Pints With Aquinas - 33: What's the contingency argument for God's existence?

Episode Date: November 29, 2016

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, 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 every 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 been already proved in regard to efficient causes. 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.   ST 1. Q. 2, A 3. --- The 13 step argument given by Robert in the interview: 1. We find in reality some things that are capable of existing and not existing, because they are found to be generated and to corrupt.   2. We call such beings possible beings.   3. A possible being cannot be the cause of its own existence.   4. This is so for two reasons: (1) It would already have to exist in order to cause its own existence, but if it already exists then it does not need to cause its own existence, and (2) If it caused its own existence then it would be both prior to itself and also not prior to itself, which is a contradiction and thus impossible.   5. Therefore a possible being must get its existence from a cause that exists external to it.   6. It is impossible that everything which exists is a possible being.   7. The reason is that nothing could have begun to exist in reality if everything were a possible being because a possible being only comes to exist through an already existing cause external to it, which would not exist if everything were a possible being.   8. But if nothing could have begun to exist in reality then nothing would have existed in the past and nothing would exist now, because “from nothing, nothing comes.”   9. But this is absurd because things exist now.   10. Thus not all things are possible beings—at least one necessary being must exist.   11. There are 2 ways for a being to be necessary: (1) it can get its necessity from another; (2) it can get its necessity from itself (per se).   12. If it has its necessity from another, then it requires a cause external to it.   13. An infinity of beings that get their necessity from another would not explain how anything came to exist, just as it is clear from the above that an infinity of possible beings would not explain how anything came to be.   Conclusion: There must be a cause that has of itself (per se) its own necessity (i.e., it does not receive necessity from another), and on which all other beings are, ultimately, dependent for their existence. And this we call God.   ---   Robert mentioned a paper, "There must be a First: Why Thomas Aquinas Rejects Infinite, Essentially Ordered, Causal Series." Read it here: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/09608788.2013.816934 SPONSORS EL Investments: https://www.elinvestments.net/pints Exodus 90: https://exodus90.com/mattfradd/  Hallow: http://hallow.app/mattfradd  STRIVE: https://www.strive21.com/  GIVING Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/mattfradd This show (and all the plans we have in store) wouldn't be possible without you. I can't thank those of you who support me enough. Seriously! Thanks for essentially being a co-producer coproducer of the show. LINKS Website: https://pintswithaquinas.com/ Merch: https://teespring.com/stores/matt-fradd FREE 21 Day Detox From Porn Course: https://www.strive21.com/ SOCIAL Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/mattfradd Twitter: https://twitter.com/mattfradd Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/mattfradd MY BOOKS  Does God Exist: https://www.amazon.com/Does-God-Exist-Socratic-Dialogue-ebook/dp/B081ZGYJW3/ref=sr_1_9?dchild=1&keywords=fradd&qid=1586377974&sr=8-9 Marian Consecration With Aquinas: https://www.amazon.com/Marian-Consecration-Aquinas-Growing-Closer-ebook/dp/B083XRQMTF/ref=sr_1_4?dchild=1&keywords=fradd&qid=1586379026&sr=8-4 The Porn Myth: https://www.ignatius.com/The-Porn-Myth-P1985.aspx CONTACT Book me to speak: https://www.mattfradd.com/speakerrequestform

Welcome to Pints with Aquinas, episode 33. I'm Matt Fradd. If you could sit down with St. Thomas Aquinas over a pint of beer and ask him any one question, what would it be? In today's episode, we'll ask St. Thomas the question, Can you give me another argument for the existence of God. Great to have you with us here once more at Pints with Aquinas. This is the show where you and I pull up a barstool next to the angelic doctor and discuss theology and philosophy. And today, we are joined by another person here at the bar table, and that is Robert Delfino, who has his PhD in philosophy and has spent a lot of time studying St. Thomas Aquinas, and in particular, the third way, the argument from contingency. So that's what we're going to be talking about. A couple

of things I want to say to you. First, if you haven't yet listened to episode 19, you should do that because that's where we discuss the first way, the first argument Thomas gives, the existence of God. You don't have to listen to him in order or anything, but you should definitely go back and check that out. Secondly, in this interview, Robert and I discuss a lot of sort of metaphysical lingo that you may not be familiar with. We have a whole episode devoted to helping you understand that. That is in episode 18. So that's episode 18 and 19. Be sure to check them out.

