I hope you realize that there is no other video explaining the relationship between God and Artistotle theory on RU-vid that I could find. Neither in English nor French. I am not saying that there are not many out there but it's not common. Congratulations and many thanks !
In my opinion, it’s the best argument, but really convoluted and easy to strawman / misunderstand. Cosmological arguments like Kalam are easier to grasp, but more vulnerable to rebuttal.
@@DefenseofSanity I also like how Aquinas and Aristotle prove certain characteristics of God, rather than the Kalam argument, which simply proves that God exists.
@@ciararespect4296 random person on the internet "aristotle wrong because theist" Ancient greek philosipher proves the logical necessity of a supreme being, what a dummy
@@ciararespect4296 Too much definitive order for it all to happen simply by chance . If gravity alone doesn’t explain it ( meaning if the gravitational pull in the context off the entire cosmos was plus or minus even a tiny fraction in either direction ) we wouldn’t be here and neither would the cosmos. If our moon didn’t exist the Earth would posses much less in tides , have short days and nights , have no tilt , etc . Thus again we wouldn’t be here and neither would life - as we understand it . If Jupiter and Saturn didn’t act as a cosmic house vacuum ( sucking in dirty and disastrous asteroids , comets , etc ) life wouldn’t exist on Earth as it would have been hit infinitesimally by these objects . If Earth was any closer or further from our perfect Sun - again we wouldn’t be here. If you want to live now as if there is no God then you best hope this is the case in the afterlife for if he does ( and that he does to us but not to you ) then you will be judged accordingly. He has given you just a glimpse to understand he is in fact there and if you require more from him to validate himself he will require the same of you to validate your stance ( meaning at your trial in the metaphysical ) so you best be prepared to deliberate and accept his verdict.
I guess this is more on Fesser than you, but I don't know why this is not called the Avicennin argument. He's the one that first worked it out in abstract like this. Aristotle still got this out of his physics, not metaphysics. Even more so because Aristotle's God moves the heavenly spheres by being their final cause. He doesn't pump any power for them to continue moving, he's just the motivation they need to continue doing it. Matters become even more ironic when I consider that, as far as I know, there's no indication in Aristotle (like there is here) that the prime mover is the agent intellect. The former is just thought thinking itself, and it "performs its function" in the Physics by (as I said) being the final cause of the planets. The agent intellect is the "mind which thinks all universals," which is needed to explain how passive intellects, like us, can come to think of some universals sometimes but not always. So Aristotle's own system contains an example of substances distinguishable from each other by virtue of their different attributes, where these attributes are not any matter of potency. Simply put, neither the prime mover nor the agent intellect involve potency, they are both pure actors, and yet it is at least a metaphysical possibility that they are not the same substance.
So many contradictions in this video. For example, you said: "The Actus Purus has no potency", and therefore it's perfect. Then you said it's "All Good" because it's perfect and lacks nothing. But apparently it lacks potency as stated in your previous assertion. But with this logic, I could assert any belief. For example couldn't I equally assert: "Since there's no potency, it's eternally incomplete, weak and flawed" Or with your logic: "Since good is just the lack of evil, and since Actus Purus lacks nothing. Therefore it's pure evil." Also the idea that the Actus Purus has a rational mind because of cause and effect, jumps to the conclusion that there is a mind at all. There are so many contradictions and flawed arguments in this video. It seems like you've already assumed the outcome, that the universe must conform to your human expectations that there is a human-like mind that caused the universe. Then you've created a series of logical steps which don't actually work to support your assumptions. The problem with a "super mind" causing everything is that the mind would need certain attributes, such as thoughts, the ability to plan the universe, ability to reason, ability to create a purpose with specific goals, the ability to design things, the ability to judge good vs bad ideas, imagine things, remember things (have a memory), and the power to execute the plan, etc. All these attributes are not one thing, but many many complex interacting parts. If this mind perfectly planned out the universe then its memory alone is more complex than the universe with the ability to not only remember the locations of each particle throughout all time, but to also search, retrieve, and think about each detail. In other words, this mind is not a unified, uncaused default state or "prime mover" at all. Instead, it's a complex network of interacting parts much like a computer or a human mind that would logically require structured parts, energy, materials, time ... But what caused such a complex being to exist? An entity more complex, more perfect and more structured than the universe itself? It also sounds suspiciously very human. Is it possible a human has projected his own mind onto the universe because it "feels right" to relate socially and spiritually to this higher power? Rather than assert that all this complexity in the universe is caused by an even more complex being that has always existed, isn't it simpler to say that the universe has always existed? Looking at the beautifully designed DNA of the malaria protist that kills over 400,000 children and adults per year is enough for me to ask: "Is this really the best a perfect and good god could do? Is there a chance that god is less human, and more universe than our ancestors originally hoped?"
