I love that you just deliver the facts without being snarky and condescending. Just as we freely received grace so should we give it.

"I'm going to prove you wrong by misunderstanding your arguments" is what it comes down to. Very nicely laid out, Trent.

The example he gives of the rod warming himself is so painful for someone who understands physics. It's a classic example of errors students make in their first statics courses. It consists of taking a closed system, then changing the extent of that closed system, and assuming equivalence. You can't do that. First, you have the closed system of the whole rod. One end is heated. (Let's also stipulate that the rod is long enough for a temperature variance to arise.) The second system he looks at is the other end of the rod. To describe it you need to take an exploded free body or a smaller section of the rod. It is a totally different closed system. The second end of the rod doesn't change itself, it is heated by the other end of the rod. This is basic, basic physics. It is such a gross example if you understand physics at all. And actually, if you were to heat an infinitely long rod on one end, then removed the heat source, and somehow prevented heat loss to the environment, the overall thermal energy in the rod would not change even though one end will cool and the other will warm. The rod as a system wouldn't change in average thermal energy at all. Overall, it's such a bad example, it makes me want to spit my guts out and cry. Actually, RR's whole rebuttal is so bad it that it is almost funny. I'm not one to write of atheist arguments. They can be complex and interesting, and you can learn a lot from them, including a lot about the person making them. But this is just pure cringe.

I feel like Trent started uploading lots of rebuttal videos right after I commented he should do more rebuttals lol.

Imagine being confident enough to think you can take on Thomas Aquinas

It was painful looking through the circlejerk in the original video's comments section. So many smug, self-satisfied "intellectuals" patting themselves on the back for indulging in a misleading strawman rebuttal. Most ironically, many of the comments focus on vague assertions that Shapiro himself commits some logical fallacies (even strawman arguments), as if Shapiro's personal behavior has any bearing on Ed Feser's arguments. You get the strong sense none of them actually read Feser's book and just took Rationality Rules' assertions at face value. We're all just locked into our little camps in an _infinite regress_ of confirmation bias and self-validation. God help us.

Bad idea when an atheist, expecially a pop-dawkinsgroupie one, engages Edward Feser lmao.

Trent should have hundreds of thousands of subscribers & millions of views to say the least. God bless you Mr. Horn for your ministry

Trent is a real juggernaut and I truly believe he has a wonderfully bright future as a defender of the faith. Keep it going, Trent! Don't be discouraged - God is with you!

Mathoma actually put out a really good rebuttal to this as well. I would recommend giving it a look, maybe even seeing if he would like to be interviewed on the show, as his classical theism series is fantastic as well.

Thank you for these kinds of videos. Escpecially analyzing RR's channel. I love his and Alex's content. I am learning alot with your work. Thank you!

🤯🤯 brain exercising, my brain hurts now. I need to go read some more books 🤦🏼‍♀️

This should have way more views. Thank you for the analysis, Trent!

Thanks for all you do Trent. I enjoy your videos a lot.

My favorite description of the antithesis to the unmoved mover argument comes from E Michael Jones: "it's turtles all the way down"

You keep dunking on this dude

I now get when to apply "The Cambridge Change": when some Protestants say that God the Father was not always the Father, not until the Word became Jesus and was born of Mary. If that was so, then God changes... but since God never changes, then the argument is false. We then conclude that, since God never changes, he was always The Father, The Son, and The Holy Spirit, but he was only revealed as such by Jesus when he said "O righteous Father, the world doesn't know you, but I do; and these disciples know you sent me. I have revealed you to them, and I will continue to do so...- John 17:25-26 In other words... "I am now shorter than my child"... WE changed our perception of God as The Father thanks to the revelation of Jesus (which by the way, reveals Himself as The Son, being previously known as The Word). Thank you, Trent!!! God Bless You!!

Been loving these rebuttals. Went to the library and picked up the Summa Theologica

I pray I'll ever get the patience you have Trent.

I appreciate what you're doing here. Thanks for sharing that. Hoc vere dixisti.