Get ready. It's going to be pretty intense. Make sure you have a beer in front of you and a notepad and pray. Here we go. Robert, thanks for joining us. Well, thanks for having me, Matt. Why don't you tell us a bit about yourself and the great work you're involved in? Sure. I'm an assistant professor of philosophy. I teach at St. John's University, a Catholic university in New York. We're better known for our larger Queens campus and our basketball team, the Red Storm. But I teach on the Staten Island campus.

And I also adjunct at Holy Apostles College, where I sort of bumped into you. Yeah, cool. And what's your specialty in philosophy? What do you love to teach? Well, my specialty and my love has always been metaphysics. It's the branch of philosophy that I enjoy the most. And I do teach it a lot at St. John's, so I'm very fortunate in that way. Ethics, I would say, is my second favorite. And then I guess logic would be my third. Why don't you give people a this is gonna be difficult a brief

understanding of what metaphysics is uh yeah well the shortest way to put it it's the study of reality what exists what's real um you know the study of the study of isness well you can say that if you want i tend to think of all, most of the deep philosophical questions are metaphysical. Is there a God? Is there life after death? Do we have a soul? You know, they all fall under metaphysics. Beautiful.

Now, I understand, I hope at least, since we're here around this barstool with the Angelic Doctor, what are you drinking? Well, it was difficult. I was going to go with a medieval beer from the 12th century, Grimbergen, for those of you beer fans out there. Wow. The Double Amber, but I decided in the end to go with the classic Guinness Stout. Very good. Well, I'm ashamed to say that I'm drinking a Cabernet Sauvignon. I should be drinking something a little more manly, but that's what I'm drinking. Well, we're here today to talk about the third way of St. Thomas Aquinas.

Now, this is your favorite, correct? Oh, yeah. It's my favorite of the five. Why don't you briefly tell us what it is and maybe why it's your favorite? Well, you know, it's funny. I don't know how this worked out, but the three that I like the most are all the odd ones, the first, the third, and the fifth. The second one's okay, and the fourth one's kind of abstract, but I like the odd-numbered ones for some reason. And of those three, I know, it's crazy, right? And of those three, the third is definitely my favorite. If you want a short answer why, I think it's probably one of the most powerful,

and part of the reason is it cuts through all of, you know, it cuts right to the chase. It's about existence. You know, why does anything exist at all? And, you know, so it's not about how science can replace God. It's like, no, no, we have to explain how things exist. So, it gets right to the deepest core you can get philosophically, and therefore, I think it's pretty hard for the atheists to evade. Well, before I read directly from the Summa Theologica and then ask you some questions regarding it, I've noticed that many popular theistic apologists out there today don't tend to focus on Thomas' arguments for the existence of God. Of course, William Lane Craig is probably the most popular person out there today,

doing a lot of great work. And he talks about the Kalam cosmological argument, the teleological argument, the moral argument, the argument from the resurrection of Christ. Why is it, do you think, that many people don't tend to turn to these? Is it because the language is a little obscure for modern people? That's a great question, Matt. Well, there are several reasons, I think. I think, you know, one of the reasons is, in order to really appreciate what Aquinas is doing, it requires a lot of background work. You really have to be familiar

with the metaphysics of Aristotle, and then you have to be familiar with a lot of the things that Aquinas is doing that's different from Aristotle. So it's kind of like martial arts in a way. You know, if you just go to a month's worth of martial arts class, you're not going to be a formidable warrior. So you have to give a lot of investment to really reap the rewards in Thomism. Father Norris Clark once said it takes about 10 years of studying Aquinas to really reap the rewards in Thomism. Father Norris Clark once said it takes about 10 years of studying Aquinas to really start to appreciate him. And I think a lot of people just don't want to do that. Wow. Yeah. Yeah. It takes a lot of work. Okay. Well, if it's okay with you, I will read Thomas's Third Way and then ask you some questions about it. Sound good?

Sure. I just want to make one other quick little thing you might find interesting. Even some Thomists have said, like Father Norris Clark himself in his book, The Philosophical Approach to God, he says that the proofs are so concise and so terse and require so much background knowledge that he said, quote, they're no longer worth the effort, save for scholarly historical purposes, end quote. And I have to tell you, I disagree with him on that, but I think it shows how much background you need to really appreciate the five ways. Now, has Thomas, this argument from contingency, has he expanded upon this in the Summa Contra

Gentiles or in other works? Yeah, I'm going to maybe let you read the third way first, but he definitely makes similar arguments in other texts. Okay. All right. Well, let's see here. Whether God exists. This is from the first part of the Summa Theologiae, question two, article three. I should know this. Article three. All right, here we go. It's one, two, two three that's the way yeah yeah it's pretty easy one two three all right well here's what he says 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, 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 every 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 been already proved in regard to efficient causes. 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. Now, the beauty of podcasts, of course, Robert, is that people are probably listening to this while they're jogging on the treadmill or maybe driving to work in traffic. And so so that was pretty dense. Do you think you might be able to sort of summarize that for us in a way that's a little more easy to understand? Definitely not. All right. Well, thanks for being on with us. Well, actually, I'm pulling it up right now on my screen here because it is quite a mouthful.

