REBUTTING Rationality Rules on Ben Shapiro, Ed Feser, and Aquinas
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 21 ส.ค. 2024
- In this video Trent examines @rationalityrules critique of a more potent explanation of the argument from motion offered by Ben Shapiro and Ed Feser.
Original Video: Ben Shapiro calmly EDUCATED by Stephen Woodford
• Ben Shapiro calmly EDU...
To support this Channel: / counseloftrent
I love that you just deliver the facts without being snarky and condescending. Just as we freely received grace so should we give it.
This is no facts. It is deceptive assertions:
The "mover moves something" is scientifically
!!!ONLY!!! a description of two objects interacting = EACH changing.
Philosophically = GobbleDeeGookally, it is what ever you want.
for an example the Zampano.
Are you joking? This is all snarky and non factual
What part of it is non-factual and snarky? (Saying "everything" is not valid, go give me a specific instance)
"I'm going to prove you wrong by misunderstanding your arguments" is what it comes down to.
Very nicely laid out, Trent.
I feel like Trent started uploading lots of rebuttal videos right after I commented he should do more rebuttals lol.
Well thank you then. I agree I love his rebuttal videos.
Sounds like you are moving Trent!
@@tony1685 show me the CARFAX for YOUR interpretation of scripture. Defend your version of Christianity? You’ll probably say you use the Bible. Guess what... literally the majority of majorly disagreeing sects of Christianity use “only the Bible” for their beliefs... you’d have to wonder why there are so many of them then? Weird how none of them have proof they originated before the Catholic Church
@@tony1685 ok show me proof somewhere farther back than the Catholic Church that your interpretation of the Bible was seen as the correct way to interpret scripture because I’m almost positive you can’t. But I can prove pretty far back with written evidence that the Catholic Church, the same unbroken line (which I can also prove again), has kept to the same interpretation that dates the furthest back in history and has also been consistent to this day.
@@tony1685 I’m literally not even trying to win an argument I just suggest looking into it and giving it a chance if anything I said made any questions pop into your head. I suggest catholicanswers website and also catholic subreddit is nice then a few more you tubers. Scott Hahn is a good start. Or how to be Christian.
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.
Please don't split your guts and if you do one would assume crying 😬
I pointed this out in a comment I left under his video a year or so ago: he unwittingly debunks himself as soon as he says “the hot end heats the cold end”.
@@halleylujah247 Hi Halley I see you everywhere haha, see ya whenever Lofton uploads again.
Yes, he came across obtuse in that example. Generally petulant as well, a trait of those arguing without using reason.
@@nathanaelculver5308
Hmm. I'll have to look that up to see the context. Perhaps he was thinking in terms of examples like a rod, a pool of water, etc.
In those cases heat does not merely dissipates (into the atmosphere), but also distributes within an object. So, the hot end (in a sense) does heat the cold end. But, again, I've peaked into this discussion here at the end, without seeing what preceded it; admittedly, a foolish thing to do.
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.
Exactly. They just pat themselves on the back and act like they have done some thing went all they've done is show their misunderstanding for Fasers argument.
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
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.
true that was epic
@@TheCaroluss I think it's this one: th-cam.com/video/ZJDYPZYMt0Q/w-d-xo.html
I love Mathoma
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!
You keep dunking on this dude
Good
Good
Imagine being confident enough to think you can take on Thomas Aquinas
That couldn't be me 😂
Depends on which bits you're talking about. If we're talking his itration of teological argument, then frankly anyone can take on it.
Imagine being confident enough to believe the very word of God, in the face of mere human rationality.
@@malcolmkirk3343
Imagine believing that there is no morality, no free will, the Universe has no meaning, everything exists for absolutely no reason, everything is moving without any mover
@@mathewjose4753 _"Imagine believing that there is no morality, no free will"_
sounds like Calvinism too
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!!
i have never heard any protestant say that God the father was not always the father. this would be heretical, as it would deny the existence of Jesus being the Son of God before he was born into the world.
i think you are confusing heretics with protestants.
Did not the He (the Son) "BECAME flesh, and dwelt among us"? Did not God take to Himself a nature temporally that He previously did not have?
@@jackplumbridge2704 For the most part, you are right. But there are some odd pastors out there now-a-days (esp. in Pentecostal circles). Heard one pastor prayed over a man, and told him that he needed to forgive Jesus.
@@malcolmkirk3343 "Did not the He (the Son) "BECAME flesh, and dwelt among us"? Did not God take to Himself a nature temporally that He previously did not have?" - yes. the Son took on human nature.
not sure how this has any relevance to what i have said tho.
My favorite description of the antithesis to the unmoved mover argument comes from E Michael Jones: "it's turtles all the way down"
and? for an eternal universe an eternal sequence of events is not a problem.
@@matswessling6600please show evidence for an eternal universe, would love to see some.
