Kalaam Argument for God Debated | Jimmy Akin & Trent Horn
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 10 сен 2024
- Join Jimmy Akin and Trent Horn for a lively debate on the Kalam Cosmological Argument! This engaging discussion explores the philosophical and scientific underpinnings of this classic proof for God's existence. Discover the complexities of the argument, including the nature of infinity, the role of scientific evidence, and the implications for understanding God's relationship to time.
Wow! Two "heavyweights" going at it! It's like Ali and Frazier all over again. Excellent discussion gentlemen! Thank you.
More like Ingo vs Pacqiao
Jimmy Akin is a liar. He is not an intellectual anything. It really bothers me that he would boldy proclaim a lie about his discussion with WLC. Around the 25 minute mark, Jimmy claim WLCs problem with his takedown of the Kalam is that it was effective and could prevent people from believing in God. This is just not true. WLC never ever said anything remotely close to that. The debate consisted of Jimmy misunderstanding basic philosophical terms and Craig correcting him. I am ashamed of Jimmy.
Heavyweights?? Lol I'd eat these two apologists for lunch
What? Jimmy Akin debates Trent Horn? What a pleasant surprise!
I did not understand about a third of this but was truly fascinated and watched every minute with interest until the end. Both of you guys are the bomb!❤
I love Catholic Geek Out Land! Like Cy, I am fascinated any time I witness a difference of opinion between Catholic Answers guests. Putting them together to tease out their thoughts is great material. I enjoy these loving and respectful discussions much better than the cutthroat debates most people do.
I loved this talk, especially between you two! I feel like it needs at least another 2 hours. Any chance we'll see that in the future???
Such excellent food for thought.
Re: "Any chance we'll see that in the future???"
Well, it depends upon your theory of time....
@@cw-on-ytlol
@@cw-on-yt🤣
I still don't understand how you could have a created infinite past...doesn't the term "infinite past" imply that it isn't created? And if it's not created, then what about the Creator? Trent and WLC's position seems more intuitive here.
I think the reason envisioning an infinite past is so difficult is because people can more easily picture space being created than time being created. Even when people picture time being created, I think they tend to only imagine God creating the first moment with each moment somehow causing the next moment rather than God creating all moments by creating time. However, if God can create even one moment, why couldn't God just as easily create an infinite number of moments?
Jimmy Akin is a liar. He is not an intellectual anything. It really bothers me that he would boldy proclaim a lie about his discussion with WLC. Around the 25 minute mark, Jimmy claim WLCs problem with his takedown of the Kalam is that it was effective and could prevent people from believing in God. This is just not true. WLC never ever said anything remotely close to that. The debate consisted of Jimmy misunderstanding basic philosophic term and Craig correcting him. I am ashamed of Jimmy.
This is a great dialogue! I remember watching it when Trent posted it on his podcast a while back, and now just watched it all again becasue its so good to have this two discuss. Even though I feel like Cy sometimes, "I'm confused!" (Shoutout to Cy btw, he is a great surrogate for the audience to clear things up when Trent and Jimmy go over our head!)
Jimmy Akin is a liar. He is not an intellectual anything. It really bothers me that he would boldy proclaim a lie about his discussion with WLC. Around the 25 minute mark, Jimmy claim WLCs problem with his takedown of the Kalam is that it was effective and could prevent people from believing in God. This is just not true. WLC never ever said anything remotely close to that. The debate consisted of Jimmy misunderstanding basic philosophic term and Craig correcting him. I am ashamed of Jimmy.
Absolutely love this! Would love to see a future episode that takes a deeper dive into more of the issues surrounding causal finitism.
Ok wait…. NOBODY laughed at the Shazam argument joke???? That was pretty great lol
Pretty disrespectful actually
That's cuz the KaBamm! argument is way better
@@Bo0meRs0disrespectful to an argument? 😂
It's good to see you leaning into your roots and being your own person. I find the response to it very interesting, to say the least.
