Kalaam Argument for God Debated | Jimmy Akin & Trent Horn

[@crazyedswonderfulworldofso9370]

Wow! Two "heavyweights" going at it! It's like Ali and Frazier all over again. Excellent discussion gentlemen! Thank you.

[@Fred-t2w]

More like Ingo vs Pacqiao

[@jwatson181]

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.

[@CMVMic]

Heavyweights?? Lol I'd eat these two apologists for lunch

[@mctess3783]

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!❤

[@BecomeTheKnight]

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.

[@cw-on-yt]

Re: "Any chance we'll see that in the future???" Well, it depends upon your theory of time....

[@guesswho22peekaboo]

​@@cw-on-ytlol

[@nightyew2160]

​@@cw-on-yt🤣

[@nightyew2160]

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.

[@fernandoformeloza4107]

What? Jimmy Akin debates Trent Horn? What a pleasant surprise!

[@AlexE5250]

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!)

[@jwatson181]

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.

[@danter9934]

Absolutely love this! Would love to see a future episode that takes a deeper dive into more of the issues surrounding causal finitism.

[@sharonfelton20]

I love your content. Thank you.

[@brandonnotsowise2640]

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.

[@marknovetske4738]

Thanks Jimmy and Trent

[@theradiantknight9771]

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.

[@nightyew2160]

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?

[@jwatson181]

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.

[@Cousin676]

Really excellent

[@tristenwilliams1943]

Ok wait…. NOBODY laughed at the Shazam argument joke???? That was pretty great lol

[@Bo0meRs0]

Pretty disrespectful actually

[@ironymatt]

That's cuz the KaBamm! argument is way better

[@FavianShields]

​@@Bo0meRs0disrespectful to an argument? 😂

[@dangquang0492]

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. 🤔

[@jwatson181]

This never happened. Jimmy is a liar. That really made me sad. Christians should never lie.

[@bman5257]

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.

[@TheProdigalMeowMeowMeowReturns]

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

[@TheProdigalMeowMeowMeowReturns]

@@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…

[@TheProdigalMeowMeowMeowReturns]

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.

[@jwatson181]

@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.

[@danielballabani1232]

I have a complaint. This need to be at least 3 hours long to really flesh out

[@amirsot]

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!

[@whyaskwhybuddry]

@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.

[@arielconti3371]

My head hurts

[@catholicguy3605]

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.

[@awreckingball]

Two smart asses going at it.

[@churchoftheformerdaysaints]

It's always been my understanding that infinite and finite are two distinct things. And although you can derive the finite from the infinite (like, 3 is found in an infinite set of numbers), you cannot derive an infinite from a finite. So, if this is the case then it seems like Akin's approach to logical impossibilities should include the idea that it is logically impossible to create an infinite set of past events.

[@JRVan-ez4yi]

22:40 into it and Trent is already arguing that logic works when it agrees with what he already thinks.

[@goldenalt3166]

The trinity sure looks like a four sided triangle to me.

[@TheRealMagicBananaz]

Is this a reupload?

[@DPM917]

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.

[@BrandonG667]

If God goes from not creating to then creating, how is it that God is unchanging?

[@JimmyAkin]

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.

[@BrandonG667]

@@JimmyAkinThanks, I’m going let that marinate… it makes my head hurt 😂

[@hyreonk]

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

[@notdisclosed]

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.

[@gamefan8552]

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.

[@nightyew2160]

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.

[@gamefan8552]

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. The best theory (and that has been for some time now) of how universe started is the Big Bang. So science does go strongly for the "Universe has a beginning" It's also very important to note it's Catholic dogma "The world had a beginning in time.", so that implies the universe cannot have an eternal past, so even if science is not 100% certain always, a dogma is, so we can safely know science will never contradict this. Science will never have 100% certainty on anything, but we still need to make assumption to function or we would do nothing at all.

[@resinsminia]

As an atheist, I totally agree with Jimmy's statement at 15:50

[@byron2521]

O.K. the guy that called it the "Shazam" argument had an excuse; he obviously wasn't familiar with it. But when the guy that supposedly knows the argument also pronounces it wrong. the big problem with the Kalam argument is it actually says nothing about God.

[@antoniopioavallone1137]

I agree with jimmy on this one.

