Pints With Aquinas - 104: What is the argument for God's existence from possibility and necessity

Starting point is 00:00:00 Welcome to Pints with Aquinas. I'm Matt Fradd. If you didn't know that, that's who I am. Who are you? Good to meet you. Thanks for being here. Thanks for listening. If you could sit down over a pint of beer with Thomas Aquinas and ask him any one question, what would it be? Today we're going to ask him, give me another argument for the existence of God. And he's going to share with us his third way. Okay, so when I say he's going to share his third way, I really mean I'm going to explain to you his third way. And the way I'm going to do that is hopefully in somewhat of a creative way.

Starting point is 00:00:44 You're no doubt aware that I recently wrote a book called Does God Exist? A Socratic Dialogue on the Five Ways of Thomas Aquinas. Now, for those of you who aren't aware, I wrote it with my friend, Dr. Robert Delfino, as a Socratic dialogue. What happens is an atheist walks into a coffee shop one day, and he's wearing this obnoxious shirt that says, I'm an atheist, debate me. And Lucy, who is the Christian character in the story, looks up at him and just says, wow, that's a provocative confrontational t-shirt you got there. And he says, yeah, got it online, right? And then he notices she's reading the Bible and things get really awkward. He is at the coffee shop to read Richard Dawkins' book, The God Delusion, and they strike up a conversation. So, throughout the course of the book,

Starting point is 00:01:28 they actually begin by talking about what does it mean to be an atheist as opposed to an agnostic or a theist. They talk about two arguments that Aquinas comes up with against God's existence, basically the argument from evil and then the idea that science has made God unnecessary. And AJ puts forth the arguments as strongly as we could. And then over the course of a week or so, they go over Aquinas' five ways. And so, reading philosophical dance work that uses metaphysical terms can be difficult. We've tried to make this not difficult. So, it's still very, like, this is the kind of book I think like a master's student in philosophy would read and still have questions. Like, there's a lot to it. The point I'm trying to make is we haven't watered it down at all, but at the same time,

Starting point is 00:02:17 because it's written in a Socratic dialogue form, sort of back and forth between two characters, it's going to make it a lot more interesting, I think, than it otherwise would have been. Okay. So, I really would love to invite you to go buy that book or buy a couple, buy one for a friend. And part of the reason I want to ask you to do that is because this book that we published, we're really proud about it, but it's not like I did it with a big publishing house like Ignatius Press or Image or something. It's actually quite a small publishing house and yet it's a very good book and so we really need to try and get the word out so if you want to get it uh go to amazon.com type in my name or something it'll show up i'll put a link in the show notes as well buy a couple of copies um but more importantly one thing we'd love to ask you to do maybe not more importantly but also please review

Starting point is 00:03:00 it on amazon that'll help get the word out and And if you do buy the book, take a photo of it and upload that photo to social media. If you do that, right, if you get a book, take a photo of you holding it. If we retweet it, like basically, so if you upload a photo of yourself with the book, we will give you access to an hour-long interview behind the scenes chat that I had with my co-author Robert Delfino. And we will allow you to ask us any one question regarding the book or Aquinas or his five ways, and we'll answer you directly. So, this is just our little way to sort of thank you for buying the book and also to try and get the word out. So, here's what we're going to do today. In this episode, I want to share with you one of

Starting point is 00:03:40 the chapters from this book, hopefully, so that you'll think it's amazing and then want to go buy it. This is the seventh chapter. Oh, no, let's see here. The sixth chapter? Yeah. The third way, argument from possibility and necessity. So here, you're going to hear a back and forth between AJ and Lucy. And I hope what you'll realize is that even though, of course, the point of this book is to show the superiority of Aquinas' arguments to atheistic objections, right? Like, obviously, we're not pretending that we're unbiased here. Clearly, we have a dog in the fight here. But that said, I think what you'll find is we really did our best to make the atheist, you know, have good arguments and good questions and try and tear holes in Aquinas'