I am not sure where exactly in discussion of Jimmy and Craig where Craig suggested that we can just ignore the objections because of the argument’s utility. 🤔
This never happened. Jimmy is a liar. That really made me sad. Christians should never lie.
11:00 “The very guys he’s citing says he’s misapplying my theorem”. I believe that’s true for Dr. Guth, but I believe Dr. Vilenkin says that Dr. Craig is applying it accurately.
Vilenkin has been absolutely and repeatedly clear that Craig is correctly citing him. I gave a list of quotations from Vilenkin the first time this dialogue was posted. Very unfortunate. Unless he changed his mind very very recently.
Also, it’s plausible that Guth’s escape route ends up implying the beginning he seeks to avoid.
“There are no models at this time that provide a satisfactory model for a universe without a beginning.” - Vilenkin 2012
“We have no viable models of an eternal universe. The BGV theorem gives reason to believe that such models simply cannot be constructed.” - Vilenkin 2015
“Many people once again hoped that maybe on a far greater scale the universe is indeed eternal--with ancestor bubbles nucleating ad infinitum into the past. Now, however, we know that this is not possible. And once again, the beginning of the universe must be tackled head on.” - Vilenkin 2017
Further note that Vilenkin interacted with the kalam and didn’t deny p2
@@bman5257 “There are no models at this time that provide a satisfactory model for a universe without a beginning.” - Vilenkin 2012
“We have no viable models of an eternal universe. The BGV theorem gives reason to believe that such models simply cannot be constructed.” - Vilenkin 2015
“Many people once again hoped that maybe on a far greater scale the universe is indeed eternal--with ancestor bubbles nucleating ad infinitum into the past. Now, however, we know that this is not possible. And once again, the beginning of the universe must be tackled head on.” - Vilenkin 2017
also note that Vilenkin engaged kalam in print, and he only challenged premise 1…
Still waiting for Trent and Jimmy to at least ACKNOWLEDGE these comments. I deeply respect and trust both of those gentlemen. Which is why I insist they discuss this.
@TheProdigalMeowMeowMeowReturns you shouldn't. Did you around min 25 where Jimmy straight up lied about gis dialog with Craig? You could tell trent got uncomfortable with Jimmy lying that blatantly.
I love your content. Thank you.
Thanks Jimmy and Trent
I have a complaint. This need to be at least 3 hours long to really flesh out
My head hurts
The paper passer thought experiment seems absurd.
We give them a paper and setup a rule for writing their names.
But wait a minute! Who exactly are we giving the paper to?? If this is an infinite series then there is no first person in the line up.
Therefore the paper will always bear the name of the first person you gave the paper to!
If only there was evidence for the existence, there wouldn’t be the need for all sorts of convoluted arguments. Example: What are the arguments for the existence of the Sun, for atoms, for photosynthesis, for DNA? None, because there’s actual evidence that every rational person accepts as directly relevant to determining whether these things, big or small, actually exist.
@Jimmy Akin, "Married Bachelors" are recognized by the US Military all the time. The military calls them "Geographical Bachelors" meaning they are on an assignment where they cannot take their wives due to Mission, Facility and Safety concerns.
No man was allowed to take his wife into the Combat Zones of Iraq and Afghanistan, for instance.
The problem with the paper passer is creating a finite starting point for the names "Mr.0". Why couldn't there be a "Mr -1"and into negative infinity? Maybe there is a reason that I don't understand.
Great to see two great apologists discussing interesting things. Great way to learn things.
However I think God creating an "infinite in time universe" does seem like a logical contradiction and even against CC teachings, given Bible state God created everything including the universe.
That by itself assumes the Universe is not eternal and has not always existed, otherwise it would be as eternal as God Himself which would be a contradiction itself.
Also an eternal Universe, today would never be possible to reach, given there would be an infinite number of days before today, thus in reality today would never be reached, another contradiction.
Lastly, an eternal Universe would have suffered a heat death a long time ago (given all stars would have already run out of fuel and died or became black holes), and given we know it is expanding would not make sense, given it is evident at one point it had to be all together, which means it could not be eternal, but started to exist at one point in time.
