Uploaded January 2019 | Updated September 2026, 1 hour ago
*Looks like I left out an important clip. In that clip, I admitted that I have no idea whether the hypothetical actualizers with potential for action but not for existence would be things in space or time, so you might question whether they could be accurately represented as graphs in a 3D coordinate system. But if, as Feser suggests, these actualizers could have parts, I don't see why they couldn't have regions. Parts seem about as essentially spatial as regions.
In this video, I address a couple replies to my objection that Feser's argument from motion at best gets us to the conclusion that there's an actualizer without any potential *for existence*. I'd like to thank Anonymous Person for bringing these direct replies from Feser's Five Proofs book to my attention in their comments at the following link: youtube.com/watch?v=L5vIbFs_ICY.
And yes, I know I'm probably mispronouncing "agere sequitur esse."
*Looks like I left out an important clip. In that clip, I admitted that I have no idea whether the hypothetical actualizers with potential for action but not for existence would be things in space or time, so you might question whether they could be accurately represented as graphs in a 3D coordinate system. But if, as Feser suggests, these actualizers could have parts, I don't see why they couldn't have regions. Parts seem about as essentially spatial as regions.
In this video, I address a couple replies to my objection that Feser's argument from motion at best gets us to the conclusion that there's an actualizer without any potential *for existence*. I'd like to thank Anonymous Person for bringing these direct replies from Feser's Five Proofs book to my attention in their comments at the following link: youtube.com/watch?v=L5vIbFs_ICY.
And yes, I know I'm probably mispronouncing "agere sequitur esse."
