I’m a big fan of Steve and a staunch atheist, but even I felt the dunce cap was too much. Aquinas was a brilliant thinker and a shining light in the relative darkness of western philosophy in the Middle Ages. I’m sure it was just a bit of “marketing fun”.
@Prasanth Thomas the physics or science behind the arguments have little to do with the arguments themselves though. The whole argument for motion depends on the principle that change involves the actualization of a potential. That is the same principle Aristotle, Aquinas and Feser uses to get the arguments off the ground.
Love these debunking videos. Cosmic Skeptic is far superior to this guy, but even with Cosmic, he admits once he does more research he finds his previous position was incorrect. Most of these atheists simply don’t understand the arguments
I noticed that about Kreeft as well. I guess as a teacher, it makes sense that he would simplify Aquina's argument for students who are difficult to teach. But the downside is that to simplify the argument is to make it into a weaker argument.
To be fair, PragerU is geared toward those that would have not been exposed to the same background as Aquinas's intended audience. It is packaged to young adults that have never thought of these things. Leaving these loopholes will be used by God for His purpose.
It's not even a good argument no matter how complex you make it. God is not needed as the cause of the universe, lots of other possibilities. And even if a god created it, no reason that it should be the christian god or in fact any "god" humans thought up.
@@MagnificentXXBastard You're not. Aquinas was willing to believe that the universe always existed. His arguments don't depend on the universe coming into existence. Plus, his "5 ways" aren't designed to prove every aspect of the Christian God. But his Summa contains a lot more than just the "5 ways." Perhaps you should be less arrogant and more willing to listen/learn. I would recommend a book on the topic (by Matt Fradd) but I don't think you'd read it. Seems like you're just here to attack.
"even if we accepted all the premises of the argument, all it would do is prove that an unmoved mover existed. And that's it! that's all it would prove." That has to be one of the silliest things that atheists say about Aquinas' arguments.
@@JJ-zr6fu His point is, an unmoved mover doesn't mean the Christian God. It could be literally anything. Aliens starting a simulation, Zeus, a non-conscious force or law of nature, Shiva, Allah... Anything
@@MagnificentXXBastard no. a being of Pure Actuality cannot be an alien, a member of a pantheon of gods like Zeus or Shiva, a non-conscious force or the laws of nature. The only one you got right was Allah. I know a lot of atheists don't like hearing this from Thomists but you just haven't understood the arguments. After presenting the argument, Aquinas further goes on to deal with the attributes of an Unmoved Mover. If RR and you had just spent time reading those, you'd understand how silly the objection is, even though RR thought that this was a "devastating" flaw.
🎯 Key Takeaways for quick navigation: 00:00 🎥 Video is a rebuttal of Rationality Rules' critique of Aquinas's argument from motion. 00:29 🤔 The video will focus on Craig's rendition of the unmoved mover argument rather than Aquinas's version. 01:12 🔄 Aquinas's argument defines motion as change from potential to actual; not just physical movement. 02:21 🔁 Woodford misunderstands "beginning" in terms of logical sequence, not temporal origin. 03:18 ⚙️ Aquinas's analogy of gears better explains causality than a domino effect. 04:29 📚 The unmoved mover analogy is more about sustaining motion, not just starting it. 05:24 🧠 Woodford misunderstands the argument's scope; it doesn't prove a specific god's attributes. 06:58 🌌 The objection that "something must have existed without a cause" is a straw man; not part of the actual argument. 09:17 🧐 Aquinas's unmoved mover has no potential, is immaterial, timeless, changeless, and causal. 12:05 🤷♂️ Arguments aren't flawed for not proving specific gods; they're judged based on their intended purpose. 12:56 🔮 Premise about something existing without a cause isn't special pleading; it allows for uncaused causes. 14:07 🌌 The argument's conclusion doesn't depend on temporal universe origins, and it's not about all matter. 16:00 🌠 Woodford criticizes unsupported claims about universe origins, but Aquinas's argument remains relevant. 16:43 🙏 Woodford teases a forthcoming analysis of Edward Feser's version of the argument from motion.
This was a great video, Trent, thank you. I am considered a pretty discerning reader, able to absorb general theories and break them down and analyze them, but I honestly think I terrified myself when I was 15 and tried to slog my way through the Summa. It was so far beyond me that I gave up and contented myself with theologians that I could more readily understand. I have never tried to read aquinas again, much to my shame. I’ve read Augustine and Irenaeus who are much easier for me. I’ve put aquínas on a back burner but clearly need to face my fears and slog my way through. This is my year of Catholic converts and early church doctors. Everyone from Grahame Greene and Taylor Caldwell, to Chesterton and Neumann, to Thomas Merton, and I’ll circle back to aquinas. And I’ll pray that he gets his order in shape again. I swore to my husband that in our lifetime we would never seen a Jesuit pope and yet here we are. It’s everything I imagined it would or could be. Ambiguity, disingenuous, cupidity. My husband is ready to just take a leave of absence until normalcy is restored. I told him we don’t have that option. We attend until the bishop forces the closing of our FSSP parish. And then we make the best of a bad situation from there. I taught catechism to the 5th grade class of the second largest diocese in Los Angeles. I gave up when they made the hours impossible 1. 3 pm?!! Who is off work at 3 pm?? Not me. And 2. COVID made it all virtual. What a waste of time. Up until then I would have easily pitted my 6th graders against the class making their confirmation. I KNEW they knew more about the church, the doctrines , the why’s and wherefore’s than anything those 17!year olds new. We had one shot before the pandemic and we blew the HS kids out of the water. We’ll see what I do going forward. I will not teach in a virtual classroom. It’s worthless. Give me my kids in a room where we can all interact and I guarantee you a class that can tell you the cardinal works of mercy, the meaning of the True presence, the Transfiguration, the “made in the image of God statement”. Just let me in a classroom and I promise on my soul I can enthrall them until they don’t want to leave. It will be interesting to see what happens. If my parish continues to offer on line classes I may apply at the other 3 parishes here
Hi, Oh. Wow; there's a lot there! First things first, I'll pray for you. Second, thank you for your service. Third, just a gentle reminder that knowledge is at the service of love. Fourth, even in the best of circumstances, there are ways in which elementary children can be expected to outperform teens; this is because teen brains are again plastic to allow reconfiguration for adult life. Fifth, there is no reason to suppose a defect in yourself or a great disparity between your ability to understand and Thomas' ability to teach: he was addressing himself to adults who had maturity and wide experience of life, which were lacking to you as a teen. God bless you.
@@Miatpi That is something I hope to do in the future. For now, I'm prioritizing my rebuttals to address videos that have gotten the most views of the many anti-Catholic videos on RUclips.
@@deiniolbythynnwr926 Ive never been presented with sufficient evidence to warrant a belief in the god of the bible or any of the other gods. You shouldnt have to present evidence though, Christianity, like all religions is a faith based belief system. So your belief is warranted based on your faith. I choose not to believe things based on faith, just a different way of looking at the world. Too each their own
@@tafazzi-on-discord Its not a matter of being wrong or right. I choose to base my beliefs on facts, logic and reasoning. Others choose faith. To each their own
These atheists putting dunce hats on theists and then coming up with straw man arguments, showing that they haven't understood the argument their criticising reminds me of the Ali G comedy character.
Note, where there could be some confusion: Being Itself is a very technical name for God and does not mean that God is all things that exist (like my laptop). God is distinct from the universe. However, because He is Pure Actuality, and because things that actually exist in reality are therefore (in that respect) actual, we can say that God's existence is pure existence, or Being Itself. Further, Aquinas argues in the Summa Contra Gentiles that it is logically possible for God to move something without Himself being moved.