Jimmy acknowledges that revelation (such as the Bible) teaches us that the universe did indeed have a beginning, but he argues that an atheist is not required to believe that. He also agrees that current science seems to show that the universe had a beginning, but because science is constantly evolving as we learn more, it is not a reliable proof that the universe has a beginning either.
Agreed, however I think with reasons given above there is no good reason to think the Universe is eternal, that is why even atheists recognize this, despite not believing in God.
Science will never have 100% certainty on anything, but we still need to make assumption to function or we would do nothing at all.
An infinite (boundless) task cannot be completed. Therefore, since today has come, an infinite number of days could not have preceded it, as that would constitute a completion of an infinite (boundless) task.
Question: Can't an infinite task be completed in an infinite amount of time?
Answer: No. Since a infinite amount of time would be never-ending, the task would not ever be completed.
P.S. Infinity is not a "number". A number is like fence in field. Infinity is like the lack of a fence.
Two smart asses going at it.
Craig does clearly state infinity’s form logical contradictions that’s just a fact!!
22:40 into it and Trent is already arguing that logic works when it agrees with what he already thinks.
The trinity sure looks like a four sided triangle to me.
Would you also say that the Halting Problem fails to show a limit in computers, but instead a problem in the rules set up in the thought experiment? Because what you've said here seems to cut down the utility of all kinds of arguments by contradiction
Really excellent
Koon’s contradiction is that no one would ever receive an empty sheet.
@@pgk60 correct. Jimmy is just bad at logic.
The fact that jimmy doesn’t drop the “g” off of “-ing” words in this conversation (“somethin’” instead of “something”) shows that whenever he does this in other contexts, it’s just an affect
I agree with jimmy on this one.
We must remember mathematics shows the point of singularity is virtually unequivocal.
Is this a reupload?
Shouldn't Trent be arguing that this reality is the type of thing that can't be infinite?
“We have no viable models of an eternal universe. The BGV theorem gives reason to believe that such models simply cannot be constructed.” - Vilenkin 2015
So your statement that “the guys he’s citing say he’s misquoting them” is misleading, as Vilenkin agrees with Craig’s use of that theorem .
@Jimmy Akin, you need to update your science knowledge visa vie James Webb Telescope which has blown a hole in 13 billion yrs.
While it's great to discuss whether the premise "the universe began to exist" is true (that's critical to the argument), *what about the fact that it concludes "the universe had a cause"?* After all this is being called an "argument for god", so the fact that it doesn't even conclude with a god should maybe be a big enough problem that these two notice it?
I'm with Trent on the paper passing experiment. The contradiction isn't built in the rule, because applying the rule on a finite set doesn't pose a problem. It only poses a problem for an infinite set, which means that the problem is with the infinite set, not the rule.
As an atheist, I totally agree with Jimmy's statement at 15:50
I think both Akin and Trent are incredibly intelligent and great defenders of their positions. I do not think I would ever want to be opposite either of them in a debate! However, I think Jimmy Akin did misunderstand William Lane Craig's problem with his objection to the Kalam around the 15 min mark of the video. I remember watching that and sharing Craig's objection. Also, maybe on the popular level Akin and Trent are given favor by youtubers that Craig doesn't have. However, Craig is definitely cited as one of the heaviest hitting Christian apologists, and I have never heard Akin or Trent included in those lists (I only say that because of what Akin said about Trent and him being more respected by many). I seriously don't mean any disrespect though!
Shazam!
KaBlamm!!!
Haha, the paper passing went clear over Jimmy’s head…..the contradiction is in the fallacious idea of infinite regression, not anything about the rules themselves. An infinite past makes any version of the present illogical.
Assorted thoughts on Jimmy Akin's Kalam takes
[1] I think his appeals to theism to critique the argument are strange, given that said criticisms grant the conclusion of the argument is true. If you needed to appeal to theism to refute premises of the Kalam, the Kalam would still be a successful internal critique of atheism.
