Hey everyone, in this rebuttal video, I'll be examining Stephen Woodford from the atheist

YouTube channel Rationality Rules and his interaction with St. Thomas Aquinas' argument

for motion.

So just to fill you in, Woodford is commenting on Catholic philosopher Peter Krafe's explanation

of the argument for motion, well the arguments for God's existence on the Prager You YouTube

channel.

So let's take a look.

In the interest of keeping this video relevant, I'm going to address Krafe's specific rendition

of the unmoved mover rather than a coiness.

Because while the two differ in the language and references that they use, they are nevertheless

fundamentally the same.

Actually, they aren't.

In simplifying the argument for motion, Dr. Krafe leaves viewers with the impression

that it's a different argument.

Let me play you what Dr. Krafe said in his Prager You channel video, and then I'll show

how this explanation can lead to the argument for motion being misunderstood.

Logic can show that there is a God.

If you look at the universe with common sense and an open mind, you'll find that it's

full of God's fingerprints.

A good place to start is with an argument by Thomas Aquinas, the great 13th century philosopher

and theologian.

The argument starts with the not very startling observation that things move.

...