🎯 Key Takeaways for quick navigation: 00:25 *🧠 Dr. William Lane Craig and Mr. Jimmy Aiken discuss the philosophical version of the Kalam cosmological argument, aiming to determine its efficacy.* 02:05 *🤔 Aquinas set a high standard for successful arguments in natural theology, leaning towards strict demonstrations over probability.* 03:41 *📚 Aiken acknowledges the appeal and logical validity of the Kalam argument but questions its success from a philosophical standpoint.* 05:08 *🤝 Dr. Craig and Mr. Aiken discuss the philosophical arguments for the finitude of the past, exploring concepts of actual infinity and metaphysical possibility.* 07:57 *💬 Aiken emphasizes the importance of theological consistency in arguments, ensuring they align with Christian faith, particularly regarding God's omnipotence.* 10:47 *🧐 Craig challenges Aiken's theological critique, distinguishing between philosophical and theological objections to the Kalam argument.* 14:42 *💡 Aiken argues that theological considerations are crucial in evaluating arguments for non-believers, aiming for coherence with Christian theology.* 17:00 *🧩 Craig defends a broader understanding of omnipotence, incorporating metaphysical impossibilities beyond strict logical contradictions.* 21:55 *🔄 Aiken challenges the notion of actual infinity, proposing scenarios where God's omniscience allows for the conceptualization but not the real existence of infinity.* 24:40 *🤔 Divine thoughts are considered simple and undivided, not comprising an actual infinite number of thoughts, as per Aquinas and William Lane Craig.* 26:28 *💭 The ability to conceptualize an infinite multitude doesn't imply its actual existence, as illustrated by Hilbert's hotel paradox and other examples.* 28:20 *🔢 Infinity is not treated like any other number; it doesn't follow the same rules, particularly regarding subtraction and division.* 32:57 *🍏 Different procedures of subtraction can yield different results even with an infinite number of items, as illustrated with the apple analogy.* 37:47 *🕰️ Understanding the nature of time is crucial to grasp philosophical arguments about the past and the present, particularly concerning the existence of an infinite past.* 42:45 *⏳ The debate involves contrasting views on the nature of divine eternity and how it relates to the existence of an infinite past, with perspectives ranging from God's timelessness to his simultaneous creation of all time.* 48:07 *🕰️ Dr. Craig emphasizes that objections to the Kalam argument are primarily theological rather than philosophical.* 49:30 *📚 Dr. Craig advocates for a unified approach to knowledge, integrating philosophy, theology, and science in his arguments.* 51:09 *💬 Both Dr. Craig and Jimmy Akin appreciate the importance of integrating philosophy, theology, and science in theological discussions.* 52:18 *🔄 Dr. Craig and Jimmy Akin acknowledge that their differences are more theological than philosophical, especially concerning God's nature and relationship with time.* 54:35 *🤔 Jimmy Akin argues against the premise that forming an actual infinity by successive addition is impossible, suggesting it can be done from a prior infinite collection.* 58:17 *🛤️ Dr. Craig emphasizes how theological presuppositions influence acceptance or rejection of natural theological arguments.* 59:37 *🌌 Jimmy Akin considers the Kalam cosmological argument valid and sound, but sees scientific evidence as more convincing than purely philosophical arguments.* 01:00:48 *🎙️ Dr. Craig directs viewers to reasonablefaith.org for more resources, while Jimmy Akin points to catholic.com and jimmyakin.com for further exploration.*
Thank u so much for ur understanding of number, set, & group theories in math. As a math person it is very satisfying to have u understand that “subtraction” is simply one type of process and there r other processes that are “subtraction-like” but not the same.
If I might ask, what are your thoughts on the potential for chaos theory and complexity theory and their correlations with and predictions of natural systems and processes, as the basis for a more robust appeal to the world being created?
@@LostArchivist As I understand it, the Kalam derives much of its appeal from the seeming metaphysical impossibility of the universe's existence. Unfortunately, I don't know of any strong applications of chaos or complexity theory in arguing for the universe's creation. Letting the atheist assume that the universe has existed forever into the past seems to allow them to handwave away most of these probabilistic arguments by just saying, "well, given forever, it will happen eventually." Fine-tuning arguments based upon the epistemic probability of the universe's natural constants are much more effective since they rely upon innate characteristics of the universe that presumably do not change with time, meaning that the atheist no longer has an "infinite time" trump card.
@@kidwhiz99 Infinite past time would also create the expected condition that even the smallest most unlikely or slow to propagate instability will run out of control if no counterbalancing or halting phenomena sets it back. We see if anything an orderly progression of the Universe across the ages, with a strange penchant aiming towards bringing it all to a futility and ultimately breakdown and death.
Jimmy, I agree we shouldn't use arguments that are not consistent with the rest of our worldview. Thanks for pointing out to all of us the Craig's version of the Kalam argument insinuates, if not requires, a "God" bound by time and not actually omnipotent in the classical sense. With regard to God's eternity, it occurred to me that, even before any Lateran or Vatican council, earlier councils condemning Arianism would have elaborated on the eternality of Christ, and thus of God, more specifically. If there was never a time when the Son was not, then that seems to imply God outside of time, but I can imagine someone quibbling with that too. Craig is also a monothelite too apparently, so no surprise he rejects other attributes of God. Found it odd that he tried to appeal to councils when he explicitly rejects the council(s) condemning monothelitism.
The initial disagreement was over strict logical impossibility, but the examples Craig uses reduce to what he claims does not obtain. The prime minister and prime number (“the prime minister is a prime number”) example reduces to a man (prime minister) is not a man (prime number), which is precisely A = ~A. Something's coming to be without a cause reduces to “nothingness is not nothingness” (for “nothing” would have the capacity or potency that something could arise from it, in which case it would not be nothing). An event's preceding itself is equivalent to X preceding X which reduces to X = ~X. And if gold has a different atomic number, then it isn't gold. To change the atomic composition is to change the substance. His statement thus reduces to gold is not gold---an obvious contradiction. With respect to his presumably wooden desk turning to ice, according to the current laws of physics, that appears to be an impossible event, but is Craig saying that God _could not_ transform a wooden desk into ice? I don't think so. So, in the sense of God's intervention, such an event is indeed “metaphysically” possible. But Craig states, “this very desk,” could not be ice. Well, of course. But that's because “this very desk” doesn't have the properties of ice, and to assert that a wooden desk is not a wooden desk is a straight logical contradiction.
To expand on your point about the prime minister being a prime number. The concept of "prime minister" is subsumed in the broader concept of "human being." And "human being" is subsumed in the even broader concept of "non-number." Similarly, the concept of "prime number" is subsumed in the broader concept of "number", which in turn is subsumed in the even broader concept of "non-human-being." Thus, to say that somebody is a prime minister is to say that they are a human being; and to say that they are a human being is to say that they are a non-number. Ergo, to say that a prime minister is a prime number conceptually reduces to saying that a non-number is a number. As you pointed out that reduces to A = ~A. Nevertheless, I think the distinction between logical impossibility and metaphysical impossibility is a genuine one. Metaphysical impossibility, as I understand it, depends on the state of the world under specific constraints; given different constraints, something may or may not be metaphysically impossible; logical impossibility is more fundamental, for example, a four-sided triangle has nothing to do with the specific state of the world under specific constraints, and so is impossible no matter the constraints or the state of the world. I think what Craig was getting at is that Jimmy's point that "if it's impossible, then it's because it's logically impossible; therefore, to show that an infinite past is impossible, you must show that it's logically impossible" doesn't apply to our specific world. "No, I don't have to show that. Given our universe, an infinite past is impossible (i.e. metaphysically impossible)." I'm not saying I agree with Craig that it's metaphysically impossible, but I think that's the point he was making. Ultimately, neither quite was on the same page as the other when discussing this point.
