I hope you realize that there is no other video explaining the relationship between God and Artistotle theory on KZread that I could find. Neither in English nor French. I am not saying that there are not many out there but it's not common. Congratulations and many thanks !

@DefenseofSanity

3 жыл бұрын

That’s honestly really sad. KZread needs more Aristotle.

@costakapsalis7667

11 ай бұрын

Very interesting. Who is the author? How do I find more videos or docs from him?

@nobey1kanobey

2 ай бұрын

Ed Feser does great content on this kind of Aristotelian philosophy

Over 2000 years ago Aristotle was figuring out the nature of reality wow

Thanks for this explanation, I've been struggling to understand actus purus for a while and this cleared it up, keep up the good work.

@DefenseofSanity

3 жыл бұрын

In my opinion, it’s the best argument, but really convoluted and easy to strawman / misunderstand. Cosmological arguments like Kalam are easier to grasp, but more vulnerable to rebuttal.

@twopoles11

3 жыл бұрын

@@DefenseofSanity I also like how Aquinas and Aristotle prove certain characteristics of God, rather than the Kalam argument, which simply proves that God exists.

@DefenseofSanity

3 жыл бұрын

It’s so much better. Aristotle’s metaphysics also leads to a comprehensive development of morality, politics, natural science, etc. It’s fantastic.

@sharpthingsinspace9721

8 ай бұрын

@@DefenseofSanityjust another human construct, proves nothing, nice try though 😂😂

You’re an absolute badass, you couldn’t have made it more concise yet more accurate at the same time. A m d g bro

@DefenseofSanity

4 жыл бұрын

Credit to Dr. Ed Feser for writing such a concise and accurate book, which I used as reference.

@Seanus32

3 жыл бұрын

@@DefenseofSanity Do you believe Christianity is more credible than Islam? Islam is predicated on Oneness. Christianity on Threeness.

@DefenseofSanity

3 жыл бұрын

Does Islam teach that God or Allah is exactly the actus purus as described in my video?

@Seanus32

3 жыл бұрын

@@DefenseofSanity Pretty much, yes

@DefenseofSanity

3 жыл бұрын

If “pretty much” implies that something about the actus purus does not apply to God as Muslims understand, what is it?

God bless you!

Defense of sanity I took my post down after I watch your whole video it was a great video I Impressed of your knowledge God Bless

I am grateful for this video

Thank you for the video. It hit a homerun in my mind.

Great video! I imagine it takes a lot of courage & humility to stand up for the Faith in the internet like this. Thank you for doing it.

Awesome work, dude.

i feel smart because i understood everything in this video

@sharpthingsinspace9721

8 ай бұрын

WRONG!!

As a thomas what would your response be to why can't things persist?

Brother, may I use some fragments from this video for my video on Dr. Feser's arguments? The goal is to introduce the Russian audience to the argument from Dr. Feser's book. I'll definitely put your video as a reference and according to the copyright. Thanks

@DefenseofSanity

3 жыл бұрын

Use however you want. Don’t worry.

@sergeysmirnov5986

3 жыл бұрын

@@DefenseofSanity Thanks. God bless you!

You just did a great job describing The One of Plotinus.

Thank you so much u legend!

Nice. Love your vids dude

really good! thank you

Are you confusing potentiality with potency here? Also, at 7:16 “to actualize potencies”, but I thought you said the “basis” had no potencies! And in order to act/actualize, it would need to have one, right?

@Darkev77

2 жыл бұрын

@Actus Purus hey thanks for your response. I believe devoting two different terms with the word “potency” is unnecessary, since “passive potency” can just be called potency, and “active potency” could just be referred to as “actability/ability”. Sure, if the “basis” had no potency (passive) then that would entail that all of creation is infinitely old, since the “basis” is always actual with no potencies, and since the “basis” is infinite, it has actualized all of potencies in all things ever since (infinity). If creation wasn’t infinite, then it had to come into (actualized) into existence by the “basis”, and if that was the case, then the “basis” did undergo a change, from not creating to creating, and hence it had the potential to create then it actualized its own potential to perform the act of creation. I believe the statement “every passive potency requires an external actualizer” is applicable to all entities without a will, and thus not the “basis”, but he limited it to that statement. Thoughts?

@Darkev77

2 жыл бұрын

@Actus Purus Thanks for the clarification. I believe the term "purely actual" is quite vague; is it to mean that the entity has "no capacity/ability to be changed or affected?", (lack of passive potency as you put it?). And why did we split the nature of potentiality into two: "potential to cause/perform a change" and the "potential to be changed or affected"; at the end they're both potentials that exist within an entity. Moreover, the premise that the actus purus *must* lack any potency is flawed. 4:43 He limited the actualization of potencies to an external actualizer, which is not true, whether it be what you call "active" or "passive" (and this is what led him to that "no potency" conclusion). All entities with a *will* can exercise the act of actualizing their own potencies (to some extent) without requiring an external actualizer (eg: Humans have the potential to die, and once can suicide actualizing that potency). Things like matches, magnets, wood, etc. require an external actualizer to actualize their potencies since they don't have a will. Now it seems you're bounding the actus purus to the existence of the universe when you said: "some potential in the universe has not be actualized and thus does not exist. actus purus and the universe coexisted mutually, and when you said: " and thus the actus purus does not exist before creating it." which sounds like a logical contradiction; how can he not exist before creating it, but at the same time, he created it? Is his existence limited to the existence of the universe? Finally with regards to "changeability" from not-creating to creating, it seems that again, you bounded the term "change" within the universe, and thus no change exists outside of the universe which is not true. Change does not have to be temporal, the change from not-creating to creating is an intrinsic change, i.e., behavioral rather than temporal thus the actus purus had the potential to change

Please keep uploading brotheeer

The video I have been searching for !!!!!!!

@DefenseofSanity

4 жыл бұрын

Happy you found it helpful.

