DIALOGUE: Can reason prove the universe began? (with Jimmy Akin)

[@DivineMercyCatechesis]

I love the Shazam argument for the existence of God

[@jendoe9436]

The true ultimate question in this entire conference.

[@js96111]

I’m surprised people as educated as Trent and Jimmy kept getting the name of this argument wrong throughout the dialogue

[@joksal9108]

Via Gomer Pyle, noted thinker/Marine?

[@CMVMic]

lmao!!

[@cosmicnomad8575]

I was never convinced by the Kalam, but the Shazam was so strong it convinced me before I even read it

[@danharte6645]

Jimmy Akin and Trent Horn, the Mycroft and Sherlock Holmes of catholic apologetics. We're so blessed to have these 2 men on our team ❤

[@PadraigTomas]

Which one is Mycroft?

[@danharte6645]

@@PadraigTomas it's got to be Jimmy as he's older than Trent

[@CMVMic]

They are two of the better christian apologists but their arguments still fail

[@danharte6645]

@@CMVMic interesting! Is that just some of their arguments or all of them and could you give a few examples you're thinking of and the rebuttal to them

[@MoopersYT]

​@@danharte6645they're kind of a pop atheist and spams comments

[@Chicken_of_Bristol]

Really love Jimmy's sense of humor when he takes the gloves off "What are we talking about here, Trent, and why are you wrong?" Not something many people could say to Trent, and only in a context like this do you get this kind of banter.

[@vincentthendean7713]

31:11 The double negative actually has differing meanings. "Is it possible for the universe to have a beginning?" translates to *"Can* the universe have a start?" "Is it impossible for the universe to not have a beginning?" translates to *"Must* the universe have a start?"

[@kencee0110]

Two of my highly respected Catholic Apologists!! ❤❤

[@midlander4]

Can you set the bar any lower?

[@RealAtheology]

Great video. I very much agree with Jimmy's point about Atheists taking him and Trent more seriously for the reasons he mentions, mainly actually trying to offer the best arguments against Atheism and taking a critical approach to the arguments available on both sides. It's something that Aquinas taught as well, as Prof. Michael Gorman notes "Aquinas holds that if someone gives a bad argument for God, we shouldn't act as if everything is ok because 'at least they are on the right team.' We should shoot the argument down, Aquinas says, lest people think that belief in God is based on this bad reason." I hope more Atheists and Theists can follow Jimmy and Trent in how they approach these issues.

[@CMVMic]

I think atheists take them more seriously than theists. Some theists dont believe arguments get you to God but personal experience, and faith.

[@ronciego9249]

I wish Mr. Trent could do a Free for all Friday episode about how he studies because that woulde be interesting for us who want to defend the faith as well as he does. Likewise, It would be awesome to have a Mysterious World episode about Mr Jimmy's research because that in itself is mysterious

[@nebolevar3583]

He should be called Captain Marvel! This discussion is off to a great start lol

[@christusenciaga]

There's a huge problem with his name being Shazam. When people ask what his name is, he can't respond without endangering himself.

[@TheProdigalMeowMeowMeowReturns]

PS. Both of these gentlemen are lovely and I’ve benefited from their work. Thank you guys!

[@user-gs4oi1fm4l]

My favorite area of apologetics with two of my favorite apologists... super excited to see this one pop up!

[@tonyl3762]

You held your own Trent. Hardly anyone can say that going up against Jimmy Akin.

[@Paul71H]

47:41 As I see it, the problem with the paper-passer paradox is that the scenario implicitly assumes that there was a beginning to the paper-passing process, when the people were given their instructions of how to pass the paper. But the scenario also explicitly assumes that this paper-passing has been going on for an infinite amount of time, into an infinite past. So there seems to be a contradiction in the assumptions, where the scenario assumes a beginning but also assumes no beginning. So I would contend that the scenario itself may be something like a four-sided triangle or a married bachelor.

[@nightyew2160]

Yeah, I am thinking that there is definitely a name on the paper passed to Zero, and which name it is depends on how many papers have been passed to Zero so far.

[@HeavenlyPhilosophy]

The whole point is that it's contradictory. The process is only possible if the past is finite. Pointing out the contradiction isn't going to change anything.

[@Paul71H]

@@nightyew2160 That's a good way of looking at it! That's not exactly how I was thinking of it, but I think you're onto something.

[@Paul71H]

@@HeavenlyPhilosophy I sort of agree with your second sentence, but I would say it slightly differently. I would say that that particular process is only possible if it begins at a certain point in time. But I don't think that means that *every* conceivable chain of events must necessarily have a beginning point in time.

[@HeavenlyPhilosophy]

@@Paul71H Imagine that the paper passer story goes finitely into the past but that there's one at 10:30, 10:15, 10:07.5, etc. So, there are still an infinite amount backwards. Imagine that we have a paper-passer story, but there’s a switch that must be activated before it happens in order for it to run. Call this the prefixed paper-passer story. We get these three contradictory statements. 1. The prefixed paper-passer story is possible. 2. If the prefixed paper-passer story is possible, then the paper-passer story is possible. 3. The paper-passer story is not possible Premise 3 is certain, so we can’t eliminate that. It’s just a contest between 1 and 2. Premise 2 seems much more plausible and intuitive than premise 1. It’s hard to see if the prefixed story is possible, but it’s easy to imagine changing it to the paper passer story. So, we should reject 1. But that moves us beyond just a logical contradiction and into a more underlying principle.

[@cscheps8007]

Two of my favorite apologists conversing and geeking out!?!? This was awesome! I would love to hear more of you two discussing our Catholic faith together ☺️ thank you for all you guys do!

[@TheProdigalMeowMeowMeowReturns]

Hang on Jimmy. Vilenkin actually agrees with Craig overall. But Guth and Borde disagree “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 Jimmy, also note that Vilenkin interacted with the kalam and didn’t deny p2 (Craig has these listed neatly. But they’re not taken out of context. Worse,?Krauss has selectively quoted from Vilenkin, but WLC has shown how the fuller excerpt has the opposite effect from what Krauss was trying to sneak in.)