I just about have it here. Okay. Yeah. Well, summarizing it is a little difficult to do. In fact, you'll notice if you look at the actual amount of sentences, the third way is the second largest of all the five ways. The one that really drives me to tears is the fifth way. It is just too short. That's a topic for another time.

I've actually mapped out the third way in my own little phrasing and my own little take on it. And it has 13 steps and then a conclusion. Now, I'm not going to read you all that unless you really want me to. Oh, I really want you to because I've seen it and it's fantastic. And if you feel – Oh, all right. It's up to you. If you want to do that, go for it.

If you want to do it a different way, that's fine too. I tell you what, Robert. Before you do that, let's take a quick break so we can all just regroup, come back to our happy place, and then we'll hit it after the break. My name is Gomer, and I'm the co-host of Catching Foxes. Foxes. Foxes. Catching Foxes.

Foxes. I would like to tell you about something more important than my podcast. What? Pints with Aquinas. Pint, pint, p-p-p-p-p-pints with Aquinas. Matt Fradd actually wrote a book on 50 plus deep thoughts from the angelic doctor. Pints with Aquinas. Here's the deal.

Beer is easily lovable, but medieval monastic philosophers, they can be quite intimidating. Yet in this short pithy book, and I don't use that word often. In fact, I never use the word pithy, but I'm going to use it here. And you're going to agree with me. Matt Fradd made the greatest mind in the history of the church as easily accessible as your favorite beer. You'll laugh, you'll cry. Well, you won't cry, but you'll laugh and you'll discover that this old school philosopher's wisdom is just as relevant today as it was back then. So do yourself a favor, get a copy of this enlightening pithy little book from Amazon right now. And when it arrives, pour yourself a frothy pint and dig in.

You'll be glad you did. I mentioned Father Norris Clark a few times. And I like him a lot, actually. I mean, he passed on, but I got a chance to meet him, and he was a wonderful man. And what he said is he said what's important for every generation is, you know, we live 700 years after Aquinas, and in order for this new generation to get some sense of what he was talking about, we sort of have to take his thought and the medieval Latin and put it in our own words. And he said, there's always a risk when you do that because you don't want to distort what Aquinas said, but I've tried to put the third way

into a way that I find is more friendly for the 21st century. So I'm going to read that now, if that's all right. Please. All right. So here are the 13 steps in the conclusion. I have to admit, I don't have the really cool speaking voice you do. So I'll probably try my best. People listening in Australia will disagree with you.

They want to listen to the American, not someone from their own country. The American ladies right now, even though you're married, they're just hot for you, man. So here we go. All right. Go for it. All right. So for those of you out there listening to this, keep courage up because this is a long one. And we should say to those listening, what we'll do if it's okay with you, Robert, is I'll put these 13 steps in the description of the podcast. Would that be okay? And that way they can read through them as you... Sure. Sure. Absolutely. You can do that.

The only problem is probably some people will email you saying, you know, you should clean up this step, which would be great because I'm always trying to fix up this formulation. Critical, what do they say? Advice that can help you. I suppose that's probably a good thing. But anyway, go for it. All right. Here we go. So, step one, grab your beer. No, that's not really... Step one, we find in reality some things that are capable of existing and not existing because they are found to be generated and corrupt. Now, before running to step two, I just want to briefly say, I like to think of my children. Right.

Because, you know, and you have children too, I know. I believe you have four, right? Yep. Yeah, I have two I believe you have four, right? Yep. I have two and they're driving me crazy, but I love them. Now, the beauty about children is, you know, there's a time in your life before they exist and then, bam, there they are and, you know, swaddling clothes and it's a wonderful thing. And that's the idea I think Thomas is talking about. Some things are capable of existing and not existing because they're found to be generated and then they also pass on. So, I think babies is a great thing to think of. Now, my second step is we call such things possible beings. And the third step is a

possible being cannot be the cause of its own existence. And the fourth step is that there's two reasons for this. In other words, there's two reasons why they can't be the cause of their own existence. So, the first reason is a possible being would already have to exist in order to cause its own existence. But if it already exists, then it doesn't need to cause its own existence. And the second reason would be if it caused its own existence, then it would be both prior to itself and also not prior to itself, which is a contradiction and thus impossible. The fifth step then is the recognition based on the first four steps that a possible being must get its existence from a cause that exists external to it.