@@davidcoleman5860 I'm not a mathematician nor a mathematical philosopher, but if I had to guess why Craig used the prime minister is a prime number example, I would guess it's because perhaps (I'm not sure, I haven't really thought about it) there could exist a world in which prime ministers don't exist or prime numbers don't exist or both don't exist. So, it's not a logical impossibility that a prime minister can be a prime number in the same sense that a four-sided triangle is a logical impossibility (a logical impossibility is world-invariant, if I'm understanding the distinction between metaphysical and logical impossibility). However, because prime ministers aren't tethered to a world-invariant logic, but rather depend on a specific variant of the world, the impossibility of a prime minister being a prime number is a metaphysical (i.e. world-specific) impossibility. I'm not 100% sure if this is what Craig was trying to argue, but that's my guess.
@@edgarcorral562 For some reason, I never got an alert to your reply. Again, you make good points, but I'd like to add a couple of things. The words _prime minister_ and _prime number_ are just marks on a computer screen or scratches on paper unless they're imbued with meaning, regardless which world they're in. If a prime minister is an apple tree, and if a prime number is an apple tree, then a prime minister is a prime number (just like if the Morning Star is Venus and if the Evening Star is Venus, then the Morning Star is the Evening Star). But Craig is clearly using the terms as understood, and if so, he's asserting a logical contradiction.
I'm surprised that Bill is arguing that God is not timeless. I thought I'd heard Bill, in other settings, assert that God is timeless. I think Bill uses the term 'temporal becoming' to describe God being timeless but becoming temporal at the creation event. I would really like to hear Dr Craig talk more about this (clarify it), because I suspect he asserts God changed and bound Himself by time at the creation event... This is a problem, since God is understood to be eternal, unchanging, and unbounded. I see no problem with God's eternal nature being timeless without the existence of time and also with the existence of time (creation is temporal becoming, but that mustn't include God also becoming temporal). Also, this puts a different perspective on the B theory of time. Why could God not have created all possible actualities that mankind can freely choose? and therefore actualize; since quantum theory hints at this? (and this need not be 4D spacetime but 5D spacetime). ruclips.net/video/gg85IH3vghA/видео.html
Often (very often), when I think WLC is saying something wrong . . ., I see him on the right road in a very short period of time. By ?????? Testing all things, including him.
The Kalām Cosmological Argument is just not a good argument for God, because it takes place in a conceptual would that is different from the the actual universe that we can describe using modern science. In the conceptual would we can talk about thing beginning to exist, but nothing begins to exist in the actual universe - there is just matter and energy being transformed into other forms of matter and energy.
I think you're conflating creation with change. When classical theists speak of things beginning and ending, they're referring to generation and corruption. Thus, an oak is generated from an acorn, and when its life cycle is complete, it decomposes. Acorns are real things and oaks are real things. They come and they go because change is a real feature of the universe. Classical theism sees the ground for change in God, whether or not the change is in dolphins or quarks. Theists also use the term _begin_ in a creation sense, which is to bring forth from nothing. Bill thinks his Kalam argument suffices to show material origin, but to classical theists, whether or not the universe began or is eternal, it still has its ground in God.
I think WLC "won" this discussion, and as it went on it seemed that WLC had a much more clear understanding of the issues and aptitude in clearly expressing himself, whereas Akin didn't seem to be thinking as clearly and was a bit ambiguous at points. In general I think it's telling that Akin just isn't in the same cohort as Christian analytic philosophers who are at universities like Notre Dame, Oxford, etc.. WLC's unique strength is that he is both a charismatic popular-level apologist as well as an acclaimed scholar, whereas most apologists lack that expertise...including Akin, despite the fact that he's a smart guy.
@Lorena2m Having followed WLC's work for 10+ years, and getting to know him personally, he is the real deal. Even if you think his opinions are wrong, he is an authentic faithful Christian if there ever was one.
@Lorena2m I don't know where you're getting all that. He is certainly defending the existence of the living God of Abraham, as well as the Incarnation of Christ.
So many points in this convo had me wondering if the issue could be resolved with an idealist metaphysics, especially the part about denying the reality about math and the absolute infinite amount of real numbers, or the decimal divisions between 0 and 1… Samuel Lebens has an argument from God’s omnipotence to idealism that is absolutely killer for me. I’d love to hear your take on it, Jimmy.
@42:00 From God’s (timeless) perspective, he’s simultaneous with an endless number of future years (since we’ll never end post resurrection) And from there Jimmy says, “if God can be simultaneous with an actually-infinite future, why can’t he be simultaneous with an actually-infinite past?” (Paraphrasing, but I correctly summarized his point) But if the future is *actually* infinite, rather than potentially, then that infinite future already has an actually infinite past (since a completed infinite cant have a beginning point…) But perhaps a kalam critic who is a Christian could deny the distinction between “potential infinite” and “actual infinite” (at least in the context of future events), In which case the past is infinite.
Question, and I could be way off on this, I'm genuinely trying to learn - Jimmy makes the argument that "God could create a world with an infinite past."... Could He though? The only thing that is infinite is God. Even if it's an inanimate object, anything that is also infinite would also be considered God. And logically speaking it's impossible for there to be two "Gods."
WLC complains of an infinite regress problem. So one can ask, what was God doing prior to creating everything, and could that be answered without itself invoking an infinite regress problem?
@@mike8984ify but with these contradictions it is strictly the definition that is being violated. a square circle can't exist by definition, saying logical impossibility implies mathematical impossibilities as well, like 5 loaves and 2 fishes don't equal enough to feed 5000 people and have12 baskets left, but that is not meant to be the type of contradiction jimmy wants to include.
The goal here is to prove through debate wether or not the Kalam argument is efficacious. The Kalam argument states that all things have a beginning, a beginning of all beginnings begs an initial beginner (a creator), and that creator must be God, therefore God exists. Jimmy aims to prove that philosophically one cannot rule out that the universe has no beginning, that it is philosophically possible for the universe to infinitely regress into the past. Craig aims to prove that it is not philosophically possible for the universe to infinitely regress into the past, that it must have a beginning. They must both make their case based on reason because without reason you do not have a philosophical or scientific argument, you simply have a statement of faith in an unreasonable position which is not efficacious in persuading anyone of anything and could not then be called an argument, much less an efficacious argument. The linch pin of both of their arguments is wether infinite can exist within reality. The reason Craig continues to make proofs for Jimmys arguments being absurd or unreasonable is because that’s actually the goal of the whole debate, to make an argument from reason so as to persuade the reasonable by use of their own reason. Infinite could be perfectly fine as a theoretical sum in theoretical mathematics but apologists do not aim to convince people that God exists theoretically but in reality.
Wonderful people. Thank God for these wonderful men defending the faith. It is obvious they are intelligent, and also have put in many many years of hard work to be so good at debating and discussing the faith.
First time ever seeing Akin beaten pretty badly in a debate. It seem like WLC only argued from facts, logic, empirical reality but Akin seemed to only be able to argue from concepts or what he's allowed to believe, or worst case, fiction.
The short answer to Jimmy's first objection: it is both metaphysically impossible and logically contradictory for anything that is created to have an infinite past. Run Hilbert's hotel in reverse from infinite guests, and then (infinity-1) guests, and so on. Ask when you will arrive at the first guest. You never will. And that is the point. "Created" means there is a point when the universe comes into existence, before which it was not, and after which it was. Therefore, by definition, it cannot have an infinite past. It amounts the same thing as asking "is there something which is temporally finite and also eternal in this world?" The answer is that's a contradiction in terms.
We have to be careful in speaking about infinity because it's not an intuitive concept. When you say "in reverse FROM infinite guests", that is nonsense because it's not a meaningful sentence. It's like asking "What is the smell of love?" which is grammatically correct, but isn't meaningful. You can't use "infinity" as a starting point, because there is no "point at infinity". Therefore any conclusions you try to draw from that point forward are going to be nonsense as well. You say "created" means there is a point the universe comes into existence, but the whole point of God existing atemporally is that the creation point occurs from God's perspective, not on our material universe's timeline.