Lets not atteibute to malice which can be attributed to incompetence. Woodford is incapable of understanding the actual syllogisms shortwiring arguments. And then based on that he produces straw men which he can knock down in his head. That poor man needs to come down from his high horse
@@jonson856 Yeah I agree. It isnt good to assume malicious intention, I mean I was just as hostile as he was when I was an angry atheist before becoming Catholic. I think people like him are mislead, as was myself, and like you said he needs to be humbled, and I feel personally its so that the Spirit of Truth may confer his majestic Grace. I know what you mean but I am just confounded at the intellectual dishonesty of the video if you see what I men, and sometimes its near difficult to discern as to whether its bad will or just incompetence because they both produce the same effect.
@@eternalbyzantium262 yeah I totally understand you and I wasnt trying to undermine your statement. Most of the time when I "call out others", I am calling out myself, because I catch myself more often than not in anger and hypocrisy when I engage in discussions with atheists.
@@jonson856 Nah dont worry I didnt feel called out, it was right what you said. I have to be reminded that its preferable that we dont assume that everyone who holds views contrary to our position is simply bad-willed or acting in bad faith. May the Lord God sanctify your heart and preserve you for His glory.
Recently had this argument with my dad, who accepted there must be something that created/actualized the universe (our local space + time), but then said we can't conclude anything about that cause - like that it's spaceless, timeless, immaterial etc - because we can't use the logic rules that exist within the universe and apply them to something outside the universe...
@@CedanyTheAlaskan my only challenge that I could think of was, "But you have to at least admit that by our understanding, theism is the most apparent conclusion from the argument." To which his reply was essentially accusing me of falling for the god of the gaps. His position is that he really doesn't want to believe in something like "Zeus caused lightning" out of a lack of understanding, and he considers anything outside of the universe (such as the universe's cause) to be un-understandable. (I know the Zeus analogy isn't a great one) What would your response to that be?
@@TheFluteNewb Right, he would say there IS an ultimate cause, but we can't know anything about it other than that it caused the universe. For example, human inter-universal logic would imply that such a cause needs to be timeless, but what if logic itself no longer operates the same outside the universe. "What if the term 'timeless' means something else or makes no sense when applied to something outside the universe?" He's basically arguing that we can't know anything about the outside of the universe and therefore we can't make any conclusions about the ultimate cause's properties.
@@zachwilliams784 Ironically that's like a "no God" of the gap argument. The reason he is at a limit of logic is because it's spaceless and timeless. So immediately starts to sound like God.
You need to rest your eyes, Trent! We need you healthy. God bless your ministry! May the Lord keep you and make His face shine upon you and give you peace...🙏🙏🙏🙏
It was ironic when RR wanted to praise CS, he played a clip of him pointing to a hand drawn meme falsely claiming agnosticism isn't opposed to theism or atheism. It would be like a mechanic saying, "This other mechanic is similar in their approach," and then playing a video of a man smashing an engine with a wrench like an ape from 2001.
The issue here is that PragerU does primarily 5 minute videos. Thus, these theological arguments that are complex cannot be explained well in 5 minutes.
Could you please do a "debunk" video of Jay Dyer's criticism of the absolute divine simplicity and Thomism? Very interested to see your response. Thanks. He is a moderately sized Orthodox youtuber and philosopher.
Reason and Theology has good videos about Eastern Orthodoxy and Divine Simplicity in general. I don't find Jay Dyer's arguments to be particularly good.
I'm not so sure about this, the unmoved mover can exist sure, but from ancient sources the unmoved mover by Aristotle was thought to be made up by potentially 55 beings, not just one. I also feel this may be more accurate than Aquinas given that it was much closer to the time of Plato who came up with the idea of an unmoved mover in the first place.
So if a ball needs something else to move it, and a universe needs somethibg else to create it, why doesn't god need something else to create it? And if a god doesn't need something else to create it, why can't a universe create itself? If god is able to be without being created, the idea that a universe can be without being created is possible to imagine just as well. If we simple observe, somethings rely on other things, then that brings us no closer to god. That there must exist something that itself isn't actualized, is simply an assumption. We have no reason to believe it. If we argue this, we come back to the natural question in my first paragraph.
@@thedude0000 Nope, not special pleading. A special pleading implies an exception, there is no exception here. God is not an infiinite series of causes, so the rule that there isn't an infinite series of causes is never ever broken. Atheists equivocating basic widely known and solid arguments to fit their bias, just like scientific studies say, you can't make this stuff up...
I previously saw that video by Kreeft explaining the first cause and it left me quite confused, as it is not what Aquinas argues for. I am a big admirer of Kreeft and have read alot of his books, but some of his work can be over-simplified. I understand that he is trying to reach a wider audience, but the over-simplification can end up hurting his arguments. I read his book on Marx recently and it was so simplified as to make marxism a cartoonish caricature, and thus not to be taken very seriously.
Always the same ridiculous nonsense. Some atheist philosopher or worse, a neophite in philosophy claiming he has refuted Aquinas. It looks a youtube video from an aficionado is suficient to demolish one of the most eminent thinkers of mankind. Of course using strawman fallacies and wearing "capirotes" in Aquinas head. Pathetic.
I have to say I really appreciate the concise way Woodford points out all the glaring flaws in his strawman versions of Aquinas’ argument from motion. What a guy….🤔
This argument is so poorly explained by apologists imo, that this argument is almost a waste of time because people are soo deeply entrenched into a misunderstanding of it.
Agreed, a skilled philosophical debater would have used effective but concise logically sound language in presenting his arguments that would have provided little to no room to question while weakening the opposition from using these apparently misunderstood conclusions to begin with.
If one thing moves, then everything else has moved through a Cambridge change. Think of a reality consisting of nine things and if one thing ceases to exist, then everything else has experienced a change. So everything that exist is indeed in motion.
Oh no I can't believe you actually went through this... that "debunk" is just so bad that Stevens own comment field tells him he's wrong, with even Bishop Barron joining the party. This is almost just a waste of time beating a dead horse.
@@ThomistReview1950 I'll give you that it IS fun. Still, I think there are quite a number of more serious "debunks" of the thomistic proofs that calls out for a response.
How embarrassing to to think you're dismissing somebody's argument , only to be told that you don't even understand it, that you're attacking a straw man.
@@JustUsCrazyBoyz "Doesn't prove Theism" is still the stupidest fallacy I've ever heard RR use. Do you ever here an Apologist say "X natural theology argument proves Christianity is true!!"? No, they only use it to show that God in a broad sense exists.
Aquinas statement allows for the existence of a mover not ruled by the rules that exist for the others moved things. Otherwise, it would be a move part not a mover
TCOT: I am often confused when philosophy-type people talk about physics. It is just a plain fact that liquid water may freeze without external forces or "causes". The usual phrase is: "water freezes under its own vapor pressure". So for example, a liter of liquid water floating in a vacuum, will freeze, ON ITS OWN, by shedding heat via vaporization. This has to do with the so-called latent heat of vaporization. The only known simple liquid that does not freeze in this way is liquid helium. I have frozen liquid nitrogen and other liquids using this method on many occasions. Another issue: in the most foundational descriptions of matter currently known, I.e., various equivalent formulations of quantum mechanics, elementary particles always have some form of motion. This happens regardless of external forces or lack there of. This is due to the so-called uncertainty relations. The Heisenberg uncertainty relations look simple, but require an understanding of Fourier transforms, partial differential equations, Hilbert spaces, and so forth, to fully appreciate. Examples like these give some indication of why many physicists avoid reasoning done by Medieval philosophers: Medieval thinking is somewhat out of date. [I say this without any sense of judgment; I think Thomas A did his best with the knowledge he had at hand, just as we attempt to do so nowadays. Cheers.]