This Dethklok guy is the personification of "I am very smart"

I think he's also missing the whole reason why an infinite regress cannot exist. If you look up accidentally ordered series vs essentially ordered series, you can see that, not only have we never observed an infinite chain of causes, but also it is impossible metaphysically. The whole point is that if there is no first mover, then there is nowhere that the motion originates in. It's like a chain of mirrors with a light bouncing between them but no flashlight originating the light.

Excellent video, Trent! I'll just add that another reason the Unmoved Mover must be conscious/rational (or super-rational) is that rational creatures exist, and intellect is in principle irreducible to matter. Since the Unmoved Mover actualizes rational creatures, the Unmoved Mover must itself possess rationality (or rather something superior to rationality from which rationality derives) among its powers, and since rationality is irreducible to matter, this power is irreducible to mere blind actualization of matter. Of course, this part of the argument requires proving that intellect is irreducible to matter, which is certainly possible but a whole other ball of wax.

Really appreciate this video.

Stephen is the king of the straw man

Great video, nicely edited too

“Aquinas doesn’t say that this argument proves the existence of his particular god. For that, he offered additional flawed arguments” LOL this guy is confident as heck. What a snarky comment haha.

Great channel. A++

As someone with some education in physics this atheist's science makes me want to scream

You've been quite prolific lately

Nice and informative. Just how I like it!

“Unlike Ben and Feser, Aquinas *does* provide an argument.” But… so does Feser.

Thanks a lot for this. I use these arguments when talking to atheists and this video cleared up and helped to explain some aspects of these arguments that I was not fully clear on. I would love to see more videos in this vein. You are very good at explaining Aquinas.

imagine calling yourself rationality rules as though you have the ultimate truth

WONDERFUL VIDEO

If there was more than one unactualized actualizer they would have the potential to be one, because only one would be necessary to explain everything, but an unactualized actualizer cannot have any potential, therefore there can only be one.

Can you do a rebuttal video by rationality rules(I think) where he claims that the west is not build by judeo-christian values? Thanks God bless

This video is a masterpiece.

"Oh this one's the 'Non-contingent Contingency' argument!" - RR 😅

RR confuses the words simple, complicated and complex ... and in this case long. If something is complicated, it can be reduced to something more simple. If something is complex, it means it is made up of many things, i.e. many simple things. And that would mean it is already the simplest of explanations/description even though it is complex. And length, well just because an argument is long, does not mean it is not simple enough.

I notice trent uploaded 3 videos in one day

A masterful explanation. I assume that Trent wanted to reserve the point of this argument being about a synchronic causal sequence to explain later why the diachronic consequence of the Big Bang (or any temporal beginning) is irrelevant, but I think it is worth mentioning now.

Trent: Joe Schmid of the Majesty of Reason YT channel had an analysis of Feser's Aristotelian argument, saying that P7 was faulty. I'd be interested if you could do an analysis on that.

Destroyed. Great video! It really helped make the holes in this argument so clear. I wish Stephen was more earnest with his arguments like paulogia or cosmic skeptic.

Part of the assumption in physics is that the properties of force, motion, composition, etc are uniform across all of space. It’s how we can calculate orbits, masses, objects, size, and all of that. Deviations in those things can either be explained by natural phenomena (like Black Holes) or are just unable to be calculated at this time due to technological and knowledge limitations (hence the term Dark Matter or Dark Energy acting as a current place holder). It’s a similar idea that led to the expansion of the Periodic Table of Elements: find a pattern, calculate with what ya know, and update when new info is gathered. Just because it can’t be explained now, doesn’t mean it never can be. Also, the suggestion that Ben Shapiro used an emotional fallacy is quite baffling. I did not get the impression that Ben was appealing to emotion when he commented that people would want to avoid an infinity of causes. I felt Ben was relaying more how we want to know the littlest things, similar to how humans came up with the notion of the atom based on a continuing idea of big blocks of something being made from smaller and smaller blocks. Wanting to know the “unmover” isn’t us emotionally desiring some deity, it’s to know and understand how nature operates. Final note: I highly dislike the idea that EVERYTHING needs to be simplified in order for someone to know what they’re talking about. Some things are just too complex to relay accurately in brief explanations or the simplicity ends up muddying what’s actually happening. When I hear mathematicians or programmers discuss complex or highly technical concepts, I’m highly unlikely to understand what’s going on. If ya don’t have a basic foundation for what’s being said, no explanation will be helpful unless you break down to the very basics. Even then, people are wired differently so while one person can grasp analytical concepts easily, another may never understand it. Also, expanding on one’s thoughts and ideas can actually polish a concept than leaving it to the bare bones of explanation. Example: Astronomers use light to detect elements and matter in space. Very basic and generally true. However, the expanded statement can be something like “Astronomers measure the difference in wavelengths to determine the movement of objects and can distinguish elements based on Spectroscopy.” The later provides much more detail on what is happening, but may be unfamiliar to most people who don’t understand the property of electromagnetic waves, aka light. And that can be expanded on when one takes in the different wave lengths and energy related to the Electromagnetic Spectrum. Basically the simple explanation is generally okay, but expansion allows us to gain a much fuller idea of what’s really happening.