@@mike8984ify 1. Your first part was exactly my point. It is nonsense to have a start point in infinity is the point of my post. To say something "created" has an infinite past ultimately is its own contradiction: creation is a limit on the "past" of a thing, however that is understood with regards to time or what coincides with Time's beginning. 2. Respectfully disagree with the second part of your reply in this sense: that the creation of the universe necessarily involves the start of time. And so while "before" and "after" are clearly problematic for such a point (there was strictly no time before time itself) the point is that we can ask whether time starts. That God is acting from eternity is true, but I am not denying eternity to God in considering the universe's/time's beginning. Saying "infinite past" would mean time had no beginning, but yet is "Created"? I find that a contradiction in terms. 3. If Jimmy and your point is that God is the one with an "infinite past", however that is understood, granted. But I am not assuming God is part of the universe, and so I am not assigning the infinite past to finite realities. Ultimately, infinite pasts for finite things also entails contradiction in some sense. Unless you mean infinite past in a sense other than "beginningless".
@@kw91 I think you're unreasonably limiting god's power here. Let's say god creates the world on day 0 along with humans with a memory of this being their first day. Let's say 10 years go by, and then God decides to create a day before day 0 called day -1. At this point, 10 year old adam/eve suddenly remember a new day and as far as they're concerned, it's always been that way. This clearly demonstrates that even though the real creation was day 0, god easily has the power to create more days in the past. This shows there could be a disconnect between the actual time of creation and a potential created past earlier than that time. If he can create an infinite future, then he can clearly also create an infinite past. Thus, you'd have a created timeline with an infinite past, and that "creation point" would be indistinguishable from any other day, because it happened in "God's time" rather than the timeline of the physical universe.
@@mike8984ify I think we have different views of omnipotence in this regard; I think God cannot create what is logically self-contradictory (a square circle, for example). That is how I view "created with infinite past". And such limits as that have never been considered a limit on God's power in any meaningful sense because a circle is determined in its nature not to be square, and if it were square it would be something else God also created. Same for me holds with times/days; I do not believe it is logically coherent to think of a day or time that precedes the beginning of time, and be univocal in the use of the word "time". And I agree with what you say in a certain way, such that God, for example, could make it that Rome never existed at all in history. BUT I do not believe 2 things about how you seem to be putting it forward: A. I do not believe day -1 is possible because I view it as logically contradictory. It would simply be the true day 0 or 1 for me, and we would always have experienced it (at least in some sense). Your points do not convince me of otherwise; they only address what we subjectively know about the objective beginning of time. I believe similar for my example about Rome; it would not be the case that Rome existed, and then suddenly didn't at all in history, and we were none the wiser; it's simply that Rome would never be in the first place. 2. I do not believe that, when He is doing such work from eternity, it means "time travel" sorts of things. I believe rather that God is able to act on all times in a sort of "eternal moment", all at once, and we experience it as an uninterrupted and unaltered flow of time.
I'm not a philosopher or a mathematician, and yet I can see how flawed Bill's objections are to an infinity past. Every single objection he presents is either inaplicable or a misunderstanding of the concept.
I disagree strongly, having seen many of Bill's talks and debates. When he talks about an objection to an infinite past, he's talking about in in relation to our reality, the creation, this Earth. This is found in Genesis 1:1, "In the beginning of God creating the heavens and the earth." He says that our universe has a beginning and therefore can not have an infinite past.
This is the first time of which I am aware of your existence and while I may be completely at odds with the idea of theism of any sort, I do find that I appreciate the authenticity that you bring. *Special salute to you on character alone!* - This also had the consequence of casting Craig even lower in my character assessment, since he is actively arguing that any argument that convinces whomever should be considered legitimate even if such an argument is inherently in conflict with what he actually believes.
In fairness to Craig, he doesn't actually believe the propositions that make the Kalam argument questionable/problematic from Jimmy's perspective. So no reason to think any less of Craig on that account.
@@MyContext You continue to misunderstand. Craig believes what he is presenting. He does NOT believe Jimmy's objections based on God's omnipotence and timelessness. Craig's beliefs are in line with his arguments; they are not in line with Jimmy's beliefs.
@@tonyl3762 WLC: "All that it shows is that Christians shouldn't use this argument, but I don't see any flaw in the argument" - bit after 10:32. The flaw would be him using the argument as a Christian. Craig has put forth a variety of things that he acknowledges as not being the basis of his reasoning. Thus what he is presenting is what he thinks will convince others even as he doesn't consider such to be compatible with his theology. Jimmy seems to be putting forth a resistance on principle whereas Craig doesn't seem to care whether the argument is compatible with what he is claiming as his belief or not - just whether it is convincing.
@@MyContext What you have there is Craig admitting that his own beliefs don't fall in line with most Christians, and that most Christians shouldn't use the Kalam argument. But unlike most Christians, his own beliefs are NOT inconsistent with the argument, so he personally can use with argument without any inconsistency.
Sorry Jimmy but WLC is right, your objections are based on your Catholic theology. They are not philosophical, although those can intertwine it’s clear the issues are theological not philosophical. You and Trent Horn are still my favorite Catholics though 😊
Dear Jimmy, I admit God could create an infinite line of hydrogen atoms, but I still I have some questions: Is God aware of what we perceive to be the present moment? Is our present moment different to the past and the future in the eyes of God? Given God's infinite knowledge I would say Yes. So let's say there is a line of hydrogen atoms starting at one atom and then adding another hydrogen atom to it each following moment, also the moment before the first hydrogen atom there is a single helium atom, and an additional helium each previous moment before that one -> We now have an infinite time line. However where I see the contradiction lies is that this infinite time line can never have a present moment, as that would require it to have a first moment, if you choose the moment of the first hydrogen atom, then the infinite helium past never occurred. So I conclude that for time travel into the future to exist (as we experience it) our past must be finite, even if God exists. Cheers.
I’m sympathetic to both parties. On one hand I have a hard time understanding how Craig has not come to the realization that God is outside of time. If God is the supreme of all things then he must be above and outside of all confines and constructs EXCEPT logical contradictions. If God were subject to time then time would have to be God because time would then be the supreme of all things, it would be above God. You would have to prove that it was logically contradictory for God or anything to be outside of time. On the other hand Jimmy seems to break the rules and parameters of the debate. At the outset it was clarified that they were debating the efficacy of the Kalam argument based on philosophy alone because scientifically it was obvious to both of them that it worked. Jimmy then hangs nearly every argument upon theological presuppositions. This is not only in defiance of the debates parameters it is also in defiance of logic. The Kalam argument is about wether or not God exists. You cannot use theological presuppositions to prove or disprove the efficacy of an argument that at the outset does not even presuppose God’s existence. You might say as a believer in God that you would not like an argument for the existence of God which does not lead to the conclusion of the existence of THE God or YOUR God theologically and it is, as an apologist, important to keep that in mind when making and using arguments. That does not, however, mean that the argument doesn’t work at all, just that you would not use it as it does not immediately conclude YOUR God, just a God.
Lane Craig 19 minutes in so far..... SEMANTICS - Lane can't agree that a PRIME number isn't a bachelor because it doesn't fit the definition of a strict logical contradiction and so NATURALLY Craig needs to disagree.... LOL ridiculous....
Frustrating conversation. They talked past each other most of the time. On the whole, I didn't find Jimmy's objections persuasive. God cannot create a beginning-less thing.
I see a problem! The example of: if you have everyone above room number three move out “you’ll only have three”… …well this already assumes the rooms aren’t infinite and are in fact finite starting at 1 ☝️… The rooms would have to infinitely go into the negative as well…🤷🏻♂️. In witch case you would still have an infinite amount of negative numbered rooms that are all filled …In witch case, where really does the numbers 1, 2, 3 or any numbers for that matter actually >start< counting in the set of INFINITY …???🤷🏻♂️🤷🏻♂️🤷🏻♂️ This is also whats impossible about infinity…. Wherever you start counting on the “infinity line” your never REALLY starting at 1. Meaning the very second you attempt to do the very rational thing of COUNTING on INFINITY, your automatically in contradiction…… 🫤🤷🏻♂️ Witch also means infinity can never BE counted up too, but literally has to just EXIST for the conception to remain logically consistent in its conceptualized infinite nature ( forever without end )
Both the positive and negative numbers are infinite themselves, even if you split them at 0. Nothing about the concept of infinite requires both ends of the numberline to be boundless.