[@user-gs4oi1fm4l]

I appreciate this clarification

[@RealAtheology]

Have you seen SKYDIVEPHIL's documentary on the Kalam argument? He seems to have some interviews where Vilenkin disagrees with the interpretation that apologists offer on this argument.

[@TheProdigalMeowMeowMeowReturns]

@@RealAtheology Craig has replied in detail. I’m inclined to think Dr Craig is right here

[@TheProdigalMeowMeowMeowReturns]

@@RealAtheology with all due respect to skydivephil, the documentary was (unintentionally) misleading

[@TheProdigalMeowMeowMeowReturns]

@@RealAtheology PS. I genuinely and deeply appreciate and need your channel!

[@TKDB13]

I think another advantage of your modified Kalam argument would have over the contingency argument would simply be rhetorical ease of use. Contingency is a relatively technical metaphysical concept that's likely to be confusing for those without too much background in philosophy (which, if we're being honest, is most people), and so takes a fair amount of groundwork for someone to properly follow the contingency argument. But the paradoxes of an infinite past deal more in a realm that's closer to the sort of styles of thinking that would be familiar to an intelligent person with a modern education, which emphasizes mathematical and scientific principles moreso than philosophical ones.

[@docverit2668]

Catholics and others concerned with this issue would do themselves a great favor by consulting some of the relevant works of former Priest and Physicist Stanley Jaki (1924-2009) who better explained what Messrs Horn and Akin are setting forth, and with some scientific reasoning as well for both the lay person and the cosmologist.

[@dynamic9016]

Really appreciate this discussion.

[@CMVMic]

For the paper passer paradox, the process of passing the paper to make logical sense, there must be an initial condition or starting point where the event of writing down a number happened but due to the rules this event would never occur. Since this information was omitted, this would result in the paradox. Here's a revised version of the paradox, that has been solved by adding a condition. Imagine an infinite sequence of people, each with a natural number as a name, lined up as follows: ..., -3, -2, -1, 0, 1, 2, 3, .... In this revised scenario, the line extends infinitely in both directions. There is no beginning or end to the sequence. Each person receives a piece of paper from someone on their left. The rule remains the same: if the paper is blank, they write their name on it; if the paper already has a name, they pass it to the person on their right. Introduction of additional condition: Mr. -1 in the sequence starts with a blank piece of paper. Mr. -1 writes his name and passes it to Mr. 0. This would also mean each person did not receive a piece of paper which also violates the rules, this shows that every person receiving a piece of paper or passing it, would be impossible. So yes, the omission of information combined with the contradiction of the rules creates the paradox since for the paper to have a number on it, there must be a beginning. What this shows is that an infinite series must have a beginning. However, a beginning to causal events does not prove that the Universe which is defined as a substance had a beginning. A substance is not a beginning, therefore, such paradoxes do not prove the Universe came into existence, only that events must have beginnings.

[@jonathanhili7104]

Interesting discussion, although a shame they didn't really tackle the strongest philosophical point in favour of a finite paste: traversing an actual infinite sequential cause-and-effect series.

[@dawnrock4675]

This has been both informative and enjoyable.

[@Babby6010]

It would be such a pleasure to have jimmy explain how an infinite universe can exist like I’m five. If anybody could do it it’s the Catholic Robot himself.

[@John_Fisher]

Maybe you caught this distinction, but just to be clear: Jimmy doesn't believe that our universe might actually exist infinitely in the past, because God has revealed to us that it was created at a particular time. His position is that it is possible that if God wanted to, He could have made a universe that exists with an infinite past that is fully known and has its existence because of Him in the same way that ours has an infinite future that is known and exists because of Him.

[@vituzui9070]

@@John_Fisher I'm not sure that believing in an infinite future of the current time is compatible with the faith. We have to believe in an end of the world, and therefore, perhaps, this implies an end of of the current time in this universe. But I know that we will have our bodies in Heaven (and hell), so there is some form of succession (i.e. some form of time) that should be present in Heaven (and hell) with an infinite future. But the question is : will this time after the end of the world be a different time than the current time, or will it just be the continuation of the same time ? I don't know if the faith teaches us something about that (we should ask Jimmy).

[@John_Fisher]

@@vituzui9070 Right, this world is coming to an end, but we have a promise of a new world that will have some form of time that extends without end.

[@CMVMic]

Infinites have to do with events, not substances.

[@littledrummergirl_19]

@@CMVMicbut doesn’t infinity in this case (the universe) deal with substances? (I assume you mean substances=material)

[@christopherchance9175]

I hope you don't mind Trent, but I had to make a clip of you and Jimmy poking fun at Cy's accidental verbal blunder and regaling in your shared love of comic book superheroes. That made my day.

[@snokehusk223]

I am glad Trent mentioned absurdity of consequences of infinite past. Logically it is just not perceivable as infinite future. I think that implies something.

[@tpoy1274]

I think Trent makes a good point that if something like an infinite past or time travel are possible, then you would need something else in addition to guarantee that contradictions don’t obtain. But what besides a mind is concerned with avoiding contradictions? So you would need a providential intellect.

[@kellibuzzard]

Both of these guys are fantastic. But Jimmy is special, isn't he? Plus, he looks so Oakridge Boys! Love.

[@williamgressman4001]

a note on hilberts hotel. If every room in an infinite hotel is filled you could still not place more people in it because you shifting a client up one could never be done from the end down, as you would never find an empty room to place the one of the current clients in, and you couldnt start from the front because at least one patron would always be in transit, which would mean they are not in a room.

[@antpassalacqua]

I think the existence of prophesy indicates retro causation clearly, while respecting free will

[@sivad1025]

Aa a mathematician with a solid understanding of real analysis, I've spent so much time mulling this over. The idea of traversing an infinite vector in finite increments seems logically impossible to me. But it's infuriating because I can't formally articulate why this is illogical

[@John_Fisher]

Can you clarify what the 'traversing' refers to? Because I think this might be part what Jimmy is bringing in when he defends an Eternalism perspective of time. If God exists outside of time in an 'Eternal Now', then there is no one or no thing that has to 'traverse' the entire universe through each moment of it, it just exists as one 4 dimensional object (with the 4th dimension being time). You could then propose that there is no problem, in principle, with the duration of the time dimension being infinite.