[2] To put this another way, key premises of the Kalam could just be prefixed with a simple "if God does not exist...", if it's granted that Akin's theistic critiques succeed.
[3] On the other hand, I acknowledge that some of what Akin says about God can be modified into non-theistic terms. For example, you don't need to appeal to divine omnipotence to say something like "just because an infinite past would involve oddities doesn't mean it's necessarily false".
[4] When Akin and Craig went back and forth on logical/metaphysical possibility on Pints With Aquinas, I think that was probably a distraction. Even the use of a term like "broad logical possibility" to describe metaphysical possibility indicates that for ostensibly metaphysically impossible scenarios, there's supposed to be a contradiction _somewhere_ along the line when you try to actualize them.
Can you not argue that the past cannot be infinite simply because time flows forwards? Infinite implies continuous, and you cannot continue backwards, because that violates the laws of time.
If God goes from not creating to then creating, how is it that God is unchanging?
Nothing changes for God. In the timeless moment of the Eternal Now, he creates the universe as beginning at a certain point and at all subsequent points. There is no "before" moment where the universe does not exist.
@@JimmyAkinThanks, I’m going let that marinate… it makes my head hurt 😂
Great dialogue. However, I must conclude though, that Bill Craigs version of the kalam still stands strong. I find the critiques from both these gentlemen unpersuasive.
Do you think Craig's Kalam is logical or just feels intuitive?
36:03 The problem with your time travel "paradoxes" is that you're implicitly assuming causality is unidirectional in time which you already violated by saying time travel is possible.
One easy solution to the time travel paradoxes is that time travel is casually linked to what you will do in the past. It's also possible that time traveling changes things before and after your arrival point.
It's a bizarre defense of the Kalam because it immediately creates the defeater that the cause of the universe could be the future.
My red bearded father Christmas aka Jimmy you need get William Lane Craig on the channel for discussing this very very important about God because if one can show big bang singularity is literally the beginning point of space time continuum and there is very solid evidence for that or from a philosophical perspective the impossibility of infinite temporal past events then the conclusion of this argument is unavoidable,
They’ve already done so on that topic on Pints with Aquinas.
@@bman5257 correct. It was embarrassing for Jimmy. Jimmy is a poorly read popular level thinker.
How does a paradox compare with a logical contradiction?
A paradox is when you don't know how to put two or more facts/ideas together coherently.
A contradiction is when you do know that two facts/ideas cannot go together coherently.
Paradox = I don't know how A and B fit together.
Contradiction = I know that A and B do not fit together.
How can an infinite past be caused? It’s infinite!
By time itself being created by a timeless uncaused cause
If an omnipotent being can instantly make something out of nothing, theoretically he should be able to just as easily make an infinite number of things such that space is infinite. If you rotate the four dimensions to the time axis, he should also be able to create infinite moments. At least that's how I am envisioning it.
He can because God would be external to this created reality. He is in "eternity" and not in time. I think Aquinas would defend something like this.
@@nightyew2160 Right, God could do that, but then finite things would have to perform an infinite number of steps to get to any finite "now." The infinite past has to be possible for God _and_ for a material universe, otherwise creation becomes a contradiction.
@@nisonatic That is a really interesting argument I hadn't thought about before. I will have to think about it further. I am really curious how Jimmy Akin would answer that one.
It seems like Jimmy speaks is contradiction. A beginning of an infinite past is still a beginning, so either infinite past means no beginning or means infinite past can have a beginning, so is still subject to becoming created in one case. Or when he says God snaps his fingers in eternal now to create a being with no beginning, it's a contradiction. Like at 56:00-57:00
More like a conflation of terms. He's saying that universe-time has a beginning in God-time.
All of it sounds like a contradiction to me lol. It just creates unescessary confusion. Making the Kalam more complex than it actually is.
@@matthewtheron2505 The Kalam is neither more complex than they want to pretend or it's not an argument for God.
