Does the Kalam Argument Work? w/ Dr. William Lane Craig & Jimmy Akin
Вставка
- Опубліковано 7 жов 2024
- Dr. William Lane Craig and Jimmy Akin discuss whether the philosophical version of the kalam argument works. Dr. Craig says yes, Jimmy says no.
⭐ Learn more about what Jimmy has to say on the Kalam argument here: jimmyakin.com/2...
⭐ Learn more about Dr. Craig here: www.reasonable...
🔴 FREE E-book "You Can Understand Aquinas": pintswithaquin....
🔴 SPONSORS
Hallow: hallow.app/matt...
STRIVE: www.strive21.com/
Homeschool Connections: homeschoolconn...
🔴 GIVING
Patreon or Directly: pintswithaquin...
This show (and all the plans we have in store) wouldn't be possible without you. I can't thank those of you who support me enough. Seriously! Thanks for essentially being a co-producer co-producer of the show.
🔴 LINKS
Website: pintswithaquin...
Merch: teespring.com/stores/matt-fradd
FREE 21 Day Detox From Porn Course: www.strive21.com/
🔴 SOCIAL
Facebook: / mattfradd
Twitter: / mattfradd
Instagram: / mattfradd
Gab: gab.com/mattfradd
![Does God Exist? William Lane Craig vs. Christopher Hitchens - Full Debate [HD]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/0tYm41hb48o/mqdefault.jpg)
You can subscribe to our clip channel, Sips With Aquinas here: ua-cam.com/channels/uMg6A-lj1wnkTDcTZmRlbA.html
I shall leave a comment, lest I naught.
Baby Guinesses with Aquinas.
The essence of this question seems to be about the nature of time itself.
Disregarding more fantastical "theories" about time-space of modern science (which becomes less respectable every day) - time is just a change of matter in a space.
Because we measure it by observing the almost impeccably regular cyclical changes in matter (revolution of the Earth around its axis, around the Sun, phases of the Moon, seasons of year) we've grown accustomed to think of time as some invisible, infinitely long ruler that measures all events, or as a hidden invisible camera, recording all material universe.
If there is no matter, there is no time.
Therefore, for a thing to be created, it means it has to have a beginning, so it cannot exist before its own creation.
If an apple would be to exist in the hypothetical state of "having an infinite past existence" it would mean it wasn't created, so in some aspects it would be equal to God.
I'm a Catholic and I love both Dr. Craig and Jimmy Akin. The great thing about this debate is that we all win. They are both seeking the best way to show people that belief in God is reasonable. They are both a blessing. Thanks for setting this up, Matt.
Mr. Akin's philosophical training is very weak. As a philosopher it is a glaring hole ready to sink into error theologically.
@@optimoprimo132 how so?
@@merlinx8703 This is the correct Catholic Theology and Metaphysics,
"There was no time before creation. There could have been no time before creation because time is the measure of change. Since God is unchangeable, there could have been no time because there were no changeable creatures before creation.
God did not create from all eternity. We know this from divine revelation. But we can also conclude this from human reason. A creature without a beginning is impossible. Why? Because the succession involved in a change constitutes the essence of time. An unchangeable creature is a contradiction in terms. Change belongs to the very nature of a creature." - Fr. John Hardon SJ
@@merlinx8703 He is confusing theology and metaphysics but in such a way he ends up speaking incorrectly about both.
Jimmy made a statement about it being part of Church teaching.. Dr. Craig knows better than that and if you notice he was really exercising charity by not 100% calling him out in it. Dr. Craig actually cited to him councils of the Catholic Church and Doctors/father's of the church which would contradict Jimmy's position that it is part of Church teaching.
The fact is the Catholic Church in its philosophy and theology reiterates time and time again that God is Omnipotent but God's Omnipotence is limited only by His nature. God cannot go against His nature.
For example God cannot sin against Himself, God cannot will Himself out of existence, God cannot "create" another God equal to Himself etc.
God cannot create a universe that is infinite like Himself.
Anyway.... The danger in Jimmy's notion is that he is brushing close to empirical science theories like an openness to some sort of infinite universe theory or the rubber band theory... Of infinite progression and regression of time and space.
Or the aristotilean God which exists as the unmoved mover with creation for all eternity.
He as Dr. Craig says in emphasising the Omnipotence of God he loses sight of the nature and meaning of creation as finite reality.
@@optimoprimo132 That's not true. Jimmy Akin clarifies that John Paul II clarifies whether God has a temporal existence, which Dr. Craig did NOT know about! You'd expect this given he's not a Catholic.
I love this. Two men that love Jesus arguing what is the most effective way to bring non believers to Jesus. Truly beautiful.
Obviously it can’t be the Kalam… because nowhere in the Kalam are gods, Christianity or Jesus even mentioned.
@@ramigilneas9274even better, the Kalam came from Muslims arguing for Allah. Assuming the argument works at all, the Kalam could be employed for any creator God of your choice
I am catholic, thomist and I like Jimmy but I am with Craig here. Infinite is only a word to refer something unlimited. It cannot be anything material, it is not a real quantity and God is infinite only as a quality way of being, not a quantity way.
Yeah, well that's like your opinion man. Which is Jimmy's point, that's just your intuition, which isn't shared by everyone. The debate is about whether that intuition you share with Craig is true. You can't just claim it's true, you have to argue for why that's the case. Then Craig brings up Hilbert's hotel, which Jimmy has legitimate objections to, but Craig doesn't follow up at all.
It's unusual to see a conversation like this in which each person doesn't interrupt and talk over the other. This went really well. I wish my conversations went that well.
I noticed the same thing. Refreshing.
Normal for these guys.
Feser and Craig would be a mind bender! Would love to see it!
I would love to see that too. I'm a Baptist, but Feser is without a doubt one of my favorite authors when it comes to natural theology.
I've been following Lane Craig since 2007 and the precision of his language never fails to impress.
Love dr. Craig, thanks for having him on!
Incredible discussion that really brought absolute clarity to a fundamental theological difference of opinion that helps clarify to me at least what sets apart the Catholic faith and why it has come to make so much more sense to me after half a lifetime of reflection that started from Transhumanist Atheism in my pre collegiate years.
Akin's take on divine timelessness seems to be a necessary property of an infinite intellect. Where as Craig's take that time asserts any kind of influence on God's intellectual scope would seem to contradict the guiding premise of an infinite scope or capacity for intellect which is the definition of a Godly intellect versus just any other finite intellect such as ourselves or any form of artificial intelligence we may give rise to.
Chuck Norris counted to infinity, twice. 😀
When Chuck Norris was born, he drove his mother home.
It would be a logical contradiction to say that Chuck Norris counted to ℵ1.
@Prasanth Thomas 😞
This is why I'm leery of telling jokes: they can sweep you up into a joking mood and lower your guard... such that one can accidentally be irreverent to God, for instance.
@Prasanth Thomas It depends upon your intent.
If the essence of the joke, the unspoken discongruity (that which makes all jokes), is something like, "Because Chuck Norris joke," "Because Chuck Norris joke is stupid," etc. then I doubt you have even accidentally stepped on God proverbial toes. 😋
But if it is rather, "Because Chuck Norris is 'cooler' than God," "Because God is weaker," then, though venial, I would still call it sinful.😔
But it also depends on your foresight as to how the UA-cam public might read it: as a jab at His unutterable dignity, treating it as mundane, as fodder for humor... which is how it came across to me.
@@john-paulgies4313 come on, for goodness sake.