@NG-we8uu

4 жыл бұрын

Defense of Sanity please make more

@sarahlisadelacy331

4 жыл бұрын

Brilliant

There can be material - and an actualizer, one who directs the material to his will. They can both exist without potency, be purely actual and logically inescapable. That would explain matter and the abstract ideas as we currently conceive. There can also be two actualizers, one with power but lacks thought while the other with thought but lacks power, but both without potency, purely actual and logically inescapable.

Which program did you use to create the video?

@DefenseofSanity

3 жыл бұрын

PowerPoint, exported as a video, cut and spliced in any basic video editor.

@a.sobolewski1646

3 жыл бұрын

@@DefenseofSanity Greatly appreciate it. The content is wunderbar, btw

Could you explain a little more why the series of changes cannot be an infinite regress? Is it because if there were an infinite regress of changes, would you be able to exist in a state of change at all?

@ChrisJohnsonHome

Жыл бұрын

If matter and energy are caused by quantum fields, which are caused by the structure of spacetime which is caused by something else, which is caused by something else ... (in an infinite regress) then it would be an infinite regress. I don't think there's anything preventing this, it's just that it is not satisfying to our human intellect / intuition.

@Cklert

9 ай бұрын

Because it moreso presents a logical problem. That is, the magnitude of infinity. Infinity isn't simply a really big number. It is a continuous set. If an infinite amount of events or actions happend prior then we would actually have no way of pinpointing or reaching where we are right now. If it did end up being an infinite regress, it would actually change our understanding of how infinity works.

This just amazed me like nothing else in a long time… Glory to God!

So an electron is always in constant motion. What is the actualizer for electrons in motion. Also if the laws of nature is constant, then does it still need an actualizer since it never changed. Does the laws of nature have potency? Could an atheist argue that everything requires an actualizer except for fundamental particles which is just that way and never changes. Also could something actualize itself

God is real. Everything was designed . Amazing video

@ciararespect4296

2 жыл бұрын

Nope it's all confirmation bias by Aristotle

@borrburison648

Жыл бұрын

​@@ciararespect4296 random person on the internet "aristotle wrong because theist" Ancient greek philosipher proves the logical necessity of a supreme being, what a dummy

@xnoybis9967

Жыл бұрын

@@ciararespect4296 Nope its proven by Nature and Science

Where is the it's notes in pdf

I understand this argument except the part where there has to be a stoping point. Can you please explain why there has to be a stopping poing and cant go on forever infinitely? This is the part which im trying to figure out for quite at while now but still don't understand why it cant go on forever infinitely. Thanks

@kaleemazad5475

4 жыл бұрын

I still don't understand why it can go on forever. Lets suppose there is a lamp hanging on the ceiling only because it being held up by the chain. The chain is holding up the lamp only because its be held up by the screws. The screws are are holding the chain up only because the screws are being held by the ceiling. The ceiling is holding the screws only because the ceiling is being held up by the walls. The walls are able to hold ceiling up only because its being supported by the floor and so forth. I understand that each member of the series is driving power from another but i dont understand why this series cant go on forever infinitely. Can you please explain more or give some examples please? Thanks

@kaleemazad5475

4 жыл бұрын

@Noah Charles so basically if there is an infinite series where every member drives power from another, no member would have power in itself . Correct me if im wrong please

@joshuaphilip7601

3 жыл бұрын

@@kaleemazad5475 think of a chandelier, instead of hanging the chandelier to the ceiling you connect to a chord, then another chord, then another chord, and another and another. An infinite number of chords won't hang the chandelier.

@siegfried.7649

3 жыл бұрын

@@kaleemazad5475 Exactly. Unless you have a first, independent and totally self-sufficient member in the series from which all other members derive their power (or actuality, to use the technical jargon), there would be no series in the first place. That's why there needs to be a first member because all the other members are dependent upon it to be in the particular place they are at that moment.

@joshuaphilip7601

3 жыл бұрын

@Hinters yes. Of course it doesn't end there. The ceiling is attached to something and so it goes, but logically it needs a "first". Each part of the series only gets its causal power from the previous member of the series. Without a first member there is not causal power at all. Unlike a temporal or accidentally ordered series, this series logically requires a first member.

He says between 5:20 and 5:55 that "the actus purus is one". I didn't quite agree this MUST be the case. Does anybody know an argument or philosophy that proves this?

@pweetypoo

2 жыл бұрын

I'm curious to know as well, since it's not provided at all.

Fantastic! When is your apology for bridging the gap between theism & Jesus happening? I’m chomping at the bit here!

Bravo! This video is a masterpiece!

I'm with it. I like your arguments and would love to debate with you.

This is such an important video and yet it only has 47k views while Mr. Beast videos where he is destroys a car has 1b views. What a society we live in.

Socrates "How can there be divine knowledge without a divine knower?" 🤯

As a bringer of life and harbinger of creativity God represents endless possibilities to transform our physical reality as well as ourselves. The key to endure so is not to let our ego take control over our own, but to acknowledge that He is the cause of the great things that we experience in our lives. In some hermetic excerpts God is known as The First Unique Cause which is compatible with His Alpha & Omega remark.

You saved me to fail my Aristotle and Platon class. Thank you, thank you, thank you!

@DefenseofSanity

3 жыл бұрын

Haha what class are you taking?

@aadeshsingh6113

2 жыл бұрын

You literally understood this?

@pratiswar5977

Жыл бұрын

​@@aadeshsingh6113 Yeah

The first member needs no cause as it is outside of cause and effect.Aristotle's Unmoved Mover is outside of existing and it's similar to Plato's the Good or Plotinus's the One.

I really appreciate this. I'm currently reading 5 proofs for the existence of God by Ed Faser and its lead me into classical theism. The Aristotelian proof is something I'm really trying to understand. It's tough given I've only familiarized myself with theistic personalism but this is really helpful in aiding me to grasp the Aristotelian proof.