The first member needs no cause as it is outside of cause and effect.Aristotle's Unmoved Mover is outside of existing and it's similar to Plato's the Good or Plotinus's the One.
So an electron is always in constant motion. What is the actualizer for electrons in motion. Also if the laws of nature is constant, then does it still need an actualizer since it never changed. Does the laws of nature have potency? Could an atheist argue that everything requires an actualizer except for fundamental particles which is just that way and never changes. Also could something actualize itself
I don't fully follow. Why can't there be more than one actus purus? "There would have to be some thing that one has that the other doesn't" Yes, like a different position in the "framework" of reality? Why isn't this possible?
Because it's ultimately redundant. What is one doing that requires another? If the two or more are exactly alike and carry the same will, and never conflict with each other, there would be no way to distinguish one from the other. They would ultimately be the same being. It's therefore completely unnecessary.
@@Cklert it's a weak argument and it has awful implications, the best argument for oneness is the one that goes like: if deity A and deity B existed, and there's a thing call it a human or whatever, if the god A said he'll move right, and the god B said left, then one of three things occur, 1- both orders occur thus breaking the law of con, none occur thus they aren't omnipotent, one order occurs, thus the other deity isn't omnipotent, thus he's not a god. and you'll maybe say what if they don't have conflicted orders? the respond is that i'm speaking out of possiblity, not an acutal occuring of a conflict, if there's a possiblity that A moves the being right, and B moves the being left, then this possiblity is an impossiblity, thus a contradiction which is logically impossible.
Hey. I think I have something to contribute to this argument. A lot of people get caught up on the concept of an infinite regress, saying that it might be possible. I think the most compelling example is that of the infinite chain of gears. According to physics, there is a finite amount of energy in the universe. An infinite regress of gears would imply an infinite amount of energy which isn’t true, at least from our understanding of physics. What do you think?
Bullshit.. You and nobody cannot escape, infinite regress.. Science doesn't disprove or prove infinite coz infinite is no useful topic in "scientific sense"..thar doesn't mean infinity exist.. Mathematical infinities and universe as infinity is still a topic but science have nothing to say as infinity cannot be experimently verified.. Universe might be infinite ..law of conservation of energy, states energy can neither be created nor be destroyed and cause in the chain of gears the energy output is only given after the last gear, it still is in infinite regress.. It's not about energy but of gear.. Now infinite regress depends on the premise of the argument.. Thus nor science or reality could do anything.. As if one claims everything that exist have a cause, regardless of infinity is real or not, infinite regress is formed.. It can only be breaked if the premise is false.. It about the argument.. And we don't know about universe or energy in conclusive.. It might be infinite or not.. We don't know
Why couldn't there be an infinite amount of energy spread across an infinite amount of space, time, and multiverses? What's preventing the universe to be caused by a multiverse, which itself had another cause, in an infinite regress? I don't like the idea of an infinite regress, but it's hard to rule out entirely.
I agree with most of this video but everything after immaterial is flimsy. Morality and perfection are totally abstract human creations. And the definition of power doesn’t hold up. By the definition of power used, everyone and everything is all powerful because of the butterfly effect idea, every action exponentially changes the future from a reality when that action didn’t happen. The argument that the actus purus is somehow sentient I don’t agree with. For example, your grandparents did not create you, they created your parents who then created you. By that same logic, the actus purus created the beginning of the universe that eventually created humans that then made abstractions. So the actus purus isn’t necessarily rational. And all knowing is based on rationally, and even if the actus purus was rational, we aren’t aware of every effect we have. You sneezing could cause a war in fifty years, just because you caused something doesn’t mean you are aware of all the ways it shapes the world.
I enjoyed reading your comment. One thing to consider. Your parents did not create you, they facilitated the creation of you. There is linguistically a tiny difference but in reality a huge difference. As in, to put it crudely, by a man and a woman getting aroused and having sex with each other, this can not be called creation as they have no control over what gender the child will be, the eye colour etc. To say that giving birth is creation is akin to saying putting a seed in a plant pot and adding water is to create the plant, but of course, it is not, it is facilitating the creation of the plant.