Starting point is 00:04:27 five ways. In fact, the very next chapter, which you're not going to hear in this book, is called The Value of Objections. And so, basically, AJ, who's the atheist, comes back, chats with Lucy, and he's got a bunch of questions of her, and she doesn't know how to answer them, and she's totally stumped. And you kind of get to see her flounder a bit and she goes home a little embarrassed and has to do some more research. So, we didn't want this to be in a book where the, you know, the Christian just comes off as the hero and is like showing the atheist how stupid he is. Because no, I mean, questions and objections that many atheists have are actually really insightful and really interesting. And so, our hope is you could buy this book, give it to an open-minded atheist or agnostic, and while they might disagree at the end of the book, they hopefully will

Starting point is 00:05:11 realize we weren't trying to make fun of atheists. We really tried to put their best arguments forward. So, here's what we'll do, because this is a Socratic dialogue. I've kind of got to do this almost like a drama, right? So, I've got to give the atheist and a Christian different voices so you'll understand which is which. So, for the atheist, I'll just use my normal gruff, annoying voice. And then for Lucy, I will use more of a feminine voice like this, and that will help you distinguish between the two. So, I really hope that this is an episode that will be a blessing to you. I want to thank everybody, seriously, who supports Plants with Aquinas on Patreon,

Starting point is 00:05:49 because it's, if let's say you're listening right now and you support me, can I just say thank you? Because it's listeners like you who make not only this show possible, but things like this book possible. Like I actually, this is not me like exaggerating. I wouldn't have actually done this book if it hadn't have been for your support. Because, well, I'm not going to get into all the reasons, but essentially in my last employment arrangement, it didn't look like it would have been a possibility for me to publish on my own. And so anyway, but it was your support that made this book possible. I have lots of other ideas. Let me just share one of them with you right now. I'm pitching this idea to different publishers about writing children's books to help you

Starting point is 00:06:33 teach your children about Aquinas' five ways. I'm not joking. And I think that would be really fun. But all of this takes time. There's a good chance the publishers won't take it. So I might have to print this stuff on my own and pay for copy editing and just take time out of traveling so I can invest time in this. All of this takes time and money and it's your support on Patreon that makes these things possible. So thank you if you've done it. If you want to begin supporting Pints with Aquinas on

Starting point is 00:06:59 Patreon, all you'd have to do is go to pintswithaquinas.com, click support. And let me just tell you right now, if you give 10 bucks a month, you're going to get this book that I'm talking about, the one I'm going to read a chapter from today. I will send it to you. I will sign it for you. Okay. So you'll get that. I'll also send you the ebook version. So you don't have to even wait until it comes in the mail. You can start reading it. You'll get a weekly exclusive videos that I do just for you, my patrons. You'll get an access to an ever-growing library of audio books. How cool would that be? Like there's lots of perhaps papal encyclicals, works by Thomas Aquinas that you would love to read. Maybe you don't have

Starting point is 00:07:34 time. You can listen to them. I actually pay to have them professionally recorded. You'll have access to that. You'll also have access to private behind the scenes interviews that I do. You'll get access to bi-monthly live streams where we basically all get together, have a drink and chat about Aquinas together. Again, those are exclusive just to patrons and you'll have access to our private Patreon community forum and you can go back and forth with me on whatever you want to talk about. So, that's what you get and you'd also get the satisfaction of knowing that you're supporting hopefully what I hope to be, right? I hope it's good Catholic independent content. That's what I love about Patreon. Like, I am not dependent on like one or two big donors who will get upset, let's say, if I start saying something that the church teaches that they find

Starting point is 00:08:16 offensive, right? Because you can imagine a situation that like, if I just had one or two donors, they would come to me and say, Matt, you can't talk about this or that because I disagree with the church's stance on that. Well, you know what? I don't care because I have not one donor. I've got hundreds of you and you make it possible for me just to speak frankly without having to be politically correct or anything like that. So, that's also what you get. So, thank you so much for listening. I really hope you enjoyed today's episode. Please check us out on pintswithaquinas.com. Please leave us a review on iTunes if you haven't already and spread the word about Pints with Aquinas because I think there's a lot of intellectually lonely Christians

Starting point is 00:08:53 out there that are longing for stuff like this. And I really do hope this is filling a void. All right, I'm going to play some cafeteria background noise so it feels real. Hey, isn't that good? All right, here we go. Hey, Lucy. Coffee? Good to see you. I'm okay. Just got one. Okay. Give me one sec. How are you? I'm good. I'm good. Thanks. I brought a copy of the Summa this time. That's big. That's actually the first part of a five-volume set. Well, there you go. Want to read the third way?