Love it. I would love jimmy akin debating against some atheists for the existence of God.
I second this!
I “third” this... 🙏🏻🙏🏻🙏🏻
He’s not well educated enough
@@anniebanderet I don't think so
@@carolinafine8050 that may be, though I am trained as a philosopher. My point is that it really was not a debate, as Jimmy was making theological assumptions (a priori) in a philosophical debate, which Craig kept repeating. The debate was whether Kalam was philosophically defensible, not whether it was theological sound! This meant they were not truly debating. While theology is my avocation, and I have pursued it in a highly disciplined manner for more than 40 years, these assumptions made by Akin belong in a different discussion, where the argument is theological rather than philosophical. Ed Feser and Craig would have made for a far superior debate.
Jimmy Akin and David Lee Roth discuss the Kalam argument.
Made me lol
I will never unsee this.
Amazing.
Lol
Lol.
I would NOT like to debate WLC he is a beast 😂 love you guys
@Cosmic Tuxedo not true. He was giving sound metaphysical advice to Jimmy and Jimmy was just not getting it. As a philosopher and a faithful Catholic theologian I see clearly that Jimmy was making a classic error of basic metaphysics.
Equating logical, potential or mathematical infinity with actuality and superimposing this into reality. He even gave examples of contradictions such as the impossibility of making a circle/square, yet he totally dropped the plot when this same contradiction is posited by him to be possible. By positing that God could create a reality with an infinite past... I advise Jimmy to get educated on Catholic/Christian metaphysics. I advice everyone to do the same and avoid errors.
@Cosmic Tuxedo like matt dillahunty?! Lmao.
WLC is another master of the word salad , and was destroyed by the great Mr hitchens years ago, but he's in America so plenty of gullible morons for him to keep confused and bewildered with big words 🙄 😉
@@mattthomson942 WLC dominated the debate with Hitchens. I don't like this sort of language, 'destroyed', 'dominated', but it may be necesssry to point out how distracted you were while watching that debate and how ignorant you are on this subject after so many years.
@@mattthomson942 WLC clearly won that debate. I will say that Hitchens was amazing in terms of rhetorical skill (as he always is), but he fell short in terms of presenting actual substantive arguments that refute the opposition’s stance.
Wow! Two of my favorite Apologists . Great job Matt.
Just as I've been listening to this and thinking about the concept of time and whether God exists in or out of it... I think it is really important to establish what time itself IS.
Time is the unit in which we measure change. When "time stops" in movies everything freezes, no one ages, new memories are not made, plants do not grow, etcetera. Time is not just the hands in a clock spinning around, it is change itself and hours, minutes and days are the tools we use to measure that because something like a measuring tape is insufficient for such a task.
Therefore change must occur in order for time to exist. However we know that by His very nature God is unchanging (that should be enough to say not only is He not bound by time, but it is impossible for him to be if He is to be understood as the Christian God). This means He must have existed in a reality which lacked all sense of time before he created anything at all, because there was nothing which could change until He created such a thing. His own existence is not dependent upon time to be observed. If He IS bound by time, his existence would be a changing one and He would be dependent upon something else which would have to be constant which could sustain His existence. Therefore our time-bound "God" would not in fact be God and would require another eternal, timeless Being to sustain him. This entrenches us in the same issue as long as we insist God is bound by time. The only way to reach the conclusion of a God as we know Him to be is to admit that He exists beyond time.
With that established, I think Dr. Craig is wrong to say that God is bound by time. I actually do lean more toward Akin's perspective that if He desired, God could be working in creation now, constantly creating events that from our limited human perspective have already come to pass, as well as being active in the future we have not yet experienced. Although we know He has chosen not to do this, by virtue of Him being timeless I can't ignore the possibility. I actually think this is vital to the idea of a personal, infinitely powerful God who exists with us intimately in all moments of our lives. God could not be infinite if he was entirely bound by time.
I love classical, Catholic theology so much. I hope I made sense.
I think you are absolutely correct here, I took much the same conclusion away from this debate and may I add that you communicated this fundamental distinction very beautifully.
I love Aquinas' FINAL Cause which is BEING itself and transcendent. We participate in the ongoing ACT that is caused by God in all finite beings. The finite subsists in God not God in the finite. We as spatio-temporal beings come into being by God's transcendent act. Akin's view seems much more sensible to me. The church is Truth ,
the best argument for God is the shroud of turin
“Time is the unit in which we measure change.” I think you’re going to find a lot of disagreement with this definition. My issue with this is, say the entire cosmos hits absolute zero (I know this would never happen but just go with it for argument’s sake). Who’s to say time doesn’t elapse even if no change is occurring? I also feel like even if an object is at absolute zero, just because it is unchanging doesn’t mean time doesn’t pass around it. It’s an interesting thought but it seems to me that time is a prerequisite for change and not the other way around. I could be off base on this but those are my thoughts.
@@jimothynimajneb622 That is a really interesting thought and I honestly had not considered it beforehand, but I am still not convinced. If time is not the unit by which we measure change, then what IS time? And what does it measure? I am actually inclined to believe that if literally EVERYTHING stopped changing then time as we know it would cease. If all was completely still, then what would there be for time to keep track of? I am interested to hear alternate definitions of time if you have any.
As a Catholic I've defended both William Lane Craig and modern Intelligent Design proponents because I don't think probabilistic arguments are necessarily weak arguments, which people like Ed Feser (whom I highly respect) claim
100%. Both are useful and should be used together as well.
@@LilBitDistributist Dude, thank you. I've been meaning to read these books and I just remembered their titles.
@@sophiagomez5619 no problem. Pass the favor onto someone else. 😊
I don't think Feser's problem with ID is the probabilistic character of the arguments, rather he thinks that the ID position shares a common and flawed presumption with the position of guys like Dawkins. That is, a mechanistic view of life; Feser does not think it even makes sense to talk about design when talking about living organisms as they are not machines.
@@suntzu7727 ID isn’t mechanistic but it’s true that Feser views that as the issue and not probabilities even if he’s wrong.
This was not a debate. It was a discussion. Both men were great.
I disagree. Jimmy Akin approached it as a discussion with open questions and counter examples. But I felt Craig treated it more like a debate with Ethos and even Pathos rhetoric. Craig did not need to talk down to Jimmy, it is obvious Jimmy knows and reads a lot about these things. and then Craig to make up a random rule "you can't bring Catholic thought into this!"
Why not? Craig brings in his theological assumptions to some degree, as with God having a temporal being, since he would want to square that philosophical statement with valid interpretation with the Bible.
If we could only engage in all forms of discourse like these two gentlemen do.
Fascinating debate, and excellent performances by both Akin and Craig. I actually agree with Jimmy that there is no meaningful difference between logical contradiction and "strict" logical contradiction, yet I'm convinced that there is a logical contradiction in the existence of an infinite number of apples.
EDIT: I don't think it's fair for Craig to say that Akin is leaning on theological presuppositions, given that Akins's theological arguments are driven by philosophical arguments regarding the nature of time, divine simplicity, etc. There's just not enough time in this debate format to flesh out all those points of disagreements.
I was pretty loss, but I do believe both of them injected their theological beliefs based on their theological understanding of time as it pertains to God.
Craig’s point there, I think, is: If your only response to an argument for the existence of some God, is to posit the existence of a God so powerful He can render the argument moot... well, then the argument still succeeds.
@@claymcdermott718 Yeah Jimmy's argument boiled down to well God could've done it differently and that's presupposing there is a god, but the argument is trying to prove there is one.
