What's Wrong With St. Thomas Aquinas' First Proof for the Existence of God? (Aquinas 101) 

Is there a Discord Server for your institute? Love the content.

Here is a philosophical critique of Aquinas' first way, the argument from motion, intended to prove God's existence: - The argument relies on an outdated Aristotelian physics that viewed motion as always requiring an external unmoved mover. This is contradicted by Newtonian inertia which allows objects to remain in motion unless acted upon by a force. - Even if valid, the argument only points to an unmoved initiator of motion, not necessarily an omnipotent Creator God. The unmoved mover could be a more abstract metaphysical principle. - The argument illicitly treats God as self-explanatory while demanding explanation for everything else. But there's no justification given for why God gets an exception from requiring an external cause/explanation. - Aquinas argues that hierarchical causal chains must terminate in a first uncaused cause to avoid infinite regress. But infinite causal regresses are not actually logically impossible, so this first premise is unsubstantiated. - The argument is circular, as Aquinas assumes causal series cannot be infinite because everything was created by God. This begs the question instead of proving the point. Overall, the argument relies on flawed medieval physics, unjustified premises about causal regresses, and invalid deductive reasoning. It does not provide sound logical proof of God's existence when subjected to rigorous philosophical analysis. Reasonable objections remain unaddressed.

Here is a symbolic logic formulation of Aquinas' First Way that helps illustrate some of the key problems: 1. ∀x(~Mx ↔ ∃y(My & Cyx)) For all x, x is moved iff there exists some y, such that y moves x as the cause. 1. ~∃xMx It is not the case that there exists some x that is moved. (i.e. There must be an unmoved mover). 1. ∴ ∃y(Uy & ∀x(Mx → Cyx)) Therefore, there exists some y, such that y is an unmoved mover and for all x, if x is moved, y causes x. Problems: - Premise 1 relies on an outdated physics of motion requiring a cause. - Premise 2 asserts the necessity of an unmoved mover without justification. - The conclusion invalidly equates this unmoved mover with God, without justification. - The mere possibility of an unmoved initial cause does not definitively prove God's existence. The symbolic notation helps crystallize the key unsupported premises, logical gaps, and unjustified conclusion inherent in Aquinas' argument. It shows the argument is not sound when analyzed philosophically.

@@Enigmatic_philosopher Which scientist has proved that motion does not require a cause? Even if the truth of the principle of inertia could be experimentally shown, it would not imply that the movement of the considered body was uncaused. Even today, any acceleration of a given body (positive or negative) is assumed to be produced by another body.

if you didnt say it I was going to lol

My thoughts exactly. 😄

Please send this guy one so he will learn. But seriously, if there was a universal word categorising a food that is made of a collection of food placed between two pieces of wheat product, which grouped sandwiches, hotdogs, etc. as the same, then his whole arguement of sandwich and hotdog would fall apart.

The weakest part of the argument is arbitrarily defining an unmoved mover as ‘god’. He merely placed the answer to the question into the definition. Nice work. 👍 😂

@@stetsify I flush something every day that is smarter than the narrator of this video and Aquinas too.

Therefore, Aquinas doesn't deny every type of "infinity". He doesn't, for example, think that actual "infinite" amounts/collections are incoherent (i.e. logically impossible---self-contradictory). Again, Aquinas' arguments aren't concerned with that notion of infinity.

The issue in our contemporary context is that many people are conflating Aquinas' arguments with kalam-style cosmological arguments: they aren't the same type of arguments. For one thing, the latter style of argument is concerned with the beginning of the universe, but that's not Aquinas's concern in his arguments!

i dont understand what you mean by this. firstly, the series of moved movers need not be infinite; a chain or complex network of circular reasoning could act in place of a God for example. but secondly, infinite regressions are definitely sane and comprehensible in certain cases, so you could have reasonings that justify the sanity of certain infinite progressions as "God", and the sanity of those reasonings could be explained circularly, so itd be like a special case of the circular reasoning God i mentioned before.

@@MBarberfan4life so in other words, what lit the first torch isn't important? But even in a linear series Aquinas' argument makes sense. And it is the same principle applied in quantum and cosmology. But I'm not as confident in the this statement, just my perception.