I dont see how an eternal past isnt a self contradiction because we are assuming it to already fully exist (an infinite set).
Whereas an infinite future isnt a contradiction because its something that you will never reach the end of (in a present tense, it is always a finite set for all of eternity, because eternity is not a finite number you can reach…)
In a universe with an infinite future, whatever # day you’re on is always a finite day (not a contradiction) vs in an infinite past whatever # day youre on is always infinity + 1 day (always a contradiction because infinity is not a number)
That’s what I would’ve said as well but in all the debates I’ve watched this point has never been brought up
I have a couple questions and remarks. First, they never really addressed that the Bible states “In the beginning”. What do we do with that with an infinite past?
Also, can you have more than one infinite? For example God is infinite along with an infinite universe?
Considering we talk about time travel and we acknowledge that time is a thing, can we say that “Time” began and our souls began. But God is and was infinite and our souls will be eternal with God in infinity?
Just like we think of eternal life in heaven sounds like a long time but there may not be time.
My biggest concern with Jimmy's intuition for the possibility of an infinite past is that it doesn't seem to help to explain why God created such an empty universe. There's areas with millions of light years of complete nothingness, our galaxy is a universe of its own that is probably 99.99% devoid of life, but somehow God created an infinite past which just multiplies the problem?
Replying to myself because I have an even bigger concern: why would God create an infinity past if it would be enough to create a beginning and an infinite future? This isn't against the premise that "an infinite past is not logically contradicting" but shouldn't we think of God as the most sensical being and reduce arbitrarity about his character?
you cant have an actually infinite future only a potentially infinite one.
If the Universe never began to exist, then the universe would be infinitely old. But it's impossible to reach an infinite age. Therefore it's impossible for the universe to be infinitely old. God cannot do impossible things, therefore God cannot create a beginningless universe.
I don't think the rules of the note passing game was *creating* a 4 sided triangle, i think the rules was a way of *pointing out* the hidden 4 sided triangle. Any rules or games you can play within a finite past that you can't play in an infinite past are still perfectly valid rules, it shows that whole idea of a infinite past is nonsense
You don't need an infinite past to have a beginningless set. Just put 10 paper passers in a circle and you get the same "paradox".
@@goldenalt3166 that's clearly not the same thing. Even with a circle they have to start somewhere.
@@SneakyEmu There's no beginning. Clearly you're idea of "starting somewhere" is flawed.
@@goldenalt3166 if the game is in progress then it had to start. That's the whole point of this thought experiment is that an infinite past is illogical
@@SneakyEmu You're trying to assume a beginning in a series that has no beginning. I agree that's illogical. Circles are not infinite though so it has nothing to do with infinity.
Reminds me of the great fresco The School of Athens...☺️
From a perspective of science, there is more reason to believe that some things like energy do not have beginning and no reason to beleive thar all things must have a cause. Kalam is good for apologetics to people that already believe but not great for converting atheists.
Furthermore, even if one does prove a prime mover in this way - it doesnt say what the attributes of that being are. It comes back to do you already beleive in a creator god or not
I appreciate jimmy puahing back against WLC's bad faith use of the argument.
Philosophy is sound in concluding that anything changing must have a beginning. If the universe was eternal then you would have infinite points in the past that would need to be counted through to get to our present point, but counting to infinity is definitionally impossible, so we can never get to our present point, so obviously the universe is not eternal.
Logic’s first proof which is also needed to define the philosophy of science is through the argument of motion. It can be noted that some things in the universe are in motion and it follows that whatever is in the state of motion must have been placed in motion by another such act. Motion in itself is nothing less then the reduction of something from the state of potentiality to actuality. Because something can not be in potentiality and actuality simultaneously, it follows that something can not be a mover of itself.
@@bubbles581 Precisely. These arguments can be useful in advocating for God, but at the end of the day hardcore atheists will not accept then if their hearts and minds are already determined to be closed to the idea of God unless they see 100% full proof objectionable physical evidence for God’s existence.
