Stumble This | You should also watch “Richard Dawkins on Real Time with Bill Maher” |
Comments 
playlists with this video
Dawkins / Atheism by eric3579
• Science by rottenseed
• religion stuffs by firedoggod
• Religitheism by cheesemoo
• happy by jwray
who voted for this video
jwray
- Constitutional_Patriot
- eric3579
- Violator99
- gwiz665
- Fjnbk
- kronosposeidon
- BoneyD
- theaceofclubz
- Irishman
- Zifnab
- dystopianfuturetoday
- rottenseed
- Fade
- messenger
- cybrbeast
- mj0lnir
- firedoggod
- cheesemoo
- mijijim
- GreatBird
- ObsidianStorm
- uberstu
- PoweredBySoy
- R0SENCRANTZ
- evil_disco_man
- Issykitty
who voted against this video
BillOreilly
- mauz15
who has this post bookmarked
R0SENCRANTZ
Richard Dawkins On Thomas Aquinas' 'proofs' Related Videos
 Richard Dawkins - Atheism and Faith |  Richard Dawkins - Author Of The Year |  John Cornwell breaks his #9 to discredit The God Delusion |
Top New Books Videos by Vote
- Why Do Asian Students Perform Better in School than Latinos? (Hint: It’s Not Simply a Matter of Socioeconomic Background)
- Zimbabwean Crisis: Z$100 Billion Note Won’t Even Buy You Lunch
- “Robot Restaurant” Actually Run by Two Identical Couples
- Identical Twins Begot Identical Twins!
- Newspaper Misspelled Own Name
Subscribe
Top 15 Sifters of All Time
Top 15 Sifters of the Past Week
VideoSift Links
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.