@@claymcdermott718. I don’t think Craig said that… but it is a good insight you have.
As a catholic, the only thing I did not appreciate is the sneaking of "that's contrary to catholic teaching"... I think that borderlines ambushing Dr Craig, when the debate was supposed to be clearly outside anything of a catholic-protestant discussion. In my opinion it spoils the pleasure of having him in a catholic channel. Jimmy could have mentioned that if he wanted in a post-debate video or blog post.
I truly wish Matt brings Dr Craig again for any topic
I don't really think that was Jimmy's intention. He was just trying to show that the historical catholic teaching on divine timelessness was not exactly in line with what Aquinas said since Dr. Craig seemed to assume that Jimmy agreed with Aquinas on that point.
However, I do agree with you that those catholic/proteatant differences should have been avoided but it was also good that those presuppositions were made clear.
I don't think hes snuck in anything because a Catholic believes God is out time and space and Dr Craig does not.
Huge fundamental difference.
Personally Jimmy did it fairly.
I've seen Dr Craig haughtily rebuke the holiness of our Virgin Mary and I was insulted.
It wasn't even in a debate setting it happened on a stage with Bishop Barron.
I was appalled that Bishop Barron let it stand.
Good observation. That's what makes this discussion dynamic. :) It would be tedious if not anyone of them would look at it in their respective worldviews.
I think Dr Craig also snuck his theological beliefs in as well. Isn’t his concept on how God relates to time a theological belief? Philosophy falls under theology. It is a superior wisdom
This was great! I'm a non-Catholic Christian and have been truly blessed by Dr. Craig's work. This is my first time interacting with Akin's ideas and he also seems like a sincere and thoughtful apologist and person. I do think there is a lot riding on theology here in these disagreements. Dr. Craig's views on God's timelessness sans creation but temporal with creation does make sense to me, but even he admits elsewhere that (theologically speaking) his view (even amongst us protestants) isn't a majority position.
Yeah Jimmy Akin essentially argued its false because God could've done it differently, but the argument is for a god not what god is. Jimmy is a lot better explaining theological questions that philosophy.
Does Craig believe God travels with us time, even before the incarnation?
Incredibly interesting debate. Thank you.
Anyone think Dr. Craig's eyebrows have a K in the middle? K for Kalam?
You might have to watch in 144p
@@albertbenny431😂😂😂 ok,ok u got me.
I agree with Dr. Craig, and follow Dr. Craig, etc, BUT Akin gave very good ideas and had Dr. Craig thinking a lot. More than i’ve seen Dr. Craig have to organize his thoughts and really think a rebuttal through.
Meaning, Dr. Craig typically responds as if he has heard that argument before and calmly debunks it, Akin had him think on his toes. Good convo. But yes, I agree with Dr. Craig 👌🏻
No, I think WLC was blown away by the glaring holes in Jimmy's philosophy.
Amazing. Don’t think there is a clear winner. But what amazes me about Akin is the fact he has never lost a debate imho and the fact that he is basically an autodidactic who can take on the best with such comfort.
Jimmy is a cyborg lol
Great job and clear thoughts from William Lane Craig. Great philosophical discussion.
I thought it will be interesting conversation. I was wrong. It was very interesting conversation :D
Get Ed Feser on!
I really enjoyed this. Surprised how philosophically well-versed Jimmy was.
Had to parse the disagreement in this discussion it would be a disagreement of whether or not you form apologetics first on Revelation, or first on logic / reason/philosophy.
What was very unexpected for me in this podcast was my perception that Revelation took a back seat for the Protestant position and was the lead justification for our classic Catholic faith.
What a great discussion very enlightening. I want to thank everybody who participated immensely.
Well I do think that in the broad argument William Lane Craig appear to be more concise I really appreciated and agreed with Jimmy's orientation of Revelation first apologetics where we use Revelation as the basis for our reason and argue a reason that is not in conflict with any aspect of Revelation.
The only problem I have with the "Revelation first" position is that I don't see how it would work for apologetics, because apologetics is by definition defending your arguments against those who generally do not accept Revelation. I can understand keeping Revelation in mind so you don't argue things that are in conflict with it, but I'm not sure how it could actually ever be involved in your argumentation.
A discussion on God and time seems to be due for future episodes. (Please get Bill on again!)
I think Trent Horn has a short episode on this @Counsel of Trent
Good idea. I'd really like to see a debate or discussion with Craig on the tensed/tenseless theory of time; he's written a lot on that.
Jimmy is so coherent to listen to.
Because he ending up talking more. Its basically Craig responding to Akins thoughts, but, its difficult to disect each one in limited time.
Yes, no wonder mysterious world is so successful
34:16 Matt has me so dead when he just shows up and wants to jump in but is trying to bite his tongue 💀🤣
This seemed like a mismatched debate. I'm not sure that Jimmy had a firm enough grasp on the philosophical workings to engage properly.
What an interesting show. I used to think I had a fairly good grasp of the Kalam argument. This disabused me of that notion. Great show. Thanks. A final thought is that it is wonderful as a Catholic to have the assurance of apostolic teaching for confident guidance.
You mean it feels good to rely on an argument from authority fallacy?
@@TremendousSax I studied logic at a pretty good university. Explain your accusation.
@@tommore3263this guy won't. He barely understands what he's saying himself. He just want to pretend to be smart.
Thank you very much Matt for this discussion!
1. I don't think Jimmys objections were theological, they were more of the form:
1. You claim x is metaphysically impossible
2. God can do anything metaphysically possible
3. God can do x
4. Therefore x is not metaphysically impossible
Jimmy should have formulated it this way I think.
2. Unfortunately they didn't discuss the Grim Reaper Paradox. Nicholas Shackel in his paper "The Form of the Benardete Dichotomy" shows a clear logical contradiction in Paradoxes like the Grim Reaper Paradox, so Jimmy, there is your clear logical contradiction.
I think it was an interesting discussion, unfortunately way to short. Thank you Matt, Jimmy and Dr. Craig!
Could you please link the paper? 😀
@@matthieulavagna I tried to link it, but maybe youtube autodelets comments with some links? Just search for it and copy the doi into scihub
@@obakillaking5643 ok!!
Here is a podcast where Jimmy does discuss the grim reaper and other ideas.
One problem I see with the Grim Reaper Paradox (and please elucidate why it isn't a problem if any of you know) is that it seems to explain something different from what it tries to prove. It sets itself to prove that you cannot have an infinite regress in time. In other words, that yesterday cannot be followed by infinite "yesterdays". But to do so he tries to show that you can't infinitely _divide_ a specific portion of time in a way that doesn't create a contradiction. Thais seems simply to be a rehash of the old "Heraclitus and Parmenides" discussion, to which Aristotle has already convincingly explained it through the existence of potentiality and actuality. You can't have an infinite division of time in actuality because time only exists actually in the Present (when seen inside of time, that is) and only Potentially in infinite subdivisions. So this case of an infinite actual number of grim reapers fitting themselves in an infinitely smaller division of time simply doesn't actually happen. And even so that is different from saying that time regresses infinitely. The paradox argues that time cannot be _divided_ infinitely, if anything. So I do not feel it is a valid argument against an infinite regress. But I would be very happy to be proved wrong (simply because I like it when my errors are corrected). I do not believe that the universe is infinitely old, by the way. I think science has shown clearly enough (as well as Scripture) that the Universe had a beginning. I'm just saying I haven't seen any philosophical argument that makes that necessarily true.
