It takes a certain level of pride to put a dunce cap on Aquinas….

What? Rationality Rules strawmanning theists?! Who could've seen that coming...

People “refute” Aquinas straw men until they can fully comprehend the arguments made by Aquinas, at which point they become Catholic.

They debunked They refuted But most importantly, Trent rebutted

Nice extra uncharitable touch by him to put dunce hats on Peter and Aquinas what a child!

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

Just bought the Shorter Summa this week after hearing you and others quote Aquinas so much. God bless!

I need to finish reading the catechism...

God bless you Trent.

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.

"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.

I would have preferred a response to Joe Schmid’s hour long critique of Feser’s version, but that one is very technical.

Amazing work. Love your videos Trent!

Nothing tickles my funny bone more than atheists arguing _for_ an eternal universe, as if that somehow makes any difference to Aquinas.

SOOO excited to see so many rebuttal videos 🙏🏼

Uploading lots of content lately 💪

What gets me is the arrogance of these people while they disprove themselves.

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

Trent absolutely destroyed woodford on this one lol. the dishonesty in woodford’s video is outstanding.

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.

How is one man so smart? So much knowledge. God Bless Trent 🙏🏼

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.

Love your videos.

Well done again. Thank you!

Really appreciate this video.

Once again, great video! Keep up the great work.

I would love to see a debate between you and Woodford.

Nicely done.

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...

What does it mean for something to exist if it is not in space and time?

Trent, why not make a response to Joe Schmidts critique against your opening statement in the debate with Alex?

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.

Early check?

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.

Outstanding criticism

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.

Why there so many brilliant people in catholics?

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.

Trent. Great content. Just curious can you improve your thumbnails? Thanks.

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.

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.

The new atheist crowd is still at it, huh...?

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.

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.

Can you give me one example where Stephen strawman the argument?

This is gold

Bishop Barron explained this argument on his channel.

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?

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.

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 KZfaq and I think many people would find it useful.

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.

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.

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….🤔

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

GOD BLESS HIS ONE AND ONLY CATHOLIC CHURCH :)

Would you consider debating him?

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 yes debunk this atheist debunkers more :D

Boy i cant wait for "Thomas Aquinas’ Unmoved Mover - Debunked (Kreeft and Prager Refuted) (REBUTTED) " *RE-DEBUNKED*

Is that really a PhD (Doctor), or just a grunge hippie with a Diploma?

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.

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.

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?

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.

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 ^^

How come many of these "KZfaq atheists" are brits?

Watching goofballs argue with one another has become one of my favorite pass times

"Oimanafeis" - Stephen Woodford

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)

Does @Rationality Rules really not understand the argument, or does he intentionally misstate it.

I've pointed this out on many occasions on several other KZfaq 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

Can you do a rebuttal video on polytheism/pan-theism next? God bless you and your work!

Sorry that I did, thought, said and wish any bad towards you in anyway

Based and Aquinas-pilled

The first way makes free will impossible. So what about the problem of evil? You cant use free will to answer it.

is this peter kreeft? please say no

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!

Stephen often commits the straw man fallacy.

'We observe there is motion so who or what cause that motion' - Atheists has no answer

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.

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.

9:17 is simply an unsupported assertion, no it doesn't prove the existence of any god/gods.

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.]

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.

Woodford is an embarrassment

💖💖💖💖💖💖💖💖💖💖

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.

Why is so difficult to atheist understand St. Thomas?

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.

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.

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"

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

Another Aquinas debunker demonstrates that he doesn’t even understand Aquinas’ arguments in the first place.

prepare yourselves for the strawman argument of the year dont forget to cringe 10:15

So, when are you going to capturing Christianity to talk about the papacy?

So what? First mover... existing eternally. How is this logically distinct ftom an infinite regress of cause. And either way why name it 'god'? Whah... non-sequitur... nothing leads to the conclusion a first mover would be a 'mind'... 'a being' is distinct from 'be-ing'.... The question is... why characterise the 'first mover' as a 'mind'? Seems to trivialise the 'first mover'...

Bro Trent is so based

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?