It's funny how this is more aligned with Islamic thought than it is with Christianity, Avicenna's work literally discusses this in mathematical terms. He called it the unity of being.

@RZApologist

6 ай бұрын

I think you don’t understand the trinity at all

@Guyfromfuture-vq2td

6 ай бұрын

unity of being or wahadut ul wajood was propogated by ibn arabi etc and avicenna also belived in eternity of the universe and god as sort of sustainer of universe that immensly critqued by al ghazal and ibn tayamiyah

@quickk.7064

5 ай бұрын

avicenna wasn't a panentheist.

@Guyfromfuture-vq2td

5 ай бұрын

@@quickk.7064 i said that about ibn arabi not ibn sina . ibn sinna believed in the eternity of the universe and god as a necessary existence that sustains the universe

@knowledgedesk1653

4 ай бұрын

It aligns more with Hinduism Vedanta

I don't fully follow. Why can't there be more than one actus purus? "There would have to be some thing that one has that the other doesn't" Yes, like a different position in the "framework" of reality? Why isn't this possible?

@Cklert

9 ай бұрын

Because it's ultimately redundant. What is one doing that requires another? If the two or more are exactly alike and carry the same will, and never conflict with each other, there would be no way to distinguish one from the other. They would ultimately be the same being. It's therefore completely unnecessary.

@quickk.7064

5 ай бұрын

@@Cklert it's a weak argument and it has awful implications, the best argument for oneness is the one that goes like: if deity A and deity B existed, and there's a thing call it a human or whatever, if the god A said he'll move right, and the god B said left, then one of three things occur, 1- both orders occur thus breaking the law of con, none occur thus they aren't omnipotent, one order occurs, thus the other deity isn't omnipotent, thus he's not a god. and you'll maybe say what if they don't have conflicted orders? the respond is that i'm speaking out of possiblity, not an acutal occuring of a conflict, if there's a possiblity that A moves the being right, and B moves the being left, then this possiblity is an impossiblity, thus a contradiction which is logically impossible.

Hey. I think I have something to contribute to this argument. A lot of people get caught up on the concept of an infinite regress, saying that it might be possible. I think the most compelling example is that of the infinite chain of gears. According to physics, there is a finite amount of energy in the universe. An infinite regress of gears would imply an infinite amount of energy which isn’t true, at least from our understanding of physics. What do you think?

@absurdist5938

2 жыл бұрын

Bullshit.. You and nobody cannot escape, infinite regress.. Science doesn't disprove or prove infinite coz infinite is no useful topic in "scientific sense"..thar doesn't mean infinity exist.. Mathematical infinities and universe as infinity is still a topic but science have nothing to say as infinity cannot be experimently verified.. Universe might be infinite ..law of conservation of energy, states energy can neither be created nor be destroyed and cause in the chain of gears the energy output is only given after the last gear, it still is in infinite regress.. It's not about energy but of gear.. Now infinite regress depends on the premise of the argument.. Thus nor science or reality could do anything.. As if one claims everything that exist have a cause, regardless of infinity is real or not, infinite regress is formed.. It can only be breaked if the premise is false.. It about the argument.. And we don't know about universe or energy in conclusive.. It might be infinite or not.. We don't know

@ChrisJohnsonHome

Жыл бұрын

Why couldn't there be an infinite amount of energy spread across an infinite amount of space, time, and multiverses? What's preventing the universe to be caused by a multiverse, which itself had another cause, in an infinite regress? I don't like the idea of an infinite regress, but it's hard to rule out entirely.

I am not sure about the pure actuality inference We need to br consistent with the way we use the term actual Because we are talking about per se chain The first member must be able to produce motion Without a further actualizer to actualize its potential to cause motion In other words it has nonderived csusal power That's the sense in which we can call the first cause uactualized However we cannot go further and claim that it doesn't have any potentials at all For example it's potential to exist could have been actualized a finite time ago Yet it doesn't need a sustaining actualizer to sustain its existence While at the same time sustaining the existence of the members of the per se series

How can we show from these conclusions that the actus Perus is all-loving?

@AD-sx7ix

3 жыл бұрын

@Actus Purus Perfect

BLESSINGS

Socrates "So for you to know there is no God, you must be a god." 🤯

Can you cite your sources, please?

@DefenseofSanity

3 жыл бұрын

Which claim in particular would you most like to see a source for?

@mariamfarag7552

3 жыл бұрын

Defense of Sanity the vertical chain (per se) + list of everything under and including the “actus purus”

@DefenseofSanity

3 жыл бұрын

I’m not sure what exactly you are looking for in terms of a source (since this is logical reasoning), but Dr. Edward Feser discusses vertical (or hierarchical) chains in p.22 of his book “Five Proofs of the Existence of God,” and he discusses everything included under the actus purus on p.28.

@DefenseofSanity

3 жыл бұрын

I’m late, but yes of course. This video is an argument for God’s existence that I believe holds true. I’m a Catholic Christian.

Bloody good video

Is this the God of Deism? The same as Brahman, instead of a Personal God (Theism)? How can the Actus Purus have a will or be affected by us in any way? How can we have a relationship with this Being? How can this Being have any characteristics, attributes, personality?

@Deathlock61

9 ай бұрын

Under Divine simplicity God is personal In the sense he has will, intellect ,loves and keeps everything and everyone in existence. That's basically it However because God is unchanging no we can't effect God in anyway whatsoever.

@suppiluiiuma5769

9 ай бұрын

Brahman is a personal God ; Shankara misinterpreted the Vedas.

Why can't an unactualized actualizar have potentials? What if it has potentials that never get actualized. It will still be unactualized

please open a lbry channel. Better than You Tube. Decentralised, no adds and crypto tips

Re: the claim that there must be one actus purus - what if Actus Purus A had potency that could only be actualized by Actus Purus B and vice versa, forming a sort of interdependent relationship?