A fascinating charitable discussion.
The essence of this questions seems to be about the nature of time itself.
Disregarding more fantastical "theories" about time-space of modern science (which becomes less respectable every day) - time is just a change of matter in a space. Because we measure it by observing the almost impeccably regular cyclical changes in matter (revolution of the Earth around its axis, around the Sun, phases of the Moon, seasons of year) we've grown accustomed to think of time as some invisible, infinitely long ruler that measures all events, or as a hidden invisible camera, recording all material universe.
If there is no matter, there is no time.
Therefore, for a thing to be created, it means it has to have a beginning, so it cannot exist before its own creation.
If an apple would be to exist in the hypothetical state of "having an infinite past existence" it would mean it wasn't created, so in some aspects it would be equal to God.
Wow! That was amazing. What are your initial thoughts? Who made the better case?
Jimmy came out more convincing
The apples argument lost me I’m not that sharp. I found Jimmy explained his point of view especially concerning God existing outside of time. William was respectful and did make some convincing points also. Hopefully the two of them can have a pint together.
I don’t understand the distinction of what constitutes a STRICT Logical Contradiction, perhaps someone can explain it to me below. It seems to me that William’s case of the absurdity of the apples/people example was a legitimate reason to have an infinite set number of things be a strict logical contradiction in actuality. If Jimmy’s argument from omniscience is that God cannot create anything that is a strict logical contradiction, wouldn’t the infinitude of a set number of things constitute a strict logical contradiction, thus rendering the Kalam as valid according to Jimmy’s view of omniscience?
@@RobRod305 I think Jimmy would say logical impossibility is the same as metaphysical impossibility but under logical impossibility he would not just include strict logical contradictions like "a and not a", but also of the form "a and b", where after further analysis you would see that "b iff not a".
Dr. Craig would make a further distinction of metaphysical impossibility where even after further anaysis of a and b there still wouldnt be a contradiction like "a and not a". This would include things like "an effect cannot precede its cause". Even after analysing the definitions these wouldnt be like "a and not a", but they would still be impossible.
I think the main argument should be "How good of an indicator of metaphysical impossibility is prima facia absurdity"
I used to think that I knew stuff, until I listened to this.
@@obakillaking5643 Hmmm interesting. Thank you for responding. How would that distinction then apply to the set of an infinite amount of things? It seems to me that a set of an infinite amount of things actually is indeed a strict logical contradiction. Could you explain if that is or isn’t true, and why?
¡Viva Cristo Rey!
Btw... we need another one with Dr. Rob Koons and or Dr. Gaven Kerr
It boggles the mind...I am resting in Christ's "bring the children" as that about sums up my faith and intellect..
Dear Dr. Craig, in Hubert's Hotel, it isn't the same number subtracted from the same number that results in different numbers. It is different subsets of numbers being subtracted. So it's ok that there are different answers. I love this discussion!
But it is the same number.
In both cases you have Aleph_0 being subtracted from Aleph_0 resulting in different numbers.
Aleph_0 is a number, not a concept.
The issue here is set definitions, a huge obstacle of late because people make up their own. The only way to have a legitimate debate is by an agreement to definitions. To that, a is a and b is not a, therefore a is not b. A person is a person, and a number is not a person, therefore a person is not a number. I'm going to go pray... haha
Yes, it's regrettable how much time was wasted over trivial semantics.
I love that music prior to this discussion.. been enjoying the music on “The Hallow application well...” 🙏🏻🙏🏻🙏🏻
Good Day to all and the rest of the day to you... 🙏🏻🙏🏻🙏🏻
Whats the name of the song?
Everything that begins to exist has a cause
First problem is, from what we know we don’t have examples of things that begin to exist except for abstract things like ideas or different arrangements of entities like atoms, molecules that we call them new.
Then the second part of the argument the cause, on our world we can see and effect in action, basically they are interactions which occur in time. So cause and effect works within our universe following the laws of physics. We can record a period of time and add the 3d space and create a 4d block. Within the block there is cause and effect but nothing can be said whether the block itself has a cause or not
About infinities, they don’t make sense in physics, potential infinities are ok, but then the universe doesn’t need an infinite past. Time may have started at the Big Bang but it doesn’t mean it started from nothing. If we analyze the 4d block we can see a beginning with the first frame of the block. Before the first frame there are no other frames, it’s nothing there but the universe didn’t evolve from a nothingness state, such state didn’t exist. also the 4d block is still there.
What about the infinity of space? It could be that in the initial phase the energy of the universe was all concentrated into a small space. Outside the space there was nothing so no infinity there. Then space expanded at the speed of light so if you are at the edge of space and shine a flashlight the beam will still travel at the speed of light as space expands with it.
Haven't watched much yet but if only we could have an Aquinas - Pruss discussion on causal finitism 🥺 That would be so epic
my favorite guy was clearly right, and my second favorite guy was less right but still really cool!
That was awesome ! Hope I can see those two wonderful apologists again on your channel!
Wow. Very good debate. They are both excellent debaters.
Two gifted and fascinating minds - One God - Bravo!
Love both Jimmy and WLC but at about the 41 min mark, WLC nails the coffin shut for this particular discussion. The debate was supposed to be about the philosophical soundness of Kalaam, and Jimmy retorts with only Christian theological arguments. WLC was in the right discipline (logic qua logic; metaphysics qua metaphysics), and Jimmy kept trying to argue from a different discipline (metaphysics of the Catholic Tradition).
Love em both, though! Vivat Jesus!
Precisely. The truth is Akin is completely out of his depth with Craig. Craig is philosophical juggernaut whose work is cited in textbooks. He's also a logician of the highest order. Akin's appeal to Catholic tradition was a cop-out. That isn't how you debate. It was his way of saying "I lack both the formal education and the vocabulary to properly address your arguments". For Jimmy Akin, a man without a single academic credential in the field of philosophy, to think that he was going to out-logic such an eminent philosopher and academic debater as Dr. Craig was incredibly foolish.
@@cartesian_doubt6230 In the follow up that Fradd and Jimmy recorded right after the debate, Jimmy offered his defense for relying on Catholic teaching in a philosophy debate and I found it to be an insufficient defense.
Craigs concern about offering theological arguments in response to philosophical problems seems odd since that’s precisely what he did at SES during a discussion on God and abstract objects.
Jimmy brought up thoughtful points, but hard to outgun Craig on these issues. Good discussion!
I'm not certain exactly what you're referring to re: the SES discussion, but I think Craig's concern in this specific instance makes sense only because the KCA is meant to be a faith agnostic argument limited to proving some kind of creator. If you object to it on theological grounds from specific faiths, it feels somewhat irrelevant.
But the "God and Abstract Objects" video was a theological or inter-theist discussion about how best to solve the philosophical problem of God's relation to abstracta. The Kalām Argument is an atheist-theist debate which (unlike the abstract objects talk) doesn't assume God's existence.
I think I agree that it's hard to outrun Craig on the Kalam argument, though.
@@ob4161 Exactly and Jimmy Aiken never addressed it.
It’s worth noting in this debate that one could hold to the idea that actual infinites exist (although I don’t) and still hold that the philosophical premises of the Kalam are correct using the newer paradoxes like the grim messenger and grim reaper paradox developed by Pruss and Koons that do get you to a logical contradiction.