Could you do a video addressing sedevacantism particularly the channel vaticancatholic? I am attracted to their arguments regarding recent canonisations and the parallels between the modern Church and the Book of the Apocalypse. I don't think there exists a thorough rebuttal of sedevacantism on RUclips and I think many people would find it useful.
Please check out Michael Lofton's work on Sedevacantism on the Reason and Theology channel. You will quickly find out that the Diamond Bros have no idea what they're talking about. They fail to undersrand MANY necessary distinctions, especially on the lose of office. Also check out True or False Pope (it's a book and a website). Have faith in Christ's Church, He will not abandon it. Trust him.
@@eternalbyzantium262 Trent can never win he's too right wing for the left and too left wing for the right maybe he's just catholic. I do think he doesn't take a hard enough stance against rogue a pope, bishops and priests and his video about James Martin was disappointing when he didn't offer a good way to counter him, but that's more of matter of approach not being left wing.
@@JJ-zr6fu Yea good point. I personally find him and his other crewmates at Catholic Answers doing more damage against Catholicism given they refuse to acknowledge clear heretical behaviours of the popes that it looks dishonest to an impartial person. I love their charitable demeanour but sometimes it just become cowadice.
I've pointed this out on many occasions on several other RUclips channels that Steven Woodford is punching way way way above his weight and fails at every turn. I get the impression that he's really trying hard to make a name for himself as a respected intellectual thinker but cannot see his own limitations in the area. Sure, he may impress some who haven't been exposed to logic and reasoning skills or philosophy at that matter but once you begin to learn how to detect fallacious arguments, his videos seem to be pointless
It's not difficult to figure out, Americans think for some reason that speaking in a British accent makes you smarter, so those channels become popular
It does in a philosophical/rational sense. Logic does not require substantiation through experimentation like science, which is actually WEAKER in proving things compared to reason.
@@Austin_Schulz So fuck it, we can all just relax in an easy chair, and think about shit, and that will make it true. I would give that in cases of dealing with reality, but if you're saying it can prove a god, or some supernatural thing, then we part ways for sure, but logic does require testing, no way around that.
I think Stephen is so confused working on the Aquinas argument due to his pre occupation to argue against the kalam in which he starting to confuse the distinction between the difference between kalam and aquinas unmoved mover. (Just Joking)
The scientists say that space started 13.7 billion years ago. And time started with it. Space and time are related in that point. But our God exists outside of space. And He exists outside of time.
So question, if there is a possibility that there are objects in the universe which have potential that can become actualized by nothing at all then why can't one of these such things be the object that created the logical movement? Second question why is it that God must provide movement or it all stops?
RUclips philosophers are such a boring lot. They argue against things they do not understand and rate their own "debunking" as a success. The fact that he has the nerve to put a dunce cap on Peter Kreeft and Thomas Aquinas himself shows a level of hubris that is honestly unimaginable. The smartest person in the room is the one who realizes he has a lot more to learn. That person is NOT Rationality Rules.
Great video, but you failed to address the major flaw in the Aquinas argument, you cannot prove that inifinte regress can't happen. Thomas Aquinas takes as a starting point for his five ways a visible point, a metaphysical principle and the impossibility of an infinite process, which will help to form each of these ways. But what is the logical argument for this?
there's no way you've actually delved into Thomistic metaphysics and haven't encountered why an infinite regress can not happen. I refuse to believe it. It's one of the first things you learn when you study Thomistic metaphysics so how on earth could you have possibly read Aquinas and not know about that? Honest question. I am dumbfounded and cannot understand any other explanation besides you not being familiar with the argument, at all.
In a hierarchical causal series the individual members do not have their own causal power. Their causal power is only derived. Take some books stacked on top of each other for example. The potential of the top book to be there is actualized by the book beneath it. But the book beneath it does not have it own causal power to actualize the potential of the top book to be there. Its causal power is derived, or rather depends on the book below that book and so on and on. Therefore there must logically be a "first cause" that doesnt need to have its own potential actualized by anything and has that causal power "built into it". Even if you imagine a train with infinitely many carts, the fact that it has infinitely many carts does not explain why its in motion. Although each of the carts moves the cart behind it, the causal power of these carts is only derived from the cart pulling that cart. One therefore has to assume there is a locomotive that has the causal power to pull the carts and does not need to be pulled itself.
Being simultaneous to an effect involves temporal location. If being simultaneous to an effect involves having temporal location, then any thing that is simultaneous to their effect is in time. If any thing that is simultaneous to their effect is in time, then a timeless God is not simultaneous to any of his effects. If a timeless God is not simultaneous to any of his effects, then God is not a prime mover. If God is not a prime mover, then the first way is false. Therefore, the first way is false.
All you have to do to challenge the first way is to suggest that the source of change is found within all that changes and not outside of the things that change; thus the universe would be its own source of change. So why can’t the source of change be found within the changing things themselves? Do magnets collide because of something external to the magnets? No. Indeed, at the fundamental level of reality, physical reality moves due to the interactions between things, like how elections are attracted to the nucleus of an atom and also repelled by other electrons. Therefore, the thomist must show that it is impossible that the source of change be found within the things that change.
Here is what I do not get over with. You guys fight over an argument, that was formulated in the Middle Ages. This first mover argument and its creator did not know a nickel about physics. So the whole argument is based on observations, which are extremely limited compared to the knowledge and proven facts we have now. So why fight over the nitty gritty of this old argument. It’s like fighting over the utility of a bucket for carrying water but the bucket has holes like a Swiss cheese.
This isn't a scientific argument or some exercise in physics. It's metaphysics. That's the problem with trying to explain it to people who don't remotely understand the subject. You understand when someone makes a well established, universal assertion like "math is universal, it is eternally true in all galaxies, possible universes and at all times", it simply doesn't matter that this metaphysical statement of reality was asserted 2,500 years ago, right? The year simply doesn't matter. Physics has nothing to say in it. We didn't come to this understanding by doing science experiments in a lab, but without this conceptual understanding, things like physics would be perfectly useless. The problem with trying to get people to understand metaphysical arguments for God is when they simply don't understand the subject. It simply doesn't matter if it's from the Middle Ages. You wouldn't say "the Pythagorean Theorem is probably wrong, because it was developed before the year 0 AD". Scientists have no say in the matter, bc it's not an empirical observation. There are zero triangles that exist in physical reality, as even gamma rays and x rays have wave lengths. It is all based on concept and notions of universals. So, things like physics are UTTERLY dependent upon metaphysics being true, not the inverse. Physicists simply accept things that people like Aristotle Aquinas and Leibniz told them to accept as true and to not ask stupid questions. So, until a vast majority of people get something other than this mechanistic secular "education", they simply will never understand the subject.