@@eboshidori7748 Circular chains of causation also require a cause. The members of the circular causal series would be immobile unless they are put in motion by something prior to them moving. In that way a circular series is possible, but it still requires a prior mover. Without a prior cause, if A causes B and B causes C and C causes A we’re lead into fallacious circular reasoning and really haven’t explained anything. In this scenario A would be the cause of its own existence, but nothing can cause itself to exist, to be a cause you first have to exist. Something can’t pre-exist it’s own existence, as this would violate the law of non contradiction. A contingent circular causal series is possible, but a necessary circular causal series is not.

Our pleasure! Thanks so much for taking the time to watch and comment. May the Lord bless you!

riiight?!? Hard to explain such complexity.

But even if the glass boxes were infinite in number, they could never explain the light in the room because they have no causal efficacy to produce light. Hence, infinite or not, secondary or derivative causal agents can never explain the effect. There must be an efficient cause. Another good analogy is a power strip. If you plug your phone into a power strip, you won't get a charge unless the strip is plugged into a power source. If you plug your strip into another strip, will there be electricity? Obviously no. And if you plug in thousands of power strips in succession, all of them will still lack the property of electricity. You could conceivably add an infinite number of power strips, and your phone will never be charged. Without a power source, there is no electricity.

​@@davidcoleman5860 Important point and also good examples!

We're so glad the videos are helpful! Thanks for taking the time to watch and comment. May the Lord bless you!

Reasoning presupposes change, for One must go from premise to premise succeeding through each thought until they arrive at a conclusion. All of this requires changes.

And also was definitely a sandwich.

Oh they're yummy for the tummy. 😋

Thank you -- and thanks for taking the time to watch and comment! May the Lord bless you!

We're so glad to hear it! Thanks for taking the time to watch and comment. May the Lord bless you!

Credits to Dom Stanley Jaki and to Rev. Bryan Houghton for the observation, btw.

I understand about staying focused. I had to play arts of video over.

Why must there exist a being of pure act if every object no matter how big/small consists of both potentiality and actuality?

@@vincentfarrell3868 Because every causal chain can only be answered by something that is uncaused. Motion or change is the actualization of a potency. Since no potency can actualize itself, it must be actualized by something actual. But if the actualizing agent is itself changed concurrently in its actualizing, then it cannot answer to the effect. It is only a derivative causal agent. Thus, each derivative or secondary link in an essentially ordered causal chain has its potency to be a secondary causal agent actualized by an antecedent cause. Since this cannot go on infinitely, the series has to end in an efficient cause which is uncaused itself. That is, it has no potency to be moved by another. And if the cause has no passive potency, then it is Pure Act by definition.

There is no dilemma here. Plug your phone into a power strip. Will you phone be charged? It won't because the power strip doesn't have the property of electricity. Now plug said power strip into another power strip. Do you have electricity now? Nope. Now plus said strips into a trillion strips. Get the picture? No matter how many strips you add, even if you had an infinite number of strips, you could never power your phone if it were connected to said series. At least one of the strips must be connected to an electrical source if your phone is going to be charged. An instrumental cause is a derivative cause. No series of derivative causes, no matter how long, can _in itself_ answer to an effect, precisely because its derivative or is borrowed.

​@davidcoleman5860 so why is the infinite torches argument invalid? For example, if there have been an infinite number of big bangs ending in a big crunch, rinse and repeat. Why can't that just happen infinite times?

@@jsmith108 There certainly could, at least conceptually, be an infinite number of big bangs. That's not the point of this argument (the First Way). This argument seeks to account for concurrent existence via a particular type of causal series. An infinite number of big bangs, with one succeeding another, is known as an accidentally ordered or _per accidens_ causal series. For example, you're here because your parents produced you, and they existed because their parents produced them. This could conceivably extend backwards infinitely. However, if your parents passed away, you would continue to exist because your present existence is not dependent on their sustaining causal efficacy. The other causal series is known as an essentially ordered or _per se_ causal series. If you see a leaf moving, why is it moving? If you notice that a stone is touching the leaf and moving it, then you could ask why the stone is moving. If you notice that a stick is touching the stone and moving it, then you might wonder what is moving the stick. And if you see a hand on the other end of the stick that is pushing it, then you have what we call a proximate efficient cause which explains the movement you're observing. The leaf, which has no power to move itself, is moved by the stone, which is moved by the stick, which is moved by the hand. This kind of series requires an efficient cause which explains the present motion you're observing, because each link in this chain is merely transferring or borrowing its causal potency from another cause. We call this derivative causal agency (it is derived elsewhere). And this is where my analogy above comes in. If you're at your computer, how is it functioning? You could say that it's plugged into the power strip below your table. But does a power strip, in itself, produce electricity? Of course not. But if your power strip were plugged into another power strip, would your computer function? No, it wouldn't. And if you add 1,000 power strips, you'd still be without power. You could conceivably add an infinite number of power strips, but your computer would still be inoperable because all a power strip does is borrow or transfer electricity from a source capable of producing it. Thus, it doesn't matter how many power strips you add to the first one. Your computer will not function until the series of power strips is connected to a source capable of _producing_ electricity. That is why all _per se_ causal series must terminate in an efficient, not derivative cause.