[@Qwerty-jy9mj]

@@John_Fisher Even if it were true that we extender our existence in time among the 4th dimension, that wouldn't dismiss the experience of living one moment at a time. Living discursively is what it means to traverse through time. If there's a being that can comprehend all of it, it's the being outside of time, namely God.

[@John_Fisher]

@@Qwerty-jy9mj I might not have worded it clearly. I agree that Living discursively is what it means to traverse through time. When I asked what 'traversing' refers to, I didn't mean in general, I meant to ask what 'traversing' the original poster was referring to in particular. That is, who are they concerned would be 'traversing an infinite vector' in an infinite past scenario?

[@sivad1025]

@@John_Fisher Good question, but I think you make the same mistake Jimmy does. Of course God could make an infinite timeline and plop humans in the middle. There would be no contradiction there because then our creation would have a finite start within the infinite timeline. The problem that Jimmy makes is that he's appealing to God to resolve the premise that "There cannot be an infinite past under a NATURAL world view." This isn't an attack on the infinite past, it's an attack on the natural world view. The natural world view has a serious problem here that doesn't exist in your situation because in your situation, God plops humans onto the timeline from outside of time. But in the natural view, humans came into time from something in a _prior_ time. That means for humans to exist in the present, an infinite number of events must preceed us which means that there must have been an actual traversal of infinitely many discrete units of time. This means you could never reach the present.

[@John_Fisher]

​ @sivad1025 I agree that a naturalistic world view has insurmountable problems, but I don't think that this is what this discussion is about. I don't think it is correct to say, "This isn't an attack on the infinite past, it's an attack on the natural world view." If you follow this conversation from the beginning, it is about trying to show from reason alone that the universe necessarily began to exist a finite time ago in the past and that this would be the case in all possible worlds. They refer to the 2nd basic premises of the Kalam Cosmological Argument ("The universe began to exist"). They explain that Trent's position is that that you can do this using philosophy alone. His reason for bringing infinites into the conversation is to show that they do lead to contradictions. Jimmy specifies that it is the purely philosophical approach - apart from modern scientific cosmology and apart from direct Revelation from God (e.g. in the Bible) - that he does not think succeeds in this demonstration. During the discussion, they agree (a little more than 33:00 minutes in) that if you want to make a more sophisticated "forked" Kalam argument that includes "If there is an infinite past then God must exist", you can do so and Jimmy has no problem with someone such as Trent pursuing this, but the whole purpose of the discussion is whether we can demonstrate from reason alone that it is necessary that the universe had a beginning.

[@originalchilehed]

@16:50. The absurd conclusion is that we are now at the end of an infinite series of actual events (the series of past events), which absolutely involves a logical contradiction based in the definition of infinity.

[@misterkittyandfriends1441]

The paper passer is an analogy for cause and effect in reality... the "writing" on the paper passed forward is the effect of the past on the future. Those rules are the causal rules of reality, so they are not a "trick of the rules" but a description of how we experience the world. In this case, there can not be any states that transition to other states in the future. So, that means that reality never occurred. The state of Trent Horn at 7:01 in this video is communicated to the future from 7:00, plus any changes Trent Horn has actualized between 7:00 and 7:01. If Trent Horns past is infinite (his causation is in this paradigm), then what was his initial state that gave rise to his state at 7:00? The idea of an initial state within an infinite past does not make sense - there is no initial state for Trent Horn. So, Trent Horn cannot exist at 7:00 because there is no initial state in the past that gave rise to Trent Horn. However, Trent Horn exists, and is in a particular state at 7:00. As Jimmy says, there is no such thing as an empty set reality. So you cannot have an infinite past that was the empty set where nothing caused nothing caused nothing for an infinite amount of time, then suddenly matter and energy emerge and the papers start passing their causes and effects down through time.

[@craigneil8313]

Trent just a question if I may? We have an inflationary universe meaning if we reverse this expansion back 13.79 billion years ago we come to zero. If the past was infinite does the universe expand beyond zero infinitely then in reverse. Is it inflationary on the negative side of zero? And what type of universe existed before zero

[@BeatMasterPhil]

Did Trent make the point in the paper pusher argument that no contradictions arise if the past is finite? If that is correct, that would seem to show a meaningful difference between an infinite and finite past.

[@Djamieson713]

I'm gong to need 2 more cups of coffee before I watch this

[@williamgressman4001]

The paper passing example doesn't work because whenever you have a person looking at the paper you would have to ask how they got the piece of paper, because no matter who you are at in the sequence, the piece of paper would never have gotten to that person as it would still be being passed infinitely before that person. No matter who you stop at, no matter how far down the line, you would never find the piece of paper.

[@user-gs4oi1fm4l]

Regarding Craig and the BVG Theorem Craig correctly points out how the theorem's observation of all expanding physical fields (which our universe would be described as) all require a beginning point. This presents a major obstacle for infinite universe theories such as multiverse, bubble universes, or bouncing universes since they do not get around the "beginning" implication of Big Bang Cosmology as many atheists claim they do. Alan Guth is an atheist and so he has strong words about Craig's observations of his own Theorem whereas Valenkin claiming an agnostic position admits he does not have the qualifications as a theoretical physicist to have a properly informed opinion on what his Theorem means regarding Creation. All three actors are interpreting the Theorem under their own presuppositions but the Theorem undermines strictly materialist presuppositions of infinite universes, so Craig is right to point this out.

[@felipetejeda7545]

I’m amazed these videos don’t have more views.

[@letrewiarz]

I was thinking of one argument againts infinite past and perhaps someone could offer some pushback here. I'm not good in physics, but as far as I understand, things are said to contain information about past events. So if we had perfect knowledge about all objects in the Universe, we could know the past perfectly, because of information contained in them. Now, if the past is infinite, wouldn't that create and actual inifinite? I'm not confident in my understanding of science, but if information is something actual and is not lost, then it seems to me that it proves finite past

[@tafazzi-on-discord]

things don't logically need to contain information about the past, and scientifically it seems that they do not retain over a certain threshold of information

[@TheProdigalMeowMeowMeowReturns]

@57:00 “universe” refers to spacetime arenas, right? In this context! Given that resurrection is part and parcel, we can’t say that it’s merely souls that have an infinite future. Regarding the heat death… that’s what WOULD happen if God doesn’t intervene.