26:42 People who try to mess with "The Horn" always end up regretting it.

The more Stephen does this, the more he's gonna lose credibility LOL.

I’d love to see you have a dialogue with him. I’d hope he’d be down for that. I think he’s well spoken and thought out. I think he is wrong of course, but I appreciate his systematic and clear approach to the subjects he argues about.

Rebutting RatRules is simply too easy. It’s like tripping a dwarf.

Amazing

The atheists number one premise: The belief that you were created by accident and that this accident gave you the ability to understand you were created by accident.

Eh. If Steve had actually read the 49 premises he'd know the basic argument doesn't account for more than a few. So he either never read it or lying about it.

The argument sounds like a cause and effect argument

He says that the argument can only prove an unactualized actualizer "and that's it," but he seems to put that possibility into its own little box devoid of any further implications. He may think he is making a small concession there, but he's admitting more than he realizes.

I wonder what Ben Shepiro would sound like if he took in a deep breath of helium.

I’m a Protestant but really appreciate your content! Is this argument from motion unique to Catholicism or something a Protestant can endorse? I really like the simplicity of it (no pun intended).

Well, I tend to agree with the unmoved mover idea. However, the basic problem is that it can't be empirically proven or disproven and it only applies within a system. If the first cause comes about from something outside the system (which seems empirically unprovable, one way or another) that is your first cause. Further, we don't know the nature of the first matter.

The B theory carries more weight than the A theory of time given Einsteinian physics. If the B theory of time is true, then all moments of time are ontologically equivalent. If all moments of time are ontologically equivalent, then nothing is put in motion by another. If nothing is put in motion by another, then the first way is false. Therefore the first way is false.

Oooh I know someone who can help moderate debates 😁

I'm trying to wrap my head around something: do the "potentials" of objects 'exist' in something analogous to the platonic realm of the forms? That is to say, there is some metaphysical "world of ontology" in which every potential of every existent object resides, waiting to be made actual? sorry if the question sounds flippant or incredulous; I'm genuinely trying to grasp the metaphysics at work here!

He should get a new T shirt. One with a better metaphysical grasp of reality. Beautifully done Trent. Aquinas rules! Or rather the universe he explains so well.

I don't think he'll be in too great a hurry to debate you in a public forum Trent. You know what you're talking about and are familiar with the subject matter. That's quite a difference between you two. Rationality doesn't seem to rule at all times. Time for a new T shirt.

Fish, meet barrel. (Trents loading up.)

Mathoma already dismantled RR's video here.

A protestant, a jew, and a Catholic walk into a bar; an atheist follows...

Good

lel RR competently forgetting a steel bar isn't 1 solid object and consists of multiple molecules and the heated molecules are actualizing the none heated molecules so it is indeed something actualizing something else and in no way self inflicted

Why didn’t Trent discuss per se vs per accidens?

19:35 I see atheists are back to “the universe has always existed for eternity. No beginning or end just infinity”

27:30 Hahaha.