This 1st argument is formally criticized by logicians,Fr.J.Drewnowski and J.M.Bochenski OP (both form Warsaw_Lviv School of Logic, the most famous-A.Tarski,On (formalization) of Truth,1933)- I am not sure they are right(I've have not read them); the main problem is what can or not formalize in logic; meta-logical terms cannot be formalized or written down in a logical or mathematic symbol; one can formalize the law non-contradiction as -(p and -p),p-any sentence but not the principle (principle is not law!)- formally it seems to be useless the task to formally prove or not the Aristotle@Thomas 1st "way". The main St.Thomas Aquinas argument is 3rd way (on existence and substance); the highly criticized 5th way (on the final cause) is supported by the principle of least action (in physics)! Kreeft is a typical traditional Thomism; therefore, it a quite boring now because it does not incorporate the new discoveries in logic (since Frege) and in Bible hermeneutics- I've heard him once at Univ.Lecture in Toronto. J.M..Bochenski, Logic of Religion,1965- (almost) perfect source;he,you and opponents do not know about meta-logic (A.Tarski,1933-truth, semantics) and ignore hermeneutics(though Boochenski urges to know it, yet, himself did not know it) + u don't know the eschatological significance of Dec.8,1991 Bialoviezha Accord and the Legal FAll of REd Empire@ the proof of Exodus 3:14! ps. one cannot formalize such terms like "being","cause" (some try for vain! Logic does not deal with causal relations; "antecedent -consequent" is not a causal relation! Logically, 'God" would be a meta-meta..principle of (any)being and knowing, hence it cannot be written down in a sentence in symbolic signs (it is missed by Bochenski and all pro or anti-theistic debaters;K. Ajdukiewcz exposed that quantifiers (existential and general are "sneaked" meta-logical terms into logic formal language-he is right, the term "to exist" or "to be, is, are" can not be formalized!
I suggest you read “Existential inertia and classical theistic proofs” by your friend Joe Schmidt, then you wouldn’t make the same non sequiturs that most people make.
Time didn't always exist, if we look at black holes, time doesn't work in it, black holes are the same as the Singularity Wich God created in the big bang
For a guy naming his channel "rationality rules", he enjoys repeatedly taking this highly irrational position of rebutting arguments by saying they don't do things they don't intend to do. Proving a complex, multi pointed argument like the Christian god is a set of many, many arguments that work together. Its isn't some "one and done" thing. Arguments prove their premises and nothing more. His first rebuttle is as reasonable and coherent as me saying "this argument only proves there is an unmoved mover. It doesn't even prove why Ford trucks are better than Dodge. Thats it"
9:42 Begging the question. "I agree God is not a being but it is real...." 9:58 Proof? Evidence? "The only immaterial things that could exist are minds and abstract concepts..." 10:10 Argument from ignorance "Immaterial mind as being a reazonable conclusion..." We dont know what this immaterial mind who, what , is purpouse , etc so therefore God.
Is there any empirical proof for a multiverse? As far as science can tell everything began 13.7 Bn years ago and by that we mean space-time. If one posits other universes, eg Bubble Universes or Multiverses we're in the realm of speculation.
There's no proof of string theory but they hold on to it because they think it can disprove God. Just like they hold to a multiverse but if you were to prove a multiverse that would still need an unmoved mover.
Yes the seas move with the tides which are caused by the moon and the sun so we should start worshipping them. Oh! hang on we tried that just after volcanoes.
And what are "Professor Plinks" credentials? Does he take up vast sections of The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy like Aquinas? Most people who "refute" Aquinas don't remotely understand the subject, and he's revered because his arguments are literally irrefutable.
@@peppy619 exactly. as I said earlier, Its not whether they understood or not. They have decided what they want to believe and is no longer open for changing his or her mind. What an irony.
woodford is either dishonest or ignorant, he's a man that said that the first premise of the kalam is everything that exists has a cause, a premise not found in any literature at all lol
It takes a certain level of pride to put a dunce cap on Aquinas….
and on Peter Kreeft...a whole new different level indeed
Pride is celebrated these days... Literally. It's quite sickening.
Pray for those who have fallen into celebrating sin
I’m a big fan of Steve and a staunch atheist, but even I felt the dunce cap was too much. Aquinas was a brilliant thinker and a shining light in the relative darkness of western philosophy in the Middle Ages.
I’m sure it was just a bit of “marketing fun”.
Most Protestants are like this.
Not really. The guy was bonkers.
They debunked
They refuted
But most importantly,
Trent rebutted
It reminds me of the tricks which Islam uses.
Nice extra uncharitable touch by him to put dunce hats on Peter and Aquinas what a child!
You know how they are. That's why I seldom communicate with their kind about serious matters.
It's weird since the dunce hat gets it's name from Duns Scotus
I blame the RUclips algorithm for encouraging that kind of mockery, though. Without it the video may never have been seen 🙄
Just bought the Shorter Summa this week after hearing you and others quote Aquinas so much. God bless!
People “refute” Aquinas straw men until they can fully comprehend the arguments made by Aquinas, at which point they become Catholic.
The point is that they don't want to understand the arguments. What they like is secondary sources. Bertrand Russell, Richard Dawkins...
Provided they are not resisting God's grace.
@Prasanth Thomas the physics or science behind the arguments have little to do with the arguments themselves though. The whole argument for motion depends on the principle that change involves the actualization of a potential. That is the same principle Aristotle, Aquinas and Feser uses to get the arguments off the ground.
I'm Catholic but I'm too dumb to understand anything the Angelic Doctor is going on about so I just pretend to be a neoplatonist.
😂
God bless you Trent.
Love these debunking videos. Cosmic Skeptic is far superior to this guy, but even with Cosmic, he admits once he does more research he finds his previous position was incorrect. Most of these atheists simply don’t understand the arguments
Atheist here, I agree, a lot atheists are kind of arrogant
I noticed that about Kreeft as well. I guess as a teacher, it makes sense that he would simplify Aquina's argument for students who are difficult to teach. But the downside is that to simplify the argument is to make it into a weaker argument.
To be fair, PragerU is geared toward those that would have not been exposed to the same background as Aquinas's intended audience. It is packaged to young adults that have never thought of these things. Leaving these loopholes will be used by God for His purpose.
It's not even a good argument no matter how complex you make it.
God is not needed as the cause of the universe, lots of other possibilities. And even if a god created it, no reason that it should be the christian god or in fact any "god" humans thought up.
@@MagnificentXXBastard It sounds like you're not familiar with Aquina's actual argument.
@@donquixotedelamancha58
I am. are you?
What did I say that you disagree with?
@@MagnificentXXBastard You're not. Aquinas was willing to believe that the universe always existed. His arguments don't depend on the universe coming into existence. Plus, his "5 ways" aren't designed to prove every aspect of the Christian God. But his Summa contains a lot more than just the "5 ways." Perhaps you should be less arrogant and more willing to listen/learn. I would recommend a book on the topic (by Matt Fradd) but I don't think you'd read it. Seems like you're just here to attack.
I need to finish reading the catechism...
lol me too I have only read like 5 or 6 pages
@@LuisReyes-sm7kc it’s a great read.
@@RGTomoenage11 It really is. I am rereading it now.
@@BrentKalar may i ask for a pdf sir? or maybe.. may i know where i can get one?
@@honortedmichaelr.6048 There is an online version on the USCCB website.
"even if we accepted all the premises of the argument, all it would do is prove that an unmoved mover existed. And that's it! that's all it would prove."
That has to be one of the silliest things that atheists say about Aquinas' arguments.
"...and this is what we call GOD"
-Thomas Aquinas
That guy needs a hair done and then send him to a psychologist.
It just proves he doesn't understand the argument which is to prove there's an unmoved mover.
@@JJ-zr6fu His point is, an unmoved mover doesn't mean the Christian God. It could be literally anything. Aliens starting a simulation, Zeus, a non-conscious force or law of nature, Shiva, Allah...