Thanks for watching and commenting! May the Lord bless you!

@@ThomisticInstitute Thanks!

Using speculative theology/ontology here: I concur with your comment "God's creative act did not happen in the past but happens now." Every particle or photon emanating from the Big Bang traveling at the speed of light experiences zero passage of time, as predicted by Relativity and now documented by science. We experience that matter, energy and light as flowing along the arrow of time but, for the photon or particle itself, traveling ever onward out into space/time, it is forever 'now,' a single point in time. The stated science is accurate. The conclusion that science has drawn closer to theological/philosophical inferences as to an attribute of God is speculative. We live inn intersting times!!

​@@Mayberry1999 Imagine that everything in the universe remained static. No movement, from the oscillation of the quantum field to the expansion of the most distant galaxy. Would there be time in this situation? No, because in the absence of any movement there is no anteriority or posteriority. Time is the intrinsic condition of reality in which movement exists. Time can be continuous, when there is continuous movement (this is our reality), or discontinuous (also called aevum or eveternity), when movement is instantaneous (the reality of angels and souls of the deceased). The element that determines the existence of time is the existence of motion. What determines the type of time (continuous or discontinuous) is the nature of the movement, progressive or instantaneous. The intensity of the movement in no way determines time. Humanity has known this for centuries. Einstein is profoundly wrong. His theory of relativity is self-contradictory and, as such, has zero practical applications, starting with its radical inapplicability to the quantum dimension. Yes. You can go deeper into the subject. Strictly speaking, all alleged TR evidence is false evidence, as it always will be. Start with Doctor Ernest Dingle's work.

I would say you are raising a very good question, which unfortunately for theists seems to give a very strong case for the hypothesis that the mind is contingent upon the physical. People's brain structure can change their entire personality, erase their memoeries etc. If the mind/spirit is something immaterial, a ghost in the machine - how would you assess that? Is the spirit prevented from operating due to faulty equipment? How do you then argue for free will if the spirit is limited by the brain structure? I think the only reasonable answer is to say that ancient Greeks and Jews or medieval Christians did not have a conception of the intricacies of the brain's neural structure and thus did not see a problem with assuming that the mind is immaterial. But now we have lots of evidence that points to the mind being a physical process rather than some immaterial entity.

@@toxendon I agree, though I've come to learn that there is a pretty strong science-based case for the immaterial mind, with the whole double slit experiment conundrum and the fact that most of the brain has already been mapped out and there is no sign that shows that conciousness is a result of the interaction of the matter in the brain. Of course, future evidence may completely validate or invalidate that.

Interesting question, certain mental illnesses like psychopathy seem to involve physiological or psychological defects that impair the natural functioning of empathy, compassion, conscience etc. - faculties integral to living a fully human life in relation to others. In this sense, they could be viewed as types of "wounds" or "errors" within creation, not part of man's original design, but allowed by God. Why? That is answered in the deontological argument.