[@actsapologist1991]

So, here's what I cannot get about Jimmy's argument. He objects to the philosophical arguments because he thinks God can create an infinite past. But no Atheist is going to make that argument. That is to say: If one has to appeal to God to make an infinite past work, then it works as a demonstration of God's necessity to a person who is committed to the idea of an infinitely long past. It seems that Jimmy's objection can be entirely circumvented by changing the second premise of the Kalaam: "Absent God, there is no way for the universe to be past-eternal."

[@sivad1025]

That's what I thought too. It's weird that he wasn't making a secular argument for the infinite past when that's what the argument is trying to defeat

[@user-gs4oi1fm4l]

I think that's what he's trying to show. That was the takeaway I had from his debate with Dr. Craig anyway (after 4 watches lol)

[@John_Fisher]

Part of Jimmy's motivation, as I understand it, is that he does believe that our own system of beliefs should be internally consistent so we should not make an argument that relies on God being non-omnipotent if God actually is omnipotent. But at a practical level, you are right that an atheist will not appeal to God to make an infinite past work, but they won't see that the need. They will simply question the claim that the universe began to exist, saying that it may very well exist back infinitely in some form beyond the (provisional) beginning that we have in (provisional) current big bang cosmology. Modifying the argument to "Absent God, there is no way for the universe to be past-eternal", they would still disagree with the claim, saying that they see no reason why the universe cannot be past-eternal.

[@actsapologist1991]

@@John_Fisher; Naturally, an Atheist would disagree with the notion that a beginningless universe is impossible without God. But that's where the role of the argumentation comes in. The point being; if the existence of an omnipotent, timeless God is the thing which is making an actually infinite past possible - then subtracting that should result in a situation where an infinite past stops working. That's what I kept thinking as I was listening to Jimmy. All of his explanations for how it is possible require divine intervention. So let's use that.

[@John_Fisher]

@@actsapologist1991 ​ Jimmy actually says (a little after 33:00) that if a more expanded, forked version of the Kalam argument - which includes the premise that "if the universe is infinite, God is necessary" - is how someone like Trent would like to prove God's existence, that he (Jimmy) has no problem with it. What he is objecting to is what Craig and others argue, that it is not possible for the universe to be infinite, because he doesn't see that it has been demonstrated - at least so far - that it is not possible; so if a Christian is to be consistent with the view that God is omnipotent, they can't claim that it it is impossible without a demonstration of logical impossibility. That being said, I don't think that Jimmy said divine intervention was needed to deal with 'a situation where an infinite past stops working', that such divine intervention was the only way to solve those problems. Perhaps he often used examples of "here's how God could have done it", but that isn't saying "God intervening at this point is the only way it could be solved", it is just that the point of this discussion is to see if the proposition "The universe began to exist" can be proven - philosophically - necessary, so Trent and others are trying to show that an infinite past is impossible, to which Jimmy is objecting that it isn't logically impossible.

[@tpoy1274]

I think Trent is right that a conscious being experiencing time passing either couldn’t have an infinite past or couldn’t really be experiencing the passage of time, which would entail that time isn’t directional.

[@Urbanity_Kludge]

Alex O'Connor, whole arguing with Trent, claimed that quanta particles come into existence without a cause. I'm not a physicist I can't answer the claim, but he seemed very confident that this was what modern physics shows. He used that to challenge the whole concept that what comes into existence must have a cause.

[@JJ-zr6fu]

The problem with his argument is we just don’t know why particles come into existence. We don’t know if it’s random or has a cause. His argument is kind of like a god of the gaps argument since he’s using an physical phenomenon that isn’t understood to say the universe is random and therefore not ordered. If you want more understanding in the astronomical arguments for and against god, fr. Spritzer is very good.

[@CMVMic]

Nothing comes into existence. Alex was wrong

[@newglof9558]

"Nobody wanna see us together, but it don't matter, no" - Jimmy Akon

[@RicardoRocha-lg1xo]

haha I see what you did there

[@gunsgalore7571]

First non-bot comment! My first ever on this channel!

[@John_Fisher]

Your first non-bot comment on this channel, congrats! Are most of your comments on this channel as a bot? (Sorry, couldn't help myself 🙂 )

[@gunsgalore7571]

@@John_Fisher Nice answer... No, I just meant that the guy who posted before me was a bot. But maybe if I identify as a bot then I can get some of those comments in as well.

[@Tzimiskes3506]

There was a paper published by Buffalo University that even Cyclic universes, needed a beginning. Both reason and evidence point to the beginning. Aquinas is good.

[@TerryMcKennaFineArt]

Why? Who wrote it? The folks who most understand rhe physical universe do not posit a maker.

[@user-gs4oi1fm4l]

This an implication of the BVG Theorem, assembled by individuals with atheist and agnostic worldviews. Although the atheists naturally deny these implications meaning anything vis a vis God.

[@user-gs4oi1fm4l]

It should also be noted that the individuals in physics who do not posit a maker do so on the presumption that the universe was always eternal. They have no evidence for this presumption (and there is plenty of evidence challenging it).

[@TerryMcKennaFineArt]

@@user-gs4oi1fm4l Actually they don't really know what happened in the big bangs first moments or what was before it. The difference is that they don't then posit magical beings and sacraments or rituals. They have the courage to admit that something is unknown. And the unknown is mysterious - they may learn more or they may not but at least they don't end up with absurdities like 3 persons in one god...

[@user-gs4oi1fm4l]

@@TerryMcKennaFineArt right, as i said they make assumptions. Instead of God they assume inflatons and quantum fluctuations with unique physical properties not observed ever according to the empirical method on top of their assumption of an infinite universe. They then accuse theists of being the ones believing in magic for believing a well documented historical person in Jesus and His eyewitnesses.

[@Davematheny3000]

I enjoyed the debate, but I am having difficulties that the concept, advanced by Akin, that God could create a universe that has the attributes of being infinite is problematic. I don't have a problem with the concept of infinite going to the future, but as for origin I don't see how this works. If God created the universe, that necessitates a beginning. If the universe is infinite, not just going forward into the future (I get that). I think the idea of an eternal universe but is still created is akin to a square circle. Help me out, please.