This is such an important video and yet it only has 47k views while Mr. Beast videos where he is destroys a car has 1b views. What a society we live in.
As a bringer of life and harbinger of creativity God represents endless possibilities to transform our physical reality as well as ourselves. The key to endure so is not to let our ego take control over our own, but to acknowledge that He is the cause of the great things that we experience in our lives. In some hermetic excerpts God is known as The First Unique Cause which is compatible with His Alpha & Omega remark.
Potency IS an actual. You turned "actual" into an object, while it is just an adjective. Here is the logic, you say earth doesn't fall because electron repulsion, but it isn't so, earth doesn't fall because it is actually doesn't "fall" in such state, it is not "caused" by electron repulsion, electron repulsion is just another state, a specific conditions of things. So with earth in that state, and electron repulsion in that state, the state of "earth falling" simply doesn't exist (is not actual). So all things are actuals, they are actually in such state and there is no need for that imagined chain. That chain you imagined maybe comes from a misunderstanding of time, which you might imagine becomes a highway in which a scenario of causality comes into play. But it isn't so, in physics time is just changes of states. States of things change yes, but those changes are not hierarchical causality like the illustration you drew. Things are related to each other, and they all have states, but they don't cause each other, they just are. Such causality that you described is actually just an uneducated perspective (possibly comes from our brain to help us survive and navigate things), to describe how thing are related to each other, seemingly they depend on something else described by that vertical hierarchical relationship. But it is misleading. Study of physics don't see things this way.
If one can believe that there is something in the chain that does not require a cause and can exist on its own then that "something" is called God in religion. Whether this universe is God or universe has a God.
Yes i agree it cant be proved solely off this theory. However this theory hasn’t been disproven. Along with this I would encourage you to look up cosmological constants. Even atheist scientists who study this believe that the universe existing is so improbable that it looks like something organized it. The reason this theory stands is because it is impossible to disprove without admitting God had to create it. Our universe is so complex that it NEEDS a intelligent, all powerful, and internal being to create it. Let me know your thoughts
He says between 5:20 and 5:55 that "the actus purus is one". I didn't quite agree this MUST be the case. Does anybody know an argument or philosophy that proves this?
I really appreciate this. I'm currently reading 5 proofs for the existence of God by Ed Faser and its lead me into classical theism. The Aristotelian proof is something I'm really trying to understand. It's tough given I've only familiarized myself with theistic personalism but this is really helpful in aiding me to grasp the Aristotelian proof.
It's funny how this is more aligned with Islamic thought than it is with Christianity, Avicenna's work literally discusses this in mathematical terms. He called it the unity of being.
unity of being or wahadut ul wajood was propogated by ibn arabi etc and avicenna also belived in eternity of the universe and god as sort of sustainer of universe that immensly critqued by al ghazal and ibn tayamiyah
@@quickk.7064 i said that about ibn arabi not ibn sina . ibn sinna believed in the eternity of the universe and god as a necessary existence that sustains the universe
Let me take the example of God. God has all the power, all the goodness, all the knowledge 'by default'. He hasn't worked hard for it. It's like a 'free fund'. Similarly, we have consciousness/free will as a 'free fund'. Thoughts come and go in our mind. I myself don't know what thought will come into my mind, say after 5 minutes, 10 minutes etc. It's a 'free fund'.
Is this the God of Deism? The same as Brahman, instead of a Personal God (Theism)? How can the Actus Purus have a will or be affected by us in any way? How can we have a relationship with this Being? How can this Being have any characteristics, attributes, personality?
Under Divine simplicity God is personal In the sense he has will, intellect ,loves and keeps everything and everyone in existence. That's basically it However because God is unchanging no we can't effect God in anyway whatsoever.
The aristotles proof has many problems when it comes to affirm a abrahamic god e.g abrahamic god has made things come into being but under the aristotles model world is eternal which creates another problem for this argument how something eternal brought temporal originations into existence.
Right. Where's the part where he slips in Jesus? Why not Krishna or Shiva? (that's another story). The list of essences of the Actus Purus he shows has a flaw. He pulled "good" (as opposed to "evil" out of an ad hoc. Why not evil? If he doesn't have good, evil, and all flavors in between, then his "God" would be incomplete, and a God cannot be incomplete. What those qualities (One, and others), point to is Pure Consciousness "In-Itself", or what Shankara (788-820), called Brahman. This Substance matches Aristotle's God more than the notion of a Personal Creator like YHVH.