Now we entertain in the sixth step a thought experiment. You know, philosophers like to do this. The German for thought experiment is great. It's something like gedanken something. It's really cool. So the thought experiment is, let's try to imagine, you know, can the universe only be filled with possible beings? And the way I express it in the sixth step, because I want to show that it's absurd, is I start off saying step six, it is impossible that everything which exists is a possible being. And then in step seven, I show why, based on Aquinas' reasoning.

So step seven, by the way, I have to tell the audience, is the real key to the third way. So I'm going to say it nice and slowly. All right, so step six was it's impossible that everything which exists is a possible being and here's step seven the reason is that nothing could have begun to exist in reality if everything were a possible being because a possible being only comes to exist through an already existing cause external to it and there would be no such cause if everything were a possible being. Step eight, but if nothing could have begun to exist in reality, then nothing would have existed in the past. And nothing would exist now because from nothing, nothing comes. Step nine, but this is absurd because things exist now. I have a beer and I'm talking with Matt Fradd. Step ten.

I love that you, you should, I think you should add that to the official 13 steps. Well, I might do that. Hopefully Aquinas would approve. Let me take a sip of beer. I think I think you should. Please go for it. You're doing great. All right. Step 10 then reaches the conclusion that thus not all things are possible beings. At least one necessary being must exist. Now, I'm pausing here for a second because we've reached our first conclusion. Some people think the third way ends at this point when we say that at least one necessary being must exist. But as you know, because you read it, there's a few more steps. So, step 11 says there are two ways for being to be necessary. And if you want, I can give an example of this.

But one, it can get its necessity from another. All right. And actually in the Latin, that's per aliud, from another. Or two, it can get its necessity from itself, per se, in the Latin. Now, I'll give you a little example of this because I think it's fun and it should help everybody. Imagine, and now this is just another thought experiment here so as an analogy it's not perfect but it should get across my point imagine if the sun which gives us light in the morning and all that the sun always existed and it always will exist it'll never burn out now i know physicists will say yeah yeah that's not true there's all sort of thermonuclear reactions on the sun and they're going to burn out. Yeah, I got that. But let's

just pretend the sun always was and will never burn out, right? Well, that would make it a necessary being. Now, the sun gives out light. The light would also be necessary because since the sun always exists and it's always emitting light, there would always be light. But notice in this example that the light is dependent on the sun because if you could somehow destroy the sun always exists and it's always emitting light, there would always be light. Right. But notice in this example that the light is dependent on the sun because if you could somehow destroy the sun, the light would also be destroyed. So in this example, the light is something that gets its necessity from another, the sun, and in this example, the sun gets its necessity from itself. But of course, as my students always tell me, yes, I know the sun is not a necessary

being. I know in reality it will burn out. This is why you need – you and your students need to be drinking. I'm pretty sure that's a quick way to be fired. But, yes, I get it. Well, unfortunately – We're all hyper-cynical and critical, right? It's like, well, how about this?

Like, I know, I know, I know. It's a thought experiment. Yeah. Right. Actually, when I was – I gave a paper at Oxford once. I was very blessed by God in that. And they actually had a bar on the campus if I wasn't mistaken. See, the English know how to do it.

They do. All right. So that was step 11 with the two kinds of necessary tools. Yeah, that's a great analogy. And let's just say it again, even though we've said it three times. For some people, it's going to be even more difficult to get than others. So, you know, some things are necessary in and through themselves and some things are necessary, but they depend on something else that's necessary, not through itself. So, the sun in this analogy was necessary in and through itself. The sunlight

would always be there, right? If the sun is necessary, and that's why we say that the sun shine, the sunlight is necessary through the sun, not in and of itself. You explained that beautifully. You don't need me. I'm going to leave now. No, I only know that because you've told me before. Well, I'm indebted to Aquinas for all this stuff. All right, let's go to step 12. So, step 12 is... Okay, well, let me take a step back, actually. So, 10 said that not all things are possible beings. There has to be at least one necessary being.