I’ll help you before you get started: it’s logically impossible.
the only people who continue to posit eternal universe theories are those so latched on to their materialistic worldview that they refuse any other conclusion carte blanche
@@willdaugherty2842 logical impossible? how?
@@matswessling6600 did you even watch the video you’re commenting on? infinite regress is a logical problem that makes eternal universe impossible.
If the universe is past eternal, how many events occurred before we got to this finite point in time?
@@willdaugherty2842 infinite number of points. But that is not s problem since any time imterval, even finite time intervals, contains infinitely many time points.
🤯🤯 brain exercising, my brain hurts now. I need to go read some more books 🤦🏼♀️
Been loving these rebuttals. Went to the library and picked up the Summa Theologica
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!
Stephen is the king of the straw man
Just wants to prove Feser right I guess.
Yeah Though to be fair, his video is two years old. His mind might have gone from potential to actual, and therefore changed, since then. 😉
@@Augustinianismus lol
@@Augustinianismus ayo lmao 😂😂
but he puts logical fallacies on the screen while he talks so he clearly is always right
You've been quite prolific lately
That's a good thing. 😁
And quite pro-LIFE-ic! :D
@@marvelator8303 Ah, delightful. You win the internet today, sir.
I pray I'll ever get the patience you have Trent.
As someone with some education in physics this atheist's science makes me want to scream
How so?
This Dethklok guy is the personification of "I am very smart"
... like someone who thinks he's the best chemist ever because he knows that salt is made up of sodium and chlorine.
Hahahahaha
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.
This is a critical component of the argument. Without explaining and distinguishing essentially ordered causal series and accidentally ordered causal series, there is ambiguity in the argument for the unmoved mover.
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.
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
@Zachary Trent interesting so would it just be Christian instead of judeo-Christian then? It’s hard to ignore the influence of Christianity in the west based on what I’ve studied
@Zachary Trent
Yes but no, I mean "judeo-christian" is a vapid neologism but we might as well argue Christianity is a jewish sect anyways.
What atheists like to pretend is that the West was founded on Greek philosophy alone, as if St Augustine hadn't written City of God or something...
The term “Judeo Christian“ is a modern invention to support the secular state of political Israel, a favorite of protestants and heretics alike.
Post Christ all the Jews have done socially is work on revolution and tearing down Christian values. I don’t mean individual Jews, I mean the revolutionary spirit of their religion that now is based upon rejection of Christ (they’ve been behind freemasonry, the French revolution, parts of the American revolution, atheism, evolutionary biology, the distraction of marriage, Marxist ideology etc.). See “the Jewish revolutionary spirit,“ by E Michael Jones.
Christianity built western civilization. That is why any destruction of the Catholic Church, starting with the protestant revolution, which then led to freemasonry and secular atheism and moral relativism, destroys society.
Atheist nowadays want to look on the good things that are still being held together by our Christian history and claim “we don’t need any of that now, will let the god stuff just die and keep all the good parts.“ It would be laughable if it wasn’t so sad and destructive in it’s reality.
There's no such "Judeo-Christianity" value. Christianity alone (primarily Catholic Church) built Western civilization.
@@Qwerty-jy9mj Strawmanning doesn't become anyone. I've never met any of my fellow atheists who believe what you just said.
It is true that Christianity had a strong influence on the development of Europe ("western civilization" and "the west" are also neologisms). So did Greek philosophy, literature, and history - and the two aren't completely distinct, for example the idea that god is an immaterial being is a Greek influence on 3rd century BCE Judaism that was then imported into Christianity. Roman law remains the foundation of the legal practice of continental Europe, along with Napoleon's law code - meanwhile, in the English-speaking world our judicial system derives from ancient Germanic practice via Saxon royal law that was established as common law beginning with Henry II. The idea of certificates for achieving levels of education comes from the Islamic world, as does the idea of schools for that purpose, which provided the germ of what in Europe became universities beginning in the middle ages. The Age of Exploration affected Europe profoundly, helping to spark the Scientific Revolution, the effects of which are at least as powerful as any other influence before or since. And then there's the Enlightenment - the U.S. Constitution and system of government, for example, are direct products of the Enlightenment, as is the whole concept of human rights on which European political and legal systems currently rest.
The cry that "the west was built on Christianity" or "the U.S. was founded as a Christian country" and other such claims are ahistorical, and in any case they are not claims mad to be independent historical claims. They are preludes to some form of "therefore we Christians have the RIGHT to force our religion on everyone else" or "therefore we Christians should have special privileges" or some version of making out that Christian doctrine (but only from the right kind of Christians, of course) should be made into law for everyone else. And THAT is repugnant.
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.
In logic "things" is not a category, since it is overbroad, and not descriptive enough for a category, nor descriptive enough to use in forming a syllogism.
“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.
He leans heavily into his British accent.