I don't know why Dr Craig has such a hard time with subtraction working differently with finite vs transfinite numbers. Scalar multiplication is different than vector multiplication, but that does not make either form of multiplication metaphysically impossible
Can you explain that more thoroughly?
@@yohanessaputra9274 5x4=20 is an example of scalar multiplication. In scalar multiplication, it doesn't matter whether you have 5x4 or 4x5,it is always 20. If you have two vectors, e.g. A= and B=, there are actually two ways to multiply them, the dot product and the cross product. The dot product takes two vectors and makes a scalar and order doesn't matter. In this example A dot B = B dot A = 1. The cross product gives a vector result and order does matter. In this case, A x B = and B x A = . It is all called multiplication (with good reason) but the nature of the numbers being operated on changes how it works, just like the trans-finite subtraction problems. I think that it makes sense that a trans-finite number subtracted from another trans-finite number could yield either a finite or trans-finite number, just as vector multiplication can result in a scalar or a vector. It would be a logical impossibility if a finite number subtracted from a trans-finite number resulted in a finite number, but that's not what the Hilbert problem illustrates
@@ReginaldPierce
To be possible, it is not enough to be consistent. In fact, it is consistent to maintain the falsity of arithmetic sentences based on the Dedekind-Peano axioms (since they are not reducible to logic). And, most importantly, there are developments in paraconsistent mathematics, making room for Priest's metaphysical position called dialetheism.
There's nowhere to run, you have to appeal to your intuition in order to make philosophical judgments, even the most basic ones. And it is unanimous that the notion of transfinite is counter-intuitive, to say the least (not to mention the higher orders of transfinites, and large cardinals)
@@caiomateus4194 I'm not saying that it is simply consistent, I'm arguing that it is non-contradictory. Specifically it is a contradiction to say that one cannot count from zero (or any other natural number) to the infinity of natural numbers and also be able to get a finite residual by subtracting a natural number from the infinity of natural numbers, BUT it is not a contradiction to say that subtracting a different infinity from the infinity of natural numbers could yield a finite result. Dr Craig asserted that the latter is a contradiction, but I disagree. It does not contradict the nature of transfinite numbers.
@@ReginaldPierce Subtracting identical quantities from identical quantities and obtaining non-identical results is contradictory. They are not "infinite different", any infinite subset of the natural numbers has the same cardinality as the set, aleph-0, and it is the cardinality we are subtracting, not the sets. In fact, that's why this type of operation is considered indeterminate, just like zero divided by zero. It just doesn't make sense to have an answer, because if there were, there would be a contradiction.
Consistency is synonymous with non-contradiction, at least I used it that way in my comment. What I meant was that the fact that something is not contradictory doesn't mean that it can be metaphysically possible or that there is no problem, because to say that 2+2 is different from 4 is also not contradictory (just deny Peano's axioms). I also pointed out that even to say that something contradictory is metaphysically impossible we need intuition, since there are logicians who argue that there are contradictions in reality (like Graham Priest). What we must do, then, is rely on common sense to determine what is impossible and what is not, rather than betting all the chips on a single criterion (non-contradiction).
During some debates, I've heard Dr. Craig say that sans creation, God is timeless and after creation, he's inside time. Dr. Craig confirms that in this video. He also rejects divine simplicity, that God has no parts of any sort. St. Thomas Aquinas teaches that since God is purely actual, he can't change in any way. But Dr. Craig implies that God changes when he, Craig, says that sans creation, God is timeless and after creation, God is in time. If God is the first cause, he can't change, since change is the actualization of a potential. If something that's already actual needs to cause a change and God can change, he can't be the first cause. So Dr. Craig's theism suggests a vicious infinite regress.
But Mr.Akin can agree that merely Cambridge is possible for God. If I "shorten" because my nephew grows five inches taller than me, that's a merely Cambridge change in me. My nephew grew when I maintained my height. I didn't change. My nephew did.
This isn’t exact a “change” in God though, Craig would say. strictly speaking, when WLC talks about “before creation,” he means, “considered sans creation,” since it doesn’t make much sense to talk about “before time began.”
@@claymcdermott718 Okay. But if classical theism is true, it's logically impossible for God to undergo change. So if God is purely actual as we Thomists believe is, he has no potential, no ability to undergo change. When the Bible says that God gets angry or changes his mind, Thomists takes those expressions figuratively.
@@claymcdermott718 Alright, but he still seems to believe that God can undergo change. If he believes that, his belief implies that God has one or more metaphysical parts. So that implication would be enough to show that WLC is not a classical theist. Instead, he would be what Fr. Brian Davies calls a "theistic personalist.""When God began to create" is the most literal way to translate the first part of Genesis 1:1. If that's true, I don't understand that verse,
If God cannot change, how do we as Christians account for the Incarnation, in which God became man at a point in time?
@@Anthony-vm9gz Ah, but “the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world” - the incarnation was already a reality.
Coming back to this intentionally today and thought of this. Akin says if God can imagine a number line composed of all the positive integers why could he not make a line of hydrogen atoms, one for each positive integer.
Here is the thing. Infinity is not a number you count up to or add to until you get it. It is a size of a set which is composed of an indefinitely large number of items.
Everyone knows this, so I don’t mean to bore you, but Cantor famously compared different sizes of infinity. He proposed a mental experiment where you write down all the real numbers, all infinity of them. Then you compose a new number. The first place is taken from the first place of the first number on the list plus one. The second place from the second place of the second number plus one and so on. This new number will differ from each number in the list. Cantor showed that you could always add new real numbers to the set of the real numbers even though you started out with the set of all infinite real numbers.
I think that there is a prima fascia case that an infinite set of abstract items such as real number is logically possible but that it is metaphysically impossible to have a set of an infinite number of physical hydrogen atoms. For these reasons: 1) No matter how many hydrogen atoms God creates, even if we assume God created an infinite number of them, one can always imagine that God could create one additional hydrogen atom, or two extra, or an infinite number more, or an infinite number more hydrogen atoms an infinite number of times, and still you could imagine he could create one more. There is a logical contradiction since the infinite number of hydrogen atoms at any step is not actually infinite since you could always add one. 2) An infinite number of hydrogen atoms would take up an infinite amount of space. But even if you had enough space required to house an infinite number of hydrogen atoms you could always add a few cubic meters. 3) The point is that infinity is, by definition, not a definite quantity, it can never be reached by adding physical items or units of space or time or anything measurable. Because it is by definition the size of a set with an indefinite and unmeasurable quantity. 4) In the above examples, because we are adding up measurable quantities, our first infinity turns out not to be infinite after all. Thus, the size of our infinity is always going to be both infinite and not infinite at the same time and in the same respect. A logical contradiction. 5) if you simply say that all the initial infinities were not actual infinities, this would save the logical consistency of the claim, but whatever set of hydrogen atoms you claim are the final infinite number of hydrogen atoms, one more could be added. There is no stopping point. There is no realistic actual quantity of hydrogen atoms that would satisfy the definition of a final infinite number of measurable hydrogen atoms.
I love Jimmy Akin
I LOVE both Jimmy and William (Brit Prot here)!!!!
Jimmy made an argument that "prime minister is a person not a number", and hence in itself is not logical. I think this makes perfect sense. I don't understand why Dr. Craig still insisted that the statement is not "strictly illogical"..? Isn't that just a common sense..? I feel like sometimes learned people can be too theoretical to a point where they are detached from real world/common sense..
Stricly logically, is just that ..strict...broadly logical broadly speaking. You can formulate things with strict logic.