@@mike8984ify aren’t you making an error by saying your able to “split” infinity anywhere in the first place…? And if you bound infinity in some way then you’ve made and endless concept Finite ….. surely im not going to hold these two contradictory concepts in my head as true “ something being finite and not finite” at the same time, right!! Truly there must be no bounds to the concept of infinity if we’re going to conceptualize this t best… no matter what metrics your analyzing infinity with, just because our tools we use to grasp infinity are finite in they’re measurement, we cant ever really assume those are giving us the actual accurate interpretation of it because, once again, infinity has no beginning or end, maybe we can start counting somewhere on an infinite number line but our analysis of the chunk we analyze cant be indicative of the whole….🤔 even the word “whole” seems to limit the concept of infinite in a way…!! Nevertheless those are my thoughts.😊🤚
Don't mind me, just watching WLC, a man whose usage of the Kalam requires god to be timeless and therefore have an infinite past, argue as to why something having an infinite past is absurd.
@@sidtom2741 and? intuitions inside the universe are highly unlikely to be relevant to the universe as a whole, and any thing that could be outside it.
@@kosgoth other than the fact that all the evidence points to the universe not being the uncaused first cause. Also, this is a well-informed argument to put on the table. But this argument doesn’t define whether God exists
@@Sednoob well, we don’t say God has no past. Something that is outside the restraints of time isn’t affected by it. Einstein’s theory of relativity stated that time, space, and matter are all corelative. Time is continuous and eternal, and it’s very difficult to perceive of something outside of time because we live within those restraints and our rational minds deem an explanation for such a possibility.
To those interested in debate on the Kalam I recommend youtubers Cosmic Skeptic and Rationality Rules and a debate between William Lane Craig and Sean Carroll.
Thank you Jimmy. I always liked the kalam argument only in the logical premise that everything that begins to exist has a cause. I did notice that when I looked into Craig's work on time, I kept thinking that God was a philosophical object and not the God of Jesus Christ. Thank you for hashing this out with him. Now I really understand the details of why the infinite past is possible and why the Kalam argument is probably not important for us as Catholics.
Woah woah hold up, whether or not God can create an infinite past is a very different question of whether or not he has! So this seems pedantic, how the heck does this disagree with the argument! lol but im no philosopher
Infinity exists for God both in infinity of negative numbers and positive. Problem with WLC is he’s putting his human limitations on God. He should review Matthew 19:26. Turning wine into water is metaphysically impossible. WLC premises of theology are flawed, thus his argument fails. However, WLC should argue that the theological objection relies on the assumption of God. Thus only God’s existence can prove God doesn’t exist, but this leaves a problem of multiple competing gods.
@@penguincommando4737 but the evidence is overwhelming that it did. For example the Borde Guth Vilenken theorum has successfully proven that the universe had an absolute beginning . See Craig's debate with Peter Millican who tries to refute this
Both gentlemen are trying to pigeon-hole God's abilities while still claiming He exists outside of time. But God not only exists outside of time, He also exists outside of logic, which renders this discussion inadequate when attempting to prove the existence of God. God's omnipotence is unfathomable which is what we're trying to do here. God is a mystery and faith is a gift, it can't be taught, learned or rationalized..
@T Z While what we believe in faith and what we discover by reason are mutually beneficial, since God created both faith and reason, He can’t be restricted to their confines. He exists outside of them. God is outside all that exists. “I am who I am.”
@@Gruuvin1If you are referring to my comment, yes, I presuppose only one thing, that God created me and the world around me - that’s faith, a gift from God. Reason helps me to “flesh out” my one and only presupposition. In this debate, Jimmy Akin was doing the same thing.
@@Gruuvin1 yes, vaguely. From what I understand it deals with logic (reason) which is exactly what I am trying to differentiate from faith. A gift (faith) doesn't require logic or reason. It just is.
Let me save y'all some time. No, the Kalam doesn't work. Nor do any of the other arguments for god. If you wanna believe in god, that's fine, but quit acting like there's good reason for it. It's your personal choice to believe something with no evidence. That's fine, and there's nothing necessarily wrong with it. Apologists should stop seeking this proof and just accept that they believe based on faith alone.
The evidence is all around you and inside you. Why something instead of nothing? Do the movement of atoms in your brain actually correspond with truth any more than balls moving around on a pool table?
You saved nothing. That fact that you are even here in these comment tells me you are scrambling and in crisis within your atheistic and absurd world view. If you actually lived it or understood it, you wouldn't even be here wasting your time spreading nonsense, while pretending to be smarter than everybody else
This was like listening to two people speaking different languages. Jimmy needs to understand philosophical terms and Bill needs to explain better to people who don't (perhaps, he thought Jimmy did understand them). I don't even know who is right in the end, but I do know that Jimmy is not engaging with Bill's actual points since he doesn't understand them. The discussion of logical contradictions bears this out. I will add that the example of the apples and subtracting infinite is something you often learn about in undergradute math. You cannot simply subtract infinity from infinity and expect reasonable answers. As an example, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1_%2B_2_%2B_3_%2B_4_%2B_%E2%8B%AF under "heuristics". I think you can prove, in fact, that the sum of the natural numbers is anything you want using this style of argumentation. Jimmy Akin has not proved his case by switching to apples, he has merely shown the incoherence of the situation.
![Felix "Unfair" | [Stray Kids : SKZ-PLAYER]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Oswujxm2Ag0/mqdefault.jpg)
🎯 Key Takeaways for quick navigation:
00:25 *🧠 Dr. William Lane Craig and Mr. Jimmy Aiken discuss the philosophical version of the Kalam cosmological argument, aiming to determine its efficacy.*
02:05 *🤔 Aquinas set a high standard for successful arguments in natural theology, leaning towards strict demonstrations over probability.*
03:41 *📚 Aiken acknowledges the appeal and logical validity of the Kalam argument but questions its success from a philosophical standpoint.*
05:08 *🤝 Dr. Craig and Mr. Aiken discuss the philosophical arguments for the finitude of the past, exploring concepts of actual infinity and metaphysical possibility.*
07:57 *💬 Aiken emphasizes the importance of theological consistency in arguments, ensuring they align with Christian faith, particularly regarding God's omnipotence.*
10:47 *🧐 Craig challenges Aiken's theological critique, distinguishing between philosophical and theological objections to the Kalam argument.*
14:42 *💡 Aiken argues that theological considerations are crucial in evaluating arguments for non-believers, aiming for coherence with Christian theology.*
17:00 *🧩 Craig defends a broader understanding of omnipotence, incorporating metaphysical impossibilities beyond strict logical contradictions.*
21:55 *🔄 Aiken challenges the notion of actual infinity, proposing scenarios where God's omniscience allows for the conceptualization but not the real existence of infinity.*
24:40 *🤔 Divine thoughts are considered simple and undivided, not comprising an actual infinite number of thoughts, as per Aquinas and William Lane Craig.*
26:28 *💭 The ability to conceptualize an infinite multitude doesn't imply its actual existence, as illustrated by Hilbert's hotel paradox and other examples.*
28:20 *🔢 Infinity is not treated like any other number; it doesn't follow the same rules, particularly regarding subtraction and division.*
32:57 *🍏 Different procedures of subtraction can yield different results even with an infinite number of items, as illustrated with the apple analogy.*
37:47 *🕰️ Understanding the nature of time is crucial to grasp philosophical arguments about the past and the present, particularly concerning the existence of an infinite past.*
42:45 *⏳ The debate involves contrasting views on the nature of divine eternity and how it relates to the existence of an infinite past, with perspectives ranging from God's timelessness to his simultaneous creation of all time.*
48:07 *🕰️ Dr. Craig emphasizes that objections to the Kalam argument are primarily theological rather than philosophical.*
49:30 *📚 Dr. Craig advocates for a unified approach to knowledge, integrating philosophy, theology, and science in his arguments.*
51:09 *💬 Both Dr. Craig and Jimmy Akin appreciate the importance of integrating philosophy, theology, and science in theological discussions.*
52:18 *🔄 Dr. Craig and Jimmy Akin acknowledge that their differences are more theological than philosophical, especially concerning God's nature and relationship with time.*
54:35 *🤔 Jimmy Akin argues against the premise that forming an actual infinity by successive addition is impossible, suggesting it can be done from a prior infinite collection.*
58:17 *🛤️ Dr. Craig emphasizes how theological presuppositions influence acceptance or rejection of natural theological arguments.*
59:37 *🌌 Jimmy Akin considers the Kalam cosmological argument valid and sound, but sees scientific evidence as more convincing than purely philosophical arguments.*
01:00:48 *🎙️ Dr. Craig directs viewers to reasonablefaith.org for more resources, while Jimmy Akin points to catholic.com and jimmyakin.com for further exploration.*
Unlimited apples? In this economy?
