According to the title, is the Rabbi retracting and saying that the cosmological proof is better than the physico-theological one?

No. The title is his, not mine. I changed it.

Thank you very much for the words of praise!

1. First, I would say that the simple intuition is that existence is a property that expresses something about the reality of the individual being described. For example, in the course of the Cartesian cogito, when he casts doubt while still within the method that does not allow correspondence between the contents of thought and external reality, he is still able to assign ontological meaning to the statement “(I think, therefore) I exist” and affirm its truth. But if existence is not a property, that sentence would seem like a tautology, and it would not be clear what it says or what is new in it. Or, we all understand what is meant by saying: “Elephants exist, but dinosaurs do not exist.” The plausible way to understand the sentence is that in this case existence is a first-order property, which presupposes an ontological, or at least conceptual, distinction between a thing’s existence and its essence.

Second, if some being does not exist (or if there were no universe at all), we do not ask why it does not exist. But once there is something, the question “why” can immediately arise, in a way no less rational than the question that arises when we see hot water: why is it hot? The same kind of intellectual wonder. And if we have not managed to find the cause, that does not mean it would be rational to think, “Well, maybe there is no cause”; rather, we continue to be sure that there is something causing the water to be hot. Therefore the proof does not hinge on the term “property,” but on what belongs to something in itself and what does not. The principle of causality is certainly intuitive, arising from countless day-to-day examples, and it is consistent with the wonder that arises in the same way regarding existence itself. It is strange and seems ad hoc to limit it דווקא here and claim that things are capable of existing just like that, with no cause at all—a limitation whose meaning is that entirely different beings could have existed with no cause at all, and that there also might have been no universe whatsoever just like that, with no cause. If the whole universe were composed of nothing but one eternal orange balloon—would we say that the fact requires no explanation? And what about two orange balloons? In other words, regarding existence I would say that the principle seems to be at its height of necessity; and if there is no necessity there, why should there be causal necessity regarding other contingent matters?

There are additional problems that would arise from rejecting the principle with regard to existence. For example, it might be that some being or creature capable of creating things in our universe (out of nothing or not out of nothing) could come into existence—or always have existed—without any cause outside our universe. That would mean we could not say there is an almost zero probability that orange balloons would be created here right this very moment just out of nowhere and without a cause (ultimately). This is a long discussion, and I have seen some nice articles about it by Alexander Pruss, who has also published several books on the topic. So I agree that for a deeper analysis of the proof, an additional response is needed to skepticism about the principle of causality specifically with regard to existence (which would have required making the video longer), but that does not mean it is baseless.

2. Indeed, it would have been possible to demonstrate God’s unity from the very fact that He is the source of being as a whole, and in my view that is certainly a good proof, but it seems that it deserves to be established separately. The goal of the video was not to prove uniqueness and unity, but I relied on it briefly in order to show what motivates Maimonides in formulating the first principle (“a perfect being in all modes of existence”). And indeed, medieval authorities (Rishonim) presented arguments that seem to me no less valid today, arguments that proceed from the conclusion of the proof (a necessary being) and prove simplicity and unity—but they require treatment in their own right and are even more philosophical in nature. One can, for example, ground the claim that anything composed of parts or internal principles—its existence necessarily depends on the existence and cohesion of those parts or principles, and they are ontologically prior to the existence of the thing and ground what it is. The moment we conceive of two necessary entities, we mean that there is necessarily something that distinguishes between them on the one hand, and on the other hand the shared necessary essence; and that stands in contradiction to the principle. And this can be shown in other ways as well.

As for the perfection of existence, this follows from Maimonidean ontology, according to which when you say of a tree that it exists or is good (or healthy), that is not in the same sense in which you say it of a person or an airplane. Goodness and existence are not technical On/Off terms, but are closely tied to the essence of the thing. Of course, this requires elaboration, and of course one can alternatively make use of the physico-theological proof.

