Hey all, before we get to the main meal of this video, a huge thank you is in order.
When I woke up this morning to enjoy a cup of tea and a brand new video from one of my
all-time favourite YouTubers, Cosmic Skeptic, you can only imagine how shocked I was when
he not only mentioned my channel, but also gave me a massive shout out!
Consequently, I now once again have a community on my channel, which in honesty, to me, means
I have a channel again.
You were right Alex, loosing my entire channel crushed my enthusiasm for making videos, and
the whole ordeal was… demoralising and gruelling… but alas, I can now say that it “was”
a hard time rather than “is” a hard time, and that’s thanks to your kindness, and
so sincerely, the have my utmost gratitude – thank you.
I also want to quickly state to future subscribers that Cosmic Skeptic’s channel is very similar
to mine, and so if you like my content you’ll probably like his; and so I strongly recommend
that you check out his work – just don’t get distracted by his warped draws!
You’ll know what I mean when you get there.
Anyhow, now to the main meal: So I’ve been meaning to take on Thomas Aquinas’ Unmoved
Mover (or Prime Mover) for quite some time now, but when I woke up this morning and saw
for the first time a Prager University video titled “God vs. Atheism: Which is More Rational?”
I simply had to drop all other projects to jump on this nonsense immediately – while
I’m still furious!
This is the Unmoved Mover – Debunked.
In the interest of keeping this video relevant, I’m going to address Kreeft’s specific
rendition of the Unmoved Mover rather than Aquinas’, because, while the two differ
in the language and references that they use, they are nevertheless fundamentally the same.
And so, here’s Kreeft presenting the argument: “The argument starts with the not very startling
observation that things move.
But nothing moves for no reason – something must cause that movement, and whatever caused
that must be caused by something else, and so on.
But this causal chain cannot go backwards forever.
It must have a beginning.
There must be an unmoved mover to begin all the motion in the universe.
A first domino to start the whole chain moving, since mere matter never moves itself.”
Everything that exists is in motion.
Everything in motion is caused to be in motion by something else.
Something must’ve existed without a cause.
We call this first-cause (or unmoved mover) god.
Therefore, god exists.
So, straight from the outset, I want to point out two absolutely devastating flaws.
The first is that even if we accept every premise of Kreeft’s presentation of this
argument, all this would prove is that an Unmoved Mover existed, and that’s it!
Seriously, that’s all it would prove.
It would not prove that this Unmoved Mover still exists, that it’s a being, that it’s
conscious, or that it impregnated a virgin, in order to sacrifice itself to itself so
that it could forgive you for your ancestors’ actions… or in other words, it would not
prove that Kreeft’s very specific interpretation of the Christianity is true.
The second game-ending flaw with this argument, is that premise three – the assertion that
“Something must’ve existed without a cause” - is an obvious case of Special Pleading.
A Special Pleading fallacy occurs when a proponent creates an exception to a rule without adequate
justification, and that is precisely what premise three is doing.
It is literally asserting that premise two – the assertion that “Everything in motion
is caused to be in motion by something else”, applies to absolutely everything except for
the cause of the universe, without adequately justifying why.
In fact, by itself, the argument doesn’t even attempt to substantiate this assertion…
it just makes it.
And this brings us perfectly to the crux of Kreeft’s faulty reasoning… in his attempt
to assert that an Unmoved Mover does indeed exist, he offers two additional faulty arguments.
The first is the assertion that “We now know that all matter – that is the whole
universe – came into existence some 13.7 billion years ago, and it’s been expanding
and cooling ever since.”
Now you might be thinking, “Surely, this assertion is true, isn’t it?
After all, I’ve heard many well-respected scientists saying the same, haven’t I?”
Well, the answer is that, it depends; it depends on what definition of the word ‘universe’
is being used … Allow me to explain.
If we are using the scientific definition of the universe – that being “all matter,
space and time”, then yes, it is accurate to say that the Big Bang was the beginning
of the universe; but if we are using the colloquial definition of the universe – that being
“everything that exists, everything that has existed, and everything that will exist”,
then no, it is inaccurate to say that the Big Bang was the beginning of the universe.
Hence, because Kreeft uses the scientific definition of the universe for the conclusion
of this additional argument, but he uses the colloquial definition of the universe for
the conclusion of his main argument, he therefore commits an Equivocation Fallacy, and hence
his argument is invalid.
And the second faulty argument that Kreeft offers is the assertion that, “Because Einstein’s
general theory of relativity says that all time is relative to matter, and since all
matter began 13.7 billion years ago, so did all time.
So there’s no time before the Big Bang.”
Now you might again be thinking, “Surely, this one is correct, isn’t it?”
But again, you’d be wrong.
It’s a false premise.
To quote Sean Carroll, my all-time favourite Theoretical Physicist, “A lot of Cosmologists
will say there was a beginning, and the problem with this is that the prediction that there
was a beginning, or the understanding that there was a beginning, is based on general
relativity, and we know general relativity is not right.
The reason we know it is not right is, for one thing, it is not compatible with quantum
mechanics.
The reason we know it’s not right is because, for one thing, it […] is not compatible
with Quantum Mechanics […] So basically we have a prediction that the universe began
based on a theory that we have no right to trust.”
And hence, to quote Carroll again, “The correct thing to say about the Big Bang is
not that there was no time before it, but rather that our current understanding of the
laws of physics gives out at that moment in time.”
Or to put this in another way; just as Newton’s Law of Universal Gravitation functions perfectly
when applied to our everyday lives, but fails when applied to celestial bodies; Einstein's
General Theory of Relativity functions perfectly when applied to our everyday lives and celestial
bodies, but it fails when applied to the Big Bang.
Hence, when it comes the question of “What existed before the Big Bang?”
The real answer is “We don’t know”, and to add “therefore god” to the end
of this would be a classic Argument from Ignorance – which, indeed, is unfortunately exactly
what many proponents of the Unmoved Mover do.
Anyhow, to recap, Kreeft’s rendition of Aquinas’ Unmoved Mover is flawed because;
Even if every premise of the argument is accepted, it would not prove that Kreeft’s specific
god exists, and; Premise three commits a Special Pleading Fallacy.
And the two additional arguments that Kreeft offers are flawed because; The first commits
an Equivocation Fallacy when used as a premise in the Kreeft’s main argument, and; The
second is simply false… it’s a False Premise.
As always, thank you kindly for the view, and I’ll to leave you with yet another wonderful
quote from the amazing Sean Carroll: “We use the phrase ‘The Big Bang’ to refer
to that earliest moment in the history of the universe where we don’t understand what
is going on.
It’s a placeholder for our lack of understanding.”