Anything
@@MagnificentXXBastard no. a being of Pure Actuality cannot be an alien, a member of a pantheon of gods like Zeus or Shiva, a non-conscious force or the laws of nature. The only one you got right was Allah. I know a lot of atheists don't like hearing this from Thomists but you just haven't understood the arguments. After presenting the argument, Aquinas further goes on to deal with the attributes of an Unmoved Mover. If RR and you had just spent time reading those, you'd understand how silly the objection is, even though RR thought that this was a "devastating" flaw.
Excellent video ..not that I'm convinced by the argument but how refreshing for someone to have actually understood what a philosopher is on about.
🎯 Key Takeaways for quick navigation:
00:00 🎥 Video is a rebuttal of Rationality Rules' critique of Aquinas's argument from motion.
00:29 🤔 The video will focus on Craig's rendition of the unmoved mover argument rather than Aquinas's version.
01:12 🔄 Aquinas's argument defines motion as change from potential to actual; not just physical movement.
02:21 🔁 Woodford misunderstands "beginning" in terms of logical sequence, not temporal origin.
03:18 ⚙️ Aquinas's analogy of gears better explains causality than a domino effect.
04:29 📚 The unmoved mover analogy is more about sustaining motion, not just starting it.
05:24 🧠 Woodford misunderstands the argument's scope; it doesn't prove a specific god's attributes.
06:58 🌌 The objection that "something must have existed without a cause" is a straw man; not part of the actual argument.
09:17 🧐 Aquinas's unmoved mover has no potential, is immaterial, timeless, changeless, and causal.
12:05 🤷♂️ Arguments aren't flawed for not proving specific gods; they're judged based on their intended purpose.
12:56 🔮 Premise about something existing without a cause isn't special pleading; it allows for uncaused causes.
14:07 🌌 The argument's conclusion doesn't depend on temporal universe origins, and it's not about all matter.
16:00 🌠 Woodford criticizes unsupported claims about universe origins, but Aquinas's argument remains relevant.
16:43 🙏 Woodford teases a forthcoming analysis of Edward Feser's version of the argument from motion.
This was a great video, Trent, thank you.
I am considered a pretty discerning reader, able to absorb general theories and break them down and analyze them, but I honestly think I terrified myself when I was 15 and tried to slog my way through the Summa. It was so far beyond me that I gave up and contented myself with theologians that I could more readily understand.
I have never tried to read aquinas again, much to my shame. I’ve read Augustine and Irenaeus who are much easier for me.
I’ve put aquínas on a back burner but clearly need to face my fears and slog my way through.
This is my year of Catholic converts and early church doctors. Everyone from Grahame Greene and Taylor Caldwell, to Chesterton and Neumann, to Thomas Merton, and I’ll circle back to aquinas. And I’ll pray that he gets his order in shape again.
I swore to my husband that in our lifetime we would never seen a Jesuit pope and yet here we are. It’s everything I imagined it would or could be. Ambiguity, disingenuous, cupidity. My husband is ready to just take a leave of absence until normalcy is restored. I told him we don’t have that option. We attend until the bishop forces the closing of our FSSP parish. And then we make the best of a bad situation from there.
I taught catechism to the 5th grade class of the second largest diocese in Los Angeles.
I gave up when they made the hours impossible 1. 3 pm?!! Who is off work at 3 pm?? Not me. And 2. COVID made it all virtual. What a waste of time.
Up until then I would have easily pitted my 6th graders against the class making their confirmation. I KNEW they knew more about the church, the doctrines , the why’s and wherefore’s than anything those 17!year olds new. We had one shot before the pandemic and we blew the HS kids out of the water. We’ll see what I do going forward.
I will not teach in a virtual classroom.
It’s worthless. Give me my kids in a room where we can all interact and I guarantee you a class that can tell you the cardinal works of mercy, the meaning of the True presence, the Transfiguration, the “made in the image of God statement”.
Just let me in a classroom and I promise on my soul I can enthrall them until they don’t want to leave.
It will be interesting to see what happens. If my parish continues to offer on line classes I may apply at the other 3 parishes here
Hi, Oh.
Wow; there's a lot there! First things first, I'll pray for you. Second, thank you for your service. Third, just a gentle reminder that knowledge is at the service of love. Fourth, even in the best of circumstances, there are ways in which elementary children can be expected to outperform teens; this is because teen brains are again plastic to allow reconfiguration for adult life. Fifth, there is no reason to suppose a defect in yourself or a great disparity between your ability to understand and Thomas' ability to teach: he was addressing himself to adults who had maturity and wide experience of life, which were lacking to you as a teen.
God bless you.
I would have preferred a response to Joe Schmid’s hour long critique of Feser’s version, but that one is very technical.
Joe also made a critique against Trent Horn, so yes it would be very fitting to respond to him.
@@Miatpi That is something I hope to do in the future. For now, I'm prioritizing my rebuttals to address videos that have gotten the most views of the many anti-Catholic videos on RUclips.
Uploading lots of content lately 💪
Amazing work. Love your videos Trent!
What? Rationality Rules strawmanning theists?! Who could've seen that coming...
What gets me is the arrogance of these people while they disprove themselves.
It gives away who they are working for. (Hint, the corporate slogan is "Non serviam!")
Arrogance is stating you have all the answers all while providing no evidence
@@deiniolbythynnwr926 Ive never been presented with sufficient evidence to warrant a belief in the god of the bible or any of the other gods. You shouldnt have to present evidence though, Christianity, like all religions is a faith based belief system. So your belief is warranted based on your faith. I choose not to believe things based on faith, just a different way of looking at the world. Too each their own
@@CaptainFantastic222 You have wrong epistemogy. Change that.
@@tafazzi-on-discord Its not a matter of being wrong or right. I choose to base my beliefs on facts, logic and reasoning. Others choose faith. To each their own
These atheists putting dunce hats on theists and then coming up with straw man arguments, showing that they haven't understood the argument their criticising reminds me of the Ali G comedy character.
Note, where there could be some confusion:
Being Itself is a very technical name for God and does not mean that God is all things that exist (like my laptop). God is distinct from the universe. However, because He is Pure Actuality, and because things that actually exist in reality are therefore (in that respect) actual, we can say that God's existence is pure existence, or Being Itself.
Further, Aquinas argues in the Summa Contra Gentiles that it is logically possible for God to move something without Himself being moved.
SOOO excited to see so many rebuttal videos 🙏🏼
Once again, great video! Keep up the great work.
Trent absolutely destroyed woodford on this one lol. the dishonesty in woodford’s video is outstanding.
The poor guy (Woodford) is a bit of a dum-dum. He needs our prayers.
Lets not atteibute to malice which can be attributed to incompetence.
Woodford is incapable of understanding the actual syllogisms shortwiring arguments.
And then based on that he produces straw men which he can knock down in his head.
That poor man needs to come down from his high horse
@@jonson856 Yeah I agree. It isnt good to assume malicious intention, I mean I was just as hostile as he was when I was an angry atheist before becoming Catholic. I think people like him are mislead, as was myself, and like you said he needs to be humbled, and I feel personally its so that the Spirit of Truth may confer his majestic Grace. I know what you mean but I am just confounded at the intellectual dishonesty of the video if you see what I men, and sometimes its near difficult to discern as to whether its bad will or just incompetence because they both produce the same effect.
@@eternalbyzantium262 yeah I totally understand you and I wasnt trying to undermine your statement.
Most of the time when I "call out others", I am calling out myself, because I catch myself more often than not in anger and hypocrisy when I engage in discussions with atheists.