There can be material - and an actualizer, one who directs the material to his will. They can both exist without potency, be purely actual and logically inescapable. That would explain matter and the abstract ideas as we currently conceive. There can also be two actualizers, one with power but lacks thought while the other with thought but lacks power, but both without potency, purely actual and logically inescapable.
It took one of the smartest (Aristotle) from the smartest civilization (greece) to describe what the jews had heard from a men who was not sharp at speaking and humble (Moses.) What other civilization other than Israel had such idea without being that smart?
0:56 omg I actually get to use this as a counterargument and not a silly thing to mess with kids! Q: Why does it rain? 1. It rains because there is condensed water vapor in the air. 2. There is condensed water vapor in the air because it evaporated from bodies of water. 3. It evaporated from bodies of water because the water flowed from its original point of the surface of the earth. 4. The water started there because that is where it rained. C: It rains because it rained. It should be apparent to the reader that even though this is actually not a circular argument, it still has the same problem of a circular argument: it doesn't converge/terminate when explaining the fundamental source of rain. Concluding that it is possible for it to have always rained should correctly sound absurd. We know that from incidental information technically outside of the argument. Hence, the original interpretation, while not as strong as the latter, is a sufficient argument.
Why is the active purus good and rational all knowing etc ? You're just putting human characteristics in it? The words aren't good enough to explain It's not a deductive argument
Are you confusing potentiality with potency here? Also, at 7:16 “to actualize potencies”, but I thought you said the “basis” had no potencies! And in order to act/actualize, it would need to have one, right?
@Actus Purus hey thanks for your response. I believe devoting two different terms with the word “potency” is unnecessary, since “passive potency” can just be called potency, and “active potency” could just be referred to as “actability/ability”. Sure, if the “basis” had no potency (passive) then that would entail that all of creation is infinitely old, since the “basis” is always actual with no potencies, and since the “basis” is infinite, it has actualized all of potencies in all things ever since (infinity). If creation wasn’t infinite, then it had to come into (actualized) into existence by the “basis”, and if that was the case, then the “basis” did undergo a change, from not creating to creating, and hence it had the potential to create then it actualized its own potential to perform the act of creation. I believe the statement “every passive potency requires an external actualizer” is applicable to all entities without a will, and thus not the “basis”, but he limited it to that statement. Thoughts?
@Actus Purus Thanks for the clarification. I believe the term "purely actual" is quite vague; is it to mean that the entity has "no capacity/ability to be changed or affected?", (lack of passive potency as you put it?). And why did we split the nature of potentiality into two: "potential to cause/perform a change" and the "potential to be changed or affected"; at the end they're both potentials that exist within an entity. Moreover, the premise that the actus purus *must* lack any potency is flawed. 4:43 He limited the actualization of potencies to an external actualizer, which is not true, whether it be what you call "active" or "passive" (and this is what led him to that "no potency" conclusion). All entities with a *will* can exercise the act of actualizing their own potencies (to some extent) without requiring an external actualizer (eg: Humans have the potential to die, and once can suicide actualizing that potency). Things like matches, magnets, wood, etc. require an external actualizer to actualize their potencies since they don't have a will. Now it seems you're bounding the actus purus to the existence of the universe when you said: "some potential in the universe has not be actualized and thus does not exist. actus purus and the universe coexisted mutually, and when you said: " and thus the actus purus does not exist before creating it." which sounds like a logical contradiction; how can he not exist before creating it, but at the same time, he created it? Is his existence limited to the existence of the universe? Finally with regards to "changeability" from not-creating to creating, it seems that again, you bounded the term "change" within the universe, and thus no change exists outside of the universe which is not true. Change does not have to be temporal, the change from not-creating to creating is an intrinsic change, i.e., behavioral rather than temporal thus the actus purus had the potential to change
Aristotle is considered only prepared to admit that God exists. But he didn't. So, the video is only a monotheistic claim and interpretation of Aristotle.
This is false. I believe in God, but this video is inaccurate, based on DEDUCTIVE reasoning. The basic philosophical principles have been neglected. Please ensure if you are going to post content which is suppose to support your claim you provide evidence so that other RU-vidrs can't debunk your argument through basic philosophical reasoning.