And then step 11 says, well, there are two types of necessary beings. So, step 12 says, if the necessary being gets its necessity from another, well, then it's dependent on a cause external to it and then step 13 says an infinity of beings that get their necessity from another would not explain how anything came to exist just as it is clear from the above that an infinity of possible beings would not explain how anything came to exist. So, the conclusion is, there must be a cause that has of itself, per se, through itself, its own necessity. That is, it does not receive necessity from another, and on which all other beings are ultimately dependent for their existence, and this we call God. Yeah, excellent. Thank you. Hey, why don't we just quickly allow you to differentiate between an accidentally ordered series and essentially ordered series? Because that last step there, some people might be saying, well, can't you have, why can't you have an infinite amount of regress? Maybe just make that distinction between when you're talking about that, you're talking about a hierarchical sort of series.

When you're talking about that, you're talking about a hierarchical sort of series. Well, you know, this actually gets fairly complex. I'll do my best. I have, I think, a good example I can use. But actually, if the readers – I'm thinking this is a blog. Hey, maybe one day someone will transpose it because it's so brilliant. But yeah, the listeners who are all drinking copiously. That's right. Third time's a charm.

If the listeners are really into this stuff, there's an excellent article. The title, I think, is There Must Be a First, and it's by a philosopher named Coho, C-O-H-O-E. I'll get you the actual title so you can post it. Yeah, sure. I'll throw it up in the description. And he talks about this. He talks about the difference between an accidentally ordered series and an essentially ordered series. The example I'm going to give is actually the one Aquinas gives in the first way.

For example, let's use hockey. I don't know if you're a hockey fan. Oh, yeah, I like it. I used to live in Canada, so I was surrounded by it. Okay, so let's imagine we're on an ice skating rink with a hockey team, and you have the puck on the ice, and then one of the players hits the puck into the net and he scores, right? Okay, so why is the puck moving? Well, it's because the stick hit it, right? But why is the stick moving?

Well, it's because the arm moved the stick. And why is the stick moving? Well, it's because the arm moved the stick. And why is the arm moving? Well, the hockey player made the decision, act of free will, to move his arm so that he could get the goal. And the idea here is that each of these is dependent on the other. If you take away the stick, the puck won't move. And if you take away the arm, the stick will move, and therefore the puck won't move. And if you take away the decision to move the stick, the puck won't move. And if you take away the arm, the stick won't move and therefore the puck won't move. And if you take away the decision to move the arm, well, then nothing will happen either. So in an essentially ordered cause, everything is dependent on one another, such that if you remove the first cause, the choice of the hockey player to swing and score, if you remove that, you get nothing else. Whereas in an accidentally,

uh, an accidental series, it's a little different. For example, if, um, if I have a son and then my son has a son, I can die by the time my son has his son and I'm not necessary for my son to have a son. But, but the active choice on the hockey player to move his arm is necessary for that puck to move, just as the stick is necessary and so forth. So, that's what you have. Yeah, excellent. Hey, is there common agreement on how to understand this third way? And if not, I don't know if you want to go here too quickly. Maybe you had more to say before I jump to that question. Well, no, actually, I just just want to say very briefly i'm not going to get into this is very complex but coho talks about there's three um relations the relationship in an essentially ordered series is they're irreflexive they're asymmetrical and they're transitive i'm just going to leave it at that because then everybody will not stop stop

listening to this podcast if i go into that what's important is that people memorize those three terms and then at a Catholic geeky party, just throw them out and say, I don't want to get into this right now and go get a point. And yeah, everyone will think you're awesome. All right. Well, cool. Yeah, I was going to say, is there common agreement on how to understand the third way? And if not, what do you think would be the most common misinterpretation of it? That's a great question. I'm laughing because actually there have been so many fights, even among Thomists, about how to interpret the third way. I mean, there's article after article.

It's actually a mess. There is a common misinterpretation that I want to talk about since you raised it. That's very common. At least I find it to be very common, and I think it's pretty bad in the sense that it needs to be wiped out. So let me tell you about that one. Actually, a good example of this would be the famous father, Frederick Copleston, the Jesuit who had the great debate with Lord Russell, for those of you out there. Yeah, I think that's on youtube actually it is and and uh and it's amazing how charming both of them sound it was yes yeah compare that debate to the recent uh fiasco with trump and hillary debates oh my or maybe not let's not bring that up we need a lot more beer before we even think about that okay continue

okay so um coppiston has a book, Aquinas, and he obviously in this book talks about the five ways. Look, I'll cut to the chase. Here's how Copleston interprets the third way. He thinks Aquinas is assuming, for sake of argument, infinite time. Now, just to tell your audience, the reason for this assumption would not be to make Aquinas' life easier. Because one of the atheist objections is, well, you know, of course, if the physical universe had a beginning in time, you know, there was a time when it wasn't there, and then all of a sudden, poof, it came into being, well, then it's fairly easy to prove God. But what happens if the physical universe

