St. Thomas and Prima vs Tertia Via

Catholicism vs Evolution · St. Thomas and Prima vs Tertia Via

The Argument for God That Changed My Mind
Actually Catholic | 6.VIII.2026
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1xilMR5kSQE

6:26 Noting that you switch between tertia via (argument from contingency) and now, when you object to infinite regress, as you should, you borrow it from prima via.

Railway carriages without a locomotive or with one is like the unmoved mover or lack thereof.

Apart from Geocentrism, an atheist could reply "but can we be sure they are all in the same train" or even "that they aren't all locomotives".

The series of changes in a wooden log burning to ashes has as first mover fire, but it's one fire of many fires. That's the equivalent of "the waggons are not the same train"

Heliocentric versions of Celestial mechanics tend to imply that the movers while never unmoved are also never purely passive, since they themselves exert some action by inertia (on themselves) and gravity (on each other) and there is no movement where this is completely subsidiary under a more general movement, like we Geocentrics see the Daily movement. That's the equivalent of "all the waggons are locomotives".

Apart from the text version "manifestum est et patet sensibus aliquid moveri, utputa sol" which I am sure that I have seen, even if I can't trace it online, St. Thomas confirms this was what he thought of in the Question whether God is one.

The first and more manifest way is the argument from motion. It is certain, and evident to our senses, that in the world some things are in motion. Now whatever is in motion is put in motion by another, for nothing can be in motion except it is in potentiality to that towards which it is in motion; whereas a thing moves inasmuch as it is in act. For motion is nothing else than the reduction of something from potentiality to actuality. But nothing can be reduced from potentiality to actuality, except by something in a state of actuality. Thus that which is actually hot, as fire, makes wood, which is potentially hot, to be actually hot, and thereby moves and changes it. Now it is not possible that the same thing should be at once in actuality and potentiality in the same respect, but only in different respects. For what is actually hot cannot simultaneously be potentially hot; but it is simultaneously potentially cold. It is therefore impossible that in the same respect and in the same way a thing should be both mover and moved, i.e. that it should move itself. Therefore, whatever is in motion must be put in motion by another. If that by which it is put in motion be itself put in motion, then this also must needs be put in motion by another, and that by another again. But this cannot go on to infinity, because then there would be no first mover, and, consequently, no other mover; seeing that subsequent movers move only inasmuch as they are put in motion by the first mover; as the staff moves only because it is put in motion by the hand. Therefore it is necessary to arrive at a first mover, put in motion by no other; and this everyone understands to be God.
Prima Pars, Q 2, A 3

Versus:

Thirdly, this is shown from the unity of the world. For all things that exist are seen to be ordered to each other since some serve others. But things that are diverse do not harmonize in the same order, unless they are ordered thereto by one. For many are reduced into one order by one better than by many: because one is the per se cause of one, and many are only the accidental cause of one, inasmuch as they are in some way one. Since therefore what is first is most perfect, and is so per se and not accidentally, it must be that the first which reduces all into one order should be only one. And this one is God.
Prima Pars, Q 11, A3

The first point of the three goes back to Q 3 on God's simplicity, where this is established in a way at odds with modern physics:

First, because no body is in motion unless it be put in motion, as is evident from induction. Now it has been already proved (I:2:3), that God is the First Mover, and is Himself unmoved. Therefore it is clear that God is not a body.
Prima Pars, Q 3, A 1

St. Thomas presumed, as per our senses, that Earth and bodies on Earth, are in fact absolutely still. Which remains valid in Geocentrism, also apparent to our senses.

9:28 The train is not as such helping the Kalaam.

St. Thomas never mentioned the Kalaam, at least not in the five ways. And the locomotive of the train can have been pulling it since forever, including in circles. Precisely as God could have had a coeternal universe in which He had always moved heaven around Earth, instead of doing so just since creation.

Either way, the Geocentric position involves that God has done this so many times now, we cannot presume His power to be ending. Hence "unending power" in Romans 1.

And, obviously, the train metaphor belongs to Prima Via, so to Geocentrism, even if your main argument is Tertia Via.

You are saying that the single most fundamental fact about reality that anything exists at all is the one thing that has no explanation while continuing to demand explanations for absolutely everything else

This is not the worst one can get.

The most fundamental fact is normally the basis for all explanation.

Explanations and proofs both have this in common they can't regress to infinity. At some point one has to come to a primary which cannot further be analysed.

That's why I'm perfectly fine with answering an Atheist asking "explain how God can be omnipotent" as if asking for a mechanism, that God's omnipotence isn't the result of a mechanism involving any more primary explanations (and certainly none of the type science usually is talking about), but is the fundamental explanation for anything about the universe.