[@NomosCharis]

I’m with Trent on this one. It’s intuitively correct, nigh undeniable imo, that nothing can cross an infinite distance or pass an infinite amount of time. But that’s exactly what every new moment would be, given an infinite past. The issue is an infinite succession of causes-the passing of moments from one to the next. Yes, God experiences all time at once-he’s God. But that doesn’t change how time is defined. Time is a succession of cause and effect moving in one direction. God experiences everything differently than us. But even he knows what time is; he made it.

[@justinLoliver]

I wonder if the following proposition might show the logical contradiction of an infinite past. If the bedrock elementary particles of matter (whatever we may discover those to be) that make up the universe have always existed, then they would all equally be the same infinite age, even particles long ago annihilated by antiparticles or converted to heat/energy.

[@creatinechris]

There is no logical contradiction with an infinite past according to modern academia in math and physics.

[@Qwerty-jy9mj]

@@creatinechris How come?

[@creatinechris]

@@Qwerty-jy9mj why is there no logical contradiction? I’m not sure how to prove a negative here. Feel free to demonstrate the logical contradiction. Logical contradiction appears to be just asserted by theists.

[@Qwerty-jy9mj]

@@creatinechris So why did you specify "modern" academia if the issue is logical?

[@creatinechris]

@@Qwerty-jy9mj because you can watch all sorts of videos interviewing modern mathematicians on the validity of infinite past. WLC has propagandized hilberts hotel as a demonstration of an absolute beginning (aka not infinite past) to support the kalam argument. For a long time it built momentum and went unchallenged….nowadays it’s being challenged quite openly

[@gunsgalore7571]

57:52 Last comment, I promise... It seems to me that there's a fairly easy workaround to the concept of there not being an infinite future that still lines up with the immortality of souls. It sounds crazy, but I'm dead serious. We say God is outside of time. If Heaven is communion with God, then wouldn't we leave time as well? So there is an end of time, but we still exist with the eternal Now that is God.

[@tafazzi-on-discord]

the church's magisterium says we will not go outside of time, if you want I can look for a reference and provide it

[@TheProdigalMeowMeowMeowReturns]

Also, although Trent alluded to disagreements with WLC, he didn’t mention that WLC has replied to Trent’s objections. It’s a shame that Craig couldn’t be here to interact.

[@craigneil8313]

Brilliant.

[@tonyl3762]

Can God create a universe that defies the normal intuitive "laws" of causation? God is the uncaused cause, but is it impossible for him to create a universe that has a sequence of causes but no first cause other than Himself? Interesting and difficult.

[@hamobu]

How do you know that everything has a cause?

[@stcolreplover]

Good Content

[@maciejpieczula631]

It'd be nice to learn where the areas Jimmy disagrees with Thomas Aquinas on.

[@inviktys3971]

What about Entropy being an argument against an infinite past? The second law of thermodynamics states that entropy, the random disorder of a system, increases with time moving from order to disorder. Two routes to play with this idea the first being that if we have an infinite past then that would mean we live in an infinitely disordered universe which doesnt seem like we do. But more importantly that for there to be disorder in the universe there must have been an ordered universe for which any entropy to begin disordering and by that same idea an Ordered universe cannot literally exist more than an instant before it begins to suffer from entropy. Now aside from God, there is no mechanism of reordering a universe which would mean that if we have an infinite past that A)God has infinitely reordered the universe prior to our current state B) God has reordered our universe a finite number of times across an infinite breadth or 3) Finally he let our universe disorder itself for infinity before reordering it for our state now.

[@user-gs4oi1fm4l]

I find the implications of entropy fascinating as well. Of course this is an increasingly challenged understanding of physics (in my opinion precisely due to its theological implications). It'll be interesting to see what naturalist theories they come up with to explain this that don't wreck causality in the process.

[@inviktys3971]

@@user-gs4oi1fm4l One guess that I've heard is that there is a point where even entropy fails which is an interesting idea and reminds me, in part, of a line from Lovecraft ' That is not dead which can eternal lie and with strange aeons even Death may die'

[@CMVMic]

Entropy works against an infinite past, but the 2nd law of thermodynamics does not prove substances or space had a beginning given space is not necessarily a measurable three dimensional construct.

[@inviktys3971]

@@CMVMic You are right, that it's not guaranteed to be a measurable thing but if the universe is infinite wouldn't that also work? Because an infinite amount of space which contains a finite amount of systems and energy will, with time, see those systems leak and lose energy till that finite energy is diluted amidst infinite space.

[@CMVMic]

@@inviktys3971 What do you mean by an infinite Universe? an infinite amount of space ..... Why should we think space is infinite? Space could be an aspect of substances and thus, limited. which contains a finite amount of systems and energy will, with time, see those systems leak and lose energy till that finite energy is diluted amidst infinite space. Not if: 1. The Poincare Recurrence Theorem is true and the Universe is a closed system 2. The 2nd law of thermodynamics is compatible with a causal feedback loop. Also, if a spatial substance is all that exists, and the first law of thermodynamics is true, how will energy leak or become diluted? The only challenge for systems to return to a lower entropy state necessary for a causal feedback loops, is whether the Universe is open or closed. If the universe has a closed geometry (like the surface of a sphere), it might naturally curve back in on itself, leading to a possible collapse reducing entropy. The Universe is considered flat because of the total energy density of the universe but this is limited by the observable universe, which is bounded by the cosmic event horizon. This makes it reasonable to conclude that the density is much more than what we currently believe it to be.

[@CMVMic]

Personhood is a temporary event, Human bodies are made of energy, this energy is eternal in essence but we are not our bodies, we are the cognitive events grounded in that specific arrangement of energy

[@fighterofthenightman1057]

I get some Catholics might not understand the difference (though I’d find this surprising if you are well-versed in American history), but I’m not sure William Laine Craig is an “Evangelical.” Per the only interview I could find on his denomination, he identifies with the United Methodist Church - a church classified as Mainline Protestant by all classification systems.