@@jonson856 Nah dont worry I didnt feel called out, it was right what you said. I have to be reminded that its preferable that we dont assume that everyone who holds views contrary to our position is simply bad-willed or acting in bad faith. May the Lord God sanctify your heart and preserve you for His glory.
Recently had this argument with my dad, who accepted there must be something that created/actualized the universe (our local space + time), but then said we can't conclude anything about that cause - like that it's spaceless, timeless, immaterial etc - because we can't use the logic rules that exist within the universe and apply them to something outside the universe...
I hope you challenged him on the claim
@@CedanyTheAlaskan my only challenge that I could think of was, "But you have to at least admit that by our understanding, theism is the most apparent conclusion from the argument." To which his reply was essentially accusing me of falling for the god of the gaps. His position is that he really doesn't want to believe in something like "Zeus caused lightning" out of a lack of understanding, and he considers anything outside of the universe (such as the universe's cause) to be un-understandable. (I know the Zeus analogy isn't a great one)
What would your response to that be?
@@zachwilliams784 if the cause was in time, occupied space, etc. it would require a mover and therefore couldn’t be the ultimate cause.
@@TheFluteNewb Right, he would say there IS an ultimate cause, but we can't know anything about it other than that it caused the universe. For example, human inter-universal logic would imply that such a cause needs to be timeless, but what if logic itself no longer operates the same outside the universe.
"What if the term 'timeless' means something else or makes no sense when applied to something outside the universe?"
He's basically arguing that we can't know anything about the outside of the universe and therefore we can't make any conclusions about the ultimate cause's properties.
@@zachwilliams784 Ironically that's like a "no God" of the gap argument. The reason he is at a limit of logic is because it's spaceless and timeless. So immediately starts to sound like God.
Nothing tickles my funny bone more than atheists arguing _for_ an eternal universe, as if that somehow makes any difference to Aquinas.
I was almost going to argue that it can be proved that the universe had a temporal beginning. Good thing I stumbled upon Summa before typing away.
Still doesn’t prove Gods existence.
@@Enne_esse wasn’t intended to. Simply pointing out atheist misunderstanding of Aquinas.
You need to rest your eyes, Trent! We need you healthy. God bless your ministry! May the Lord keep you and make His face shine upon you and give you peace...🙏🙏🙏🙏
I would love to see a debate between you and Woodford.
I don't think you're allowed to put videos of homicides on RUclips.
@@twopoles11 Hahaha
Well done again. Thank you!
What does it mean for something to exist if it is not in space and time?
Why there so many brilliant people in catholics?
Really appreciate this video.
Love your videos.
It was ironic when RR wanted to praise CS, he played a clip of him pointing to a hand drawn meme falsely claiming agnosticism isn't opposed to theism or atheism. It would be like a mechanic saying, "This other mechanic is similar in their approach," and then playing a video of a man smashing an engine with a wrench like an ape from 2001.
The issue here is that PragerU does primarily 5 minute videos. Thus, these theological arguments that are complex cannot be explained well in 5 minutes.
Could you please do a "debunk" video of Jay Dyer's criticism of the absolute divine simplicity and Thomism? Very interested to see your response. Thanks. He is a moderately sized Orthodox youtuber and philosopher.
Reason and Theology has good videos about Eastern Orthodoxy and Divine Simplicity in general. I don't find Jay Dyer's arguments to be particularly good.
Outstanding criticism
Early check?
Early check ✔️
Trent, why not make a response to Joe Schmidts critique against your opening statement in the debate with Alex?
He said to Joe that he is going to tackle this in a new book that he is working on
I'm not so sure about this, the unmoved mover can exist sure, but from ancient sources the unmoved mover by Aristotle was thought to be made up by potentially 55 beings, not just one. I also feel this may be more accurate than Aquinas given that it was much closer to the time of Plato who came up with the idea of an unmoved mover in the first place.
Nicely done.
So if a ball needs something else to move it, and a universe needs somethibg else to create it, why doesn't god need something else to create it? And if a god doesn't need something else to create it, why can't a universe create itself? If god is able to be without being created, the idea that a universe can be without being created is possible to imagine just as well.
If we simple observe, somethings rely on other things, then that brings us no closer to god. That there must exist something that itself isn't actualized, is simply an assumption. We have no reason to believe it. If we argue this, we come back to the natural question in my first paragraph.
there can't be an infinite series of causes, God is the ultimate cause.
@@thedude0000 Nope, not special pleading. A special pleading implies an exception, there is no exception here. God is not an infiinite series of causes, so the rule that there isn't an infinite series of causes is never ever broken.
Atheists equivocating basic widely known and solid arguments to fit their bias, just like scientific studies say, you can't make this stuff up...
Lol, your missing the point. God is the entire sequence of cause and effects.
@@davonbenson4361 I don't think that's what Aquinas was going for...
I previously saw that video by Kreeft explaining the first cause and it left me quite confused, as it is not what Aquinas argues for. I am a big admirer of Kreeft and have read alot of his books, but some of his work can be over-simplified. I understand that he is trying to reach a wider audience, but the over-simplification can end up hurting his arguments. I read his book on Marx recently and it was so simplified as to make marxism a cartoonish caricature, and thus not to be taken very seriously.
Always the same ridiculous nonsense. Some atheist philosopher or worse, a neophite in philosophy claiming he has refuted Aquinas. It looks a youtube video from an aficionado is suficient to demolish one of the most eminent thinkers of mankind. Of course using strawman fallacies and wearing "capirotes" in Aquinas head. Pathetic.
The atheist nincompoop responds: "But...but...but...my daughter knows more 'bout science 'n' stuff than Aquinas!!!" ;)
I have to say I really appreciate the concise way Woodford points out all the glaring flaws in his strawman versions of Aquinas’ argument from motion.
What a guy….🤔
Bishop Barron explained this argument on his channel.
Boy i cant wait for "Thomas Aquinas’ Unmoved Mover - Debunked (Kreeft and Prager Refuted) (REBUTTED) "
*RE-DEBUNKED*
Like I said, these chain will stop once PewDiePie uploads a reaction video on it
This argument is so poorly explained by apologists imo, that this argument is almost a waste of time because people are soo deeply entrenched into a misunderstanding of it.
Agreed, a skilled philosophical debater would have used effective but concise logically sound language in presenting his arguments that would have provided little to no room to question while weakening the opposition from using these apparently misunderstood conclusions to begin with.
This is gold
If one thing moves, then everything else has moved through a Cambridge change. Think of a reality consisting of nine things and if one thing ceases to exist, then everything else has experienced a change. So everything that exist is indeed in motion.
The new atheist crowd is still at it, huh...?
Can you give me one example where Stephen strawman the argument?
Watching goofballs argue with one another has become one of my favorite pass times
"Oimanafeis" - Stephen Woodford
Oh no I can't believe you actually went through this... that "debunk" is just so bad that Stevens own comment field tells him he's wrong, with even Bishop Barron joining the party. This is almost just a waste of time beating a dead horse.
For you… not for others
I couldn’t disagree more it’s fun to show how bad Stevens arguments are and it’s never a waste show how wrong he is on this topic
@@ThomistReview1950 I'll give you that it IS fun. Still, I think there are quite a number of more serious "debunks" of the thomistic proofs that calls out for a response.
@@carolinafine8050 true.
Based and Aquinas-pilled
Trent. Great content. Just curious can you improve your thumbnails? Thanks.
How embarrassing to to think you're dismissing somebody's argument , only to be told that you don't even understand it, that you're attacking a straw man.