He says “potentCHU-ality, for potentiality. I cannot respect that. I have gotten used to “nuk U lar”, but this is just unforgivable.

Ben is very familiar with the argument because he has read the sages, RAMBAM. This is in a sense the same argument of RAMBAM. Since Judaism and Catholicism are based on the same metaphysics - moderate realism, and the only religions to do so, this is a natural argument for Jews such as Shapiro.

Where is that video where Trent rebutted Todd Freil?

My first college philosophy professor explained the Aquilonian argument by putting three balls on a table. Red, whute, and blue. All the same size. He asked if there was some way for the blue ball to move by itself to collide with one of the other balls. It obviously can't. Then he asked is those three balls and the table were the entirety of the known universe, would it ever change from it's current state? Again the answer is no. While the unmoved mover doesnt prove a specific theistic tradition, its far more in favor of a god than no god. Because a force that is unobservable and incomprehensible that can cause creation sure sounds like how humans throughout history have come to their understanding of a god. Many philosophers, Christians and non Christians, like Augustine, Avveroes, Avicenna, Plotinus, Boethius have all made statements of varying lengths talking about how a god is incomprehensible by those it has created. Because if it were, it likely is not a god (thus God requiring the human form of Christ to be comprehensible to us). They and other philosophers have even said that the differences in religions could entirely be up to this incomorehensible nature of a god. RR didn't make many/any really killer points here. He very often disproves his own arguments.

🙏

22.00 Everything PHYSICAL is dependent upon something, but you can't say ABSOLUTELY EVERYTHING is dependent upon something as there is no logical necessity for that or possibility of empirical proof. Also just because energy cannot be created or destroyed by nature, doesn't mean that the existence of energy therefore doesn't need a causal explanation from beyond nature.

Thanks so much for these simple to understand videos, Trent. Someone needs to splice a bunch of Rationality Rules videos together and use his own ridiculously subjective and absurdly high standard of proof against other atheists. It sure would save this guy a lot of time if he would just come out and say he firmly agrees with Descartes' "I think therefore I am" and that's all we can know. Nothing else can be "proven" to be true. The postmodern problem is identified by its relativism because logic and reason too effectively land on precise answers, so those too must be discarded.

An atheist not understanding logic? Water is wet.

Love your channel Trent Horn 🙏👍 I found another channel that's Catholic he was showing you Trent Horn 😇 Called How to be Christian he's another good Catholic youtube channel & Catholic answers 🙏😇🗝️🗝️🛐📖⛪💯 Catholic 🛐 God bless

Okay, I'm late in commenting here, but it's funny that Woodford states "we don't know that everything requires actualization, because we haven't observed everything." I believe Aquinas would agree, and add on "this we call God." And then he turns around and objects that people arguing for theism give an exception to the principle that everything requires actualization... and yeah, that's not an objection, that's the premise of the argument.

One issue to me is the mind seems to have potentials. Seems any mind would have to. So how can the uncaused cause be a mind?

I prefer the explanation that God gives of Himself as Being (I Am). This is the only truly self-evident argument and is also consistent with the fact that God is Love, in that the very nature of Being is to give of itself for all that exists partakes of Being. This argument leads logically to a rational understanding of the nature of consciousness and the Trinity.

Is it possible for there to be more than 1 Unactualized Actualizer? If it's possible for one to exist why not more?

this video isn't lame! As a Protestant I do believe Molinism is a better understanding of God's knowledge than Calvin's point 5, in relation to Predestination/ Free will as stated by WLC.

Aquinas' argument is solid as a rock.

I agree with the argument, but is a mind immaterial? Isn’t the brain, as can be strictly demonstrated through science the material source of consciousness?

If the second premise is a black swan fallacy than all of science is a black swan fallacy. Science is built upon things we have observed and because we haven't observed everything than nothing can be proven.

Wouldn't be long now before Stephen drops a "Trent Hunt DEBUNKED" vid

THe unmoved mover would still exist, becuase its one attriutes is it must exist. That is how it exists without cause.

As much as atheists exhaust themselves to try to put Jesus back in that tomb, it'll never work, it's futile. Game over. To God be the glory!