Seamus! Pleasure seeing you in this comment section! Jimmy Akin has got to be the most underrated Catholic apologist of our generation!
😂😂😂
Thank u so much for ur understanding of number, set, & group theories in math. As a math person it is very satisfying to have u understand that “subtraction” is simply one type of process and there r other processes that are “subtraction-like” but not the same.
If I might ask, what are your thoughts on the potential for chaos theory and complexity theory and their correlations with and predictions of natural systems and processes, as the basis for a more robust appeal to the world being created?
@@LostArchivist As I understand it, the Kalam derives much of its appeal from the seeming metaphysical impossibility of the universe's existence. Unfortunately, I don't know of any strong applications of chaos or complexity theory in arguing for the universe's creation. Letting the atheist assume that the universe has existed forever into the past seems to allow them to handwave away most of these probabilistic arguments by just saying, "well, given forever, it will happen eventually." Fine-tuning arguments based upon the epistemic probability of the universe's natural constants are much more effective since they rely upon innate characteristics of the universe that presumably do not change with time, meaning that the atheist no longer has an "infinite time" trump card.
@@kidwhiz99 Infinite past time would also create the expected condition that even the smallest most unlikely or slow to propagate instability will run out of control if no counterbalancing or halting phenomena sets it back.
We see if anything an orderly progression of the Universe across the ages, with a strange penchant aiming towards bringing it all to a futility and ultimately breakdown and death.
Five minutes ago I thought I was smart.
Five minutes ago, I didn't think you weren't smart (I didn't know you), but now I do :)
@@dariorivellini2159yeah,got the bit when they gave their names but after that...........😂
Love your work Jimmy, your the best... we need ample time for round 2
I can’t take Jimmy seriously without the cowboy hat.
i love this very simple to understand very respectful no interrupting. Godbless you Akin and Craig ❤🙏
I think these guys should write a book together.
Absolutely but I wouldn't understand it😂
Omg omg omg this is gonna be goooooood!! Fan of both
You really need Kamala Harris here talking about the significance of the passage of time.
As of recently "this isn't the comment section for that"
I honestly feel like the articulacy here is going to make my head explode
Me too
I love how 2 gigantic brains come together and show how miniscule mine really is... 😭😭😭
It’s crazy how two geniuses disagree about something like this
I know. I can’t keep up with the
Jimmy, I agree we shouldn't use arguments that are not consistent with the rest of our worldview. Thanks for pointing out to all of us the Craig's version of the Kalam argument insinuates, if not requires, a "God" bound by time and not actually omnipotent in the classical sense. With regard to God's eternity, it occurred to me that, even before any Lateran or Vatican council, earlier councils condemning Arianism would have elaborated on the eternality of Christ, and thus of God, more specifically. If there was never a time when the Son was not, then that seems to imply God outside of time, but I can imagine someone quibbling with that too. Craig is also a monothelite too apparently, so no surprise he rejects other attributes of God. Found it odd that he tried to appeal to councils when he explicitly rejects the council(s) condemning monothelitism.
Great content.
The initial disagreement was over strict logical impossibility, but the examples Craig uses reduce to what he claims does not obtain. The prime minister and prime number (“the prime minister is a prime number”) example reduces to a man (prime minister) is not a man (prime number), which is precisely A = ~A.
Something's coming to be without a cause reduces to “nothingness is not nothingness” (for “nothing” would have the capacity or potency that something could arise from it, in which case it would not be nothing).
An event's preceding itself is equivalent to X preceding X which reduces to X = ~X. And if gold has a different atomic number, then it isn't gold. To change the atomic composition is to change the substance. His statement thus reduces to gold is not gold---an obvious contradiction.
With respect to his presumably wooden desk turning to ice, according to the current laws of physics, that appears to be an impossible event, but is Craig saying that God _could not_ transform a wooden desk into ice? I don't think so. So, in the sense of God's intervention, such an event is indeed “metaphysically” possible. But Craig states, “this very desk,” could not be ice. Well, of course. But that's because “this very desk” doesn't have the properties of ice, and to assert that a wooden desk is not a wooden desk is a straight logical contradiction.
I was thinking the same thing.
To expand on your point about the prime minister being a prime number. The concept of "prime minister" is subsumed in the broader concept of "human being." And "human being" is subsumed in the even broader concept of "non-number." Similarly, the concept of "prime number" is subsumed in the broader concept of "number", which in turn is subsumed in the even broader concept of "non-human-being." Thus, to say that somebody is a prime minister is to say that they are a human being; and to say that they are a human being is to say that they are a non-number. Ergo, to say that a prime minister is a prime number conceptually reduces to saying that a non-number is a number. As you pointed out that reduces to A = ~A.
Nevertheless, I think the distinction between logical impossibility and metaphysical impossibility is a genuine one. Metaphysical impossibility, as I understand it, depends on the state of the world under specific constraints; given different constraints, something may or may not be metaphysically impossible; logical impossibility is more fundamental, for example, a four-sided triangle has nothing to do with the specific state of the world under specific constraints, and so is impossible no matter the constraints or the state of the world.
I think what Craig was getting at is that Jimmy's point that "if it's impossible, then it's because it's logically impossible; therefore, to show that an infinite past is impossible, you must show that it's logically impossible" doesn't apply to our specific world. "No, I don't have to show that. Given our universe, an infinite past is impossible (i.e. metaphysically impossible)." I'm not saying I agree with Craig that it's metaphysically impossible, but I think that's the point he was making. Ultimately, neither quite was on the same page as the other when discussing this point.
@@edgarcorral562 Very good post. Thank you!
@@davidcoleman5860 I'm not a mathematician nor a mathematical philosopher, but if I had to guess why Craig used the prime minister is a prime number example, I would guess it's because perhaps (I'm not sure, I haven't really thought about it) there could exist a world in which prime ministers don't exist or prime numbers don't exist or both don't exist. So, it's not a logical impossibility that a prime minister can be a prime number in the same sense that a four-sided triangle is a logical impossibility (a logical impossibility is world-invariant, if I'm understanding the distinction between metaphysical and logical impossibility). However, because prime ministers aren't tethered to a world-invariant logic, but rather depend on a specific variant of the world, the impossibility of a prime minister being a prime number is a metaphysical (i.e. world-specific) impossibility.
I'm not 100% sure if this is what Craig was trying to argue, but that's my guess.
@@edgarcorral562 For some reason, I never got an alert to your reply. Again, you make good points, but I'd like to add a couple of things. The words _prime minister_ and _prime number_ are just marks on a computer screen or scratches on paper unless they're imbued with meaning, regardless which world they're in. If a prime minister is an apple tree, and if a prime number is an apple tree, then a prime minister is a prime number (just like if the Morning Star is Venus and if the Evening Star is Venus, then the Morning Star is the Evening Star). But Craig is clearly using the terms as understood, and if so, he's asserting a logical contradiction.