I am not sure about the pure actuality inference We need to br consistent with the way we use the term actual Because we are talking about per se chain The first member must be able to produce motion Without a further actualizer to actualize its potential to cause motion In other words it has nonderived csusal power That's the sense in which we can call the first cause uactualized However we cannot go further and claim that it doesn't have any potentials at all For example it's potential to exist could have been actualized a finite time ago Yet it doesn't need a sustaining actualizer to sustain its existence While at the same time sustaining the existence of the members of the per se series
As a muslim i also can relate to this philosophy because i can find alot of things common between it and islam and also the sufi philosophy. It closely resembles it.
the only difference between essential and accidental causes is simultaneity. That is the only difference. There is no clear reason why you need an unmoved mover in the case of a temporally extended causal chain vs a simultaneous one.
The one thing flawed with this argument is that you claim the actus purus to be rational, for something to be rational it has to be conscious and self aware, but consciousness is the absence of self (what I mean by that is that where yourself exists, your consciousness and rationality doesnt, because yourself is a closed system and consciousness and rationality are open systems that are boundless, thus they are the absence of self) and the actus purus cant have anything abscent because it is perfect. So either the actus purus is not rational and all knowing, or the actus purus IS both rational and all knowing, but lacks self, which makes it imperfect.
This entire argument is based on presumption of contingency as popularly conceived by the likes of Leibniz. What if there is no such thing as contingency? I.e. the universe is one in existence and is it's own cause, or in philisophical terms, monism.
@@pratiswar5977 Romans 1 : 20 ============= So, when we study or observed the creation of God, what can we learned and found..? All God's creation and works tells something about HIM( creator)! The( or any of God's handmade) Creation are all made of or having/ contained 1) Positivity (+)or Negativity(-) 2) Masculinity or Femininity 3) Pistil or Ovule in plants 4) Yang or Yin... GOD'S POSITIVITY AND NEGATIVITY, GOD'S MASCULINITY AND FEMININITY, GOD'S YANG AND YIN.. 👉GOD IS THE HARMONIOUS AND ORIGINAL BEING/ BODY OF ENERGY ((( PRE ENERGY + E= MC2 ))) , OF POSITIVITY AND NEGATIVITY! ============= Another observation is that all of God' s creation have in common like, 1) Have invisible nature or character = A)Internal invisible Mind and B) External visible body/ form ============= What else ? So , this tells us or reveal to us about their origin, their Maker/ Creator 😂 Yes?? God hss also these natures and characters.. God created Humans in His own Image and Likeness. .Humans are only man and woman, male and female, masculinity and femininity!! We call God our Heavenly Father to Emphasizing His masculine Nature or call God our Parents (harmonious both male/ Female). ------------------------- Why the Universe is full of a PAIR system ?? It is for the purposed of fulfilling/ experiencing Love!!❤😂.. =============
Logic can refute each of these as permissible and even necessary for a better outcome (greater good) IFF there is more to reality than materialism. Within the materialist framework, of course you are correct. Proof of A Superintelligent Creator of Biological Life: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-NDIJexTT9j0.html Randomness cannot create 1/2 million EACH of 58 unique tRNA molecules EACH pre-loaded with the CORRECT amino acid which EXACTLY matches the code table relationship AND code which is impossibly non-random AND 16+ aminoacyl t-rna synthases whose structure is ALSO encoded for in 16+ genes whose sequence is... To say nothing of a complex rna replication system...
Up, down, sideways. Black, gray, white. Birth, life, death. Hot, cold, middle. Past, present, future. Water: ice, liquid, vapor. A 3 legged stool has parts, but is still a stool. Anything like the above can have 3 parts yet be unified without contradiction. Follow Isa. The prophet could not breathe life into a clay bird, nor raise anyone from the dead.
@@glenliesegang233 Careful now, you're dangerously treading toward Partialism with analogy. God is not made of parts. If a stool loses one or two of it's legs, it will start to stand funny. It will be less of a stool than it was previously. However, the Trinity proclaims that each Person in the Trinity is fully God, yet are distinguished. The Father is fully God, and does not need the Son or the Holy Spirit to remain God. As is the Son, as is the Holy Spirit. Usually, I don't recommend people to make analogies, because usually they aren't good representations of the Mystery of the Trinity. But your examples on Time and color, aren't bad that I don't see an immediate problem.
@@Cklert we think in earthly dimensions, and minds create categories and claim the category to be what exists. I wish I could help atheists grasp that when they create an image of "God" in order to have something to reject, if their image is NOT reflective of His true nature, they are not actually rejecting Him as a Being. A stool can be said to have parts, but it is no longer a stool when separated. My point. Yet Jordan Peterson, deist or not, for me, nails it when he says that we each come to a discussion about the question of the existence of God with different meanings of "God" and ,"to exist."