@toxendon I think there's zero evidence that the mind is exclusively a "physical process rather than an immaterial reality". First, you've presented a false dichotomy that doesn't really address the nature of what these religions even teach. The concept is called Dualism, and there is no claim that the human mind is purely immaterial, so the term "rather than" sets a false dichotomy. The position, correctly stated, is that the mind is physical AND immaterial. Obviously, physical things can get sick or damaged, or born sick or damaged. And this line of argumentation (almost from start to finish), seems to be utterly reliant on the supposed ability to prove a bunch of negatives and counterfactuals. How do you know that a violent psychopath wasn't made that way by a long series of evil choices of the will they made that destroyed their soul? Merely asserting that it's medically a "disease" seems to one of almost endless assertions that physicalist atheists make about the mind and claim to have "a lot" of evidence for, but really have none. Their claims and conjecture have zero applicability nor predictive power. If they did, then we could merely do a brain scan and find out who the next Hitler or Ted Bundy is and put them in a straight jacket. It may be that some such persons conditions could be at least improved by medication. But that doesn't answer HOW they became so evil in the first place, nor how the immaterial soul can effect the physical body. Merely thinking about evil things all day can change heart rate, blood pressure, numerous other things, and people will then behave differently. There's no physical reason whatsoever to think that a purely physical mind would by a force of will, choose to do things like die for an enemy, care about a dying parent, avoid doing evil if it increased the probability of successfully breeding, and scores of other things. The only real rational explanation for acts of true evil and altruistic good (that actually reduces the prospect of self propagation), is that not everything is physical. As usual, despite their grand claims of "evidence" for their position on everything, atheists claims about the mind have very, very little meaningful evidence. And as a side, in light of a logical proof of God's existence, this question is moot. Rather rationally, or empirically, if one proves God's existence, then questions about psychopaths become moot. Let's say the highest bar was met and say that a logical proof was formulated that EVERY logician on earth agreed proved God's existence and immediately after, God appeared to us and everyone on earth saw Him, would your response be "but what about psychopaths?"

To directly answer your question - as us relying solely on reason, we cannot say with certainty the specific nature of any first secondary moved movers from direct empirical observation or revelation. Our knowledge is limited to demonstrating the rational need for their existence as part of creation sustained moment to moment by God. That said, we can reasonably speculate that candidates for such initial causal agents could be fundamental forces/fields of nature such as electromagnetism or gravity, which transmit motion throughout the physical realm. Elementary particles like photons may also act as basic carriers of energy and momentum transfer. Further, the very laws of physics themselves, which govern all interactions and constrain possibilities, could represent a first mover on the order of nature. On a grander scale, early cosmological events marking the emergence of an ordered universe, like the hypothesized inflationary phase or uncertainties of the Planck epoch, may have initiated more comprehensive causal chains originating directly from God. But positive identification remains beyond the scope of natural reason alone. For definitive answers, we just have to humbly recognize our limited natural capacities and defer to what may be revealed by God through other means - be it scientific discovery or divine enlightenment. The how is a mystery, though the why has been philosophically established.

@@alphazero5614 Why would you need to rely solely on reason to find out which is the first secondary moved mover in a specific chain? Considering the case of local motion that you have proposed, it could be said, for instance, that the movement of a falling body (close to the surface of our planet) is caused by the attraction that the Earth exerts on it. Then, to be able to go on with the argument, you would need to prove that the "gravitational field" (which is in question by the theory of relativity) is also moved. If you are unable to prove it, you probably would have to accept that you have found a very short "mover-moved" chain. However, you obviously would not conclude that the gravitational field of the Earth is God. As I see in your second paragraph, you seem to be interpreting the argument in a different way, because your chain would not be one in which all the moved movers are acting simultaneously, but one in which the chain extends back in time; however, this interpretation is not what father Philip is defending. (By the way, laws of nature are not certain entities which cause any local movements or change in general).

No

Atheism is definitely a denial of all 3 ways, because the first 3 ways implies God, and atheism denies God. We don't just have "force" floating around out there actualizing things. Gravity for example, is an attribute of matter. Change the mass of the object and it's gravitational force changes. While the force can be calculated by the same formula (constant) the parameters change based on the attributes of the object. It's a decent analogy however, if there were such a "force" that empowered everything else to enact every single change that occurs every single day. As per St Aquinas, there is in fact such, and this we call "God". And unlike gravity, strong or weak forces, God can do things and actualize things like thinking and loving. "For n Him we live and move and have our being." Acts 17:28 -

@@godfreydebouillon8807 _"if there were such a "force" that empowered everything else to enact every single change that occurs every single day."_ The statement is such that unity of God is not yet established.

That depends on the type of causal chain you're referring to. As the video states, we acknowledge that certain causal chains could at least in theory extend infinitely. But an essentially ordered causal chain is different because its effect is concurrent with the chain's causal activity. For example, if you plug your cell phone into a power strip, your phone will not be charged because said strip lacks the property of electricity. If you plug said strip into another strip, you'd still have no electricity. And if you plug said strips into 20,000 other strips, you still couldn't charge your phone. And even if you add an infinite number of strips, you'd never get the property of electricity because they have no individual nor collective efficacy to produce electricity. One of them will have to be plugged into an electrical source if you're going to use said series to charge your phone. Thus, an appeal to infinity cannot provide an answer to the effect of an electrical charge. Only a primary cause can answer to the effect.