@livebungusreaction

Жыл бұрын

Kind of like electro magnetic waves depend on each others oscillations? I don’t see why this couldn’t be argued but idk

the only difference between essential and accidental causes is simultaneity. That is the only difference. There is no clear reason why you need an unmoved mover in the case of a temporally extended causal chain vs a simultaneous one.

I guess this is more on Fesser than you, but I don't know why this is not called the Avicennin argument. He's the one that first worked it out in abstract like this. Aristotle still got this out of his physics, not metaphysics. Even more so because Aristotle's God moves the heavenly spheres by being their final cause. He doesn't pump any power for them to continue moving, he's just the motivation they need to continue doing it. Matters become even more ironic when I consider that, as far as I know, there's no indication in Aristotle (like there is here) that the prime mover is the agent intellect. The former is just thought thinking itself, and it "performs its function" in the Physics by (as I said) being the final cause of the planets. The agent intellect is the "mind which thinks all universals," which is needed to explain how passive intellects, like us, can come to think of some universals sometimes but not always. So Aristotle's own system contains an example of substances distinguishable from each other by virtue of their different attributes, where these attributes are not any matter of potency. Simply put, neither the prime mover nor the agent intellect involve potency, they are both pure actors, and yet it is at least a metaphysical possibility that they are not the same substance.

Whoa, thank you

Smart guy, that Aristotle.😏

Even space is empty but scientist still considered space is as a thing.

I agree with most of this video but everything after immaterial is flimsy. Morality and perfection are totally abstract human creations. And the definition of power doesn’t hold up. By the definition of power used, everyone and everything is all powerful because of the butterfly effect idea, every action exponentially changes the future from a reality when that action didn’t happen. The argument that the actus purus is somehow sentient I don’t agree with. For example, your grandparents did not create you, they created your parents who then created you. By that same logic, the actus purus created the beginning of the universe that eventually created humans that then made abstractions. So the actus purus isn’t necessarily rational. And all knowing is based on rationally, and even if the actus purus was rational, we aren’t aware of every effect we have. You sneezing could cause a war in fifty years, just because you caused something doesn’t mean you are aware of all the ways it shapes the world.

@simonsiddique

2 жыл бұрын

Good point!! You gave me a new angle of thought about God.

@ruaidhri777

2 жыл бұрын

I enjoyed reading your comment. One thing to consider. Your parents did not create you, they facilitated the creation of you. There is linguistically a tiny difference but in reality a huge difference. As in, to put it crudely, by a man and a woman getting aroused and having sex with each other, this can not be called creation as they have no control over what gender the child will be, the eye colour etc. To say that giving birth is creation is akin to saying putting a seed in a plant pot and adding water is to create the plant, but of course, it is not, it is facilitating the creation of the plant.

@mindartifex6151

2 жыл бұрын

I've been looking for answers and I must add this to my collection. 🧐

@ColeB-jy3mh

2 жыл бұрын

Morality a human construct? This requires evidence for that claim

@ColeB-jy3mh

2 жыл бұрын

We know Morality isn’t just created because it’s universal. Same a math it’s universal. It’s something we discover and understand not create

Whow very good video, just how Thomas Aquinas would put it

Reminds me of the Boltzmann's brain theory

Brilliant

I don't understand how the actus purus doesn't have any potency. can't this entity change itself?

@kylemyers971

Жыл бұрын

Having no potency means it is perfect and lacks nothing, so what can it change to?

@musaaziri3568

Жыл бұрын

@@kylemyers971 ok, but, at least for me, the argument proves that there must be an unactualized actualizer in regard to it's existence; which is that there must be a being which existence wasn't actualized ( didn't go from potency to act ). But it doesn't proof that this unactualized actualizer doesn't have other potntials for change; for example can't this being move itself? the potency to be at point X is actualized by the being itself ( more or less like us humans ). Sow, maybe I am just not understanding some part of the argumentation, but it is not clear for now.

“A liar’s speech is deficient of truth” but honesty could be described as speech deficient of lies

@acreationofallah1610

2 жыл бұрын

Does lie exist by itself?

@Firelord2nd

Жыл бұрын

@@acreationofallah1610 No, because Our King Allah created Good and Evil

@armandoc.3150

7 ай бұрын

@@acreationofallah1610 No truth exists without a lie and lie is a perversion of the truth, therefore the truth has to exist before any lie can exist. So a lie does not exist in reality, only in our minds. Truth exists outside our minds and in reality.

Bro i am lost. I couldnt follow u

İt is deduvtive to say poteintal because otherwise it says something both actual and poteintal contradicttion

The aristotles proof has many problems when it comes to affirm a abrahamic god e.g abrahamic god has made things come into being but under the aristotles model world is eternal which creates another problem for this argument how something eternal brought temporal originations into existence.

@Firelord2nd

Жыл бұрын

What do yo mean “problems when it comes to affirm a abrahamic God” ?

@knowledgedesk1653

4 ай бұрын

@@Firelord2nd According to abrahamic religions God created the universe but according to Aristotle the universe is eternal

My current thought process after watching this video is the Actus Purus is basically energy. One force that isn't caused, created, or destroyed, which everything stems from. If energy can't be created, then it has always been, and is timeless. I have changed my mind. Matter fits this as well. Energy and matter both fit under the same constraints, but there are two. I would say however that the two share no similarities. They are separate timeless entities which always exist undeniably. Both are actual and only gain potential from interaction with the other My mind isn't made up on anything but I feel close to something

@sergeantslaughter5695

3 жыл бұрын

Remember, the actus purus is rational, all-knowing and all-good as well. Matter and energy are none of those things.