[@bbllrd1917]

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.

[@pauljones4369]

Craig does clearly state infinity’s form logical contradictions that’s just a fact!!

[@michaelpcooksey5096]

Jimmy you like to play with the impossibility of a 4 sided triangle as an example; however it occurs to this student that adding the 3rd dimension to a 2 dimensional structure gives you that 4th side ... and by extension ... as many sides as one wants if the Lord decides or has decided to create more than 3 dimensions. Thank you for your ongoing efforts to educate those who are interested, and especially for any ongoing on line apologetics classes you can come up with. I would especially appreciate having one concentrate on the compassionate methods [with concrete examples played out] . Assume nothing ... with over 50% of our population in various states of divorce and remarrying ... many kids have less and less direct knowledge of such an approach in their lives. [The secular scenario is apparent with logic : After all, why get married if the end will only be a gut wrenching divorce and more trauma for any children involved? Far easier to just get into a mutual use and abuse situation that either one can back out of.] The logic and models of expectancy as to what happens are deeply flawed but it certainly is a VERY human reaction from the self preservation drive. Anyway ... thank you again for the video. And no worries ... my wife and I have over 50 years of Catholic marriage growth and 7 grandchildren. [Its all the Lords work]

[@pgk60]

Koon’s contradiction is that no one would ever receive an empty sheet.

[@jwatson181]

@@pgk60 correct. Jimmy is just bad at logic.

[@Drewdrewdrewdr]

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

[@majmage]

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?

[@SquekretGenius420]

Here is a comment for Jimmy

[@whyaskwhybuddry]

@Jimmy Akin, you need to update your science knowledge visa vie James Webb Telescope which has blown a hole in 13 billion yrs.

[@TheProdigalMeowMeowMeowReturns]

“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 .

[@TheVolubrjotr]

We must remember mathematics shows the point of singularity is virtually unequivocal.

[@BrandonG667]

How does a paradox compare with a logical contradiction?

[@Jack-z1z]

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.

[@GrassiOutdoorAdventures]

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.

[@ericfaith2810]

Reminds me of the great fresco The School of Athens...☺️

[@nathanpettijohn3236]

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!

[@JustinSailor]

Shouldn't Trent be arguing that this reality is the type of thing that can't be infinite?

[@goldenalt3166]

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.

[@leroykid1971]

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

[@goldenalt3166]

More like a conflation of terms. He's saying that universe-time has a beginning in God-time.

[@matthewtheron2505]

All of it sounds like a contradiction to me lol. It just creates unescessary confusion. Making the Kalam more complex than it actually is.

[@goldenalt3166]

@@matthewtheron2505 The Kalam is neither more complex than they want to pretend or it's not an argument for God.

[@christopherjohnson1873]

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.

[@michaelcolthart4006]

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.

[@alriktyrving5051]

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.

[@goldenalt3166]

Do you think Craig's Kalam is logical or just feels intuitive?

[@SneakyEmu]

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

[@goldenalt3166]

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".

[@SneakyEmu]

@@goldenalt3166 that's clearly not the same thing. Even with a circle they have to start somewhere.

[@goldenalt3166]

@@SneakyEmu There's no beginning. Clearly you're idea of "starting somewhere" is flawed.

[@SneakyEmu]

@@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

[@goldenalt3166]

@@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.

[@rhatala27]

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.

[@chuckmowry5951]

Shazam!

[@ironymatt]

KaBlamm!!!

[@Sayantan805]

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,

[@bman5257]

They’ve already done so on that topic on Pints with Aquinas.

[@jwatson181]

@@bman5257 correct. It was embarrassing for Jimmy. Jimmy is a poorly read popular level thinker.

[@pgk60]

How can an infinite past be caused? It’s infinite!

[@nightyew2160]

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.

[@romerojuniorarts]

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.

[@nisonatic]

@@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.

[@nightyew2160]

@@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.

[@johndill6594]

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!

[@romerojuniorarts]

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.

[@pgk60]

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.

[@Noah-cm6ek]

So far, it’s just two people agreeing

[@Jack-z1z]

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.