Aquinas began with the presupposition that God exists based on divine revelation and the authority of the Church, but his proofs do not. His proofs are a logical conclusion supported by empirical observation and metaphysical argumentation.

Then He wouldn't be unmoved, would He? An Unmoved Mover cannot ever be moved; a Mover that is also Moved cannot be Unmoved.

A Uncaused First Cause is necessary for anything to exist. It’s a scientific fact that the universe is not eternal and begun to exist. If it did it must have a cause for its existence. That also means that space, time and matter begun to exist. If they did then this cause must be spaceless, immaterial, timeless.

Hi there! If you have any questions, you can put them in the comments section with #AskAFriar. One of our friars will try to answer in the comments or in a Big Questions, Little Answers video. We hope this helps. Thanks for taking the time to watch and comment, and may the Lord bless you!

The unmoved mover is the primary cause of a chain, by definition. But to be so requires it to have no potentials, and thus be purely actual. Having no potentials means it must also not be composed of parts, so it is non-composite/simple and transcendent. Whatever has an essence distinct from its existence must be caused or actualized to exist. But the unactualized actualizer is not actualized. Therefore the unactualized actualizer must has an essence which just is its existence: what it IS is actuality, simply put. Whatever has an essence which just is it’s existence must necessarily be. Therefore, the unactualized actualizer must necessarily be. Whatever has necessary being does not begin nor cease to exist. Therefore, the unactualized actualizer does not begin to exist nor cease to exist. To change requires having potentialities. But that whose essence is its existence has no potentialities. Therefore, the unactualized actualizer is immutable. To be immutable entails being without succession. Therefore, the unactualized actualizer is without succession. To have power is to be able to make something happen and communicate being to another. But that which is subsistent existence itself can communicate any being, since it just is actual being, simply put. But to be able to communicate any being whatsoever is to be omnipotent. Therefore the unactualized actualizer is omnipotent. Whatever is material being is composite being. Therefore, whatever is simple being must be immaterial. Therefore, the unactualized actualizer is immaterial. So the unactualized actualizer is transcendent, necessary, immutable, without succession, omnipotent, immaterial, and I can keep going… This is what we call God

@@no3339 you can call it god, or the universe, or Fred, for all anyone cares. It is a theoretical argument not based on good evidence or testable data. When man describes God they, in most cases, define her as a benevolent and loving being. The unactualized actualizer has no such constraints. She could just as easily be malevolent, chaotic or indifferent toward man, but there is zero actual evidence she is needed for the existence of this universe at all. In fact, the existence of this universe without a god is its own proof it’s possible.

@@stetsify The unactualized actualizer cannot be the universe or “Fred” because these are material beings. And, with the unactualized actualizer being immaterial, there cannot be the empirical evidence or testable data you want, by definition. Additionally the unactualized actualizer, being purely actual and the cause of all being, is perfect, which is a contradiction to your claim that it is malevolent. And, having created all reality, it’s unlikely for it to be indifferent to humanity, especially with the Christian belief of the incarnation. It would make no sense to create all beings, sustain their existence, come down to dwell amongst us as a human, and sacrifice yourself for the sins of humanity if you were indifferent. I’d like to hear your proof that the universe can exist without a God.

If the church doesn't like being challenged then why are there so many examples of the church taking objections to them and then fruitfully responding to them? Such as Origen responding to the Pagan work 'against the Christians' or St. Thomas Aquinas' 17,000 + page textbook where every tiny little article starts with objections and then replies, then he states his argument, and then goes on to show more objections and reply for thousands of pages.

Could you expand on what you mean by "formulating honest questions about certain teachings"?

@@chocolateneko9912 Sorry for late answer. I did not get any notification. Well Origin was one of those who actually formulated the "truths" of the church and Aquinas basically worked on the a-z of apologetics. This does not mean they took kindly on having their answers questioned, does it? But I was talking about the church of today in my OP.

@@danubs8385 To the bishop.

@@RiNickolous Sure. I began formulating questions about the support for teachings like transubstantiation and exorcism of salt and water, for example.