We already know it’s extremely unlikely that we’ll ever get the kind of evidence atheists want, so at the end of the day it all still comes back to faith and whether you’re willing to accept the circumstantial evidence and reasoning we do have for God’s existence.
"Furthermore, even if one does prove a prime mover in this way - it doesn't say what the attributes of that being are. It comes back to do you already believe in a creator God or not."
I think that's fine, because the purpose of the argument isn't to demonstrate all the attributes of the creator God, just that there is one. A cosmological argument would show there is a creator God and that he at least has power and ability to create the universe.
But other arguments, such as the teleological or moral, would demonstrate the other attributes of this creator.
One could say, "Even if you prove God is good through this moral argument, it doesn't say this God created everything." Sure, but that's not the intent or scope of the argument. The case is cumulative.
Jimmy Akin is a liar. He is not an intellectual anything. It really bothers me that he would boldy proclaim a lie about his discussion with WLC. Around the 25 minute mark, Jimmy claim WLCs problem with his takedown of the Kalam is that it was effective and could prevent people from believing in God. This is just not true. WLC never ever said anything remotely close to that. The debate consisted of Jimmy misunderstanding basic philosophic term and Craig correcting him. I am ashamed of Jimmy.
I would rather hear Trent and WLC debate the Kalam. I dont find Jimmy's arguments very good against the Kalam.
Existence isnt emergent. Existence pluralism is false
Infinite past is halfway to saying eternal, it lacks only infinite future. The contradiction then seems to be having two eternals. God could not have made a universe with no beginning. This seems to lean into a pantheism where the ever existing universe is godlike.
Akin lost me when he admitted the universe is contingent but denies it has a beginning. And the was after he admitted the universe must have a beg8nning but we can't prove it through science via the Big Bang. But we don't need the Big Bang. We only need the admission of contingency. A contingent thing MUST have a beginning. Claiming otherwise is a logical contradiction.
What?! I guess you completely misunderstood the argument. Akin doesn’t deny the universe has a beginning. Actually he explicitly states that he favors that position - and by Revelation we know that’s the true position - by including scientific method’s truths (which are contingent themselves, but they are instrumental and useful) as a caveat to present what he says is a fully coherent version of the Kalam argument, without any resource to revealed data. What he indeed says about the argument (in and of itself) is that it cannot be fully demonstrated philosophically, since it would require that God couldn’t make an universe without beginning (which he says is not a logical contradiction, therefore is not a valid affirmation “a priori”, countering William Lane Craig, who thinks ‘ad absurdum’ arguments make for logical contradiction, which they actually don’t). In that sense, and conceding to Akin’s point (which is EXACTLY the argument of St Thomas Aquinas against the Kalam as if it were a pure and rigorous philosophical argument), one can clearly assume that an infinite universe has to have a logical beginning due to an “ontological necessity” which separates creature (creation) and Creator, but not necessarily a chronological beginning. That’s impossible to affirm strictly from philosophy/ metaphysics, although it can be affirmed by cosmological/ scientific (=Big Bang) or theological (=book of Genesis) supplementary data. It’s quite hard to understand what a past infinite means if we think under concrete material realities and categories. The whole discussion is disputable, but that’s quite understandable. Akin is NOT saying the universe does not have a (logical and chronological) beginning, which is obvious, since all but God is contingent, but that you CANNOT defend the universe has a chronological beginning under pure metaphysical reasoning, without resourcing either to 1) cosmological/ scientific data or 2) Divine Revelation. As I said, it is exactly St Thomas’ argument (and obviously St Thomas believes the universe has both a logical and chronological beginning). God bless!
@masterchief8179 Hello MasterChief. Like Trent I'm not interested in an endless back and forth loop of arguments so if you choose to post a follow up response I'm fine with letting you have the last word.
My point is that built into the definition of the word "contingent" is the necessary assumption of a beginning. Since the universe is contingent and the definition of contingent includes "has a beginning" we don't need metaphysical or scientific proofs. Asserting a contingent universe that has no beginning (or a beginning set in an infinite past) is as absurd as asserting God can make a rock too heavy for him to lift, or that he can create married bachelors.