I'm surprised that Bill is arguing that God is not timeless. I thought I'd heard Bill, in other settings, assert that God is timeless. I think Bill uses the term 'temporal becoming' to describe God being timeless but becoming temporal at the creation event. I would really like to hear Dr Craig talk more about this (clarify it), because I suspect he asserts God changed and bound Himself by time at the creation event... This is a problem, since God is understood to be eternal, unchanging, and unbounded. I see no problem with God's eternal nature being timeless without the existence of time and also with the existence of time (creation is temporal becoming, but that mustn't include God also becoming temporal). Also, this puts a different perspective on the B theory of time. Why could God not have created all possible actualities that mankind can freely choose? and therefore actualize; since quantum theory hints at this? (and this need not be 4D spacetime but 5D spacetime).
ruclips.net/video/gg85IH3vghA/видео.html
Often (very often), when I think WLC is saying something wrong . . ., I see him on the right road in a very short period of time. By ?????? Testing all things, including him.
@@correctchristian4255 nahhh, he's most often very right.
Grab his book God, Time and Eternity. It's worth the read.
@@vinchinzo594 Thanks for demonstrating he hasn't passed on the knowledge to you, or else you would have been able to give some details yourself.
@@kosgoth How on Earth does me recommending a book to someone demonstrate he hasn't "passed on the knowledge" to me you goofy weirdo?
I just want to point out that the closed captioning consistantly writes "aiken". "It's so simple A K I N, Jimmy Aiken."
Does "My thoughts are not your thoughts" (Isa.55:8) discribe God admitting having multiple divine thoughts?
The Kalām Cosmological Argument is just not a good argument for God, because it takes place in a conceptual would that is different from the the actual universe that we can describe using modern science. In the conceptual would we can talk about thing beginning to exist, but nothing begins to exist in the actual universe - there is just matter and energy being transformed into other forms of matter and energy.
I think you're conflating creation with change. When classical theists speak of things beginning and ending, they're referring to generation and corruption. Thus, an oak is generated from an acorn, and when its life cycle is complete, it decomposes. Acorns are real things and oaks are real things. They come and they go because change is a real feature of the universe. Classical theism sees the ground for change in God, whether or not the change is in dolphins or quarks.
Theists also use the term _begin_ in a creation sense, which is to bring forth from nothing. Bill thinks his Kalam argument suffices to show material origin, but to classical theists, whether or not the universe began or is eternal, it still has its ground in God.
This is so fun.
I think WLC "won" this discussion, and as it went on it seemed that WLC had a much more clear understanding of the issues and aptitude in clearly expressing himself, whereas Akin didn't seem to be thinking as clearly and was a bit ambiguous at points. In general I think it's telling that Akin just isn't in the same cohort as Christian analytic philosophers who are at universities like Notre Dame, Oxford, etc.. WLC's unique strength is that he is both a charismatic popular-level apologist as well as an acclaimed scholar, whereas most apologists lack that expertise...including Akin, despite the fact that he's a smart guy.
@Lorena2m Having followed WLC's work for 10+ years, and getting to know him personally, he is the real deal. Even if you think his opinions are wrong, he is an authentic faithful Christian if there ever was one.
@Lorena2m What are you basing this accusation on?
@Lorena2m I don't know where you're getting all that. He is certainly defending the existence of the living God of Abraham, as well as the Incarnation of Christ.
Amazing conversation. Thanks for this.
I think if I had an infinite number of apples, my head would not hurt any less…
6:45 I never even CONSIDERED this question before. Really thinking outside of the box.
So many points in this convo had me wondering if the issue could be resolved with an idealist metaphysics, especially the part about denying the reality about math and the absolute infinite amount of real numbers, or the decimal divisions between 0 and 1…
Samuel Lebens has an argument from God’s omnipotence to idealism that is absolutely killer for me. I’d love to hear your take on it, Jimmy.
@42:00 From God’s (timeless) perspective, he’s simultaneous with an endless number of future years (since we’ll never end post resurrection)
And from there Jimmy says, “if God can be simultaneous with an actually-infinite future, why can’t he be simultaneous with an actually-infinite past?” (Paraphrasing, but I correctly summarized his point)
But if the future is *actually* infinite, rather than potentially, then that infinite future already has an actually infinite past (since a completed infinite cant have a beginning point…)
But perhaps a kalam critic who is a Christian could deny the distinction between “potential infinite” and “actual infinite” (at least in the context of future events),
In which case the past is infinite.
Question, and I could be way off on this, I'm genuinely trying to learn - Jimmy makes the argument that "God could create a world with an infinite past."... Could He though? The only thing that is infinite is God. Even if it's an inanimate object, anything that is also infinite would also be considered God. And logically speaking it's impossible for there to be two "Gods."
WLC complains of an infinite regress problem. So one can ask, what was God doing prior to creating everything, and could that be answered without itself invoking an infinite regress problem?
I feel like the term logical impossibility Jimmy Akin uses would be better expressed as definitional contradictions
You can’t speak about logical conclusions without relying on definitions… any logical contradiction is, at its core, definitional
@@mike8984ify but with these contradictions it is strictly the definition that is being violated. a square circle can't exist by definition, saying logical impossibility implies mathematical impossibilities as well, like 5 loaves and 2 fishes don't equal enough to feed 5000 people and have12 baskets left, but that is not meant to be the type of contradiction jimmy wants to include.
“THIS desk could have not been THIS desk” IS a contradiction
I feel like Craig isn't grasping the idea that some things aren't absurd just because they don't work with his philosophical argument.
WLC is good at muddying the water but not proving a point.
The goal here is to prove through debate wether or not the Kalam argument is efficacious. The Kalam argument states that all things have a beginning, a beginning of all beginnings begs an initial beginner (a creator), and that creator must be God, therefore God exists. Jimmy aims to prove that philosophically one cannot rule out that the universe has no beginning, that it is philosophically possible for the universe to infinitely regress into the past. Craig aims to prove that it is not philosophically possible for the universe to infinitely regress into the past, that it must have a beginning. They must both make their case based on reason because without reason you do not have a philosophical or scientific argument, you simply have a statement of faith in an unreasonable position which is not efficacious in persuading anyone of anything and could not then be called an argument, much less an efficacious argument. The linch pin of both of their arguments is wether infinite can exist within reality. The reason Craig continues to make proofs for Jimmys arguments being absurd or unreasonable is because that’s actually the goal of the whole debate, to make an argument from reason so as to persuade the reasonable by use of their own reason. Infinite could be perfectly fine as a theoretical sum in theoretical mathematics but apologists do not aim to convince people that God exists theoretically but in reality.
Wonderful people. Thank God for these wonderful men defending the faith. It is obvious they are intelligent, and also have put in many many years of hard work to be so good at debating and discussing the faith.
First time ever seeing Akin beaten pretty badly in a debate. It seem like WLC only argued from facts, logic, empirical reality but Akin seemed to only be able to argue from concepts or what he's allowed to believe, or worst case, fiction.
lol what are you talking about, WLC’s entire argument is that God can’t do the absurd, while not being able to actually define the absurd.
The short answer to Jimmy's first objection: it is both metaphysically impossible and logically contradictory for anything that is created to have an infinite past.
Run Hilbert's hotel in reverse from infinite guests, and then (infinity-1) guests, and so on. Ask when you will arrive at the first guest. You never will. And that is the point. "Created" means there is a point when the universe comes into existence, before which it was not, and after which it was. Therefore, by definition, it cannot have an infinite past.
It amounts the same thing as asking "is there something which is temporally finite and also eternal in this world?" The answer is that's a contradiction in terms.
We have to be careful in speaking about infinity because it's not an intuitive concept. When you say "in reverse FROM infinite guests", that is nonsense because it's not a meaningful sentence. It's like asking "What is the smell of love?" which is grammatically correct, but isn't meaningful. You can't use "infinity" as a starting point, because there is no "point at infinity". Therefore any conclusions you try to draw from that point forward are going to be nonsense as well.
You say "created" means there is a point the universe comes into existence, but the whole point of God existing atemporally is that the creation point occurs from God's perspective, not on our material universe's timeline.
@@mike8984ify 1. Your first part was exactly my point. It is nonsense to have a start point in infinity is the point of my post. To say something "created" has an infinite past ultimately is its own contradiction: creation is a limit on the "past" of a thing, however that is understood with regards to time or what coincides with Time's beginning.