Objection four, the half concession. Even if you get a necessary being, why call it God? Why is it personal? Why is it good? Why does it care? Why is it Jesus rather than an impersonal ground of being or a brute mathematical structure? This objection is correct, and I think apologists are dishonest when they wave it off.

This is why Prima Via interpreted as Geocentric is superior to Tertia Via, with or without a Prima Via interpreted by a Heliocentric.

One could say, the first three ways point to "matter and energy" which Atheists are not denying.

They may say the chair is contingent, but the atoms it's made from aren't, or the atoms are contingent, but the energy quanta they are made from aren't.

Just as one might say that with Heliocentrism, the "first mover" is a multiple, Earth and Sun moving each other.

With Geocentrism, the Prima Via provides a daily spectacle of a feat of power by something or someone who handles all this power with sufficient delicacy for stars in the sphere of fix stars to stay in place, relatively to each other, apart from minor adjustments like "parallax" (misnomer of the phenomenon on the Geocentric view).

One can say that with Geocentrism, the Quarta and Quinta Via join with the Prima Via.

As in "argument from design" (yes, that actually is one of the five ways).

And, unlike the flagellum of the bacterium, visible to the naked eye since the beginning of Creation.

Catholicism vs Evolution

Catholicism vs Evolution · St. Thomas and Prima vs Tertia Via

The Church, Darwin, and the One Question Still Open
Actually Catholic | 4 Aug. 2026
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-5fokJ7zolM

2:15 I think you misrepresent Humani Generis.

Here is the quote:

For these reasons the Teaching Authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions, on the part of men experienced in both fields, take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter - for the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God. However, this must be done in such a way that the reasons for both opinions, that is, those favorable and those unfavorable to evolution, be weighed and judged with the necessary seriousness, moderation and measure, and provided that all are prepared to submit to the judgment of the Church, to whom Christ has given the mission of interpreting authentically the Sacred Scriptures and of defending the dogmas of faith.

Pius XII didn't simply tell Catholics "investigate the science" he said: whether from science or from the Bible, see if it's probable or possible or not.

So far from being a blanket acceptance of Adam's bodily evolution, it's an invitation to discussion behind closed doors ("on the part of men experienced" = excluding non-experts, a condition no longer possible since non-experts have been dragged into the question) and the discussion can obviously both argue and even conclude that no, it's neither scientifically probable nor theologically possible.

In a case from 1830, there was a condition on submitting to a future decision of the Holy See in regards to how to interpret Vix Pervenit. The corresponding phrase here has often been taken as that, but Pius XII doesn't say "future" unlike the dicastery in 1830.

I think I have a right to reject the possibility from the previous decision on Session V of the Council of Trent.

Obviously insofar as I can prove that a bodily birth of Adam from non-human parents is incompatible with the traditional view of God's goodness before the fall and therefore with the fall.

2:51 "researchers converging"

Independently of each other? Not certain. Independently of a common framework, both ideological and in academy logistic and institutional? Certainly not.

"John Paul II" was in 1996 (if you got the year right, but you probably did if it's a different speech from the 1992 Galileo speech) scamming those in the Church who still held him to be Pope and to be obeyed as such (so, excluding Sedevacantists, Palmarians, Conclavists and FSSPX).

Anyone who thinks he's an actual saint needs to get him a credible excuse.

3:25 What God in the abstract can, given the relation between secondary causes and the primary one, is one thing.

What God actually did is another.

For the Galileo case, yes, God could given His omnipotence have chosen to act exclusively through inertia and gravity on the level of stars and planets around stars, and God could have created a Heliocentric universe. This doesn't argue that He actually did.

Because, Romans 1 says God is showing off His attribute "unending power" in some phenomenon visible with the naked eye and unmistakable. Which turning the universe around Earth would be.

And if the factors are gravity, inertia and God's action independent of and added to both, Geocentrism cannot be excluded, and that is also what we see.

To return to the primary and secondary causes, a thing can be a secondary cause (like the daily movement of the universe around earth) and still have only the primary cause as its own cause. Otherwise there would be a regress into infinity within secondary causes, which is what precisely we cannot have for Prima Via to work.

There may be similar or even weightier reasons to reject an "Adam whose body came from evolution" ...

3:43 "the document that binds ordinary Catholics"

Oh, CCC § 283. One reason to reject as non-Pope the "Pope" authorising that "catechism" ...

4:30 There is.

Nearly directly in Trent Session IV.