[@AJKPenguin]

20:15-20:25 I didn't know this roundtable had popcorn and peanut vendors. : )

[@jendoe9436]

My side in this debate: Cy Kellet At this point, I just don’t really have the inclination nor time to really dive into the issue. I do love hearing people talk/geek out over this type of stuff, but most of it goes over my head 😅

[@diggingshovelle9669]

Would have liked to have heard an argument against the begininglessness of the universe that invoved an antinomy since it is reasonable to assume that some atheists and most physicist et al regard matter as indestructable and therefore believe that there was never a time when the universe did not exist, use this argument to deny that the universe ever had a begining at all.Unfotunately lack of sharp focus on the point was a missed opportunity to strengthen the Christiam perspective. Hope it can be addressed soon. Great Stuff.

[@user-gs4oi1fm4l]

I appreciate Jimmy's skeptical perspective but i think he lets the materialist assumptions of modern cosmologists have greater weight than is really due to them. Craig's arguments call out the absurdities inherent in this modern materialist worldview, hence why such modern cosmologists have to presume naturally unique incontingent realities beyond the scope of their empirical observations such as theoretical fields or particles or waves in place of God. This is where their dogmatic empiricism breaks down, since these proposed realities are beyond/"before" the observable horizon of space-time. Jimmy is correct to point out that a universe with an infinite history would be possible for the infinite Being of God (indeed required) as a "prime mover" of sorts as opposed to "first mover" as Craig's position describes, but with either approach the empirical materialist is befuddled since any data to support an infinite universe independent of God is simply unattainable by their own methods.

[@CMVMic]

Changes always presupposes a previous state but change by itself, has a first instance, change is not a phenomenon that has no first instance

[@lucidlocomotive2014]

My favorite dockters join forses dr. Johnny Atkins and dr. Travis Matthew Horn join forses once again!

[@tafazzi-on-discord]

who?

[@JJ-zr6fu]

My biggest problem with Jimmywas when he said Trent was venturing into theology in an explanation but jimmy’s whole argument against the Kalam a proof for god is that it doesn’t prove my my god.

[@jenrybeacon]

Kalam is an Arabic word meaning Speech or Word. Surely it didn't come from Protestant circles and it's not hard to guess that it came from Arab Muslim Dawa to support their claim of scientific evidence in Quran, that Kalam, an Arabic word, started from creation. When we think of it deeply, it's taken from the 1st Chapter and 1st verse of the Gospel of John, "In the beginning was the WORD..." I think Christian scientists, astrologists or Philosophers just use THE WORD to refer to Creation or Creationism instead of Kalam.

[@CMVMic]

The Kalaam is not sound! I would love to debate Jimmy

[@Krshwunk]

Soooooo goooooooooooooood ....

[@hamobu]

Trent's argument in a nutshell: if there was no beginning then what would be a first thing?

[@matswessling6600]

even if universe had a beginning that doesnt point to a god.

[@scottylamm9673]

I’m with Jimmy! He should be called Captain Marvel! 😂

[@issemayhem]

I am enjoying this but it does seem a bit all over the place

[@gamefan8552]

However the argument self defeats itself, bc an infinite past Universe, implies the Universe is eternal and immutable, but we know that is not the case, the Universe changes, and thus had to have a beginning. That is precisely why only God could be eternal and timeless bc He does not change.

[@haydongonzalez-dyer2727]

Let them fight!

[@pajamaninja2157]

i like how in both cases whether finite or infinite they conclude it leads to god.

[@Giant_Meteor]

I'm a theist (and a Christian), but find the Kalam argument to mostly miss the subject of God, so are as I'm concerned. Even if the whole thing is granted, from beginning to end, all it would mean is that the universe has "a cause". What kind of "cause"? There could be any number of hypothetical, immaterial, non-temporal 'causes' of which we are not aware, that are nothing like what is generally intended with the word "God", and certainly says nothing about the God of Christianity. The argument seems to envisage God merely as a distant agent, necessary to get things going, and from there, essentially irrelevant. But the creative power of the true God is at every moment bringing creation into being.

[@John_Fisher]

I don't know if you've seen much of William Lane Craig's debates, but I think that he and others who defend the Kalam argument agree that it doesn't prove Christianity specifically and that additional arguments are needed to even defend aspects of God such as God being personal. It isn't meant to prove those things, just to prove that it is incorrect that to say that no such being exists at all (to move from atheism to theism).

[@Giant_Meteor]

@@John_Fisher Yeah, essentially, at most then, it hopes to prove (I'm not even granting that it _does_ prove) _something_ causal beyond the spacio-temporal, material realm- an unknown force, demiurge, whatever. Just me, I guess, but Kalam seems irrelevant and informs nothing related to the subject of God.

[@John_Fisher]

@@Giant_Meteor If you find something like this and it's approach doesn't really help someone come to know God when you're having a conversation with them, that's fair. The 'non-personal' nature of some of the philosophical presentations can be off-putting and unattractive at times. But why I would say that it is not simply irrelevant is that it, collectively with other arguments from other approaches help someone who is struggling to honestly see how theism can be held rationally against naturalism. That a collective group of arguements from different directions can indicate that naturalism doesn't really have great explanatory power while Christianity can fit with many lines of reasoning and observation; some of which point to Christianity specifically and some at least in the direction of theism against naturalism in general.

[@irodjetson]

Where does Jimmy get the idea that Saint Bonaventure and Saint Thomas Aquinas are at the same level? The only one that is protected and pointed at as the proper guide to our Catholic understanding by the magisterium of the Church is Saint Thomas Aquinas... If you disagree with Saint Thomas Aquinas is because you don't understand him fully, or because you can put into question his 13th century physics or biology, but in terms of philosophy, metaphysics and theology being opposed to Saint Thomas Aquinas is simply wrong, his principles are perfect.

[@creatinechris]

30:10 - There is no problem with actual infinites in physics. Hilbert's Hotel as evidence for a finite past is rejected by modern academia.

[@tafazzi-on-discord]

On what grounds?