WLC was being obtuse over the trivial detail that Akin wasn’t going a few steps farther to the obvious conclusion “number and not a number”, “A and Not A”. WLC prefers to “win” debates on technical grounds rather than admit when he’s wrong.
@@AetheriusLamia - No, WLC is just being a philosopher, he's being accurate. Jimmy made the argument that God can do absolutely anything except that which is a logical contradiction. He then proposed an example that was not a strict logical contradiction and WLC pulled him up on it. Even if WLC was sympathetic to Jimmy's view, he wouldn't have let it slide. WLC did throw him a bone by suggesting that the examples that Jimmy was proposing were metaphysically impossible, even if they were not a strict logical contradiction. We can infer from that that God is not is not in the habit of making tables of ice say, because it would be broadly logically non-sensical.
Jimmy is making a very good point that requires consideration, and WLC simply disagrees. It's not really a matter of winning or losing necessarily.
If a small number is a nearby fence, and very large number is like a distant fence, infinity is the lack of a fence. An infinite number is a contradiction in terms.
I didn’t understand the details of much of anything they said but it was still somehow really interesting. How does that happen? Maybe like going to a Latin Mass when you don’t speak Latin. Ha!
thru time and practice one can learn the beauties of the Ancient Mass. Expecting to understand the Mass immediately is like a protestant opening the Bible and expecting to understand everything immediately based on sola scriptura. U r right to make the comparison, such theology also takes time to digest
It’s a good comparison because it makes you want to learn more!
These guys have read and studied these subjects for YEARS, thousands of hours of time dedicated to it. Of course it’s hard to follow. It should be
I am about a half hour through and I feel you so much.
I seem to be in the minority, but Akin won IMO. Craig spent much more time trying to invalidate Akin’s arguments by calling them theological or otherwise trying to hand-wave them away then he did actually responding to the arguments that were presented.
Appreciate the debate though! Thank you Matt for hosting and thank you to both Jimmy and Dr. Craig for participating!
Jimmy himself said they were theological and they weren't relevant to the debate the argument is to try to prove there is a god. And what Jimmy was saying is my god disproves the argument.
Lane was sharper and more coherent, towards the end Jimmy was all over the place.
Need this but longer! :) great discussion
🍿 Super Kind Discussion. Didn’t understand a word but looked great. I’m a visual learner so if you could get them to draw out their arguments next time?
🙂
That would be tough for the complexity of the argument.
Better use bright colors. It's the only thing that catches my eye. I'm not that smart.
It’s funny, because the Kalam always gave me pause for reasons I couldn’t quite put to words, but of course Jimmy comes through for me. Not entirely happy about it, but good for you sir.
The thing with the Kalam is that, strictly speaking, it's only intended to show that the universe has a cause, not that the cause must necessarily be God. Even though I'd agree personally that only the classical understanding of God could be said cause, the argument can nevertheless only arrive at that conclusion on a probabilistic basis, which isn't sufficient to convince anyone predisposed against God's existence.
Plus, the second premise is presented as a brute fact.
@@ironymattto be fair, there are defenses of individual premises and an analysis of the cause of the universe will bring you to something that is very similar to what we normally think of God.
What I found most interesting was that a great scholar like Dr. Craig was more visibly perplexed by a Catholic council's defining God being outside time. "It wasn't definitive" he said or something rather. Hmm. Anyone else catch that? Why would a Baptist care what Lateran said? and why would he feel it, the council, left him room to speculate on his position on God being temporal? I hope Mr Frad can comment on this. Is the good Dr on his way Rome-ward? God bless both of them, and a special thanks to Jimmy who helped my faith heaps back in the day.
Well that wasn't what was being debated. Jimmy threw that out there as a point of clarification for Catholics but I think also to try to when the argument through ad hominin. They were arguing Kalam and I found Jimmy's argument unconvincing because it presupposed a god when the argument is trying to prove a god.
Is it possible these two gentlemen have a theological difference over the meaning of God's "omnipotence"?
It seemed that they differed more specifically on what qualifies as a logical contradiction.
I assume they agree on God's omnipotence in a strict sense. However Jimmy was failing to understand a basic philosophical principle and failed to distinguish between logical being (meaning that which can be conceived in the mind) with actual being(meaning that which exists outside the mind).
God cannot do the absurd or that which would contradict His nature.
To posit God creating an infinite universe or an infinite past is a complete and utter error.
You cannot even apply the term infinite to created reality.
Created=finite, Creator=infinite.
Jimmy's thought leads to..:
God alone is Infinite,
But creation is infinite
Therefore creation is God.
@@optimoprimo132 that’s like saying a dog is brown and a bear is brown, therefore a dog is a bear. That conclusion doesn’t follow
@@optimoprimo132 I totally agree with you. That 's exactly what I was thinking.. and I'm catholic!
But here's a doubt that I have: if actual infinite succession of time doesn't exist.. how is eternal life possible?
Maybe because the eternal life that Jesus describes in the Bible is not boud in time, I mean not of this world/creation? but in the timeless dimension of God?
@@jimothynimajneb622 exactly. That is the point. It doesn't follow.
Oppy and Craig on Kalam please!
This might be glossing over some of the technical aspects of the discussion, however, I would be happy to acknowledge with Dr. Craig that the nature of the physical universe as we observe it does not support the existence of actual infinities and therefore, from a natural perspective, the universe must have had a beginning. However, I would also be happy to acknowledge with Mr. Akin that the miraculous is possible and God is not confined to act only according to the laws of nature. Therefore, "actual" infinities are possible for God in some sense (that I personally can't conceive of). However, either argument points to the necessity of a force outside of nature to explain the existence of nature, which is normally the point the Kalam argument is trying to make anyway.
Yeah I was disappointed in Jimmy Aiken the argument is looking the universe and its laws and saying it must've been created by a god. Jimmy was saying well God could've done it differently that doesn't disprove the argument though because the argument is proving god and Jimmy's is presupposing there is a Catholic God. Also I question if he grasps infinity.
No, Jimmy was wrong in his metaphysics and consequently in his theology. Although God is not confined to the physical laws of creation He is limited in regards His very nature. God cannot create an eternal world or let us say an infinite created past.
A miracle is something that defies the nature of physical creation but a miracle can never exceed the nature of God.
God cannot create a rock so big that even He cannot lift.
God cannot sin against Himself.
God cannot go against His nature and will Himself out of existence.
God cannot make 1+1=3.
God cannot make a circle/square.
God cannot create an eternal or infinite creation.
God is eternal and infinite by nature. He cannot not exist. He is without change needing nothing to complete Him.
The very nature of creation by definition is FINITE. creation has a beginning and will have an end unless God wills its continued existence.
God=creator, infinite, eternal
Creation=finite, beginning, changing, not eternal.
but... but... infinity isn't a quantity... it just means there's no end. You can have the infinity of whole numbers, subtract the infinity of odd numbers and still have an infinity left over.
Akin made that point ("it's not a number in the same sense of other numbers") ...
Dr. Craig: "God is eternal but not timeless"
Me: 🤔
47:30 There’s a distinction between being timeless sans creation and timeless after creation. God is eternal in that he exists without beginning and without end. God is timeless sans creation, because creation includes the creation of time itself and God existed “before” creation. But after creation, God is now “in time”. Craig believes in the “A Theory” of time: the past existed, the present exists, and the future will exist.
In this way, it is possible for God to be eternal but not timeless (after creation).