3. What I was trying to say is that it goes against a strong intuition. The overwhelming majority of us, in my opinion, would think that when no car has the ability to exert force on its own—an infinite number of cars would not explain the exertion of force (on the contrary, they would intensify the need for a cause). One can look at the infinite line of cars as one unit—an infinite train—which by its very nature lacks any ability to overcome frictional forces—and conclude that it is not what does so. If this can be inferred about each individual car, then it can also be inferred when the size of the car or train increases to infinity. This is a conceptual problem in a hierarchical chain, not necessarily an empirical inference (though experience can help one see it).

In any case, it seems to me that we can all agree that this is not the same problem as an infinite regress in a temporal chain, like a chain of generations, where there is no such strong intuition of impossibility (although Saadia Gaon and the Kalam argued that there is).

Is the Rabbi not answering?

I liked the video; it sharpened a few things for me. However, it also suffers from a lack of precision, and invites imprecise criticisms.
A. The fire example is not precise, because fire is not defined as heat.
B. There is a difference between existence and actuality, and therefore Rabbi Michael Abraham’s criticism was brought in. But even in his criticism he does not distinguish between existence and actuality, and that led him to an error in his remarks.
C. The objection regarding the law of conservation of motion is clear, but the answer given to it was vague and unclear to me.
In any case, the answer to the objection is really that every thing’s actuality in the world of physics is defined by its velocity. But when we speak of a body that has velocity, the velocity is additional to the body. And even though the law that the velocity will not change is true—that it continues in that velocity by inertia—
there is still a substance whose essence is velocity, which the physicists failed to grasp. This is what is called the sphere, and its velocity is its essence, and therefore it is continuous, as Maimonides said: the sphere moves and does not cease. The sphere makes possible the actuality of energy, its velocity, and so on. Therefore it makes no sense to look for spheres in space with energy meters and the like. But that is no longer the topic.
D. And now to explain all of Rabbi Michael Abraham’s objections.
It is true that existence is not a property of the substance.
And that is the definition of substance: substance is the being that exists.
But being is a property in the actuality of the substance. Let us explain.
Actuality is the state in which the substance is discernible. “Actuality” is from the language of finding. Therefore actuality is “the substance in relation to …”

And there are two kinds of actuality.
An actuality that enables us to recognize the being of the substance, and an actuality that enables us to recognize the accident of the substance.
The actuality of the substance’s accident is discerned through positive definition, in which the relations between one actuality and another are defined. In this way the accident of the substance is delimited.
For example, the body of the person called Yossi is his actuality, and without the body he would have no actuality, because we would not be able to relate to the accidents that happen to him, without his body.

Let us give an example of a positive definition:
The essence of man as speaking. We defined a human being by means of another concept, the concept of speech.
Or: the human body has two hands and two feet and other limbs. The nature of the human body is to walk with its head upward, etc. All these are positive definitions of the human body that describe it.

The actuality of the being of the substance is discerned through negative definition, where the more precise definition is by negating its opposite.
Every being is discerned by its opposite.
For example, the actuality of light is the opposite of the actuality of darkness, and the actuality of darkness is the opposite of the actuality of light.
The actuality of the Creator (the substance, the being) is the opposite of the actuality of the created thing (the accident).

Above the concept of actuality is certainty, and that links the being of the substance to the accident of the substance. In Kabbalistic teaching it is called “the middle point.”
Certainty is self-knowledge from within itself, as Maimonides says regarding the Creator’s knowledge—that it is self-knowledge. It is defined neither by positive definition nor by negative definition.
For example, what is heat? Heat is heat!
I am who I am. I exist because I exist. I need no proof for that. Not because I think, therefore I exist.
My existence is an axiom!! Only after this certainty does “I think” have meaning, because thought is always a relation between me and something else. But who is the certain thinker? Why not say that it is just a thought in the air? For it to be attributed to me, there must be certainty that is not built on intellectual proofs.
Certainty—these are the axioms. Before they are defined, they exist by virtue of their essence.
This is the meaning of the answer: “Just because!” In Hasidism they say that this is an acronym for “the crown of all crowns,” the best possible reason.
But what is it? The definitions give those axioms the meaning of revelation.
And let us explain.
What it means for being to be absent from actuality is that it is not discernible to something else. For example, if there were only black, we would know nothing of the actuality of color. Even though the color black would be present as being, it would have no actuality. That is, we would not be able to find it; in its actuality it would be defined as “nothing.”
It would need creation to bring it out into actual being from the actuality of nothingness.
And its actuality is discerned by its opposite.