An unmoved mover has no free will as that with free will can chose to do z or not -z, but pure act is all that it can be.
Stephen often commits the straw man fallacy.
While constantly accusing theists of fallacy's no one has ever heard of let alone know exists.
@@JustUsCrazyBoyz "Doesn't prove Theism" is still the stupidest fallacy I've ever heard RR use. Do you ever here an Apologist say "X natural theology argument proves Christianity is true!!"? No, they only use it to show that God in a broad sense exists.
@@petery6432 "Could be" + confirming none, existance = Online skepticism.
Aquinas statement allows for the existence of a mover not ruled by the rules that exist for the others moved things. Otherwise, it would be a move part not a mover
TCOT: I am often confused when philosophy-type people talk about physics. It is just a plain fact that liquid water may freeze without external forces or "causes". The usual phrase is: "water freezes under its own vapor pressure". So for example, a liter of liquid water floating in a vacuum, will freeze, ON ITS OWN, by shedding heat via vaporization. This has to do with the so-called latent heat of vaporization. The only known simple liquid that does not freeze in this way is liquid helium. I have frozen liquid nitrogen and other liquids using this method on many occasions. Another issue: in the most foundational descriptions of matter currently known, I.e., various equivalent formulations of quantum mechanics, elementary particles always have some form of motion. This happens regardless of external forces or lack there of. This is due to the so-called uncertainty relations. The Heisenberg uncertainty relations look simple, but require an understanding of Fourier transforms, partial differential equations, Hilbert spaces, and so forth, to fully appreciate. Examples like these give some indication of why many physicists avoid reasoning done by Medieval philosophers: Medieval thinking is somewhat out of date. [I say this without any sense of judgment; I think Thomas A did his best with the knowledge he had at hand, just as we attempt to do so nowadays. Cheers.]
Could you do a video addressing sedevacantism particularly the channel vaticancatholic? I am attracted to their arguments regarding recent canonisations and the parallels between the modern Church and the Book of the Apocalypse. I don't think there exists a thorough rebuttal of sedevacantism on RUclips and I think many people would find it useful.
Yea I have had asked Trent too, but Trent has fairly liberal views on Catholicism. I would recommend Reason&Theology.
Please check out Michael Lofton's work on Sedevacantism on the Reason and Theology channel. You will quickly find out that the Diamond Bros have no idea what they're talking about. They fail to undersrand MANY necessary distinctions, especially on the lose of office. Also check out True or False Pope (it's a book and a website).
Have faith in Christ's Church, He will not abandon it. Trust him.
@@eternalbyzantium262 Trent can never win he's too right wing for the left and too left wing for the right maybe he's just catholic. I do think he doesn't take a hard enough stance against rogue a pope, bishops and priests and his video about James Martin was disappointing when he didn't offer a good way to counter him, but that's more of matter of approach not being left wing.
@@JJ-zr6fu Yea good point. I personally find him and his other crewmates at Catholic Answers doing more damage against Catholicism given they refuse to acknowledge clear heretical behaviours of the popes that it looks dishonest to an impartial person. I love their charitable demeanour but sometimes it just become cowadice.
I've pointed this out on many occasions on several other RUclips channels that Steven Woodford is punching way way way above his weight and fails at every turn.
I get the impression that he's really trying hard to make a name for himself as a respected intellectual thinker but cannot see his own limitations in the area.
Sure, he may impress some who haven't been exposed to logic and reasoning skills or philosophy at that matter but once you begin to learn how to detect fallacious arguments, his videos seem to be pointless
His followers are his reward. That is what he is seeking.
The first way makes free will impossible. So what about the problem of evil? You cant use free will to answer it.
How come many of these "RUclips atheists" are brits?
The Anglo Question
Good question
It's not difficult to figure out, Americans think for some reason that speaking in a British accent makes you smarter, so those channels become popular
All the ones I follow are American! Also, the UK has a high amount of atheists, thats the reason behind them being British.
Oh yes debunk this atheist debunkers more :D
9:17 is simply an unsupported assertion, no it doesn't prove the existence of any god/gods.
It does in a philosophical/rational sense. Logic does not require substantiation through experimentation like science, which is actually WEAKER in proving things compared to reason.
@@Austin_Schulz
So fuck it, we can all just relax in an easy chair, and think about shit, and that will make it true. I would give that in cases of dealing with reality, but if you're saying it can prove a god, or some supernatural thing, then we part ways for sure, but logic does require testing, no way around that.
I think Stephen is so confused working on the Aquinas argument due to his pre occupation to argue against the kalam in which he starting to confuse the distinction between the difference between kalam and aquinas unmoved mover.
(Just Joking)
Sorry that I did, thought, said and wish any bad towards you in anyway
The scientists say that space started 13.7 billion years ago. And time started with it. Space and time are related in that point. But our God exists outside of space. And He exists outside of time.
So question, if there is a possibility that there are objects in the universe which have potential that can become actualized by nothing at all then why can't one of these such things be the object that created the logical movement? Second question why is it that God must provide movement or it all stops?
RUclips philosophers are such a boring lot. They argue against things they do not understand and rate their own "debunking" as a success. The fact that he has the nerve to put a dunce cap on Peter Kreeft and Thomas Aquinas himself shows a level of hubris that is honestly unimaginable. The smartest person in the room is the one who realizes he has a lot more to learn. That person is NOT Rationality Rules.
'We observe there is motion so who or what cause that motion' - Atheists has no answer
Great video, but you failed to address the major flaw in the Aquinas argument, you cannot prove that inifinte regress can't happen. Thomas Aquinas takes as a starting point for his five ways a visible point, a metaphysical principle and the impossibility of an infinite process, which will help to form each of these ways. But what is the logical argument for this?
there's no way you've actually delved into Thomistic metaphysics and haven't encountered why an infinite regress can not happen. I refuse to believe it. It's one of the first things you learn when you study Thomistic metaphysics so how on earth could you have possibly read Aquinas and not know about that? Honest question. I am dumbfounded and cannot understand any other explanation besides you not being familiar with the argument, at all.
In a hierarchical causal series the individual members do not have their own causal power. Their causal power is only derived. Take some books stacked on top of each other for example. The potential of the top book to be there is actualized by the book beneath it. But the book beneath it does not have it own causal power to actualize the potential of the top book to be there. Its causal power is derived, or rather depends on the book below that book and so on and on. Therefore there must logically be a "first cause" that doesnt need to have its own potential actualized by anything and has that causal power "built into it". Even if you imagine a train with infinitely many carts, the fact that it has infinitely many carts does not explain why its in motion. Although each of the carts moves the cart behind it, the causal power of these carts is only derived from the cart pulling that cart. One therefore has to assume there is a locomotive that has the causal power to pull the carts and does not need to be pulled itself.
Another Aquinas debunker demonstrates that he doesn’t even understand Aquinas’ arguments in the first place.
Being simultaneous to an effect involves temporal location. If being simultaneous to an effect involves having temporal location, then any thing that is simultaneous to their effect is in time. If any thing that is simultaneous to their effect is in time, then a timeless God is not simultaneous to any of his effects. If a timeless God is not simultaneous to any of his effects, then God is not a prime mover. If God is not a prime mover, then the first way is false. Therefore, the first way is false.
is this peter kreeft? please say no
nvm, but I do recommend peter kreeft books on catholicism to any passing commentator 🙂
It's an atheist rebuttal to Peter Kreeft that I am rebutting
@@TheCounselofTrent Thanks Trent, keep up the videos!!