Starting point is 00:09:33 Sure. Here it is. The third way is taken from possibility and necessity and runs thus. We find in nature things that are possible to be and not to be, since they are found to be generated and to corrupt, and consequently they are possible to be and not to be. But it is impossible for these always to exist, for that which is possible not to be at some time is not. Therefore, if everything is possible not to be, then at one time there could have been nothing in existence. Now, if this were true, even now there would be nothing in existence,

Starting point is 00:10:11 because that which does not exist only begins to exist by something already existing. Therefore, if at one time nothing was in existence, it would have been impossible for anything to have begun to exist. And thus, even now, nothing would be in existence, which is absurd. Therefore, not all beings are merely possible, but there must exist something, the existence of which is necessary. But even necessary things either has its necessity caused by another or not. Now, it is impossible to go on to infinity and necessary things which have their necessity caused by another or not. Now, it is impossible to go on to infinity and necessary things which have their necessity caused by another, as has already been proved in regard to efficient causes.

Starting point is 00:10:51 Therefore, we cannot but postulate the existence of some being having of itself its own necessity and not receiving it from another, but rather causing in others their necessity. This all men speak of as God. All right, let's examine what Aquinas is saying in everything we just read. First, we can agree there are things that don't have to exist, like rocks or planets or people, contingent things. And can we agree in theory that there could be things which have to exist and can't not exist? Necessary things. Have to exist and don't have to exist seem pretty exhaustive,

Starting point is 00:11:35 don't you think? Whoa, too much, too fast. I think I know what you mean by a contingent being, but I'm not totally sure. What do you mean some beings have existence contingently? Sure. Let me give you an example. Without your parents, AJ, you wouldn't exist. So your existence is contingent because you were dependent on a cause for your existence, actually two causes, mum and dad. Therefore, you are a possible being. Well, I mean, actually, truth be told, I was grown artificially in a lab. It's part of a secret government experiment sort of thing. Aha.

Starting point is 00:12:11 Not a sci-fi fan, huh? Look, I know I was dependent on my parents to exist and that I didn't exist before I was conceived. Uh, what is it? I just, sorry, I just heard what I said and thought how funny it would be if someone was overhearing us. Ha, like you said, the joy of philosophical discourse. Sorry, I was saying, I get that I didn't exist before I was conceived, but I'm made of matter. And maybe that matter has always existed, and so we don't need to posit God.

Starting point is 00:12:47 matter has always existed and so we don't need deposit God. Well, Thomas's point is that because things are generated, such as you from your parents, we know something indirectly about their existence, that it is contingent. Because if your existence were not contingent, then it would be necessary, which means you would have always existed. But clearly that isn't true about you. So you're a possible being. Yeah, but what about the view that I'm made of matter and matter has always existed? So matter is the necessary being, right? We don't need God. Well, I hear you.

Starting point is 00:13:18 I'm trying to take in what you said. Do you really think the only difference between you and a stone is just a different arrangement of electrons and protons? That your life, your consciousness, your intelligence and even your humour are nothing more than electrons spinning and chemicals interacting? Well, when you put it that way, it doesn't sound so flattering, but it could be true nonetheless, right? Besides, I mean, I've never seen a good argument for the soul. I think consciousness comes from the brain, but you're not addressing my point, Lucy, right? If matter

Starting point is 00:13:51 always existed, then matter is the necessary being and we don't need God. You remember that Thomas said human reason can't prove the universe did not always exist, right? Yeah. So let's say you're correct and matter has always existed. That still wouldn't make it the kind of necessary being that Aquinas argues God is. So there are different kinds of necessary beings. And so you're saying like matter could be maybe only just one of them. Let me try an analogy. Imagine that the sun, which gives light to our galaxy, always existed. It always was, it is now, and it always will be. It would be a necessary being, right? Right.

Starting point is 00:14:35 Now, the light coming out of the sun would also always exist. So it also would be a necessary being, but there's a difference. Ah, okay. Yeah, I think I get it. So, the light would still be dependent on the sun for its existence. The light's a necessary being, but only through the sun. Exactly. Thomas says some necessary beings are necessary through another, but they all can't be like that.