@lovynil

3 жыл бұрын

@@sergeantslaughter5695 I do not believe the Actus Purus is those things, lets say the Actus Purus is god. He created humans to be perfect but as we know humans are imperfect, god made an error and if the human truly is god´s image this means that god isn't rational, all-knowing (since he doesn't know how to create a perfect being) or all-good. I could expand more on this if I had the time

@sergeantslaughter5695

3 жыл бұрын

@@lovynil I don't think any religion claims that God tried to make perfect beings in the sense that they cannot make mistakes. After all, we can't make moral decisions if we have no choice to do the right or wrong thing.

@TheGeneralGrievous19

Жыл бұрын

Actus Purus is in a sense the exact opposite of energy/matter. Energy/matter can be likened to pure potentiallity/prime matter. It can become anything. But matter/energy does not exist on it's own unless it's has a actuality/form - and then becomes something. Matter/energy also constantly changes and takes up new forms which is also opposite to unchangable Pure Act. Pure Act is a omnipotent being, sepreate from anything elese and causing everything else, not any pantheistic ground of being that everything is made out off. Matter/energy in themselves cannot cause anything because they do not have any act in themselves. Speaking of energy as something timeleless/eternal (althugh it can exist indefinetly, which is different) is misleading because it's metaphysical absurdity. You are looking at things from pantheistic point of view which can be described as exact opposite metaphysics of the one that Aristotle represents.

As a muslim i also can relate to this philosophy because i can find alot of things common between it and islam and also the sufi philosophy. It closely resembles it.

The egg came before the chicken.

Had Aristotle knew and learn the Abrahamic faith he would surely be a great Christian and Church father and corrected his mistakes

auctus purus is such a chad

Which religion can help a person against abuse and being manipulated and brainwashed? How about just being positive and kind to others?

@NathanWoyessa

Ай бұрын

Christianity lmao. Being positive and kind is kind of the memo

If one can believe that there is something in the chain that does not require a cause and can exist on its own then that "something" is called God in religion. Whether this universe is God or universe has a God.

2 chains.. one that goes back infinitely (per accidens) & another that does not (per se).. now ignore the first that relates to humanity and voila!

Does the Actus Purus have consciousness?

@Firelord2nd

Жыл бұрын

Yes, because God is all knowing and we are conscious, in fact he (God) has a greater consciousness than we do.

@pratiswar5977

Жыл бұрын

​@@Firelord2nd How can God have gender? God is an entity if it exists. Not in human form.

@avecina6460

Жыл бұрын

​@@pratiswar5977 Romans 1 : 20 ============= So, when we study or observed the creation of God, what can we learned and found..? All God's creation and works tells something about HIM( creator)! The( or any of God's handmade) Creation are all made of or having/ contained 1) Positivity (+)or Negativity(-) 2) Masculinity or Femininity 3) Pistil or Ovule in plants 4) Yang or Yin... GOD'S POSITIVITY AND NEGATIVITY, GOD'S MASCULINITY AND FEMININITY, GOD'S YANG AND YIN.. 👉GOD IS THE HARMONIOUS AND ORIGINAL BEING/ BODY OF ENERGY ((( PRE ENERGY + E= MC2 ))) , OF POSITIVITY AND NEGATIVITY! ============= Another observation is that all of God' s creation have in common like, 1) Have invisible nature or character = A)Internal invisible Mind and B) External visible body/ form ============= What else ? So , this tells us or reveal to us about their origin, their Maker/ Creator 😂 Yes?? God hss also these natures and characters.. God created Humans in His own Image and Likeness. .Humans are only man and woman, male and female, masculinity and femininity!! We call God our Heavenly Father to Emphasizing His masculine Nature or call God our Parents (harmonious both male/ Female). ------------------------- Why the Universe is full of a PAIR system ?? It is for the purposed of fulfilling/ experiencing Love!!❤😂.. =============

Then the Actus Purus is not Yahweh, the God described in the Bible. Is a very different being, specially if you read the Old Testament.

Here is my counter... Firstly, what does it mean by change is pretty confusing as if u are mixing different types of arguments based on Aristotle exists like unmoved mover, uncaused cause etc.. 1)change if meant as - something turns into a different thing - then it doesn't exist.. A match stick light up by something doesn't changes atomically in a sense new atoms are formed or destroyed, instead it's property is replaced but the actual match stick which existed still exist in different places in different ways.. If change is meant to be something of being from one property of an object to another.. It might exist.. As u said all change need a changer.. But next u said this is not the case.. As u end up in a first unchanged changer or unmoved mover.. The whole argument breaks down, premise that change or motion of objects need something external to change it . Thus open the door for being uncaused cause or unchanged changer for everything that exist.. How the hell did u escaped infinite regress?..u just committed a special pleading fallacy there.. And there is no explanation of why infinite regress isn't possible.. Now my point.. *Everything that exist doesn't have a creator.. *as something cannot come from nothing, something that exists always exists... * everything that exist have property.. * property as it "exist" cannot be created and will always exist.. * properties are by definition inherent and cannot be destroyed (above premise) * Motion is a property that exist and is an inherent property ,as everything moves and something which doesn't have the property of motion will not move even if force is applied.. * as matter and everything in this world have the ability to move, thus it's an inherent property, as nothing new can be created or added to a thing which doesn't have the property of reaction factor to that addition of change * nothing in this world we know is actually in a state of rest Conclusion : therefore matter inherently can move and be a mover as it possess the motion as a property and it always moves as there is no state of rest.. So primer mover if u accept is universe itself.. There is no need for another external immaterial agent.. Motion as a property can be changed with anything aslong as it is empirically verified and logically consistent.. No God needed again

@miko67

2 жыл бұрын

anyone who claims infinte regress is possible is deluded. Existence is proof for the impossiblity of infinite regress. Everything within the universe, and therefore the body itself is contingent. Nothing within the realm of existence has the propensity to come about by itself. Your contention to the argument posed in this video is extremely lacking and you've demonstrated you did not understand the proposition.

So, a thinking mind can only create God or a consciousness can only create God. It all comes to the "Cogito, ergo sum".