@@noahboughdy2648 How do you define time then? If you define it as St Thomas Aquinas does, God would have to go from being fully actualized to being potential in some way, or lacking in the fullness of His being (and He is pure being), if the quote you mentioned were true.
@@francophone. Craig has spent something like 12 years on his analysis of Time and how it relates to god. I'm not saying that means hes right, but be sure that he probably has thought of any objection you could come up with.
If you're genuinly interested maybe check out his book "Time and Eternity".
@@obakillaking5643 Maybe I will look at his book sometime, thanks for the recommendation.
I am not that familiar with his work, but I think that that may not mean that my comment is wrong, don't just dismiss it unless you know of a relative passage form his book that addressed the topic (and he may have redfined things too, maybe he has a different definition of time).
@@francophone. Maybe Craig would say "God sans creation has potentcy to create. As long as he doesnt actualizes this potency, he doesnt change, so he's not in time. Once he creates, he changes, for example learns tensed facts, so hes in time."
I dont see a problem here.
Of course Craig doesnt think god is pure actuality.
Jimmy Akin needs to read WLC's book Time and Eternity.
@thousandmiles I totally agree, great book!
The debate I wanted to watch. As a Catholic, who loves St. Thomas Aquinas, I however support Kalam argument. My reasoning is simply that if universe has an infinite past, then present is infinity realized (actual infinity), but then present elapses into past, meaning it's only potential infinity, not actual. I have read Akin's argument on his blogs, but really not able to comprehend it well enough. May be I need more time to digest Akin's thought.
just think of the present differently. rather than the present being a completion of the past, realise its just part of the past and the future and neither really exist except conceptually in our minds as we are inside of time. the past can go forever just as the future does, because time goes forever. being at a point in it is not the end of all the past points but part of all the past points and part of all the future points.
also realise that in the present there are infinite points of time, and for it to move forward at all into the next moment is nonsensical and yet it happens. there is an infinite amount of periods between each second and still seconds pass. each second is the end of an infinite second, but also a point in an infinite amount of seconds, and is itself a new infinite.
@@jstevo1349 This is where I'm puzzled. Though past and future are of same substance - time - and we can thus perform arithmetic operations between past and future, there is also real distinctness because past has been actualized and future is only potential. This distinctness of past and future as it relates to the realized/potential is where I think it's wrong to apply *infinity* without the distinctness of potential infinity and actual infinity.
@@xavier.abraham Seems to me this rests on a mistake, because Craig instead of focusing on the question 'how many future events *will* there be if the future is endless?' To which the answer is infinitely many. Craig instead switches to "How many future events will *have* been?" And that it's true is always finite and increasing over time & approaching infinity, but never getting there...The problem is that those two things are compatible with each other. For one thing, it's changing the subject if you say "how many events will there be?" and to answer in terms of how many events there will have been; it's changing the subject. But also, they're both true. I mean, even though there will have been finitely many events; it's also true that there will be infinitely many events. In the infinite future, those two are not incompatible with each other. Therefore, Craig's point just doesn't land unless he can give a symmetry breaker that doesn't rely on changing the subject.
Furthermore, mathematicians do not think infinity is contradictory. What may be contradictory is claiming that infinity is both a contradiction and not a contradiction. Claiming that the infinite past is incoherent, whilst the infinite future is embraced. And claiming the beginning of time is confirmed by the big bang singularity, which itself involves infinities.
Mind,body,soul.
This is also the thought process.
First comes the mind witch is impulse.
Then comes body witch it a Libra scale of good and bad decisions.
Last comes soul pure of heart thought for the greater good.
The more you sit back and think the conclusion will become clearer.
You must pick witch path to walk down as you go further into thought.
Persuasion is the minds greatest enemy.
The longer the thought the more free will is put into the though. the persuasion is conjured up during said thoughts.
(Example) in the middle of praying you think of something bad because your putting all your free will thinking into something so pure of heart your mind body and soul come into play.
The FIRST thing you pray about is all the things you impulsively need and want.
The SECOND thing you think about is all the decisions you have or had to make.
The THIRD thing you pray about is pure of heart and true thought wether it’s good or bad it’s truly what you desire.
Personally the first thing I ask for is forgiveness
The second is guidance.
The third is happiness.
The one and only thing that can last forever consciously is the last thing I pray for because it’s the end of everything and the beginning to life.
(HAPPINESS) true peace and prosperity,pure of heart and eternal joy.
We are all good and bad it’s base upon our decisions that we listen to and act upon.
We are little pieces of our father and his son/daughter
We must obey our fathers rules as a path to HAPPINESS and fight with our brothers and sister to achieve these goals don’t get persuaded to leave your path of right for wrong.
Hard work is a lesson in life to achieve one of two things
Transcendence
Or
Persuasion.
If you read this all the way threw your already in the right mind set for change
I really wish this could have been extended another hour instead of artificially cutting it short.
Both excellent. I'm Catholic and will look into Jimmy's stuff, but still can't get my head around his PAST infinites...a one-ended stick
...bear in mind we are only talking about physical infinites (?) How with a past infinity of time could we ever get to where we are...yet here we are.
I’m publishing a weekly UA-cam video on episodes from the life of Don Bosco, entitled ST JOHN BOSCO by JOE ZAMMIT. In this series I’m narrating events and miracles from the splendid life of Don Bosco. St John Bosco used to perform a miracle almost every day, through the intercession of Mary Help of Christians. From the lives of saints we can learn how to love God more and draw closer to him. Thank you.
I find W L Craig’s view a more effective in presenting this argument to unprepared people, because he intentionally avoid unnecessary concepts which surely could bring more confusion (such as omnipotence), leaving solid and easy to understand ones.
Laplace has an answer to the infinite series between a current point and an initial point.
I'm with Jimmy on this one. I think Craig failed to grapple with Jimmy's challenge of Craig's distinction between logical & metaphysical contradiction. Jimmy refuted specific examples given by Craig & Craig only responded by repeating "that's not a strict logical contradiction". &, overall, Craig kept falling back on "that just seems inconceivable to me!" responses, despite Jimmy pointing out he (& others) have no issue conceiving such things. & Craig pulling the "I can follow the arguments where they lead because I don't share Jimmy's theological presuppositions" was annoying & offensive. Jimmy gave strictly philosophical refutations, not just theological ones.
Akin at least gave him pause when he delivered his trademark line. Hopefully he'll go read St John Paul II's audiences and Boethius, realize what Christians meant by eternal, and rethink his view of God.
@@AetheriusLamia We'll see. Is there any evidence Craig has ever changed his mind on one of his philosophical &/or theological positions? Just curious. I really don't know.
Thanks much for this video.
How exactly is metaphysically impossible for gold to have different atomic number??? Same with the table being from ice. It's certainly contingent.
"All this would prove is Christians shouldn't use the argument"
cue kenobi...that's why I'm here
Akin is an unsung hero
Oh, Dr. Craig! Infinity is NOT a number! Thank you Akin!
I wish David Bentley Hart had a better attitude to participate like this, he is sorely missed around the way. So much to contribute and he hardly ever does. It is terrific that both Dr Craig and folks like Graham Oppy make the time as they do much appreciated.
Hart is a phenomenal thinker and addresses these issues in his books.
@@anniebanderet Some of them he does. But there is something that is drawn out by dialogue, a revelation.
Actually, the Kalam argument is valid. Aquinas stated in the Summa Theologia : A multitude is said to be infinite absolutely, when an infinite multitude is necessary that something may exist. Now this is impossible; because it would entail something dependent on an infinity for its existence; and hence its generation could never come to be, because it is impossible to pass through an infinite medium.
