Tube entitled "Why There's Most Likely No God" uploaded 3 years ago by a You Tube Channel called "Science Plus". The video aims to give reasons why God's existence might be unlikely.... in the perspective of science, of all things! I hold on to the view that Natural Theology must be grounded in the Philosophy of Nature, not Natural Science, for arguments for God's existence through science tend to be God-of-the-gaps arguments (and I HATE God-of-the-gaps arguments!), and, if ever they're correct, do not point to the classical theism's view of the Divine. I, then, responded to the video via the comments section, stating that we cannot use science in talking about God and the supernatural, because primarily, the question "does God exist?" isn't even a scientific question at all. Immediately, a person with a username "asrgaqgq sdfgsdgsdfgsdg" (his anti-theistic claims is as gibberish as his username ) responded saying that what I said was "nonsense" and that 'If God exists, then it can be scientifically proven." (I will not detail all the back and forth we did in the comments section, just click the title of the video at the beginning of the article and read it yourself.) We then responded with one another's arguments, until the issue of the difference between a linear and a hierarchical causal series. The guy said that both kinds of causes "both culminate to the same thing". What he said proves that he and a lot of atheists like him are very ignorant of Aristotelian principles and only attack caricatures of the argument. This is also very evident if you read New Atheist books, wherein they attack a very stupid caricature of the cosmological argument, then proceeds with the "if everything has a cause, then what caused God?" objection.
Remember that when thinkers like Aristotle and Aquinas talks about their cosmological argument from motion, they're talking about hierarchical series of causes, or a series of causes wherein the secondary members only derive their causal power in the first member. If there's no first member, then the series won't exist in the first place. It also isn't concerned in proving that the universe had a beginning in the finite past, but rather on what exists in the here and now (again, I'm not explaining this in a great length here, just look at the comments section of the said video).
So, a note to athiests/agnostics/skeptics/Dawkin-nites: If ever you feel like criticizing the Aristotelian-Thomistic cosmological arguments, remember to read about them first before speaking about them, in order to avoid looking like a fool.

- Matthew Luis Antero.

Comments

Wanna Make Things Right? Stop Prioritizing Justice

Image by Jill Wellington from Pixabay It seems to me that there is an intuitive sense within us fallen human beings to prioritize justice in a cold, blind sense before everything else. Yes, even before love or friendship, we aim to make sure that we are given our due and that people who have hurt us should be hurt as well, so that he or she can feel what we also felt. For instance, if we learn that a person we consider a friend is actually stabbing us in the back, the reasonable response seems to be to break the friendship apart and complain about this same friend to other people. This seems what is just in our eyes. And for us, as long as our sense of blind justice is preserved, all will be well. But for Christ, making things right does not mean prioritizing justice in the retributive sense of the word. Rather, for Him, justice is merely secondary to gratuitous, no-holds-barred Divine Mercy. Mercy always and everywhere is primary. Only when Mercy precedes justice can things be ma

A Man Motivated By Love

Image by Francesco Nigro from Pixabay First, a word about the 1988 movie The Truman Show starring Jim Carrey. In the said movie, the main character, Truman Burbank (played by Carrey) lived in the biggest studio ever, which he thought was the real world, since he was the baby. Basically, everything around him is fake. He would interact with other people in his "island" not knowing they were simply paid actors. In short, he is living a life ruled by deception. But there was a moment in his life where he met a woman named "Lauren" (whose real name is Sylvia), and fell in love with her. Lauren was also the first person in the whole show to tell Truman that he was living a lie, because in reality, she is a member of the "Free Truman" movement. Unfortunately, so that Truman would not know the truth, "Lauren" was taken off the show. To make the long story short, she became the motivating factor for Truman to leave his Island, a voyage which would u

Saint Thomas Aquinas, My Beloved Professor in Heaven: The four most important lessons I learned from the Angelic Doctor

It’s been three years since I first discovered and seriously personally studied the works of Saint Thomas Aquinas, and I can happily say that I am far from really scratching the surface. The Angelic Doctor has this awe-inspiring gift of deep insight when it comes to philosophical and theological truths; this great awareness of both the metaphysics of the cosmos and the infinite divine power and love that moves the planets, of both what things are in themselves and He Who Is, of the words that come from the wisdom of antiquity and the Word that breathes forth Love, Who is the Logos of God through Which the Father expresses His design in creation and through Which the Father recreates us in redemption. In short, Aquinas’s thought is this one, big, wholesome vision of God, our First Cause and Last End, and His mysterious and astonishing relationship with the universe that one cannot really claim to be an “expert” when it comes to his teachings (one can have a specialty in

Search This Blog