Thomas Aquinas debunks @rationalityrules

Today I will demonstrate how a proper understanding of Aquinas's Argument from Motion refutes @rationalityrules 's video where he attempts to debunk Aquinas and the scholar Peter Kreeft.
___________________________________________________________________________
Sources

___________________________________________________________________________
My Socials

___________________________________________________________________________

[apostolicfollower]

Try not to get refuted by Aquinas: Challenge Impossible.

[lucienlagarde]

when rationalityrules broke his own rules

[anneroseadams]

Great Argument and thank you for analyzing/explaining it.

[Michael_Chater]

I like your videos. Aquinas’ 2nd argument is very interesting to me. God bless 🇻🇦✝️🙏

[truthastyle]

I can never respect "rationality rules", all it took for him to recant a statement he made, was for his trans audience to push back on him. So much for putting "rationality" over everything else....

[CatholicRoss]

Amazing video, keep up the good work brother, I subscribed 🙏

[hglundahl]

2:46 "who" and "is purely actual" and "has no potentiality" are not directly stated in S Th I P, Q II, A III.

St. Thomas actually did a lot more work than Kreeft did in this clip, if you continue searching for questions whether God (so far identified as X = unmoved mover + ???) is pure act and so on.

Now, the way Riccioli understood this argument is, it's mainly about astronomy.

IN the unmoved Empyrean Heaven, God moves the next inner or lower heaven, the sphere of the fix stars. Which moves the next, the sphere of Saturn, ... the sphere of the moon, the atmosphere, the deep see currents.

Riccioli didn't believe, like Thomas, that God moves some single substance which would be "heaven", he considered that angels were moving each stellar body West each day.

Thomas considered God was moving the visible universe (the Empyrean heaven is not seen from earth) West each day. Angels were moving the single stellar bodies for instance East in a yearly or monthly cycle. And so on for the other planets. Hence, Riccioli disagreeing with St. Thomas' premisses for Prima Via said the ontological argument was better.

I agree with Riccioli that:
a) the solid spheres have been disproven
b) the orbits of most planets are too complex to involve just a solid shell inside the outer and outside the inner one, plus an angel moving the body eastward.

However, if "place" or "space" is a substance, that would mean God could be moving, let's call it the aether, since that substance is also the subtratum of wavelengths of light.

Hence, St. Thomas view is not finally refuted.

With what we know of astronomy (barring Heliocentrism, which is ideology, not knowledge), this argument from motion also involves finetuned motion, and can therefore not be impersonal.

[ianchisholm]

This argument begins with the assumption that 'not moving' is the default position. Could it not likewise be assumed that motion is the natural state of everything?

[hglundahl]

6:18 In what text do you find the addition "utputa sol" -- it is evident to the senses that some things, for instance the sun, move?

[hglundahl]

3:31 Kreeft's version does indeed not prove that the unmoved mover still exists, because he is speaking of chronologically serial per accidens causations.

St. Thomas however speaks of per se causation in the instantaneous.

[EduardoRodriguez-duvd]

Movement is a transformation of the relationships between elements of reality.

Since we become conscious in a universe where things already move by affecting each other, we do not know if there was a stage where everything was still.

Without having seen an example of something still, there is no reason to think that such a thing is possible.

That we find things that we consider motionless is just an illusion.

[hglundahl]

5:44 The guy has some problems analysing.

He misses that premise one as stated by Kreeft, unlike his text, does not state "everything" is in motion, but "things" (i e some things) are in motion.

That does not have to be a universal rule, it's simply the fact we want to explain.

[Theeggmanisme]

Can you tell me the name of the building at 3:15?

[RobLewis]

5:15
Tell me if you think my response here is accurate:

Special Pleading doesn't apply because God doesn't have any potential, and therefore must have always existed (and be unchanging) because without potential, He can't be actualized or changed by outer forces in the same way that normal material things in the universe can. Thus, the fully actualized actualizer, the unmoved mover, etc.

[logicus.thomistica]

What happened to Jesus on your logo thing?

[JandroD]

Ah i love your room. And thank you for addressing him. Channels like that have been bugging me.

[mr.boboman]

Ayyyy face reveal sum how you look like your voice looool

[hglundahl]

7:21 Sustains would more be tertia via.

The fact remains, St. Thomas saw prima via as the one most evident. God moves the movement of the universe at any given moment.

[Idishrkdmd]

great videos i'm sosuprised that you're views are so low you give good arguments and explanations keep it up brother

[madra]

Equilibrium disprove the infinite regression 😮😅