[@creatinechris]

@@tafazzi-on-discord on what grounds do mathematicians reject hilberts hotel leading to a proof of a finite past? One would need to demonstrate that hilberts hotel necessarily negates past infinitism

[@tafazzi-on-discord]

​@@creatinechris For starters, you're looking at the wrong group. Mathematicians aren't metaphysicians, they don't have on the forefront of their mind the actual consequences something like Hilbert's Hotel would imply in the real world, they only deal with an overmodeled version of it. To be clear, if one shows that Hilbert Hotel is metaphysically impossible, you would accept the Kalam as sound? The easiest workaround is saying "The Hotel can't come into existance even in a world with an infinite past", but you're saying you'd be able to defend the notion that a world with a Hilbert's Hotel would still be possible?

[@creatinechris]

@@tafazzi-on-discord I may not understand your point…. hilberts hotel does not demonstrate an actually infinite is impossible. This is why WLC thinks. He’s wrong. Whether or not the hotel can exist is a separate problem, I agree. That said I think metaphysics is stupid.

[@tafazzi-on-discord]

@@creatinechris It makes no sense to address your points if you think metaphysics is stupid. Metaphysics is the discipline that explores what's beyond physics. Physics is the study of how things and energy interact over time, it cannot be the final step in the investigation about reality, hecause it is unable to account for the existance of the things it studies, just like chemistry can't account fir atoms on its own, and so we go to the step below chemistry, physics. Even if you emotionally feel that "metaphysics is stupid", do you promise that if you come across a valid and sound argument on the topic of metaphysics, you will accept its conclusion? That's the minimal requirement for any conversation about this.

[@rosjierhall1997]

I don't think you should concede that the future is actually infinite, it is only possibly infinite without ever reaching infinity. Like Bob who counts infinitely into the future, he never stops counting, he never reaches infinity.

[@TheCounselofTrent]

True, Bob never reaches infinity because infinity is not a natural number. However the number of numbers that Bob counts if the future is endless is an actual infinite.

[@rosjierhall1997]

@@TheCounselofTrent I don't see how that could be possible, no matter how far in the future you go he'll still be counting. He'll never reach an actual infinite it's always only a potential infinite. The only way to say it's actually infinite would be to stand outside of time, you can't get to infinity by successive addition like adding seconds to time.

[@markushill8639]

​@rosjierhall1997I guess it would be something like: if an actual infinite can be either a set or a series, then it would be an actual infinite in the form of a series, since even though Bob never reaches a particular point which can be defined as the moment in which he reaches an infinite, he still never ceases the counting. Thus, he would be counting for an infinitely long amount of time. If he counts for an infinitely long amount of time, he would count an infinite amount of numbers. Whether that is possible in reality or not is a different question altogether but that's what I'd say without having thought through it very much. Also, I guess it depends on whether or not one were to consider successive addition to even count as an actual infinite. But I don't see why it couldn't be.

[@rosjierhall1997]

@@markushill8639 I disagree with your conclusion "this he will be counting for an infinite amount of time" as he never reaches it.

[@ToddJambon]

🤯🤯🤯🤯

[@davidfabien7220]

There was absolutely nothing, no visible space and time at all in the beginning for the singularity to exist unless it grew and expanded in space and time simultaneously within invisible space and time, much like blowing air in a balloon. The singularity under extreme pressure and temperature would probably have destroyed itself anyway without leaving any trace of ash behind. Imagine a meteorite entering the earth atmosphere. I think time is defined by how long it takes for light to travel from one point to another. Speed and time are integral. Does the light that God spoke into being at the beginning travel at the same speed as the sunlight?

[@JustinSailor]

It sounds like you are saying that our universe can only have an infinite past if there is supernatural intervention. I thought the whole point of "the entire material universe as we know it" was that it was a coherent system that ran without God's constant intervention. So I would say "the entire universe" is not the kind of thing that can have an infinite past. God is the only infinite. It seems contradictory to say that God can create something as infinite as himself. It's like saying God can create man that can push a bolder with equal the force as God. It is like asking "can God's clone himself? I would say that if there are two Gods after he cloned himself then that would just be what we call God twice as powerful. It's like you are multiplying the infinite. Infinite x infinite just equals infinite.

[@gunsgalore7571]

Now I have to admit I do find it weird that Aquinas didn't like this one - it seems to me to be almost the exact same as the First Cause argument.

[@VACatholic]

It's not the same. The First Cause is agnostic of nature of time, whereas this requires a specific understanding of the nature of time.

[@gunsgalore7571]

@@VACatholic Interesting. I'll have to go look it up again.

[@JJ-zr6fu]

If I remember he don’t like it because of something slight

[@davidagin1827]

who cares deeply at least about God before the big bang. We have no personal history outside this soup kitchen. In the beginning God said ... This is where we started a beautiful relationship.

[@markgallemore8856]

What do you mean by time? What do each of you mean by time? What is the measurement and what is the measurement in relation to? You made an assertion without evidence that all of existence exists from beginning to end, and we only experience of your undefined a slice of time sequentially one moment to what we perceive as the next moment. Have you considered that it is always now and time is an illusion maybe particles change and move in the now, but there’s nothing to go forward to nor is there anything to go back to why because for us, it no longer exists. The premise everything that exists has a cause for its existence. The universe began to exist. Therefore, the universe has a cause . That’s all the argument can show. You haven’t demonstrated it’s relationship to a God. Intellectual dishonesty by starting with an assertion of an on demonstrated concepts labeled as God.

[@SneakyEmu]

I like Jimmy but I don't agree that an actually infinite past is possible. To be it's a 4 sided triangle in disguise

[@kevinfancher3512]

Well, if magic were actually an explanation, then yes. Now prove magic.

[@sfappetrupavelandrei]

Regarding the case for God being able to create a rock which He can't lift, I read somewhere that the answer is actually true. And He created that rock. It is called free will. He created free will but He has no power against it. Because if He had any power on free will, that will is not free anymore. This is why Hell is so scary. Because God can't save us from Hell without ruining our own existence.