[@michaelpcooksey5096]

It was my nieve hope to get a solid examination of what the Kalaam Argument actually entailed and the pros and cons involved. What I got was a superball with infinite energy introduced into a closed pinball machine where one is to anticipate past present and future movement. For me we are provided with the Genesis account of creation and need to be satisfied with it. First there was nothing and then at God's will creation came into existence. We are also told every person is given what they need to make it into heaven ... because God made no one for hell. Soooo going an infinite mile to try and bring a doubter into the fold seems a huge waste of time. Leave it up to the Holy Spirit, the Father, and the Son. No one wants us saved more than they do. The best result I saw from this intellectual gymnastic exercise is that two really good minds had a chance to sharpen each other. I would say thank you for the video ... but no. And I won't watch it again either. My intellect is not on your level, and neither is my earthly work assignment.

[@gsp3428]

I would rather hear Trent and WLC debate the Kalam. I dont find Jimmy's arguments very good against the Kalam.

[@asggerpatton7169]

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?

[@asggerpatton7169]

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?

[@PaM07675]

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)

[@ScootTooner]

That’s what I would’ve said as well but in all the debates I’ve watched this point has never been brought up

[@fanghur]

There is no contradiction there for precisely the reason you literally just gave. Infinity is not a number. In a past-eternal universe, there would simply be no meaningful way in which we could say which number the current day is in the history of the universe. But using your same logic here, an endless future is equally impossible, since each day we 'remove' a day from the infinite future and yet there is just as much time remaining in the future. There's complete conceptual symmetry here.

[@PaM07675]

@@fanghur I dont see how an infinite future is contradictory because if you are counting backwards like you suggest by subtracting 1 from an infinite set, the only reason you would do so would be to assume that you could reach the end of that infinite set, which you cant. Mathematically speaking thats a false assumption. You dont count starting from infinity, its illogical, which is what we would be doing if we assume an infinite future and try subtracting 1 from an infinite set. The way you should add or subtract days is always in the same direction that time moves, which is forwards not backwards. You cant do this if you assume an infinite past, but you can do this if instead you assume an infinite future.

[@fanghur]

@@PaM07675 I'm sorry, you're simply wrong. Just as each day that passes adds one day to the past (in other words, the amount of time in the past 'grows' by one day), so too does it 'remove' one day from the future. So if this argument is going to put strain on the idea of an infinite past, it will put equal strain on the idea of an infinite future. Again, contrary to what apologists like to claim, there is no relevant asymmetry here. There is simply no contradiction to be found here, either for an infinite past or an endless future.

[@PaM07675]

@@fanghur Again I have to disagree. In a universe that has an infinite past, from the perspective of someone in present-time, every day is impossible because every day is (∞+1) and infinity is not a number. So therefore, a universe with an eternal past cannot exist because there is no starting point to ground it. In a universe with an infinite future, from the perspective of someone in present-time, every day is possible because every day is a number that belongs to the set of Real Numbers. For example, Day 1, Day 100, Day 1-Million, Day 1-Billion, Day 1-Trillion-Trillions, etc… Every single day in this universe can be assigned a Real number from the “Set of Real Numbers.” And because the “Set of Real Numbers” is an infinite set, you never run out of numbers to assign to each of the days in a universe with an infinite future. So therefore, a universe with an eternal future absolutely can exist because there is a starting point to ground it-that being a Real Day 1-and the fact that the “Set of Real Numbers” is an infinite set, so this universe will never reach infinity, which is not a real number. This is very simple mathematical theory my friend.

[@CMVMic]

Existence isnt emergent. Existence pluralism is false

[@briantrafford4871]

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.

[@masterchief8179]

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!

[@briantrafford4871]

@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.

[@fanghur]

@@briantrafford4871 "A contingent thing MUST have a beginning." Whether something is contingent or not has nothing to do with whether it had a beginning or not. No necessary connection at the very least. There's no contradiction inherent in positing that the universe is both eternal and contingent in the strict logical sense of the term.

[@briantrafford4871]

@fanghur For this understanding of contingency to be true, one would need to argue that time itself is not contingent, which, of course, it is. The only alternative is to assert that time can logically extend into an infinite past, but this cannot be true. Time necessarily has a beginning. This is why it is nonsensical to talk about a "time before time". And the alternative of asserting that time is logically necessary doesn't help, since this is clearly not the case.