The one thing flawed with this argument is that you claim the actus purus to be rational, for something to be rational it has to be conscious and self aware, but consciousness is the absence of self (what I mean by that is that where yourself exists, your consciousness and rationality doesnt, because yourself is a closed system and consciousness and rationality are open systems that are boundless, thus they are the absence of self) and the actus purus cant have anything abscent because it is perfect. So either the actus purus is not rational and all knowing, or the actus purus IS both rational and all knowing, but lacks self, which makes it imperfect.

Why is the active purus good and rational all knowing etc ? You're just putting human characteristics in it? The words aren't good enough to explain It's not a deductive argument

Neat assumptions.

"And potencies don't exist without any external actualizes" Is this making an argument that (newtons law?) nothing can change without external forces applies here. I don't think we can necessary follow physics here. Why cant the 1st member be an actual that can change itself?

@DefenseofSanity

3 жыл бұрын

Newton’s law is a description of how reality behaves. It’s not a metaphysical claim. According to special relativity, objects in an inertial frame of reference (not accelerating) aren’t even really moving in any objective sense. Only from a non-inertial frame can you say they are moving, and inertial frames take privilege in quantum physics. So the actual rule on a more accurate understanding of physics is that things not moving (from an inertial frame) won’t move unless moved by another …

@joshlarson407

3 жыл бұрын

​@@DefenseofSanity i guess i should ask how can you claim the actus purus cant be the actualizer for itself and provide itself potency. I dont think this impacts the causality chain or anything really, but its what ive been pondering for a couple hours here hahahaha

@joshlarson407

3 жыл бұрын

i dont think the 1st member has to lack potency

@joshlarson407

3 жыл бұрын

and i dont think potency must have external actualizers to exist

@DefenseofSanity

3 жыл бұрын

Good questions. Aristotle addresses these in Physics VIII.5 (available online for free). Basically, you can’t have potency and its act in the same being, or the potency would always be actual. Usually when people suggest this, they are thinking of a being with parts, and the potency is in one part with the act in another. Aristotle says the part with the act is basically itself an external actual, which gives rise to the potency in the other part. For example, when you walk, this isn’t strictly speaking a case of self-motion. It’s certain parts of your body with motive power moving the rest. And those parts that move the rest are themselves moved by muscles, moved by myosin bending, moved by proteins unfolding, etc. The ONLY way to stop this regress is to have a member that can move things without being moved. Since change is just potencies being reduced to act, ultimately this thing must simply lack potency. Another way to put it: its existence or functioning can’t be conditioned on something prior. There must be a first. This is related to the epistemic regress problem, and philosophers generally have no problem concluding truths that don’t need proving in that regard. It’s worth noting that quantum physics has only strengthened the idea of potencies, with Werner Heisenberg literally citing them as a good way to speak of waveform probabilities. A waveform has many possible solutions, none of which is fully true or false until it is collapsed into a discrete value. This is just potencies reduced to act. Potencies exist as a range of possible outcomes and they collapse into act by another.

What if someone believes that the universe is eternal/has always existed and that the whole universe itself is the pure unactualized actulizer?

@ChowMeinChowdown

3 жыл бұрын

It's very simple. Humans have evolved in a way which makes our minds search for an anthropomorphic entity to account for phenomenon. We are instinctually driven to assign meanings to things and phenomenon and search for intent, when oftentimes there isn't one. We think everything is caused by a prior thing that has intent. And that is the problem, because to search for an explanation when there is none only gives you more questions.

@selfmademan5182

3 жыл бұрын

The universe would then have to be all powerful and intelligent. This means that it has to be able to create life. Look into the cosmological constant. Scientists who study this even the atheist ones believe that the universe is so complex that it looks like a power organized it. Yes even the atheist ones think this, please look it up. Along with this, the second law of thermodynamics states that things deteriorate over time. This means that the universe should have self destructed thousands of years ago. The fact that life is so improbable and complexly made points to a need for God being all powerful and intelligent. The universe alone cannot do that. Please let me know your thoughts!

@kaleemazad5475

3 жыл бұрын

Can the unactualized actulizer have potentials that dont get actulized?

@DefenseofSanity

3 жыл бұрын

No potency at all, for many reasons. Suffice it to say if there was any potency in God, that would imply something external to him could actualize it. There is no such thing as unactualizable potential. That’s the same thing as saying non-potential potential. So no matter how you cut it, potential in God results in logical contradiction.

@kaleemazad5475

3 жыл бұрын

@@DefenseofSanity i understand the part where there has to be an unactualized actualizer. But cant it have a potentially as long as it doesn't get actualized? Maybe the potential never gets actualized in god and still remains unactualized.

You should question your existence, not God's.

Let me take the example of God. God has all the power, all the goodness, all the knowledge 'by default'. He hasn't worked hard for it. It's like a 'free fund'. Similarly, we have consciousness/free will as a 'free fund'. Thoughts come and go in our mind. I myself don't know what thought will come into my mind, say after 5 minutes, 10 minutes etc. It's a 'free fund'.

This entire argument is based on presumption of contingency as popularly conceived by the likes of Leibniz. What if there is no such thing as contingency? I.e. the universe is one in existence and is it's own cause, or in philisophical terms, monism.

proof that love exists

it cannot be both all good and all powerful. though it is silly to say these things just because they produce. it is, there is nothing else to say. That being said, why assume it conscious? God is a word use to say both creator, and consciousness, but you cannot separate the personal interpretation in the word, therefore using god to describe it will ultimately misconstrue. Prove it conscious, and you can call it god. Though, I think youll find when you do do that, that you are still misconstruing its dependent nature.

actus purus would have been perfect if it had all the potencies as it has non that means it is not perfect nor imperfect because it don't have that attribute

@bearartist2604

8 ай бұрын

i dont know if principle of causality makes sense considering it doesif effect have evil inside does the actus purus will also have evil inside and badnes but autus purus is absence of badness

@bearartist2604

8 ай бұрын

even being only one actus purus is not agreeable actus purus only need to kick start the causal chain and after that it can just not exist casual chain will still work also how can it be changeless that change to cause how it has the potency to cause

Right. Where's the part where he slips in Jesus? Why not Krishna or Shiva? (that's another story). The list of essences of the Actus Purus he shows has a flaw. He pulled "good" (as opposed to "evil" out of an ad hoc. Why not evil? If he doesn't have good, evil, and all flavors in between, then his "God" would be incomplete, and a God cannot be incomplete. What those qualities (One, and others), point to is Pure Consciousness "In-Itself", or what Shankara (788-820), called Brahman. This Substance matches Aristotle's God more than the notion of a Personal Creator like YHVH.