Shapiro misdefines the PSR.. The simplest coherent version of the PSR is this: that all actual facts and pluralities of facts that possibly have a cause actually do so. The only exceptions that this version of the PSR allows are facts that are intrinsically uncausable (as a matter of metaphysical necessity), and that seems to be an eminently sensible class of exceptions. It's no surprise to be told that there is no cause for the intrinsically uncausable. Fuqua, Jonathan; Koons, Robert C.. Classical Theism: New Essays on the Metaphysics of God (Routledge Studies in the Philosophy of Religion) (p. 35). Taylor & Francis. Kindle Edition.

I wondered something while watching this. If we are going to say that the Christian God is un unmoved mover who never changes and has no potential to change in Himself, it’s hard for me to square that with the idea that this God also became all man in Jesus, which seems like a fundamental change, let alone that this God also died and came back to life, which also seem like fundamental changes.

Debunking the debunkers! Cool!

Trent, the reason Aquinas and Feser are wrong is because there is no necessary or justifiable distinction being made that suggests an actualizer must be a god and not some prior natural existence, like a prior universe, that gave rise to our own. If your problem is then the problem of eternity, that doesn't go away by saying "God is outside of time," because there are no actions that can be taken without time, therefore actualization is impossible without time, therefore how long did God wait before he actualized the universe? You must use special pleading to get around this.

Did I hear correctly that the potential to exist is in the world and not in God ? Which would not make sense as a potential cannot be in something that is not...

7:50 He just spoke Chinese

What is wrong with God being a self mover? Suppose God was in an initial state of doing nothing, and then he is in a subsequent state of doing something; why think that something outside of God must move God? If God can move himself, then the premise that what is in motion is put in motion by something else is false. The first way must be false if nothing outside of the self causes the self to have a thought. Free will suggests that we move ourselves to create thoughts and thus the first way fails if we believe that God have free will and if humans have free will.

Hmmmm...I'm no more convinced of Aquinas'/Aristotle's "first mover" (and "efficient cause" and "noncontingent being") argument after watching this video than when I first encountered the argument. Feser doesn't seem to be any more convincing either (admittedly I'm looking for a list of his 49 premises, haven't found one yet). The problems with the argument remain: 1. In terms of physics, Aristotle (and Aquinas and most others until Galileo) assumed being at rest to be the natural state of things, so motion had to be explained. If motion is the natural state (as Galileo proposed and Newton followed) then the first mover argument collapses on its own. 2. It also assumes without proof that motion (or change if we take Feser's wording) has to come from outside an object - again, why so? A star changes based on the physical processes inside it, so it is certainly possible. And unless one is a determinist, I also have the possibility to make changes in myself. 3. The argument relies on the assertion that infinite regress is impossible - without proving it so, thus it is a form of begging the question. What is wrong about extending back into eternity? 4. The argument in fact relies on a version of infinite regress, since a first mover would have to exist from eternity past - because if it comes into existence at some point, then something has to bring it into existence, and so on and on. 5. The only way for the argument to avoid being a version of infinite regress is self-contradiction (or special pleading), since the argument relies on the principle of all movers (or causes or contingent beings) being moved by something else - and then requires an exception for the first mover/cause/noncontingent being. The argument falls unless one can have one's cake and eat it too. 6. In fact, while Aquinas at least did not do this, Trent repeatedly simply asserts God as a way of making the argument work, various versions of "it works because God is all-knowing, self-sufficient, etc" at time marks 14:49, 17:50, 20:55, 23:00, and 25:00. Bottom line, I think Woodford is right on this one. It does not at all require thinking Aquinas was stupid or something - Aquinas was working with the tools he had available to him, in particular the physics of the time - which were wrong on this one.

I'm not sure I understand your argument about why there can only be one purely actual actualizer. You say it's because if there were two, then one would have what the other lacked, which means one would have an unactualized potential. But doesn't this just assume that whatever one of them has, the other has the potential for having? If it turns out that they are different in some way, but neither has the potential for being like the other, then they could both be purely actual.

It's Peter Geach, not Peter Gates.