Starting point is 00:15:01 There has to be something that is necessary through itself, not through another. And you're saying matter is necessary through another, but why? Like, why can't matter just always exist through itself? If I promise to address that later, can we get back to the reasoning of the third way? All right, but I'm going to hold you to it. Fine. But for now, do you agree that you, AJ, are a possible being? Yeah, but my matter might be a necessary being. Forget about your matter. I'm talking about you. You are a unique person that's not always existed and who was dependent on your parents for your existence. If your parents never met, you wouldn't exist. You're an example of a possible being. At the very least, you understand now what I mean by a possible being,

Starting point is 00:15:52 right? Sure. Okay, so consider this thought experiment. Is it possible that everything which exists right now is a possible being? I guess you want me to say no. That's right, but do you know why? Because a possible being only comes to exist through an already existing cause external to it, right? So you're saying that if everything were a possible being, then there'd be no way to explain how they came into existence in the first place. That's it. As Thomas says, it would have been impossible for anything to have begun to exist. In our imagined scenario of a universe of only possible beings. Now, if nothing could have begun to exist, then there would have been nothing in the past.

Starting point is 00:16:37 But if there were nothing in the past, then nothing would exist now. But that's absurd, as Thomas says, because things do exist now. You and I are talking. We're sitting in a coffee shop. Therefore, at least one necessary being must exist. Listen, thought experiments are fun, right, and all, but they don't always tell us something about the real world. I prefer an empirical approach. I understand that. But look, AJ, notice that Thomas is coming to his conception of a possible being from the knowledge we have of things in the real world. When a new baby is born, we know that it's a contingent or possible being, since possible beings exist in the world. It's

Starting point is 00:17:19 legitimate to ask the question, can all things that exist be possible beings? Okay, but I can think of a few problems here. Just, well, such as? Well, maybe the first possible being caused itself and that started the whole causal chain. Thomas ruled that out in the second wave, remember? Something can't be the efficient cause of itself. You're giving me that look. I hear what you're saying, but it's just not clicking. Maybe I'm just not used to this terminology. It's like learning a new language. It is. But let me put it this way.

Starting point is 00:17:54 No thing can be the cause of its own existence because it would already have to exist in order to act as a cause of its own existence. But if it already exists, then it doesn't need to cause its own existence. Yeah, all right, that makes more sense to me. I mean, I agree that I could not have caused myself to exist, but maybe things can arise from nothing.

Starting point is 00:18:16 You've heard, I'm sure, that Lawrence Krauss talks about this in his book, A Universe From Nothing, right? That things can come into existence out of nothing. So even if it's true that there was a state of nothingness, in my, like, if, look, if my only options are, one, God made the universe, and two, it came out of nothing, and since we've got good reasons from modern physics to think this can happen, I'd choose option two. Krauss does a bait and switch with nothing. By nothing, I mean, and Thomas means, the complete absence of anything, while Krauss means a vacuum

Starting point is 00:18:53 that is only unstable quantum energy, not matter in it. But that's not nothing. Thomas's point is that if there were truly nothing in the past, there would be nothing now. But things do exist now, so at least one necessary being must exist. If you say something can come from nothing because I can imagine it, then we're back to unfalsifiable atheism, right? Booming voices or angels proclaiming God could just come from nothing too. Plus, that view would destroy science. Wait, how would it destroy science? Well, think about it.

Starting point is 00:19:27 Science is about cause and effect, relationships, right? Right. But if things can come into existence without a cause, that is, from nothing, the complete absence of anything, then science is undermined. There'd be no more need for causal explanations. We could just say it just magically appeared from nothing. Even though nothing has no properties, somehow it can cause anything and everything.

Starting point is 00:19:52 Why do we need science if that's true? This is the god of the gaps, AJ, but in reverse. The gap, nothing, explains why everything exists. All right, but look, what if nothing in the way you're using the word can't exist? What if the only nothing there is, is what Krauss refers to? Like, why think your nothing has to exist, if that makes sense? What if we live in a computer simulation? What if we never landed on the moon? We can do what if all day, but Thomas begins the third way, not with what if, but with it's a fact that there are possible beings.