@@nathanaelculver5308 Hitchens did the same
Arrogance comes with his territory of atheism
and a correct one afaik
@@Mish844 Given how badly he’s represented Aquinas’ argument from motion, I’d hold off endorsing his assessments of any other Thomistic arguments.
“Unlike Ben and Feser, Aquinas *does* provide an argument.”
But… so does Feser.
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.
It's on the list. Unfortunately, I need to prioritize rebutting the more popular erroneous TH-cam videos because they cause more harm even though videos like Schmid's are far more interesting.
@@TheCounselofTrent You've been on a roll. Keep them coming.
y'all should dialogue.
Ok, in reference to the Big Bang and the universe having no beginning, he's clearly ignorant of the Borde-Guthe-Vilenkin Theorem which rejects any notion of the universe not having a beginning.
Really appreciate this video.
Rebutting RatRules is simply too easy.
It’s like tripping a dwarf.
Dwarves have a low center of gravity, ergo they don't trip all that easily
This should have way more views. Thank you for the analysis, Trent!
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.
An internet atheist being dishonest about reading something!?!?!?!? Never....
I notice trent uploaded 3 videos in one day
Free-for-all Fridays - you get quality *and* quantity!
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.
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.
In fact, while it's true that if you can't explain something in a simple way it means that you didn't understand it enough, it is ALSO true that you must assume a priori that some terminology is comprehended across the board.
I.E.; a colour is a specific refraction of the light spectrum.
Too hard? Let's dump it down a bit!
When light encounters an object, parts of that object reflects only a part of the variety of colours in light's spectrum; the kind of light hitting the object and the reflected part of its spectrum define the colour that your eyes perceive.
Easy, but for an individual who was born blind is still hard to grasp untheoretically (and, perhaps, even theoretically to a certain extent).
This video is a masterpiece.
imagine calling yourself rationality rules as though you have the ultimate truth
Pretty sure that’s not what he’s doing with the name
Ironic comment, only people who think they have the ultimate truth are theists, be it christians, muslims,...Atheists just lack a belief in god.
26:42 People who try to mess with "The Horn" always end up regretting it.
"Oh this one's the 'Non-contingent Contingency' argument!" - RR
😅
Great channel. A++
Fish, meet barrel. (Trents loading up.)
The more Stephen does this, the more he's gonna lose credibility LOL.
Thanks for all you do Trent. I enjoy your videos a lot.
An atheist not understanding logic? Water is wet.
Oh yeah what's your amazing logic, genius? That a magical sky god invented the universe with shit all evidence?
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).
Yes, protestants can use it, cosmological arguments rely on deductions mad on simple observations, they don't rely on doctrine. The Kalam cosmological argument which William Lane Craig popularized, was first formulated by muslims
It's open to all monotheistic religions.
It disqualifies protestants that endorse theistic personalism, such as William Lane Craig. This happens because of the attributes that the unmoved mover must have. But some other sorts of Protestants are certainly immune from this.
@@jeremysmith7176 The argument actually comes from an ancient Greek pagan (Aristotle) so no reason why its use would be limited to monotheists.
@@Qwerty-jy9mj The "unmoved mover" version of it goes back to Aristotle.
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.
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.
@@DaneilTthanks, that sounds very interesting. Any good resources or authors that give a good breakdown?
Great video, nicely edited too
I appreciate what you're doing here. Thanks for sharing that. Hoc vere dixisti.
Debunking the debunkers! Cool!
I wonder what Ben Shepiro would sound like if he took in a deep breath of helium.
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.
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.
Nice and informative. Just how I like it!
Aquinas' argument is solid as a rock.
Both in actual and potential
Please explain then.
@@therick363 Sure. Change is the actualization of a potential. There therefor must exist something that is pure actuality with no potential that requires actualization at the ground of being . BEING You exist in God.
@@tommore3263, none of that follows, mate. Read the book "Existential Inertia and Classical Theistic Proofs". It refutes the first 3 ways + essence/existence argument and some other arguments of the sort.
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.
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!
Never heard they were trying to do that
Mathoma already dismantled RR's video here.
WONDERFUL VIDEO
He says “potentCHU-ality, for potentiality.
I cannot respect that. I have gotten used to “nuk U lar”, but this is just unforgivable.
19:35 I see atheists are back to “the universe has always existed for eternity. No beginning or end just infinity”
Oooh I know someone who can help moderate debates 😁
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
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.
But isn’t that classical theist definition of god with divine simplicity
@@andrewnietfeld7213
Exactly, they just concede the argument and pout about the implications
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.
A protestant, a jew, and a Catholic walk into a bar; an atheist follows...
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.
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.