"It decrees, that no one ... presume to interpret the said sacred Scripture contrary to that sense which holy mother Church,–whose it is to judge of the true sense and interpretation of the holy Scriptures,–hath held and doth hold; or even contrary to the unanimous consent of the Fathers;"

But each and every one of the Fathers, while differring on detail, some denying there were six literal days, preferring a single moment, each of them was Young Earth Creationist. Therefore Trent Session IV is binding to Young Earth Creationism.

Again, Trent Session V. Adam was the first man. There were Neanderthals, but insofar as Neanderthals were men, which by now is amply proven, they were not before Adam.

This does not directly conflict with Gap Theory or Day Age theory insofar as you place all of the Anthropocene within the generations of Luke 3.

But by now, there are very good reasons against such scenarios, which are less likely than the standard Evolutionary one and also less likely than the Young Earth Creationist one.

Evolutionist views of the "emergence of man" (as per CCC § 283) require other views of the fall than Trent Session V authorises and requires, first three canons. Under pain of anathema.

And given datings of skeleta, accepting Deep Time but not the Evolutionist view is basically impossible.

Conor Foran

@UrielAngeli147

I think the Kolbe center has some answers to these, even if I don't support their strict literalist seven day position.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@hglundahl

@UrielAngeli147 They actually do support young earth creationism.

I'm doing parallel worok to them.

5:13 "Aquinas" distinguishes "how does this come from that?" (science) versus "why is there anything [rather than nothing]?"

Where exactly so?

I did not catch this distinction in the quinque viae.

Why is there anything seems to refer to Tertia Via:

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.

However I think the question "how does this come from that?" is involved very much in Prima Via:

The first and more manifest way is the argument from motion. It is certain, and evident to our senses, that in the world some things are in motion. Now whatever is in motion is put in motion by another, for nothing can be in motion except it is in potentiality to that towards which it is in motion; whereas a thing moves inasmuch as it is in act. For motion is nothing else than the reduction of something from potentiality to actuality. But nothing can be reduced from potentiality to actuality, except by something in a state of actuality. Thus that which is actually hot, as fire, makes wood, which is potentially hot, to be actually hot, and thereby moves and changes it. Now it is not possible that the same thing should be at once in actuality and potentiality in the same respect, but only in different respects. For what is actually hot cannot simultaneously be potentially hot; but it is simultaneously potentially cold. It is therefore impossible that in the same respect and in the same way a thing should be both mover and moved, i.e. that it should move itself. Therefore, whatever is in motion must be put in motion by another. If that by which it is put in motion be itself put in motion, then this also must needs be put in motion by another, and that by another again. But this cannot go on to infinity, because then there would be no first mover, and, consequently, no other mover; seeing that subsequent movers move only inasmuch as they are put in motion by the first mover; as the staff moves only because it is put in motion by the hand. Therefore it is necessary to arrive at a first mover, put in motion by no other; and this everyone understands to be God.

For instance, not in an endless regress of moving cause behind moving cause ... by the way, I have seen one sentence given as:

It is certain, and evident to our senses, that in the world some things are in motion, like for instance the sun.

The word "creation" is actually not even mentioned in the Five Ways / Prima Pars, Quaestio 2, Article 3.

5:50 OK. Adam was engendered by humanoid creatures of roughly our anatomy, but as non-human obviously without speech.

How does Adam's soul, directly created by God, fare in such an environment?

Look up feral children!

So, given Adam's soul is an image of God, but being raised by beings without that kind of soul is a hindrance of expressing it, the Evolutionist scenario involves God committing an act of cruelty against Adam before he sinned.

Try to solve it by giving him "kind of parents" who could speak? You have just denied he was the first man, instead. In 1950, this option was not open to any theologian, and of those who took the previous one, some committed cruel acts to boys growing up. Look up Henk Heithuis. That kind of thing did not happen in Italy, where in 1962 or preceding years an Ottaviani had been planning to give the "future decision" by defining de fide that Adam was created like the Bible says. Among the episcopates who blocked this was the one where Henk Heithuis's malefactors were not being punished by superiors. The Vatican II has been called "The Rhine flows into the Tiber" and BeNeLux is clearly Rhine league at the council.

6:14 So, Adam could have had two progenitors who were not human, and he was human?

See previous for the cruel absurdity of this.

[To be continued? Well, someone has deleted the comments after the 4:30 one.

Update on YouTube Hiding Comments
Jun 2, 2026 | Anthony Repetto
https://oaklandthinktank.medium.com/update-on-youtube-hiding-comments-b11e212c0769]