2. Respectfully disagree with the second part of your reply in this sense: that the creation of the universe necessarily involves the start of time. And so while "before" and "after" are clearly problematic for such a point (there was strictly no time before time itself) the point is that we can ask whether time starts. That God is acting from eternity is true, but I am not denying eternity to God in considering the universe's/time's beginning. Saying "infinite past" would mean time had no beginning, but yet is "Created"? I find that a contradiction in terms.
3. If Jimmy and your point is that God is the one with an "infinite past", however that is understood, granted. But I am not assuming God is part of the universe, and so I am not assigning the infinite past to finite realities. Ultimately, infinite pasts for finite things also entails contradiction in some sense. Unless you mean infinite past in a sense other than "beginningless".
@@kw91 I think you're unreasonably limiting god's power here. Let's say god creates the world on day 0 along with humans with a memory of this being their first day. Let's say 10 years go by, and then God decides to create a day before day 0 called day -1. At this point, 10 year old adam/eve suddenly remember a new day and as far as they're concerned, it's always been that way.
This clearly demonstrates that even though the real creation was day 0, god easily has the power to create more days in the past. This shows there could be a disconnect between the actual time of creation and a potential created past earlier than that time. If he can create an infinite future, then he can clearly also create an infinite past.
Thus, you'd have a created timeline with an infinite past, and that "creation point" would be indistinguishable from any other day, because it happened in "God's time" rather than the timeline of the physical universe.
@@mike8984ify I think we have different views of omnipotence in this regard; I think God cannot create what is logically self-contradictory (a square circle, for example). That is how I view "created with infinite past". And such limits as that have never been considered a limit on God's power in any meaningful sense because a circle is determined in its nature not to be square, and if it were square it would be something else God also created. Same for me holds with times/days; I do not believe it is logically coherent to think of a day or time that precedes the beginning of time, and be univocal in the use of the word "time".
And I agree with what you say in a certain way, such that God, for example, could make it that Rome never existed at all in history. BUT I do not believe 2 things about how you seem to be putting it forward:
A. I do not believe day -1 is possible because I view it as logically contradictory. It would simply be the true day 0 or 1 for me, and we would always have experienced it (at least in some sense). Your points do not convince me of otherwise; they only address what we subjectively know about the objective beginning of time. I believe similar for my example about Rome; it would not be the case that Rome existed, and then suddenly didn't at all in history, and we were none the wiser; it's simply that Rome would never be in the first place.
2. I do not believe that, when He is doing such work from eternity, it means "time travel" sorts of things. I believe rather that God is able to act on all times in a sort of "eternal moment", all at once, and we experience it as an uninterrupted and unaltered flow of time.
I'm not a philosopher or a mathematician, and yet I can see how flawed Bill's objections are to an infinity past. Every single objection he presents is either inaplicable or a misunderstanding of the concept.
I disagree strongly, having seen many of Bill's talks and debates. When he talks about an objection to an infinite past, he's talking about in in relation to our reality, the creation, this Earth. This is found in Genesis 1:1, "In the beginning of God creating the heavens and the earth." He says that our universe has a beginning and therefore can not have an infinite past.
This is the first time of which I am aware of your existence and while I may be completely at odds with the idea of theism of any sort, I do find that I appreciate the authenticity that you bring. *Special salute to you on character alone!*
-
This also had the consequence of casting Craig even lower in my character assessment, since he is actively arguing that any argument that convinces whomever should be considered legitimate even if such an argument is inherently in conflict with what he actually believes.
In fairness to Craig, he doesn't actually believe the propositions that make the Kalam argument questionable/problematic from Jimmy's perspective. So no reason to think any less of Craig on that account.
@@tonyl3762 Why present something that you don't actually believe? That is dishonest.
@@MyContext You continue to misunderstand. Craig believes what he is presenting. He does NOT believe Jimmy's objections based on God's omnipotence and timelessness. Craig's beliefs are in line with his arguments; they are not in line with Jimmy's beliefs.
@@tonyl3762 WLC: "All that it shows is that Christians shouldn't use this argument, but I don't see any flaw in the argument" - bit after 10:32.
The flaw would be him using the argument as a Christian. Craig has put forth a variety of things that he acknowledges as not being the basis of his reasoning. Thus what he is presenting is what he thinks will convince others even as he doesn't consider such to be compatible with his theology.
Jimmy seems to be putting forth a resistance on principle whereas Craig doesn't seem to care whether the argument is compatible with what he is claiming as his belief or not - just whether it is convincing.
@@MyContext What you have there is Craig admitting that his own beliefs don't fall in line with most Christians, and that most Christians shouldn't use the Kalam argument. But unlike most Christians, his own beliefs are NOT inconsistent with the argument, so he personally can use with argument without any inconsistency.
Sorry Jimmy but WLC is right, your objections are based on your Catholic theology. They are not philosophical, although those can intertwine it’s clear the issues are theological not philosophical. You and Trent Horn are still my favorite Catholics though 😊
Let’s have a round 2 on divine timelessness and simplicity (invite Pat Flynn too)
In the first 10 min, it was clear that Jimmy doesn't even grasp the concept of the debate or the argument. I couldn't keep listening after that.
WLC is so patient here, you can tell he has the rebuttal loaded and formed by now.
Dear Jimmy,
I admit God could create an infinite line of hydrogen atoms, but I still I have some questions:
Is God aware of what we perceive to be the present moment?
Is our present moment different to the past and the future in the eyes of God?
Given God's infinite knowledge I would say Yes.
So let's say there is a line of hydrogen atoms starting at one atom and then adding another hydrogen atom to it each following moment, also the moment before the first hydrogen atom there is a single helium atom, and an additional helium each previous moment before that one -> We now have an infinite time line.
However where I see the contradiction lies is that this infinite time line can never have a present moment, as that would require it to have a first moment, if you choose the moment of the first hydrogen atom, then the infinite helium past never occurred. So I conclude that for time travel into the future to exist (as we experience it) our past must be finite, even if God exists.
Cheers.
I’m sympathetic to both parties.
On one hand I have a hard time understanding how Craig has not come to the realization that God is outside of time. If God is the supreme of all things then he must be above and outside of all confines and constructs EXCEPT logical contradictions. If God were subject to time then time would have to be God because time would then be the supreme of all things, it would be above God. You would have to prove that it was logically contradictory for God or anything to be outside of time.
On the other hand Jimmy seems to break the rules and parameters of the debate. At the outset it was clarified that they were debating the efficacy of the Kalam argument based on philosophy alone because scientifically it was obvious to both of them that it worked. Jimmy then hangs nearly every argument upon theological presuppositions. This is not only in defiance of the debates parameters it is also in defiance of logic. The Kalam argument is about wether or not God exists. You cannot use theological presuppositions to prove or disprove the efficacy of an argument that at the outset does not even presuppose God’s existence.
You might say as a believer in God that you would not like an argument for the existence of God which does not lead to the conclusion of the existence of THE God or YOUR God theologically and it is, as an apologist, important to keep that in mind when making and using arguments. That does not, however, mean that the argument doesn’t work at all, just that you would not use it as it does not immediately conclude YOUR God, just a God.
Lane Craig 19 minutes in so far..... SEMANTICS - Lane can't agree that a PRIME number isn't a bachelor because it doesn't fit the definition of a strict logical contradiction and so NATURALLY Craig needs to disagree.... LOL ridiculous....
Frustrating conversation. They talked past each other most of the time. On the whole, I didn't find Jimmy's objections persuasive. God cannot create a beginning-less thing.
I see a problem!
The example of: if you have everyone above room number three move out “you’ll only have three”…
…well this already assumes the rooms aren’t infinite and are in fact finite starting at 1 ☝️…
The rooms would have to infinitely go into the negative as well…🤷🏻♂️. In witch case you would still have an infinite amount of negative numbered rooms that are all filled …In witch case, where really does the numbers 1, 2, 3 or any numbers for that matter actually >start< counting in the set of INFINITY …???🤷🏻♂️🤷🏻♂️🤷🏻♂️
This is also whats impossible about infinity…. Wherever you start counting on the “infinity line” your never REALLY starting at 1.