Starting point is 00:20:32 From this, it's natural to raise the question, why do they exist? Indeed, the question, why is there something rather than nothing whatsoever? This question has been debated by philosophers for many centuries. It's not some silly question to be quickly dismissed. Well, we can ask what if all day, but honestly, and I think this is one of the major differences between you and me, Lucy, like, I'm okay not knowing. I'm okay with mystery. You, and try not to take this too offensively, need a Bible and God to make your world neat, ordered, and well, unmysterious. But for the sake of argument, however, okay, I'll grant your point. Let's say

Starting point is 00:21:10 Krauss is doing a bait and switch, like you say, and things can't come into existence out of nothing. You still haven't told me how many necessary beings there are, which one I should call God, and why matter can't be the necessary being in the first place, right? Like, why matter can't be, well, necessary in the way you want to make God necessary. I'm not offended, but I find it strange, AJ, that someone like yourself who loves science seems so ready to give up the search for causes and embrace mystery. But, okay, let me get back on topic. I want to address those points of yours, as I promised. The second part of the third way, which says, here we are, but every

Starting point is 00:21:52 necessary thing either has its necessity caused by another or not. Now, it is impossible to go on to infinity in necessary things which have their necessity caused by another, as has already been proved in regard to efficient causes. Okay. Wait. He's referring to the second way when he says, as has already been proved in regard to efficient causes, right? Yes. Remember last time, we realised that if there is no first cause in an essentially ordered series of causes, then the intermediate instrumental causes would have no causal power. Likewise, if there's no being that's necessary through itself, then there'd be no beings that are necessary from another. So, Thomas's point in the third way is that we cannot have an infinite regress of beings that are necessary through another. Instead, there must be, as he says here,

Starting point is 00:22:46 some being having of itself its own necessity and so receiving it from another, but rather causing in others their necessity, this all men speak of as God. Okay. Okay. I get it that there has to be, okay, maybe I get it, right? There has to be at least one being that's necessary through itself, but maybe, okay, maybe there are several beings that are necessary, each through itself. And why should we call any one of them God? And not to beat a dead horse here, but you still haven't told me why matter can't be the being that's necessary through itself. Well, to the extent that the being that is necessary through itself is responsible for the existence of all other things, this sounds a lot like God the creator, as for matter, hold on, that would

Starting point is 00:23:31 follow if there's only one being that's necessary through itself. But what if there are multiple beings, right, that are necessary through each other? That's a good point, AJ. But Thomas argues there cannot be more than one being that is necessary through itself. Let me read the passage from his other Summa. Wait, his other Summa? How many Summas did this guy write? This guy also wrote the Summa Contra Gentiles, and here's what he wrote that responds to your question, just looking it up here. Okay, here it is. Listen. wrote that responds to your question, just looking it up here. Okay, here it is. Listen. If there are two beings of which both are necessary beings, they must agree in the notion of the necessity of being. Hence, they must be distinguished by something added either to one

Starting point is 00:24:18 of them only or to both. This means that one or both of them must be composite. Now, as we have shown, this is still Aquinas saying this, as we have shown, no composite being is through itself a necessary being. It is impossible, therefore, that there be many beings of which each is a necessary being, hence neither can there be many gods. And that means what exactly? Okay, well, what it means is every composite being is dependent on its parts for its existence. For example, a painting is composed of a canvas and paint. This means that every composite is caused by something else because something must cause these different parts to unite. So, we can't have more than one being that's necessary through itself because in order for three, sorry, in order for

Starting point is 00:25:14 there to be two such beings, one must have a property that the other doesn't have. Otherwise, they wouldn't be two different beings but one of the same being right but if one has a property that the other doesn't have then it is actually a composite being but every composite being needs a cause so a composite being can't be a being that's necessary through itself and matter is a composite being so it can't be a being that's necessary through itself is that your point that's my point okay but how do you know that? Because matter undergoes change, which means it's a composite of actuality and potentiality, and that means it's caused by another. As we've seen in the first way, a thing cannot actualize its own potentiality because the

Starting point is 00:25:57 same thing can't be both in potentiality with respect to something and in actuality with respect to the same thing at the same time. This means that when matter is actualized, there must be a cause external to it, or as Thomas puts it, what is changed is changed by another. But a being that has existence necessarily through itself does not and cannot rely on any other thing, any other cause for anything. So, at best, the material universe could have always existed, but it would still be dependent on a being that's necessary through itself, which you call God. Yes. And I suppose you'd say the same thing about a singularity, right, in Big Bang Theory, that at best, it could only be a being that's necessary through another,