The octus purus isn't sentient so no need to worship it🤔

@knowledgedesk1653

4 ай бұрын

He is rational, all knowing, cause of all things so he is sentient or beyond sentient

what about Aether???

God cannot be proved by technical theory....And you can't conceive God fully with your knowledge who Created everything...

@selfmademan5182

3 жыл бұрын

Yes i agree it cant be proved solely off this theory. However this theory hasn’t been disproven. Along with this I would encourage you to look up cosmological constants. Even atheist scientists who study this believe that the universe existing is so improbable that it looks like something organized it. The reason this theory stands is because it is impossible to disprove without admitting God had to create it. Our universe is so complex that it NEEDS a intelligent, all powerful, and internal being to create it. Let me know your thoughts

The actus purus is unthinking, Think is to consider ideas to changing one's mind. actus purus is changeless there for it can't think. A mind is something that thinks. actus purus can't think there for the actus purus has no mind. love come from thinking ... can't love on and on.

@DefenseofSanity

3 жыл бұрын

Aquinas argues that God has a single, eternal thought. So there is not thinking extended through time. You are correct in saying that would be change. The analogy used is an author conceptualizing a story in a single thought. The story takes place in time, but the author’s thought about it is atemporal.

@nielnielsen4822

3 жыл бұрын

@@DefenseofSanity In your example with the coffee cup did you consider if you remove the earth, rather then the table?(side note) That make god a state, not a thought.(This is not a critic of his/your argument just of his word use) It seem to me that if you go down this road, that we must be eternal and unchanging too seeing as god has to be in the state of "creating" us in that atemporal state. If so maybe we have no past or all/some the state of us are all existent atemporal. God also had no choice of how things are. I will have to re-watch your video you are clearly smart, but it feels like you jump the shark a time or two. (we all have at some "state" ;) Do you think there an after life and if so will it be atemporal? What matter heaven or hell if there be no time to experience it?

@dwong9289

2 жыл бұрын

Predication of God's attributes are analogical. Pure Act has intellect, but not in an anthropomorphic manner. We know that God is Ipsum Esse Subsistens (whose essence is His existence.) Furthermore, we also know that whatever is in an effect is contained in its cause either formally, virtually, or eminently. Since humans are created effects within the per se chain of existence, and humans have intellect, we know that Pure Act has intellect analogically. Furthermore, since all forms are grounded in God, and God is immaterial, those forms must be grounded in the Divine Ideas, thus we have shown multiple paths to understand that God has intellect. Since God is the First Cause, there is nothing prior to condition or restrict Him, thus His intellect is unconditioned, or in other words He is all-knowing. To have intellect and not be restricted by anything is to state that God has free will. Since creation does not increase God's goodness (since He is immutable) creation is a free gift to the creature. Furthermore, since our existence and essences are distinct, God must actualize our act of existence at every moment, so we can see that He is personal by way of freely choosing to give us life and freely sustaining our every action at every moment. Thus Through the doctrine of the Trinity, we realize that God is unconditioned reality Himself, and by an unconditioned intellective act of knowing His own divine essence, He eternally generates the Son (the Eternal Word, Our Lord Jesus Christ) and knows everything. An unconditional act of understanding unconditional reality itself grounds all that will ever and can ever be. So yes God does have a mind, but it is distinct from our minds. Everything good in the created realm, especially mankind, imperfectly reflects the Blessed Trinity in some manner. So, we must realize that God is absolutely transcendent and that we must not restrict our understanding of Him to mere creaturely conceptions, but instead extrapolate from creaturely conceptions and extend our knowledge to the Divine.

5:47 > you can't differentiate two things unless they have unactualized potentials I dunno, this premise seems somewhat suspect. Take Spinoza's God for instance, it has an infinitude of attributes. Now, since each attribute it has reflects a different kind of nature, you could conceivably "break down" Spinoza's God into some amount of Substances that each have their own attribute. Say, you have Substance A with the attribute of thought, and Substance B with the attribute x (since I'm unsure if an extended substance could be an actus purus). Both of these are fully actual, actus purus' for their own kinds of modes, and yet they're conceivably independent. Also, I feel like the conception of all-knowing here may be somewhat limited considering it only looks at what's below. This really means that the actualizer knows everything it conditions, but not what's potentially above it. That is, an actualizer figure could know what's below it and that an actus purus is necessary. But It'd also know (as far as the cosmological argument here goes), that it's not necessary for it to know whether there's a higher actualizer. So it actually would mean that there's potentially a whole multitude of immaterial actualizers who aren't sure if they're the actus purus. Could be making an error in my reasoning though, would like to hear if someone has an objection. Good video though.

@DefenseofSanity

3 жыл бұрын

Thank you. It seems to me that what you’re describing as acti puri indeed have potencies. You said substance A had one attribute and substance B has another. Therefore, each fails to have the attribute which the other has. These are I unactualized potencies.