always existed, right? If it was eternal, why do we need to posit to God in that case? So, Copleston thinks that Aquinas is assuming infinite time in the third way, and then Copleston thinks that Aquinas is adding in, even though he doesn't give it in the actual text, there's a hidden premise that in infinite time, all possibilities happen. So, what Copelson thinks is happening is this. If we imagine that everything is a possible being, and of course possible beings can pass out of existence, then one possibility in infinite time would be that every single possible being passes out of existence at once, and then there would be nothing and then of course from nothing nothing comes and the idea is that in infinite time this should have already happened because every possibility is realized in infinite time but the fact that

we're here to talk about it means it didn't happen and then he continues the third way you know as uh in a similar way to aquinas now uh i think there are a lot of problems with that, but in case you have a question, are there any questions before I go on? No, this is often the thing that's brought up. They'll say, actually, I remember running this argument by my wife, and she said, well, why does that have to be the case? I mean, can't there just be an infinite amount of time and possible beings can keep sort of replicating, why would it have to go out of existence at all? Yes, no, that's a very good point. In fact, Norris Clark, who I

mentioned earlier, another Jesuit, we got a lot of Jesuits going on here, we got Coppice and Clark. Norris Clark said that he thought that there was a problem with this principle, even though, I mean, first of all, it's not even mentioned in the text, which is always, you've got to be careful, because if Aquinas doesn't mention something, usually he doesn't need it. That's usually true. There's a few exceptions to that. The other thing is that Clark thinks that this principle is false, and it's for the reason I believe you just said. Another possibility would be that before a possible being passed away,

it would, you know, give birth, if you will, to another possible being, and that could happen on infinitely. So, Clark thinks that those two possibilities can't be realized in the same universe. In other words, you can't have in the same universe one possibility to realize that they all go out of existence at once and you have nothing, and the other possibility, which is that before one goes out of existence, it makes another forever. So, you can't have both of those possibilities realized in the same universe. Therefore, the principle is false that in infinite time, all possibilities happen. And therefore, if you have a false principle in the third way, well, that would be a disaster. Now, the good news is I don't think Aquinas needs this principle at all. So, I think

we could just get rid of that principle. Okay. Yeah. Continue. So, the question then is... Oh, sorry. You were drinking. Sorry. I thought you were pausing for my brilliant insights, and I'm thinking, I have none. Please keep going. I was doing both. You have some good insight. So, how do we handle this? Well, actually, let me tell you how I struggled with this for a long time. I remember one time I had to write a review, book review, it's actually online, of Norris Clark's book where he talks about this. And I racked my brain for. Canassus' dissertation. Canassus is a Thomist, and in the 70s, he wrote a dissertation with the famous Father Owens. Anybody who knows their Thomist knows Father Owens is one of the most famous Thomists.

And so I started reading his dissertation, which, by the way, many people could probably find online and download for free. Although whoever did the scanning job should be shot i mean it is it is horrible you literally have to decipher it with a pencil by right is that an e or an s it's crazy i can see the guy doing the photocopying and saying to someone hey don't let the great be the enemy of the good and everyone else going no yes please please let the great be the enemy of any who they could do Do it properly. Yeah. No, that's a good point. So, what Canassus says, basically, is that Aquinas is not talking about possible beings passing out of existence. The idea is, rather, how could anything come to exist if there isn't already a necessary being? Because possible beings only come to exist through

an external cause but there wouldn't be any external causes if they're all possible beings so you can't have uh that scenario at all in other words without a necessary being possible beings could never come into existence and therefore you would have nothing and from nothing nothing would come but the fact that you and I are talking right now means, you know, that there must be a necessary being, because you need that cause to give existence to those first possible beings, if you will. That's the way it goes. Excellent. Have you ran this by any skeptics, atheists, or even those who just like a good argument,

who've disagreed with you on some of these premises, or least one well you know it's interesting um i've had mixed uh success i teach it i teach this in my metaphysics class usually at least once a year um the students seem to like it although they're not a lot of them aren't seasoned atheists if you will so they're not you know all guns blazing i have I have pointed out to some of my atheist friends in a very nice way that, you know, we have to explain why does anything exist at all? And sometimes I get the, well, the universe is just always was. And then I explain the difference between the sunlight and the sun and how that can't be, which actually leads us to a composition argument, but we can talk about that later.