Meaning the very second you attempt to do the very rational thing of COUNTING on INFINITY, your automatically in contradiction……
🫤🤷🏻♂️
Witch also means infinity can never BE counted up too, but literally has to just EXIST for the conception to remain logically consistent in its conceptualized infinite nature ( forever without end )
Both the positive and negative numbers are infinite themselves, even if you split them at 0. Nothing about the concept of infinite requires both ends of the numberline to be boundless.
@@mike8984ify aren’t you making an error by saying your able to “split” infinity anywhere in the first place…?
And if you bound infinity in some way then you’ve made and endless concept Finite …..
surely im not going to hold these two contradictory concepts in my head as true “ something being finite and not finite” at the same time, right!!
Truly there must be no bounds to the concept of infinity if we’re going to conceptualize this t best… no matter what metrics your analyzing infinity with, just because our tools we use to grasp infinity are finite in they’re measurement, we cant ever really assume those are giving us the actual accurate interpretation of it because, once again, infinity has no beginning or end, maybe we can start counting somewhere on an infinite number line but our analysis of the chunk we analyze cant be indicative of the whole….🤔 even the word “whole” seems to limit the concept of infinite in a way…!!
Nevertheless those are my thoughts.😊🤚
@@hanstwilight3218you’re correct
Don't mind me, just watching WLC, a man whose usage of the Kalam requires god to be timeless and therefore have an infinite past, argue as to why something having an infinite past is absurd.
Well it’s to argue upon the original conclusion of “the universe had a beginning”, I.e. the universe is finite
@@sidtom2741 and? intuitions inside the universe are highly unlikely to be relevant to the universe as a whole, and any thing that could be outside it.
@@kosgoth other than the fact that all the evidence points to the universe not being the uncaused first cause. Also, this is a well-informed argument to put on the table. But this argument doesn’t define whether God exists
Something timeless can't have an infinite past, by definition.
@@Sednoob well, we don’t say God has no past. Something that is outside the restraints of time isn’t affected by it. Einstein’s theory of relativity stated that time, space, and matter are all corelative. Time is continuous and eternal, and it’s very difficult to perceive of something outside of time because we live within those restraints and our rational minds deem an explanation for such a possibility.
Jay Dyer presup vs classical apologist WLC
0 x 0 = arguments against God.
God is outside of time....and timeless. I don't get Craig's argument....
To those interested in debate on the Kalam I recommend youtubers Cosmic Skeptic and Rationality Rules and a debate between William Lane Craig and Sean Carroll.
Jimmy needs more training.
Craig is so smart it’s scary.
LOL I'll grant you that he's a smart guy, but not "scary smart".
He keeps sneaking in a previous collection with a beginning point. That’s not smart, that’s cheating!
Craig is awesome, but his classification of the impossibility of transfinite subtraction as a logical contradiction is a real misunderstanding
Thank you Jimmy. I always liked the kalam argument only in the logical premise that everything that begins to exist has a cause. I did notice that when I looked into Craig's work on time, I kept thinking that God was a philosophical object and not the God of Jesus Christ. Thank you for hashing this out with him. Now I really understand the details of why the infinite past is possible and why the Kalam argument is probably not important for us as Catholics.
Woah woah hold up, whether or not God can create an infinite past is a very different question of whether or not he has! So this seems pedantic, how the heck does this disagree with the argument! lol but im no philosopher
So.. GOD can't by William's reasoning. Huh.. OK. Heard his view
Infinity exists for God both in infinity of negative numbers and positive. Problem with WLC is he’s putting his human limitations on God. He should review Matthew 19:26. Turning wine into water is metaphysically impossible. WLC premises of theology are flawed, thus his argument fails. However, WLC should argue that the theological objection relies on the assumption of God. Thus only God’s existence can prove God doesn’t exist, but this leaves a problem of multiple competing gods.
It seems difficult to believe in classical theism.
Bingo. Hence the effort to dress God in a lab coat instead of a white robe.
Why's that?
No, it doesn't work. It assumes the universe had a "beginning" (meaning there was no universe, then there was a universe), which no one knows.
The evidence suggests it did have a beginning
@@stephenglasse9756 there's evidence that it didn't
@@penguincommando4737 but the evidence is overwhelming that it did. For example the Borde Guth Vilenken theorum has successfully proven that the universe had an absolute beginning . See Craig's debate with Peter Millican who tries to refute this
@@stephenglasse9756 no it isn't. Lmao. Just look up casual set theory. .
@@stephenglasse9756 there are even "theories" that the universe came from nothing.
What Dr. Craig doesn't realize is that some infinities are bigger than other infinities.
False
@@f8888gkcfyfgjfjhgjfcju read the claim that Daniel made. Now reread what I said.
Correct.
the masters of smuggling in terms.
I was bored......
I bet your didn’t understand a single counter argument
a personal relationship with an imaginary character. Sure, no make-believe at all.
This is like watching special Olympics.
Prattling piffle about naval gazing does not apparate gods out of all that hot air... and even less a Zombified Demi-god.
You think you're really smart, don't you
@@popland1977 "You think you're really smart, don't you"... Thou sayest it
Alliteration and thesauruses don’t “apparate” intelligent comments on RUclips.
@@martyfromnebraska1045 ... methinks the pissant doth protest too much!!
Both gentlemen are trying to pigeon-hole God's abilities while still claiming He exists outside of time. But God not only exists outside of time, He also exists outside of logic, which renders this discussion inadequate when attempting to prove the existence of God. God's omnipotence is unfathomable which is what we're trying to do here. God is a mystery and faith is a gift, it can't be taught, learned or rationalized..
@T Z While what we believe in faith and what we discover by reason are mutually beneficial, since God created both faith and reason, He can’t be restricted to their confines. He exists outside of them. God is outside all that exists. “I am who I am.”
Lemme guess. Presuppositional apologetics is your apologetics of choice?
@@Gruuvin1If you are referring to my comment, yes, I presuppose only one thing, that God created me and the world around me - that’s faith, a gift from God. Reason helps me to “flesh out” my one and only presupposition. In this debate, Jimmy Akin was doing the same thing.
@@crazyedswonderfulworldofso9370 I'm referring to presuppositional apologetics. Are you familiar with that?
@@Gruuvin1 yes, vaguely. From what I understand it deals with logic (reason) which is exactly what I am trying to differentiate from faith. A gift (faith) doesn't require logic or reason. It just is.
Let me save y'all some time.
No, the Kalam doesn't work. Nor do any of the other arguments for god. If you wanna believe in god, that's fine, but quit acting like there's good reason for it. It's your personal choice to believe something with no evidence. That's fine, and there's nothing necessarily wrong with it. Apologists should stop seeking this proof and just accept that they believe based on faith alone.
The evidence is all around you and inside you. Why something instead of nothing? Do the movement of atoms in your brain actually correspond with truth any more than balls moving around on a pool table?
Dunning-Kruger: the comment.
You saved nothing. That fact that you are even here in these comment tells me you are scrambling and in crisis within your atheistic and absurd world view. If you actually lived it or understood it, you wouldn't even be here wasting your time spreading nonsense, while pretending to be smarter than everybody else
This was like listening to two people speaking different languages. Jimmy needs to understand philosophical terms and Bill needs to explain better to people who don't (perhaps, he thought Jimmy did understand them). I don't even know who is right in the end, but I do know that Jimmy is not engaging with Bill's actual points since he doesn't understand them. The discussion of logical contradictions bears this out.
I will add that the example of the apples and subtracting infinite is something you often learn about in undergradute math. You cannot simply subtract infinity from infinity and expect reasonable answers. As an example, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1_%2B_2_%2B_3_%2B_4_%2B_%E2%8B%AF under "heuristics". I think you can prove, in fact, that the sum of the natural numbers is anything you want using this style of argumentation. Jimmy Akin has not proved his case by switching to apples, he has merely shown the incoherence of the situation.
I have yet to see Craig lose a debate. Kudos to him.