@@acreationofallah1610 No truth exists without a lie and lie is a perversion of the truth, therefore the truth has to exist before any lie can exist. So a lie does not exist in reality, only in our minds. Truth exists outside our minds and in reality.
Brother, may I use some fragments from this video for my video on Dr. Feser's arguments? The goal is to introduce the Russian audience to the argument from Dr. Feser's book. I'll definitely put your video as a reference and according to the copyright. Thanks
My current thought process after watching this video is the Actus Purus is basically energy. One force that isn't caused, created, or destroyed, which everything stems from. If energy can't be created, then it has always been, and is timeless. I have changed my mind. Matter fits this as well. Energy and matter both fit under the same constraints, but there are two. I would say however that the two share no similarities. They are separate timeless entities which always exist undeniably. Both are actual and only gain potential from interaction with the other My mind isn't made up on anything but I feel close to something
@@sergeantslaughter5695 I do not believe the Actus Purus is those things, lets say the Actus Purus is god. He created humans to be perfect but as we know humans are imperfect, god made an error and if the human truly is god´s image this means that god isn't rational, all-knowing (since he doesn't know how to create a perfect being) or all-good. I could expand more on this if I had the time
@@lovynil I don't think any religion claims that God tried to make perfect beings in the sense that they cannot make mistakes. After all, we can't make moral decisions if we have no choice to do the right or wrong thing.
Actus Purus is in a sense the exact opposite of energy/matter. Energy/matter can be likened to pure potentiallity/prime matter. It can become anything. But matter/energy does not exist on it's own unless it's has a actuality/form - and then becomes something. Matter/energy also constantly changes and takes up new forms which is also opposite to unchangable Pure Act. Pure Act is a omnipotent being, sepreate from anything elese and causing everything else, not any pantheistic ground of being that everything is made out off. Matter/energy in themselves cannot cause anything because they do not have any act in themselves. Speaking of energy as something timeleless/eternal (althugh it can exist indefinetly, which is different) is misleading because it's metaphysical absurdity. You are looking at things from pantheistic point of view which can be described as exact opposite metaphysics of the one that Aristotle represents.
Re: the claim that there must be one actus purus - what if Actus Purus A had potency that could only be actualized by Actus Purus B and vice versa, forming a sort of interdependent relationship?
Here is my counter... Firstly, what does it mean by change is pretty confusing as if u are mixing different types of arguments based on Aristotle exists like unmoved mover, uncaused cause etc.. 1)change if meant as - something turns into a different thing - then it doesn't exist.. A match stick light up by something doesn't changes atomically in a sense new atoms are formed or destroyed, instead it's property is replaced but the actual match stick which existed still exist in different places in different ways.. If change is meant to be something of being from one property of an object to another.. It might exist.. As u said all change need a changer.. But next u said this is not the case.. As u end up in a first unchanged changer or unmoved mover.. The whole argument breaks down, premise that change or motion of objects need something external to change it . Thus open the door for being uncaused cause or unchanged changer for everything that exist.. How the hell did u escaped infinite regress?..u just committed a special pleading fallacy there.. And there is no explanation of why infinite regress isn't possible.. Now my point.. *Everything that exist doesn't have a creator.. *as something cannot come from nothing, something that exists always exists... * everything that exist have property.. * property as it "exist" cannot be created and will always exist.. * properties are by definition inherent and cannot be destroyed (above premise) * Motion is a property that exist and is an inherent property ,as everything moves and something which doesn't have the property of motion will not move even if force is applied.. * as matter and everything in this world have the ability to move, thus it's an inherent property, as nothing new can be created or added to a thing which doesn't have the property of reaction factor to that addition of change * nothing in this world we know is actually in a state of rest Conclusion : therefore matter inherently can move and be a mover as it possess the motion as a property and it always moves as there is no state of rest.. So primer mover if u accept is universe itself.. There is no need for another external immaterial agent.. Motion as a property can be changed with anything aslong as it is empirically verified and logically consistent.. No God needed again
anyone who claims infinte regress is possible is deluded. Existence is proof for the impossiblity of infinite regress. Everything within the universe, and therefore the body itself is contingent. Nothing within the realm of existence has the propensity to come about by itself. Your contention to the argument posed in this video is extremely lacking and you've demonstrated you did not understand the proposition.