Craig never said what Jimmy is accusing him of saying. He never asked Jimmy why he was objecting to the Kalam when the Kalam could be convincing to somebody else. That is a total misrepresentation of what Craig said.
Jimmy was constantly raising theological objections to the Kalam, not philosophical ones. More specifically, he was constantly reasoning that "Catholicism teaches X, therefore, I must reject the arguments you are putting forward for the Kalam".
Craig was pointing out that it is very strange to object to a philosophical argument by appealing to theology.
So I have no idea why Jimmy is totally misrepresenting what happened. Anyone who watches their conversation can easily see he is making stuff up.
Furthermore, his comment about him and Trent being most respected among atheists because they uniquely only put forward arguments they agree with is total nonsense.
Virtually everyone I watch involved in these apologetic circles believes in the arguments they are putting forward. For Jimmy to act like he is special, because he is one of the only people who is honest is a bad joke.
This is very disappointing from Jimmy.
So far, it’s just two people agreeing
God cant create an infinite past, because if there was an infinite past you would never arrive at moment in time, because there would always be an infinite series before any single moment.
I don't understand the premise of how God can be outside of time possessing omniscience (knowing past, present, and future) and still be a causal being. Don't you need causality to function to avoid the "God cannot lie" premise (Numbers 23:19)? As far as I can tell, just because one is eternal does not necessarily mean that one is not bound to causality. Consider Isaiah 38:1-5. How do you reconcile a view if God absolutely foreknew and predestined that Hezekiah would not die but still telling him through the prophet Isaiah that we was going to die, how is God not lying? Can God relent or change his mind based on our actions? What is the purpose of a covenant which demands accountability from both us and God through our own agencies if God is not a causal being that also enables us to be causal? Does God prophesy where things come to pass through absolute foreknowledge of the future, or does he make the prophesy come to pass through His power with purpose through action through uncertainty (Matt 26:52-54, Luke 4:28-30)?
My personal theory is where God knows past and present, but does not "know" the future other than a "sacred timeline", a sequence of events through history that God deems under his purview and purposed beyond mankind's capacity to deviate. Otherwise, how else can we avoid not also having a God who ordains sin through his creation (Genesis 1:31)? That means that in the garden, when Adam was presented with uncertainty between God's word and the deceiver's word when Eve was not immediately judged for eating the fruit, in order for God not to ordain sin, he had to give Adam complete agency to make the choice and not predestine that decision. In this system, to accomplish what God needs to do to fulfill his vision and save His people through Jesus authenticated from fulfilled prophecy, it demands that he can envisage all possible permutations of free willed creatures and intervene when necessary to keep things on track.
There are counter-examples like the temptation of Peter that challenges this view pretty well. Empirically, I don't have the sense perception that my words and actions are ordained from the dawn of creation. Can sense perception distinguish between your agency and God's agency (2 Peter 1:20-21)... e.g. words coming out that short circuit the brain?
Obviously there's lots of debate on the topic, but this is where I currently land. I'm open to rebuttal but don't want to impinge on your time and energy. Appreciate the openness you have to discussions on these kinds of strange topics. Cheers!
Aquinas believed God is not bound to causality because he is the first cause of all things and therefore never passive to anything. God doesn't create evil, since evil in Thomism is only the absence of "good", God would only tolerate evil. The universe would be a "work of art" in part of God, the elect and reprobate were predestined to salvation and abandonment to disgrace before foreknowledge of merits. Sounds a lot like Calvinist because Calvin drank a lot from Aquinas and Augustine. I recommend the book "The Meaning of Grace" from Cardinal Charles Journet to understand predestination in Thomism and also the study of the Summa Theologiae. About the exegesis of your Bible verses I don't know a lot but Aquinas must have commented on them.
👍
The Kalam is special pleading. If the universe began to exist then so too did the principles therein, and can't logically be applied. You don't get exempt the principle you need to make your argument, just because.
why is it special pleading, if God began to exist then it would be special pleading.