All you have to do to challenge the first way is to suggest that the source of change is found within all that changes and not outside of the things that change; thus the universe would be its own source of change.
So why can’t the source of change be found within the changing things themselves? Do magnets collide because of something external to the magnets? No. Indeed, at the fundamental level of reality, physical reality moves due to the interactions between things, like how elections are attracted to the nucleus of an atom and also repelled by other electrons.
Therefore, the thomist must show that it is impossible that the source of change be found within the things that change.
Is that really a PhD (Doctor), or just a grunge hippie with a Diploma?
Would you consider debating him?
Woodford is an embarrassment
Somebody noticed what people like on his chanel :p Don't worry Trent, your podcast is also cool, just not all episodes are good for every person ^^
Here is what I do not get over with. You guys fight over an argument, that was formulated in the Middle Ages. This first mover argument and its creator did not know a nickel about physics. So the whole argument is based on observations, which are extremely limited compared to the knowledge and proven facts we have now. So why fight over the nitty gritty of this old argument. It’s like fighting over the utility of a bucket for carrying water but the bucket has holes like a Swiss cheese.
This isn't a scientific argument or some exercise in physics. It's metaphysics. That's the problem with trying to explain it to people who don't remotely understand the subject.
You understand when someone makes a well established, universal assertion like "math is universal, it is eternally true in all galaxies, possible universes and at all times", it simply doesn't matter that this metaphysical statement of reality was asserted 2,500 years ago, right? The year simply doesn't matter. Physics has nothing to say in it. We didn't come to this understanding by doing science experiments in a lab, but without this conceptual understanding, things like physics would be perfectly useless.
The problem with trying to get people to understand metaphysical arguments for God is when they simply don't understand the subject. It simply doesn't matter if it's from the Middle Ages. You wouldn't say "the Pythagorean Theorem is probably wrong, because it was developed before the year 0 AD". Scientists have no say in the matter, bc it's not an empirical observation. There are zero triangles that exist in physical reality, as even gamma rays and x rays have wave lengths. It is all based on concept and notions of universals.
So, things like physics are UTTERLY dependent upon metaphysics being true, not the inverse. Physicists simply accept things that people like Aristotle Aquinas and Leibniz told them to accept as true and to not ask stupid questions.
So, until a vast majority of people get something other than this mechanistic secular "education", they simply will never understand the subject.
This 1st argument is formally criticized by logicians,Fr.J.Drewnowski and J.M.Bochenski OP (both form Warsaw_Lviv School of Logic, the most famous-A.Tarski,On (formalization) of Truth,1933)- I am not sure they are right(I've have not read them); the main problem is what can or not formalize in logic; meta-logical terms cannot be formalized or written down in a logical or mathematic symbol; one can formalize the law non-contradiction as -(p and -p),p-any sentence but not the principle (principle is not law!)- formally it seems to be useless the task to formally prove or not the Aristotle@Thomas 1st "way". The main St.Thomas Aquinas argument is 3rd way (on existence and substance); the highly criticized 5th way (on the final cause) is supported by the principle of least action (in physics)! Kreeft is a typical traditional Thomism; therefore, it a quite boring now because it does not incorporate the new discoveries in logic (since Frege) and in Bible hermeneutics- I've heard him once at Univ.Lecture in Toronto. J.M..Bochenski, Logic of Religion,1965- (almost) perfect source;he,you and opponents do not know about meta-logic (A.Tarski,1933-truth, semantics) and ignore hermeneutics(though Boochenski urges to know it, yet, himself did not know it) + u don't know the eschatological significance of Dec.8,1991 Bialoviezha Accord and the Legal FAll of REd Empire@ the proof of Exodus 3:14! ps. one cannot formalize such terms like "being","cause" (some try for vain! Logic does not deal with causal relations; "antecedent -consequent" is not a causal relation! Logically, 'God" would be a meta-meta..principle of (any)being and knowing, hence it cannot be written down in a sentence in symbolic signs (it is missed by Bochenski and all pro or anti-theistic debaters;K. Ajdukiewcz exposed that quantifiers (existential and general are "sneaked" meta-logical terms into logic formal language-he is right, the term "to exist" or "to be, is, are" can not be formalized!
I suggest you read “Existential inertia and classical theistic proofs” by your friend Joe Schmidt, then you wouldn’t make the same non sequiturs that most people make.
Time didn't always exist, if we look at black holes, time doesn't work in it, black holes are the same as the Singularity Wich God created in the big bang
For a guy naming his channel "rationality rules", he enjoys repeatedly taking this highly irrational position of rebutting arguments by saying they don't do things they don't intend to do.
Proving a complex, multi pointed argument like the Christian god is a set of many, many arguments that work together. Its isn't some "one and done" thing. Arguments prove their premises and nothing more.
His first rebuttle is as reasonable and coherent as me saying "this argument only proves there is an unmoved mover. It doesn't even prove why Ford trucks are better than Dodge. Thats it"
Can you do a rebuttal video on polytheism/pan-theism next? God bless you and your work!
Wouldnt the unmoved mover be a rebuttal of polytheism?
@@jonson856 It would and is a rebuttal of polytheism.
Does @Rationality Rules really not understand the argument, or does he intentionally misstate it.
💖💖💖💖💖💖💖💖💖💖
9:42 Begging the question. "I agree God is not a being but it is real...."
9:58 Proof? Evidence? "The only immaterial things that could exist are minds and abstract concepts..."
10:10 Argument from ignorance "Immaterial mind as being a reazonable conclusion..."
We dont know what this immaterial mind who, what , is purpouse , etc so therefore God.
“Therefore god”? Ummmm no, none of that is proof of a deity. Do people still think like this?
Is there any empirical proof for a multiverse? As far as science can tell everything began 13.7 Bn years ago and by that we mean space-time. If one posits other universes, eg Bubble Universes or Multiverses we're in the realm of speculation.
You commenting intellectually while my mind is childishly giggling on "bubble universes"
There's no proof of string theory but they hold on to it because they think it can disprove God. Just like they hold to a multiverse but if you were to prove a multiverse that would still need an unmoved mover.
Not empirical proof
GOD BLESS HIS ONE AND ONLY CATHOLIC CHURCH :)
Yes the seas move with the tides which are caused by the moon and the sun so we should start worshipping them. Oh! hang on we tried that just after volcanoes.
prepare yourselves for the strawman argument of the year dont forget to cringe
10:15
Professor plink does an excellent job refuting aquinas. No idea why he is so revered by catholics when he’s not very good.
And what are "Professor Plinks" credentials? Does he take up vast sections of The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy like Aquinas?
Most people who "refute" Aquinas don't remotely understand the subject, and he's revered because his arguments are literally irrefutable.
Why is so difficult to atheist understand St. Thomas?
Because understanding St. Thomas would probably convert them xD
@@peppy619 exactly. as I said earlier, Its not whether they understood or not. They have decided what they want to believe and is no longer open for changing his or her mind. What an irony.
Because the zeitgeist is modernist, children are blatantly taught anything but deductive reasoning by the time they're 12 years old
@@seanfernandolopez9139 That's the worst sin. The sin against the Holy Spirit, close themselves like that.
So, when are you going to capturing Christianity to talk about the papacy?
woodford is either dishonest or ignorant, he's a man that said that the first premise of the kalam is everything that exists has a cause, a premise not found in any literature at all lol
Gee Trent, why didn't you put a dunce hat on Stephen for this rebuttal? Could it be because you're more mature than that? Could it possibly be that?