Hi there! Fr. Philip-Neri (in the video) is a Catholic priest and Dominican friar. It's not a cosplay, just his habit. For more information about the Dominicans, you can check out this link: thomisticinstitute.org/order-of-preachers. And, for more information about his habit, you can watch this video: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-aM8A3Dndq8c.html. Hope this helps! Thanks for taking the time to watch and comment, and may the Lord bless you!

they must be doing God's work since that comes with false accusations and persecution on this earth.

​@danubs8385 I think what this person means is that post Vatican II Theology is faulty. I admit that even I have found some things to be puzzling, to say the least. However, calling this "misinformation" and accusing the institute of malicious intent is a bit of a stretch.

@@danubs8385In the premise «But nothing can be reduced from potentiality to actuality, except by something in a state of actuality. Thus that which is actually hot, as fire, makes wood, which is potentially hot, to be actually hot, and thereby moves and changes it. Now it is not possible that the same thing should be at once in actuality and potentiality in the same respect, but only in different respects. For what is actually hot cannot simultaneously be potentially hot; but it is simultaneously potentially cold. It is therefore impossible that in the same respect and in the same way a thing should be both mover and moved, i.e. that it should move itself. Therefore, whatever is in motion must be put in motion by another. If that by which it is put in motion be itself put in motion, then this also must needs be put in motion by another, and that by another again. But this cannot go on to infinity, because then there would be no first mover, and, consequently, no other mover; seeing that subsequent movers move only inasmuch as they are put in motion by the first mover; as the staff moves only because it is put in motion by the hand. Therefore it is necessary to arrive at a first mover» saint Thomas explains that point as follows; The first is as follows [VII, 1]. If among movers and things moved we proceed to infinity, all these infinite beings must be bodies. For whatever is moved is divisible and a body, as is proved in the Physics [VI, 4]. But every body that moves some thing moved is itself moved while moving it. Therefore, all these infinites are moved together while one of them is moved. But one of them, being finite, is moved in a finite time. Therefore, all those infinites are moved in a finite time. This, however, is impossible. It is, therefore, impossible that among movers and things moved one can proceed to infinity. Furthermore, that it is impossible for the abovementioned infinites to be moved in a finite time Aristotle proves as follows. The mover and the thing moved must exist simultaneously. This Aristotle proves by induction in the various species of motion. But bodies cannot be simultaneous except through continuity or contiguity. Now, since, as has been proved, all the aforementioned movers and. things moved are bodies, they must constitute by continuity or contiguity a sort of single mobile. In this way, one infinite is moved in a finite time. This is impossible, as is proved in the Physics [VII, 1]. The second argument proving the same conclusion is the following. In an ordered series of movers and things moved (this is a series in which one is moved by another according to an order), it is necessarily the fact that, when the first mover is removed or ceases to move, no other mover will move or be moved. For the first mover is the cause of motion for all the others. But, if there are movers and things moved following an order to infinity, there will be no first mover, but all would be as intermediate movers. Therefore, none of the others will be able to be moved, and thus nothing in the world will be moved. Such, then, is the proof of both propositions assumed by Aristotle in the first demonstrative way by which he proved that a first unmoved mover exists.

Summa Contra Gentiles chapter 13, n12

@@carlosrangel3986 I am sure you're smarter than I am, but the final statement of the second to last paragraph is faulty. The argument is, " If the first mover is removed..." and not there are infinite intermediate movers therefore... Regardless. St. Thomas was a Dominican. This channel is all Dominican. Enough said. Also, your disdain for the priesthood is revealing. If you're not Catholic, it's understandable. May God have mercy on us

God and matters of God will never be dated. Aquinas brought the Church to our present way of thinking and theological philosophy. It's not dogma, it was never meant to be. But studying it, challenging and questioning is part of it. And in truth, we conform to God and God's Ways and not the other way. Fully understand, I don't know. But the Dominicans are pretty close, if not fully.

I care about truth, so I care whether he was right or wrong. What does it "not speaking to the modern age mind" matter? And why isn't it applicable? In what way is it "dated" and how does that affect whether or not it is true?

definitely read Wippel

One can understand the first way quite easily and if you can't wrap your head around the Summa, then you can read the works of newer classical theists like Dr. Edward Feser. Also this modern mythology of philosophy and theology becoming "not applicable" is complete nonsense as nothing the modern world has produced (modern empirical science and engineering are usually the most commonly used examples) has endangered it being true.