[@fanghur]

@@briantrafford4871 nothing you just said is true. There’s no problem with time being infinite to the past, whether or not it actually is is beside the point. And I repeat, something being contingent does not imply that it must’ve begun to exist, it simply means that it logically could have been otherwise. Those are two completely distinct things.

[@yonlee6960]

👍

[@brendanbutler1238]

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.

[@fanghur]

No, the universe could be past-finite and yet never have come into existence. That's literally what Craig thinks about his own God.

[@brendanbutler1238]

@@fanghur How can the universe never have come into existence if it's past finite ?

[@gsp3428]

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.

[@ScienceFoundation]

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.

[@gsp3428]

why is it special pleading, if God began to exist then it would be special pleading.

[@ScienceFoundation]

@@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.

[@gsp3428]

@@ScienceFoundation No the universe began to exist and it had a cause. Causality is not a concrete entity that begins to exist.

[@ScienceFoundation]

@@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.

[@gsp3428]

@@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.

[@gsp3428]

you cant have an actually infinite future only a potentially infinite one.

[@fanghur]

The future literally cannot by definition be 'potentially infinite'. A potential infinite is a set which is always finite at any point in time, but is constantly growing toward infinity as a limit. The future is not 'growing' as time goes on. If anything, the past would be potentially infinite and the future would be an actual infinite.

[@gsp3428]

@@fanghur No that is incorrect. Actual infinites can not exist in a quantitative sense. Potential infinite just means something that goes on forever without end but at no point will you reach an infinite amount of time. Actual infinites in a quantitative sense can never be instantiated.

[@fanghur]

@@gsp3428 "Potential infinite just means something that goes on forever without end but at no point will you reach an infinite amount of time." That is correct. Which is precisely why the *future* cannot be said to be a potential infinite, because the future doesn't do that. The past does that, if we assume that time doesn't extend infinitely far into the past, but the future is not growing towards infinity. There is always an infinite amount of time ahead of us if we assume that time will never come to an end. So you either have to say that the future just straight-up doesn't exist, which doesn't really work, since whether it 'exists' in the same sense that the present does or not doesn't mean that it isn't countable, or you need to concede that the future is indeed an example of an actual infinity. By definition, the future simply cannot be an example of a 'potential infinity', and that's true by the definition that you just provided.

[@churchoftheformerdaysaints]

So it seems like you're sneaking a premise for the kalam cosmological argument that is not appropriate for the argument, and that is that God exists. If God exists, and is omnipotent, then He can create an infinite past. But the argument cannot begin with the premise that God exists if it is an apologetic argument. So the question is whether a universe can have an infinite past, which is to say, can a universe have no beginning. And it seems apparent that a universe cannot have an infinite past. Ironically, if we begin with the premise that God exists, and He created the universe, like you do, then it also is the case that God cannot create a universe with no beginning, as that is a contradiction in terms. To create something is to begin it (which is why Jesus was begotten, not made), and so one cannot begin something with no beginning. So perhaps I'm wrong here, but these two points seem to show a weakness in your reasoning.

[@kimfleury]

Algorithm comment as I have nothin intelligent to add 😊

[@jesushernandez-eo8fq]

Way too much contradiction 😅

[@TheProdigalMeowMeowMeowReturns]

Please correct your mistakes Jimmy.

[@JimmyAkin]

I endeavor to do so. Not sure what mistakes you're referring to.

[@TheProdigalMeowMeowMeowReturns]

@@JimmyAkin see my other comment

[@TheProdigalMeowMeowMeowReturns]

@@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

[@TheProdigalMeowMeowMeowReturns]

@@JimmyAkin KZbin 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

[@jwatson181]

@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.

[@xylexuss]

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.

[@martyfromnebraska1045]

That's basically incoherent with any concept of divine simplicity that I've ever heard. Additionally, there was no flood.

[@xylexuss]

@@martyfromnebraska1045 so the story of the ark and raining for 40 days and nights isn't a biblical story from genesis?

[@bobizzle1605]

@martyfromnebraska1045 Oh, you were there back then? You can confirm there was no flood?

[@Misael-Hernandez]

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.

[@xylexuss]

@@Misael-Hernandez You know that sounds straght up evil...

[@jwatson181]

Jimmy akin is a liar.

[@Lya3588]

👍