@@gsp3428 Because you're trying to exempt causality from having begun to exist. If the universe began to exist, so too did all principles therein. Causality doesn't get a pass just because you need it for your argument.
@@ScienceFoundation No the universe began to exist and it had a cause. Causality is not a concrete entity that begins to exist.
@@gsp3428 No principle is a physical thing, but they are properties of the material. Why does causality get a pass and not conservation of energy? Conservation would say the universe existed eternally.
@@ScienceFoundation Energy would need a cause, but not conservation of energy because its not a thing. The argument is everything that begins to exist. Things is the word. Conservation of energy is not a thing. Its talking about concrete entities.
Algorithm comment as I have nothin intelligent to add 😊
Please correct your mistakes Jimmy.
I endeavor to do so. Not sure what mistakes you're referring to.
@@JimmyAkin see my other comment
@@JimmyAkin Vilenkin has been absolutely and repeatedly clear that Craig is correctly citing him. I gave a list of quotations from Vilenkin the first time this dialogue was posted. Very unfortunate. Unless he changed his mind very very recently.
Also, it’s plausible that Guth’s escape route ends up implying the beginning he seeks to avoid.
“There are no models at this time that provide a satisfactory model for a universe without a beginning.” - Vilenkin 2012
“We have no viable models of an eternal universe. The BGV theorem gives reason to believe that such models simply cannot be constructed.” - Vilenkin 2015
“Many people once again hoped that maybe on a far greater scale the universe is indeed eternal--with ancestor bubbles nucleating ad infinitum into the past. Now, however, we know that this is not possible. And once again, the beginning of the universe must be tackled head on.” - Vilenkin 2017
Further note that Vilenkin interacted with the kalam and didn’t deny p2
@@JimmyAkin RUclips keeps deleting my comments. See my quotations from Vilenkin. You are mistaken on his views, but you are correct on Borde and Guth (with caveats)
Vilenkin has been absolutely and repeatedly clear that Craig is correctly citing him. I gave a list of quotations from Vilenkin the first time this dialogue was posted. Very unfortunate. Unless he changed his mind very very recently.
Also, it’s plausible that Guth’s escape route ends up implying the beginning he seeks to avoid.
“There are no models at this time that provide a satisfactory model for a universe without a beginning.” - Vilenkin 2012
“We have no viable models of an eternal universe. The BGV theorem gives reason to believe that such models simply cannot be constructed.” - Vilenkin 2015
“Many people once again hoped that maybe on a far greater scale the universe is indeed eternal--with ancestor bubbles nucleating ad infinitum into the past. Now, however, we know that this is not possible. And once again, the beginning of the universe must be tackled head on.” - Vilenkin 2017
Further note that Vilenkin interacted with the kalam and didn’t deny p2
@JimmyAkin you lied about your debate with Craig. He never ever said anything about you being wrong to criticize the Kalam because it would hurt the cause of theism. He explained how you were confused about a strict logical impossibility. You still seem to be confused. Please do not lie. It truly hurts the cause of Christ.
Way too much contradiction 😅
Jimmy akin is a liar.
I think god can make a mistake and the flood is that mistake. Why else give your outh to never do it again if the punishment for the crime.
That's basically incoherent with any concept of divine simplicity that I've ever heard.
Additionally, there was no flood.
@@martyfromnebraska1045 so the story of the ark and raining for 40 days and nights isn't a biblical story from genesis?
@martyfromnebraska1045 Oh, you were there back then? You can confirm there was no flood?
Because God is Just, He can give life and take it back anytime for He created it. The Bible doesn't say God did wrong in creating the flood, Noah actually warned as many as he could. If God says he'll never cleanse the earth by a flood then that's it, God spoke and so it shall be. For us to add words to God's promise is ridiculous and meaningless, maybe to help us understand our misunderstanding, but no more than that.
@@Misael-Hernandez You know that sounds straght up evil...
👍