[@josephmoya5098]

Jimmy has the best understanding of infinities I have heard from a philosopher/theologian, but it is still insufficient. Not only are there different kinds of infinities, but some infinities are demonstrably larger than others. For instance, the infinite set of integers greater than 0 is smaller than the infinite set of all real numbers. And here is something even crazier. The infinite, countable, set of integers both positive and negative is smaller than the infinite set of real numbers in between 0 and 1, which is uncountable. So, in theory, you could have a rock which is a higher order of infinite weight than God's infinite power. But this would obviously break what we mean by omnipotent. First of all, it is an incredibly stupid question. Second, measurables, like weight, cannot be infinite, as this would require them to have no boundary, which prevents them from existing. As Jimmy said, an object has shape. Without shape, it is not object. Third, my omnipotent, we mean the highest possible order of infinite power. And defined as such, it is a logical absurdity, as there cannot possibly be something larger than the highest order of infinities. And finally, God's strength is not a measurable. So it makes no sense it give it this silly rating. If it exists, it exists through God and by God and therefore God has complete control over it as he deems fit.

[@sivad1025]

One thing they never touched on is that infinites _can_ exist in reality, but only insofar as the object in question has an infinitely small limit. This is the error in Zeno's supposed paradoxes. When you traverse one foot, you are indeed passing an infinite number of half steps. But the size of those half steps approaches zero allowing your speed to approach infinity as well which works out to a finite amount of time required to traverse the one foot. The problem with the infinite past that Jimmy doesn't explain is that the increments of time are finitely non-zero which makes it comprable to the infinitely heavy rock. The infinitely heavy rock is has an infinite number of finitely non-zero units which is where the problem lays

[@tafazzi-on-discord]

if Jesus is God, couldn't we in a sense say that God did make rocks unliftable to Him? Jesus had no potential to lift any rock that was both 1-heavier than his human lifting capacity 2-not within the scope of His earthly mission. where's the mistake here?

[@sivad1025]

@@tafazzi-on-discord But the rocks aren't unliftable to Jesus because Jesus had willingly emptied himself of divinity. He had the full authority to reclaim his divinity and lift any rock he wishes to. This doesn't prove that God can create a rock he can't lift. It proves that God can willingly deny himself the ability to lift rocks temporally

[@josephmoya5098]

​@@sivad1025 The infinite half-steps you refer to are not an actual infinity, as they would have to be actualized in order for them to be an actual infinity. That is, you would actually have to take an infinite number of steps. Similarly, time itself between two seconds is not an actual infinite set, as divisions of time are arbitrary. Time doesn't exist as an entity that has an infinite number of infinitesimal divisions like one would imagine on a graph. It is simply a measure of change in the universe. Even length measurements are not actual infinities, only relative infinities, as space does not exist in infinitesimal discrete increments. So when you traverse space, you do not pass through an infinite number of discrete spaces. You can measure the space you traveled, but this measurement is relative and is not actualized in the space itself. So, I would argue no, there are not actual infinities contained within the universe.

[@djo-dji6018]

Seriously, the 'real numbers' thing is something even I remember having studied at school as a teenager about 30yo -and I had and have little interest in mathematics. You don't really believe the two gentlemen on stage are not aware of that...

[@originalchilehed]

Captain Marvel, of course.

[@Robert_Prowse]

That a contradiction seems illogical and impossible to us does not prove it is impossible, especially for God. A catholic man can be in a civil marriage that is not recognized by the Catholic church and hence is a 'married bachelor', being free to act as a single man might. Which though unethical would not be immoral.

[@TerryMcKennaFineArt]

This shows a completely barren idea of sexual morality. The sin is betrayal.

[@Christus-totalis]

Great discussion guys. I have thought about this as well. The point of interest for me is the question of pantheism vs classical theism. In order for Creator creature distinction, requires a ontological negation/ nothing (ex nihilo) which juxtaposes omnipresence. Here is a dialectic where the negation of the cross is the creational event of the universe. kzbin.info/www/bejne/rpykf39rpp1pnrc

[@CMVMic]

The kalaam argument is unsound. Both premise 1 and 2 are false. A beginning of an event is not a beginning of substance nor space.

[@mathewsamuel1386]

If God is outside of time, then how does HE know that it's 2pm today? And if HE can't know that, how's HE omniscient? Second, how can God create something with no beginning? To create something, it must be the case that there was a time when it didn't exist, namely, before it was created. So a created thing must have a beginning. Jimmy hasn't thought through his argument. A past infinite universe would suggest that there is something, namely, the universe, which God didn't create or, alternatively, something other than God which is uncreated, namely, the universe. How does that agree with the bible, Trent?

[@TerryMcKennaFineArt]

Suppose the uncaused cause is the universe itself. Why not. All that is being done with "God" is saying the uncaused cause is a magic being. Why not instead posit that the universe itself is.. God. That is, self sufficient as the eternal cause of all material life.

[@tpoy1274]

I’m just disappointed to hear that Jimmy is not a Thomist.

[@allthingsfrench1391]

The reasoning mind cannot comprehend those things of the Spirit. God is your own wonderful human Imagination. I Am is that. Eternal, without beginning without end. The Bible is not secular history, it is Salvation history and all takes place within the mind of man. When man awakens from the deep sleep he awakens as the Christ conciousness. The reasoning mind cannot understand this. One must awaken to know that he is God and God is his own wonderful human Imagination. When you experience it, you will be compelled to tell the story to all who will listen. God became man so that man could become God. There are worlds within worlds. It's not theory, it's actual fact. It's experience.

[@tafazzi-on-discord]

that's not the way the church thinks of God

[@bobinindiana]

William Lane Craig is a very brilliant & likable man who has become a liberal theologian sadly. Who pays any attention to him anymore?

[@tookie36]

Aren’t you then claiming “nothing” exists and non existence exists… isn’t it simpler to say god created the universe from nothing. In the sense god only exists and the universe is god. Eternal, changeless, good?

[@ibatan7243]

What kalam? in islam. alla created a flat-Earth carried by a bull with 40 thousand horns and the bull is carried by a giant whale called Noon, then The whale is carried on a flat glass that is carried by an angel. To make more dramatic, the diable named 'ibleess' whispered to the whale to throw out the Earth and everything on it off his back. So, alla sent an animal who is sitting beside the nose of the whale just in case Noon decides again to throw the Earth, the animal will enter from the nose of Noon to his brain and cause pain to Noon. This is a correct hadith.