@2tehnik

3 жыл бұрын

@@DefenseofSanity Are they? Cartesian bodies have no potentialities to have thought, the same way Cartesian minds have no potentiality to be extended. For Descartes at least, it's simply impossible for them to not be distinct. Another examples I can think of would include: Does the set of natural numbers under addition have the potency for negative numbers? Does a dove egg have the potency to lay a Mediterranean wall lizard? That aside, I suppose I could see this stance (the one you describe here) being used to defend a Spinozist God that necessarily possess all the attributes. I also think the determination that lacking an attribute implies an unrealized potentiality could lead one further down Spinozist conclusions: specific things like, for example, a dove, would constitute something the actus purus isn't (by the default argument you and Fesser lay down). Not being this would imply an unrealized potentiality, so the actus purus has to, in part, be the dove. Or to put it in Spinozist terms: every dove will necessarily be a mode of God. Now, the obvious concern would be how the actus purus would actualize into changing particulars if the point was that it remained immutable. And, I think the answer might be to posit God as self-caused/ing; God is the sufficient reason for God being all things. I'm guessing this is what Spinoza meant by him being a causa sui but I'm not knowledgeable enough about him to say for sure. One might even consider accepting a dialethia concerning this (God is necessarily, in order to accommodate the need for an actus purus, both immutable and always changing), but that may be going besides the point. Alternatively, you might put a demarcation point by saying that the actus purus has to be actual with respect to attributes that don't imply change. Though, I'm not sure how well that could hold considering I don't think that modifications of an attribute within a substance can be demarcated from what would be a different substance. For example, God is attributed by thought, and he has to have all thought actually in order to not have any unrealized potentials. Or, phrased from our pov, both God and we are attributed by thought pure an simple, so what would be the delimitation between God's and ours thinking? This, obviously, would mean that God's thinking is in-part continuous with my thinking right here and now (God not thinking about this would imply an unrealized potentiality after all, no?). So, although there is no change in God, he'd at least have to be coextensive with all things in the manner of a "block universe" that simply is.

It took one of the smartest (Aristotle) from the smartest civilization (greece) to describe what the jews had heard from a men who was not sharp at speaking and humble (Moses.) What other civilization other than Israel had such idea without being that smart?

So many contradictions in this video. For example, you said: "The Actus Purus has no potency", and therefore it's perfect. Then you said it's "All Good" because it's perfect and lacks nothing. But apparently it lacks potency as stated in your previous assertion. But with this logic, I could assert any belief. For example couldn't I equally assert: "Since there's no potency, it's eternally incomplete, weak and flawed" Or with your logic: "Since good is just the lack of evil, and since Actus Purus lacks nothing. Therefore it's pure evil." Also the idea that the Actus Purus has a rational mind because of cause and effect, jumps to the conclusion that there is a mind at all. There are so many contradictions and flawed arguments in this video. It seems like you've already assumed the outcome, that the universe must conform to your human expectations that there is a human-like mind that caused the universe. Then you've created a series of logical steps which don't actually work to support your assumptions. The problem with a "super mind" causing everything is that the mind would need certain attributes, such as thoughts, the ability to plan the universe, ability to reason, ability to create a purpose with specific goals, the ability to design things, the ability to judge good vs bad ideas, imagine things, remember things (have a memory), and the power to execute the plan, etc. All these attributes are not one thing, but many many complex interacting parts. If this mind perfectly planned out the universe then its memory alone is more complex than the universe with the ability to not only remember the locations of each particle throughout all time, but to also search, retrieve, and think about each detail. In other words, this mind is not a unified, uncaused default state or "prime mover" at all. Instead, it's a complex network of interacting parts much like a computer or a human mind that would logically require structured parts, energy, materials, time ... But what caused such a complex being to exist? An entity more complex, more perfect and more structured than the universe itself? It also sounds suspiciously very human. Is it possible a human has projected his own mind onto the universe because it "feels right" to relate socially and spiritually to this higher power? Rather than assert that all this complexity in the universe is caused by an even more complex being that has always existed, isn't it simpler to say that the universe has always existed? Looking at the beautifully designed DNA of the malaria protist that kills over 400,000 children and adults per year is enough for me to ask: "Is this really the best a perfect and good god could do? Is there a chance that god is less human, and more universe than our ancestors originally hoped?"

Why don't you make more videos about Gods existence - from Fessers 5 ways?

@DefenseofSanity

3 жыл бұрын

I was planning on doing that, but I don’t really have time now. I’m a father and husband and I have a job, so it’s really tough to find time.

@ivorfaulkner4768

Жыл бұрын

Fesser is good on Aquinas’s 5 proofs( though Robert Barron suggests Aquinas meant not Proofs but Ways). Esser is longwinded and diabolically repetitive.God exists BUT it is a pity we have to die to Really find out!

WOW, BLESSINGS FAMILY

Potency IS an actual. You turned "actual" into an object, while it is just an adjective. Here is the logic, you say earth doesn't fall because electron repulsion, but it isn't so, earth doesn't fall because it is actually doesn't "fall" in such state, it is not "caused" by electron repulsion, electron repulsion is just another state, a specific conditions of things. So with earth in that state, and electron repulsion in that state, the state of "earth falling" simply doesn't exist (is not actual). So all things are actuals, they are actually in such state and there is no need for that imagined chain. That chain you imagined maybe comes from a misunderstanding of time, which you might imagine becomes a highway in which a scenario of causality comes into play. But it isn't so, in physics time is just changes of states. States of things change yes, but those changes are not hierarchical causality like the illustration you drew. Things are related to each other, and they all have states, but they don't cause each other, they just are. Such causality that you described is actually just an uneducated perspective (possibly comes from our brain to help us survive and navigate things), to describe how thing are related to each other, seemingly they depend on something else described by that vertical hierarchical relationship. But it is misleading. Study of physics don't see things this way.

@GodlessCommie

2 ай бұрын

This is exactly what I was saying. The prime mover argument is just a misunderstanding of how things work in reality.

@beiyongzui

2 ай бұрын

@@GodlessCommie yeah, that "misunderstanding" is unfortunately the major perspective people share. The majority of people don't study physics.

I understood about 12.3 percent of this video