In this two part episode, Pat takes listeners questions on Bertrand Russell, the Kalam Cosmological Argument, the “God of the Gaps Fallacy”, and more. Then, in part 2 (around the 30 minute mark) Pat shares the argument from conditioned realities, which “in the spirit” of St. Thomas Aquinas, offers a contemporary metaphysical proof of God.
Here’s the link to the Google Doc with write ups of the various arguments so far discussed: https://docs.google.com/document/d/13mAT3BtobxA4-VYGaNPIqvGVCWOiVt8eOddEd9sp1Kc/edit?usp=sharing
The Argument from Conditioned Realities
OR, ==> CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE EPISODE.
Related Episodes/Resources
Philosophy Friday: Aquinas, God, and the Argument From Change
Bibliography/Resources
- Introduction to Natural Theology – Maurice R Holloway
- New Proofs for the Existence of God — Fr. Robert Spitzer
- The Soul’s Upward Yearning – Fr. Robert Spitzer
- 5 Proofs of the Existence of God – Dr. Edward Feser
- The One and the Many: A Contemporary Thomistic Metaphysics – Fr. Norris Clarke
- Insight – Bernard Lonergan
- How Reason Can Lead to God – Dr. Joshua Rasmussen
The Pat Flynn Show
If you enjoyed this episode, it would mean the world to me if you could subscribe to, and leave a review for, The Pat Flynn show on iTunes HERE or Stitcher HERE.
Reading your reviews and hearing your feedback is what keeps me fired up to make The Pat Flynn Show happen. Thank you!
Thanks for answering my question about Bertrand Russell Pat. The “everything has a cause” argument really had me confused so it was good that you clarified that Aquinas didn’t say “everything had a cause.” It was helpful seeing the flaws behind Russell’s critique of different philosopher (using a straw man and the classic ad hominin attack). Thanks for explaining deductive reasoning and how you can examine an argument to see if it’s logical and solid. You did a good job showing how Russell fails to invalidate Aquinas’ arguments. There’s so much to be learned from your podcasts whether it’s philosophy, fitness, or religion. Again, thanks for taking my question and spending time on answering it. I liked the idea of dealing with people who don’t step up to explaining their arguments by upping the intellectual price tag. IMO, an intellectual price tag is a nice way of pointing out a person is close-minded and they’re losing their credibility (big-time) by their assertions (such as the brute fact argument). I’d have to agree that some people’s arguments betray the fact they’re not engaging in genuine philosophical debate. I just wish more people would engage in arguments the way they’re supposed to be (intellectual inquiries) and not two people fighting like cats and dogs. Debate is nasty as you said and it’s more of a performance than a defense of an idea. Just imagine what could get done if people argued the traditional way. Once again, I’ve learned a lot here Pat. I sincerely appreciate you taking the time to do these informative podcasts.