But, you know, it's difficult stuff, and I find that it's hard to translate Thomas' Third Way, because it's so long, and it's got a lot of metaphysics in it, to the average atheist I encounter. So it's a mixed bag. I've got to ask this, because do you share this stuff with your wife? I got to ask this because do you share this stuff with your wife? Do you like sit down on a Friday night, pull up a glass of wine and start having, hey, honey, let me tell you about this 13-step argument I've come up with. Is she the kind of- Now, wait a minute.

My voice isn't that bad. Sorry. Yes. All right. I was going for like the natural geeky voice. And honestly, geek is a compliment to me i wish i were more of a geek because um yeah geeks are the ones who are the intelligent ones i posted something on facebook recently and i said isn't it funny that we used to make fun of nerds it's

as if we're saying hey you who knows more than me you're stupid you know it's like so funny anyway does your wife like this sort of talk or is she not that interested? Well, actually, it's interesting. Maria does enjoy some philosophical discussion once in a while, but I know that if I bring it up too much, it's not good for the marriage. I often wonder what an argument between, say, the wife of a logician would look like. Oh, my God. Wait a minute. You're not going to get off the hook, Fred, with that.

Now, do you talk with your wife about philosophical stuff? Oh, yeah. No, I lose almost every argument that I'm in. And when I lose the argument, sometimes it's not because my reasoning is faulty, but it's because of the way I, uh, argue. So I might kind of like snap and be like, Oh my goodness, Cameron, you know, and I might fly off the handle. And then it's like, well, now I've now I mean, and now I'm angry. And so now I have to apologize. And anyway, I don't know why we just got into all of that, but I need to vent. Okay. I need to vent. I need to lay on the couch and share my feelings with you. Well, Hey, any more, any more thoughts All right, go ahead. this. The third way doesn't necessarily conclude that there's only one necessary per se being. I

mean, ultimately, later on in the Summa Theologiae, Aquinas will conclude to that, but he doesn't do that within the text of the third way itself. So, let me say a few quick things about that. Thomas says that there's a being that has necessity through itself. And it turns out later on, the only way that something could have necessity through itself is if it's actually being itself. In other words, if its essence and its existence are identical. Yeah, go ahead. Well, I was going to say, do you want to touch upon that a little bit now? Because if you do, I want to say something beforehand.

Oh, yeah, go ahead. Say something beforehand. Well, just the reason why this is important for this argument, right, is that if we say that, you know, contingent beings need a necessary being, then the response might be, okay, well, maybe there's multiple necessary beings, and you can trace different contingent objects all the way up, as it were, to one particular necessary being. But maybe there's five or 62 or 73. So I think that might be one objection someone might raise. And at that point, it's important to, as you say, Aquinas doesn't deal with the fact that there has to be one necessary being in this argument. He goes on to do that later. So, yeah, why don't you share with us?

No, it's an excellent point. A polytheist might say that there is multiple necessary beings and therefore, you know, the idea of, you know, monotheism is out the window. So, no, it's a good point. Let me see if I can address this really quickly. Just really quickly. Try it. Yeah, we've already, you know, kept people a while here. No, they're loving it. They're loving it. Right. See, there's two quick arguments I'll make. If God were existence plus something else, some other property, then, and there was a real distinction between, for

example, his existence and his intellect, let's say, right? His mind. If they were really distinct, now you have two different things. So, you have something composed of two different things. And anytime you have composition, you know, you need a cause of what brought those two things together. For example, in my case, I'm a human being, right? I'm a rational animal, but I had to receive existence. So, there's a composition there as well. So, if there's composition in God, then God needs a cause, but then he's not God anymore, so that's not going to be good. So, the first thing that Aquinas does is he argues that necessary per se being must be being itself, so it's just being. It's not being plus animal nature. It's not being plus a mind. It's

just pure being and nothing else. And then the second argument he makes, and I'll be brief on this one, is that you can't have two realities or two entities that are pure being. And the argument is actually very simple and I think very powerful. You know, in order for two entities to be pure being, you know, something must separate them to make them two, otherwise they'd be identical. So how are they going to be separated? Well, one has to have a property that the other doesn't have. But if one has a property that the other doesn't have, then that one is being plus that property, and you have composition again. So it's not pure being, it's being plus a property.