I don't understand how rationality rules has 180k views on what is essentially nonsense arguments and videos such as this one with thorough and logical arguments are stuck at 30k views
'Rationality Rules' rather 'Irrationality Rules" in this case, he does not even know the distinction between passive and active potentiality. Passive potentiality which is what we usually mean by 'potentiality' and refers to the property of being capable of being *acted upon* by something else. Active potentiality is just the ability to act upon *other* things to actualize their passive potentiality, so *active potentiality* just the power to actualize the potential in other things which means that it is actualized in order to accomplish that.
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.
Yeah, this is old news for catholics. This site is for converts or something, it is best just to read Aristotle's metaphysics and Aquinas albeit very slowly, and unpack it thyself. Alot of chatter here, and aristotle and aquinas both made great pains to not assume anything really.
Long ago I probably seen one or two of Rationality Rules videos and I quickly discerned this is a guy with a one digit IQ who sincerely believes he has a three digit IQ and now goes out of his way to prove it. He's not a very good thinker but would probably be a very successful politician.
Right? I'm subscribed to his channel.
It always seems that he thinks something through to a certain extent but then he stops.
What annoys me the most is that he uses different weights for different arguments.
Even here, for example: he takes, to quote him, the second premise tentatively (which, by the way, it's a premise to the 2nd law of thermodynamics) because "we don't know enough about the universe...black matter, for example". Good.
Please, mister, can you show me the difference between "this" argument of yours and the infamous "god of gaps" argument that you bashed several times throughout the years?
No one. Shallow reasoning, biased reasoning.
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.
"I think not", Descartes replied, and promptly disappeared.
The classical theism podcast had a great episode recently on Descartes' "I think therefore I am" and the thomistic response down through the centuries. That the cogita, ergo sum presupposes the principal of non-contradiction. How else can Descartes know that he that he is and is not thinking at the same time.
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.
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!
I don't think so. I think "actuality" is being and "potentiality" is not-being, two corresponces, in a dialectical form, and not "objects" proper.
But I don't know, someone that understands has to explain.
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.
I want to see if I got what you’re saying.
Everything needs actual i action except a God and that’s okay? And it’s not double standards and special pleading?
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.
Wouldn't be long now before Stephen drops a "Trent Hunt DEBUNKED" vid
In other words, giving an inaccurate summary of what Trent said and giving his opinion on it
He could do that, or he could just debate or directly engage me on the subject, which would be more efficient than endless rebuttal videos.
@@TheCounselofTrent Debates usually just devolve in charisma matches, The optimal exchange would be a written back and forth
@@paradisecityX0 Yo, triple P. Good to see you here man. BTW, how did you get Skylar Fiction to block you on Twitter? The dude normally thumps his chest on the many theists that have blocked him, including Mr. Brass.
@@computationaltheist7267 Because he couldn't handle his attitude thrown back at him
27:30 Hahaha.
24:20 *It doesn’t support theism*
Odd. Then why do so many atheists devote so much energy to trying to debunk it? True it doesn’t get you all the way to the Christian God, but apparently it gets you a lot closer than many atheists are comfortable with.
You're joking, right? Nobody would be arrogant enough to make such a argument.
The argument sounds like a cause and effect argument
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.
What's with online atheist personalities having long hair, beards, being fat, tattooed, having dyed hair, bitter if not an airhead? British atheists are odd beings. I'm starting to believe my brother when he said Brits are just weird people in general.
Way to generalize jeez...I'm a british atheist and I don't fit in your stupid description at all. And how are we weird exactly? Most americans can't even point out africa on a map and we're the weird ones? Intelligence can be weird from the point of view of a moron.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Amazing
It's Peter Geach, not Peter Gates.
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.
There are a lot of intelligent, thoughtful and respectful atheists … but I’ve never seen a group with so many who are SO confident they’re right and yet don’t even understand the nature of the question. Things like “Who created God?” or “I just believe in one less god than you” immediately indicate you’re talking to a simpleton. His arguments aren’t much better.
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.
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.
None of this explains why a conscious being has to be the actualizier. At best it's a complex philosophical special pleading. Your invisible God should just end the debate of his existence by making himself known.
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
Trent is familiar with Ferris' channel. Trent is his nemesis.
@@fragwagon Oh but they we are on the same team though 😇🗝️🗝️📖🙏⛪🛐💯 Catholic
@@frankperrella1202 it's a running joke from Ferris.
Wait do you mean to tell me that an atheist youtuber fails to actually understand the arguments, throws out random fallacies to appease his audience, and accuses Christians of things he himself is guilty of??? Color me surprised.
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?
7:50 He just spoke Chinese
你好!
Good catch.
THe unmoved mover would still exist, becuase its one attriutes is it must exist.
That is how it exists without cause.
watching this and i’m baffled that Woodford thinks his responses are logical at all.
Two specifically that stand out are the circle of gears and the heated metal rod. It seems almost as if he didn’t think about these before spewing them out to the world.
Sadly, many people take his views at face value.