Starting point is 00:26:42 not necessary through itself. Yes. And like matter, it would also be a composite being, a mixture of actuality and potentiality, because it would have within it the potential to expand into the physical universe we see today. Hmm. All right, well, that's a lot to think about. We're going to have to continue this discussion tomorrow, though, Lucy. I got to go. My friends and I are getting ready. We're ready. We're going to go out tonight. And anyway, I got to run home and get ready. Sounds good, AJ. Enjoy the weekend. I will see you the same time on Monday. Sounds good. I'll be there. All right, man. What do you think? That's kind of fun. I think it's a kind of fun way to do it. It's a fun way to learn about Thomas Aquinas. So yeah, check out the book. As I said in the beginning, if you support Pines for Aquinas for 10 bucks a month, yeah, check out the book. As I said in the beginning, if you

Starting point is 00:27:25 support Pines with Aquinas for 10 bucks a month, I'll send you the book with a signature in it. All right. Guess what it's time for now. Can you guess? I'll just tell you. Okay. Stop trying. Q&A. Here we go. All right. Okay. Now it's time for your questions. Thank you so much for all of you who are supporting Pints with Aquinas faithfully on Patreon. You're making it so that I can do some pretty cool stuff. I actually have a pretty big announcement that I plan on making next week.

Starting point is 00:27:55 No, I'm not quitting my job again. I can't because it's, you know, I already did that. But I do have another announcement that I'm going to make next week and it's made possible by all of y'all who have started supporting me on Patreon, so big thanks. So, if you want to ask me a question, you just have to become a supporter on Patreon, then you can write me your questions about life, the universe, and everything, and I will solve them for you. The first question comes from Ashwith Rago. Thanks for being a patron, Ashwith.

Starting point is 00:28:20 You are asking me about my thoughts on Father James Martin. You're pointing to a particular article asking if I've read it. You say he seems to not at least deny church teaching, but you haven't read enough. What are my thoughts on James Martin? I think Father James Martin is a very well-intentioned priest who's creating more confusion than he is helping people understand the church's teaching on homosexuality. I think if you want to learn more about The Church's Teaching on Homosexuality, then you'd be better to read Dan Mattson's book, Why I Don't Call Myself Gay, or Father Mike Schmitz's book, Made for Love. So there you go. I'd say more, but I don't want to be uncharitable. I'm sure Father James Martin is a good writer. And as I say, I'm sure he's got a good heart and he's trying to do good things, but I honestly think he's creating more confusion than help. My understanding is

Starting point is 00:29:08 he hasn't fully rejected church teaching, but he kind of walks you up to the line. That's what it seems like. He walks you right up to the line and sort of leaves you there. And you're like, okay, I don't get it. So is sodomy a sin or isn't it? And he doesn't really seem to bring much light on that issue. That's my understanding. Next question comes from Philip Haddon. Thanks, Philip. You say, did Thomas Aquinas support the institution of slavery or not? Now, this is a difficult question to answer because it depends on what you mean by slavery. And I've tried to make this clear throughout my podcasts and throughout my talking that whenever we disagree with somebody or whenever somebody challenges us on something or we challenge them on something, it's super

Starting point is 00:29:48 important that the first thing that you do is define your terms. So the first thing I want to do is say, well, it depends what you mean by slavery. Like if by slavery, you mean one person owning another person and forcing them to do things. Well, Aquinas does not think that slavery can be supported by natural law. Why? Well, because all men are created equal. Well, that said, okay, because of sin and the state we find ourselves in, he thought that some forms of slavery can be justified. And I think I agree with this, but again, it depends on what you mean by slavery. Like if by slavery, you mean I have a right to make you work for me or for my group, and I'm not going to pay you. Like you need to pay me back by working for me or something like that. Then I think I'm for that. I mean, this is what forced

Starting point is 00:30:37 labor in our prisons is after all. So if that's not what you mean by slavery, like if what you mean by slavery is just sort of what took place in America, well then yeah, obviously I'm against that, and so would Thomas Aquinas be. But again, it's going to depend on what you mean by slavery. All right, next question comes from Yvonne Lawton. Thanks Yvonne for being a patron. You say, Hi Matt, I'm wondering why Jesus did not start his ministry until he was 30 and what he was doing for most of his life. Thanks. All right. That's a really great question.