So you can only have one reality that's pure being. And if I had more time, I would say that's the basis of an argument for monotheism. There can be only one God. Well, you know what we're going to have to do, Robert, if you're up for it, we're going to have to do another interview where we just hone in on that one particular issue. That'd be fantastic. Oh, that's very kind of you. Yeah, but everything you've shared today is really interesting. And I just want to say to all our listeners out there, please send us some messages over Twitter or something or write to me at mattatpintswithaquinas.com

and I'll forward your comments over to Robert if it's about his argument specifically. Quick question though, Robert. How did you get interested in studying the third way specifically? Yeah, go ahead. Well, I was going to say, I mean, you presumably have been interested in St. Thomas and his teachings for longer than that. And so, when you read the five ways, was it the third way that just struck you right out of the gate like that? Or the more you reflected on it, did you find that

the third way was the most important? Actually, if we have an extra minute, I want to tell you a little story that I think you'll really like, and then I'll answer your question. So, what happened was when I was in grad school, I went to grad school at SUNY Buffalo. I was there from 1994 to 1998. I got a chance to study under Jorge Gracia, who was a former president of the American Catholic Philosophical Association. And he was on leave one semester, and I kindly asked him if I could teach his metaphysics course. And he wrote a letter recommending me for it, which was really nice of him.

So I started teaching it, and then midway through the course, I realized that, oh no, I don't think I really understand the five ways. I was having a crisis. And so I actually prayed to God. I really did. I got on my knees and we had cots in Buffalo. I got on my knees and I said a prayer to God. I said, look, I'm very weak at this stuff. Please, if some way you can help me with the first way, just please help me. I said the prayer and I went to bed. And I swear to you, this was amazing. Around three or four in the morning, I woke up, and it was there. The first way was in my mind. I quickly scribbled it down. I interpreted it as a gift from God. And it wasn't just like faith now. I had the steps, and I understood them. So, I would call it graced reason. And so, that really got me into the five ways. I had to write that book review for Norris Clark's book.

So I did a lot of research then. But then, as fate would have it, I met somebody and we're working on a book on the five ways of Aquinas. Perhaps you want to talk about this. Yeah, well, I wrote a book or a manuscript on the five ways of Aquinas. It was a Socratic dialogue for en route books and media and the publisher was like okay this is great we can we can go you know send this to print and I said whoa whoa wait before you do that you know please I'm not a Thomist you know please send it to some sort of Thomist Thomistic philosophers and let them have a look at it and of course one of the people they sent them to was you Robert and you had some you some great critiques of my work.

You said, well, you should probably think about changing this. And I think I had Frederick Copleston's interpretation that I was presenting. Well, you did, but I do want to say, actually, I enjoyed your book very much. It was very good. Of course, I did have some little things about the third way I wanted to change, but overall, I thought you did a great job. Oh, thanks. But, you know, you were so kind. You wrote back to me and said, well,

why don't you add this? And I'm like, oh, that's brilliant. And then you said you should also add this. And I'm like, that's excellent. And then after a while, I'm like, you know what, why don't we just write this together? You're like done. So, uh, uh, people are going to be, I'm really excited about this book. So all of our listeners out there, we'll be sure to let you know when this comes out. Um, I think it's going to be a blessing to many people. But certainly, you know, my little book has been significantly enriched by your contributions. But anyway, what did that have to do with The Third Way? Was it that specific? Is that what you're referring to, how I kind of was parroting Cobblestone?

When I read your version of The Third Way, I said, oh, this sounds a little bit like Cobblestone. So, you know, I wanted to make a few changes. But really, I enjoyed your book and I'm really happy to be working with you. Thanks very much. So if people have liked what they've heard and maybe they want to read more of your stuff, Robert, or find you online, is there a place they can do that? You know, probably my work email is the best. Are you sure you want to give this out? Well, yeah. Well, you know, let's work email is the best. Are you sure you want to give this out? Well, yeah.

Well, you know, let's put it this way. You can find my work email on the St. John's University webpage. See, you know you're a real philosopher when you're not on Twitter, you're not on Instagram, you don't have a webpage, right? I love it. You're the real deal. Yeah, well, I'm also older than you. Twitter, I just can't get behind it

it's too much I need to write more than 130 characters or whatever it is right alright well thanks very much for being with us Robert and look forward to having you

on again soon alrighty have a great night and thanks for inviting me woo I told you that would be an intense show thank you so much

for joining us this week do us a favor if this show if Pints with Aquinas has blessed you in some way, would you do us a favor and rate us on iTunes? It would be nice to get a five-star review, but you give whatever review you think this show deserves, and that would mean a lot. Okay, we'll chat with you next week god bless I took you in

Too many grains of salt and sugar