Matt at the beginning: This is not a protestant vs Catholic debate.
Jimmy later on: Dr. Craig believes things that are not taught by the catholic church and so he is wrong.
@Justin Orrock Haha no, I was saying that Jimmy made the crux of the debate about the difference in their theological presuppositions rather than the Kalam argument. But I said that opinion in the form of a joke, sorry if that seemed disrespectful or anything.
@@TheRoark jimmy do be right tho
I don’t think it’s good to straw man Jimmy’s position like that. He basically stated that he has certain theological understandings which happens to fit his philosophical understandings. Dr. William Lane Craig, for example, would say that he, as an apologist, would defend the Christian faith as revealed in the Bible, and so, cannot believe in a God that doesn’t fit the description of YHVH.
@@TheRoark The Church preserves the fullness of the Faith, so it makes sense that contradicting the Church's teaching on this point would cause you to be wrong. Why would it be otherwise?
the position that Jimmy brought up is philosophical, and also theological/doctrinal. the problem wasn't in the position, but in the presentation (in the context of this debate).
There is an issue here.
Not all infinities are equal, thank you Dirac!
St. Thomas makes a distinction between something existing in God vs existing in his knowledge. This is important for example when he argues for a multitude of Divine ideas. There are many ideas in God's knowledge but it is not regunant to God's simplicity.
I really appreciate your stating that any quoting of Aquinas is illegitimate due to it being taken out of context due to his ignorance in comparison to what we know today. That is we have no context for what he would have stated had he been born in the modern age.
On the point about metaphysical impossibility to say something is logically possible is to say that it is obtainable in some possible world, but to say that something is impossible is to say that it is obtainable in no possible world. Thus if something could be both metaphysically impossible and yet still logically possible it would have to be both obtainable in some possible world and not obtainable in any possible world which is a contradiction.
Aw dang! I was using that word Kalam in a science fiction book to represent an object. Now I have to change it! Do you know how hard it is to come up with a word that hasn't already been used in science fiction!? ROFL!
Akin is by far one of the most deficient *philosophers I have ever seen.* Is he really a professional philosopher?
I am completely surprised by the comment section. I read it before the video started and thought I was going to hear a great philosopher. I guess this section is a good example of *Confirmation Bias.*
First, it's obvious that Akin does not fully understand what philosophers understand as "absurd" because he commits the Fallacy of Equivocation equating the common man's use of the word "absurd" to describe "improbable events" which is completely different. Then, he says he will only dismiss strict logical contradictions, but when he is told about Metaphysical possibility, he just evades it equating it with Logical possibility...
It is obvious that Akin never read Kripke in his entire life.
Then, when told that he (Akin) did not even give a philosophical objection, but a theological argument, he threw a philosophical Red Herring which was very cringey for two reasons:
a) He covered his initial philosophical fallacy with another philosophical fallacy (Red Herring).
b) He did not understand the issue of dismissing a philosophical argument with a theological argument.
Then Akin said that he dismisses the existence of X events/things based on strict logical contradictions and then gave a list of examples. The cringey part of it: NONE of his supposed examples were strict logical contradictions.
Cringe goosebumps here.
After that, he says that if God can think of an infinite number of things, He can instantiate it... WHICH AGAIN, and again Akin is told that it is Metaphysically impossible.
Then the worst part: His Apples Paradox... LOL! Wow, he just took Hilbert's Hotel and change people for apples and got to the very precise absurdity that philosophers show it is an absurdity!!!
Mindblowing.
Then Akin brings another "great" philosophical objection. 41:57 He practically says "The Pope says you are wrong... so u wrong". Which is COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT for the philosophical argument.
Just terrible. Even Matt had to interrupt this.
After that, Akin... ONCE again brings a theological argument to "refute" (LOL) Craig's philosophical argument on "Counting to infinity." Which is not even laughable at this point.
I cannot stress out how confused I am of this comment section.
Yes
He (Akin) is not a trained philosopher. I agree with your points, as i said similarly above. It was not well paired to put someone of Craig’s stature and training up against someone who has no formal training. Ed Feser would have been a suitable Catholic counterpart to Craig.
@@anniebanderet So Akin does not have formal training! That explains everything. I really could tell, but I was confused because Akin identified himself as a *"Catholic Philosopher"* @42:32 Many people could find this statement misleading because we commonly expect an academic background for "philosophers".
Why can theology not inform philosophy and vice versa?
@@charliek2557 of course they do. But the question was posed as to the adequacy of the Kalam philosophical argument for the existence of God. It was not a theological assessment. That is a different question.
I got a ton out of it, mostly due ti David Bently Hart.
For better understanding, I think a timeless vs. timed God discussion, and theistic personalism vs classical theism discussion are needed for most people.
I agree with Akins position but the absurdities that arise from an actual infinite as opposed to a potential one have to be dealt with and till now I don't think they have and it's quite difficult.
Actual infinities are not possible look at Hilbert hotels problem. Actual infinities always lead to contradiction
Jimmy Akin states that only the contradictory is impossible. That would lead us to many truths which is a contradiction. That is, if it is said that there are aliens as large as a galaxy, it is not a contradiction, but it does not imply that it is true. What Dr. Craig says is what is most plausible. If an infinity, or a finite. His arguments suggest that finitude is more plausible without implying that infinity is false.
Clash of the Titans, love it very much... rooting for catholic answers all the way baby✊💪
Jimmy was far superior and way more patient and respectful.
It’d weird how Matt prefaced at the beginning of the debate that this WOULD NOT be a Protestant vs. Catholic argument. Akin himself acknowledged mutual agreement and respect for Craig’s methodology from the onset. And yet, due to Akin’s more integrated theological approach to the Kalam…it ended up inadvertently becoming a Catholic vs. Protestant issue. Great conversation regardless but still weird. Lol.
how it typically goes, unfortunately. even if an argument is valid, sound, and consistent with all scientific data, mathematical proof, and scripture itself, it's no good just because pope bob says so? that is truly heartbreaking, both in terms of intellectual honesty and as a christian. the church won't be united until christians grow beyond this nonsensical tribalism.
@@AndyReichert0 what you talking about no pope has spoken on these issues in fact gives you the freedom to accept the St Anselm Kalaam or the St Aquinas proofs or Molinism or Aquinas predestination there is a freedom on such complicated issues where multiple theories are involved that don’t contradict scripture. Now there are dogmatic truths where there is only one possible answer where councils and popes do speak with an infallible voice or else all madness and relativity would ensue.
Jimmy Akin is the most slept on Catholic mind in the English speaking world
Too right.
What does ‘slept on mind’ mean ?
@@charlescarter2072underrated mind. Someone who should be honoured and/or respected more than he already is.
@@Djessie11 thanks
Dr. Craig makes a good point about strict logical contradictions, I think. But Mr. Akin could reply that although a prime minister is not a prime number, there's a difference between a prime number and an instance of a prime number. One prime minister is an instance of the number one. The three letters in the word "dog" form an instance of the number three. The 10 fingers on my left hand make up an instance of the number 10. There's an instance of a number N whenever there's a group of N things. The digit "3" is an instance of the number one because it's only one digit. It's also an instance of the number 3 because it has a top part, a middle part, and a bottom part. But the digit three is not a number. It names a number. A digit is a concrete object that signifies an abstract object. A prime minister is not a prime number. But a prime minister is an instance of prime number 1, the abstract object.