And when we ask about actuality and not about being,
then darkness has actuality just as light has actuality. Darkness is the absence of light, just as light is the absence of darkness.

A definition of substance by negating every relation to something else, by negating the accident, is the actuality of the substance. This is the definition of the actuality of being.

The purpose of negative definition is to identify being, as opposed to positive definition, which comes to identify the accident.

And now we come to the connection between the created being and the Creator.
The Creator is certainty, and when certainty is discerned He is described in the actuality of being, an existing substance. And this is the proper name, the name of the Tetragrammaton.
His actuality is known by negating relation to something else: “In the beginning there was simple light filling all actuality,” and there was no place for created beings, etc., for accidents.
Since that was so, He had no known actuality, only actuality in potential. And this is what is meant by saying that He filled all actuality.

The accident is the opposite of the substance of being, and therefore the substance was without accident.

The accident itself is the absence of being, deficiency itself. For in order to relate to something else, I must recognize the negation of my own being in order to recognize the other. Up to this point is the actuality of my being; from here on is the actuality of the other. For being in itself is singular and negates any other, since it is absolute certainty. And its certainty depends on nothing outside itself.

The created thing itself is absolute doubt.
The actuality of the Creator is the actuality of certainty. What is certainty? It is known by its opposite—by doubt.
The whole business of intellect is doubt. For example, one plus one equals two. That says nothing; it only says that if one exists and another one exists, then two exist. There is nothing certain in intellect in itself. All its truth is in doubt. And if it adds a new certainty by the power of intellect, that will be false with respect to it. Every piece of information it adds will be cast into doubt.
The certainty of intellect is dependent certainty: the certainty of two depends on the certainty of one plus one.
That is the certainty and existence of the created being. It always exists in relation. It exists as a created being because it was born through its parents. If its parents had never existed, neither would it have existed.

There is a Jewish logic, the thirteen hermeneutical principles, by which new knowledge is added, but it is sustained by the learner’s prophecy. That is an intermediate between intellect and prophecy.

Absolute certainty includes doubt in the filling of the certainty of all created actuality, in the language of Kabbalistic wisdom: “filling all actuality.”
But the actuality of certainty is not found, is not known, except through recognizing the actuality of absolute doubt, the actuality of the created being. This is God’s negative definition, what is called in Kabbalah the secret of contraction.

When absolute doubt joins absolute certainty—that is, doubt is stripped away and emerges from its uncertainty by means of certainty, as in mathematics where one uses the axiom as what is certain and certainty removes the doubt—
in Kabbalah this is described as a line descending from the Infinite into the empty space.
Then doubt appears as an accident in substance.
Here, what one says intellectually receives certainty, and then one plus one equals two is an accident in being—that being should be two.

From here we can explain why God is one and perfect.
He is perfect not in a positive descriptive sense; rather, every perfection of the created being is the filling of the created being’s lack.
The Creator—certainty—being itself is the opposite of lack; therefore it is perfect, because the category of deficiency does not apply to it.

And as for His being one: since multiplicity is an accident in substance describing relativity between it and another, this is the opposite of the negative definition of substance—the negation of every accident, the opposite of being, the opposite of God. Therefore He is one.

The confusion between being and actuality is already illustrated in Maimonides’ words, who said that were it to arise in thought that He is not found, nothing could be found.
The Creator can be found and not be found, but He always is.

Let us conclude that philosophers are incapable of recognizing this from the standpoint of their engagement with intellect, which is entirely positive definitions. Therefore you will not recognize God through intellect, which is defined by another thing. And even though there are negative definitions, the main thing is certainty, which belongs to Jews—related to the language of acknowledgment, that we acknowledge what is certain. And this is above intellect, and this is called faith / belief.
By the way, the negative definition of every thing—this actuality—is what is called soul.