Starting point is 00:31:10 And this is something that a lot of the saints have spoken about and written about. Louis de Montfort said that Christ gave more glory to God in submitting himself to Mary in Nazareth than if he had have decided to go out and convert the whole world. And you might think, well, how on earth could that be the case? Well, here's how it could be the case. If it had have brought more glory to God, if Christ had have left home at a young age and converted the whole world, he would have done that, right? The fact that he didn't shows that it did bring more glory to God to kind of live a humble, simple life in Nazareth with his mother and father. And I think this is something we could really meditate on, especially when we believe that our lives lack significance,

Starting point is 00:31:55 or we get tired of the mundane, and we feel like we're in an insignificant job that's really not making a big dent in the world and those sorts of things. I think the lesson of Christ living in Nazareth quietly should show us that small acts of love and kindness and goodness don't go unseen, and they aren't insignificant. So, thanks for that question, Yvonne. All right. Next question comes from Natalie Leandman, I think. Thank you, Natalie. You say, hi, Matt. I'm about to have my first communion tomorrow when I'm confirmed at the Easter Vigil Mass. That is awesome. Congratulations. Obviously, this question is from several weeks back. You say, I've heard that Christ is with us about 10

Starting point is 00:32:44 minutes after we take Holy Communion. Is that really all? Wouldn't the components of the Eucharist still remain with us? This makes me want to go to Mass every 30 minutes. Thanks for the podcast. It's been helpful during my conversion from atheism to Catholicism. Wow, that is super awesome. Congratulations, Natalie. So I think when people say that, what they mean is that the elements of bread and wine... So here's the idea, right? With transubstantiation, the idea is that the accidents of bread and wine remain, but the substance is changed, okay?

Starting point is 00:33:16 So it looks like bread, it looks like wine, it tastes like wine, those sorts of things. But the Church teaches and has always taught that what looks like bread, it tastes like wine, those sorts of things. But the church teaches and has always taught that what looks like bread, what looks like wine, is not, but is in fact the body, blood, soul, and divinity of Jesus Christ under, we might say, although language is a little difficult here, under the appearance of bread and wine. Now, the substance of Christ remains so long as the accidents remain. So, for example, if the bread were to be, I don't know, placed in a cup of water and dissolved, until the point where a normal person looking at it would say, I don't know what that is, that's not bread, well, then the substance is no longer there. That's the basic idea. So I think when people say that Christ is with us physically in Holy

Starting point is 00:34:10 Communion, that it takes around, I don't know how long, however long for the accidents to break down. That's all that means. But we shouldn't think that Christ is only present to us when we have received Him in Holy Communion, right? Obviously, as a baptized and confirmed Christian, you are a temple of the Holy Spirit, and Christ dwells within you in a spiritual way, right? And that spiritual doesn't mean less real. And so, you know, your hunger and your devotion for the Holy Eucharist is certainly beautiful and admirable. But I'd say let's not fall into the trap of the scrupulosity, which you might not be doing, but which some people might do, in thinking that, well, if I don't receive the Eucharist, then Christ isn't present to me, because we know that wouldn't be true. The next question, although it might look to be a comment

Starting point is 00:35:05 from Richard Hansen. He says, hi, Matt, just listened to your show on honoring your father and mother. Although I have a really good relationship with my own parents, the show has inspired me to work on my relationship with my in-laws and support my wife with honoring her father and mother rather than be the git. I can at times be. Git. There's a word I haven't heard in a while. You must be English or Australian. Okay. Next question comes from Andreas Vers. I'm so sorry, Andreas. I butchered your name. You say, what do you think of Duns Scotus and the argument that he accidentally created modernity and his antitimistic concept of the univocacy of being.

Starting point is 00:35:48 In the past, you blame William of Ockham for a lot of this, but a lot of writers in the radical orthodoxy camp would place responsibility at Scotus's feet. What are your thoughts on that? It's a good question. Yes, I do talk a lot about Ockham, and so that's a fair enough question. So for those of you who aren't aware, who is this Duns Scotus character? Well, he's actually has been declared blessed by the church, blessed Duns Scotus. He lived in the 13th and early 14th century, centuries. He was a Franciscan.

Starting point is 00:36:19 The reason he was, the reason he was declared a blessed was because of his defense of Mary's immaculate conception. So yeah, you're right. He was a Franciscan and he and his fellow, William of Ockham, departed from Thomas Aquinas on many issues. The reason I suppose I blame Ockham more than Scotus is because Ockham seemed to go a little further than Scotus did. But in regards to both Scotus and Occam departing from Aquinas on major issues, what were those major issues? Well, they departed from Aquinas on the real distinction between being and essence. And the other point they departed on was the one you mentioned, that's the analogy of being. Scotus holds that an imperfect notion of being can be univocally predicated of God and creatures. And he's got a pretty complicated notion of univocacy between God and creatures

Starting point is 00:37:12 that he lays out somewhere, but I haven't read enough about it to talk about it with much authority, of course. Now, against Aquinas, Scotus and Occam both defended voluntarism. That's the idea. And this is Scotus. So you're right here, this isn't just Ockham. So like Scotus holds that God's completely free, such that he could have made the Ten Commandments different. Now I've mentioned Ockham in the past, I haven't done that, but you're right, that's Scotus as well. He said that God could have committed, you know, he could have commanded us, say, to commit adultery or not to love him, which seems impossible, commanded us, say, to commit adultery or not to love him, which seems impossible,

Starting point is 00:37:47 but that he said by his commanding it, it would have been good. They also departed from Aquinas on the status of universals. There's some difference here, though. I think this is where Occam might go a little further than Scotus. Occam's a nominalist, holding that universals, like human or triangle or whatever, are merely concepts, whereas ScotOTUS holds this strange kind of moderate realism, like extra-mental universals or something. So, for example, like human, you know, triangle, like what I got before, the common nature and the principle of individuation. Anyway, look, I'm getting into areas that I don't know enough about. But yeah, needless to say, I agree with you that both Scotus and Occam departed from Aquinas. Now, as far as saying he's like the accidental founder of modernism, I think there's something to that. Again, it depends on what you mean by

Starting point is 00:38:42 modernism. Usually the philosopher that we attribute as having been the father of modernity is, gosh, Rene Descartes, sorry. But yeah, and of course, Descartes was influenced by these scholastics. And so, yeah, that would be an interesting paper. That's all I got to say on it. Sorry. All right, another question from Eric Eccleson. Sorry, Eric, if I butchered your name. You say, hey, Matt, do you or any other Patreons know a good place online to purchase the full Summa for a cheaper price? I want to read it, but really only see it close to $200.

Starting point is 00:39:22 Yeah, that sounds about right. I mean, it's free online. You can just type in the Summa Theologica and you'll find the whole thing right there online. But yeah, you're going to find it for around $180. That's what I'm finding it for. This is the set I have, by the way. This is the five volume set by the fathers of the English Dominican province. And, you know, I think $180 is actually a really good price, you know, considering you're getting five hardback volumes of the Summa. So you might want to check that out.

Starting point is 00:39:49 You know, the other thing I should do, I should do another Summa Theology giveaway, shouldn't I? That was a good day, that was. All right, guys. Well, hey, thank you very much for tuning in to Pines with Aquinas. Thanks to all of you who are supporting the show on Patreon. Thanks to all of you who are going to go get my book, Does God Exist? A Socratic Dialogue in the Five Ways of Thomas Aquinas.

Starting point is 00:40:04 I hope you enjoyed today's show. I hope it helped you make more sense of Aquinas' third proof. And I hope that you'll share this podcast with your friends. Do us a favor. If you like the show, please choose to review it on iTunes or wherever you listen to the show. God bless. Chat with you next week where, as I say, I have a special announcement. Not to make you wait or to

Starting point is 00:40:25 keep you in suspense but i'm bloody well gone oh bye you and I would give my whole life to carry you, to carry you.

Pints With Aquinas - 104: What is the argument for God's existence from possibility and necessity

There aren't comments yet for this episode. Click on any sentence in the transcript to leave a comment.