@@TheProdigalMeowMeowMeowReturnscould you send a link to this discussion or one similar that shows that the universe can be infinite and still be compatible with God?
@@TheProdigalMeowMeowMeowReturns I don't necessarily think it would be, I'm just curious on how to answer the objection that the universe does not need an explanation due to its infinite nature. Thanks for the book recommendation
Causal chains are great philosophy fun but are lame in the real world. Nuclear physics has a core property of "spontaneous decay", i.e. the atom decayed without cause. It's not that the cause is undiscovered but can't exist. Why should I consider philosophical causality when real world causality doesn't play by those rules.
Saying that God created the world is not denying an infinite universe.
Yep. Hart agrees. I love his discussion on cosmology with Kuhn
@@TheProdigalMeowMeowMeowReturnscould you send a link to this discussion or one similar that shows that the universe can be infinite and still be compatible with God?
@@weezy894 Will you please tell me why, in detail, an infinite past would be a problem for theism?
@weezy894 Read Hart's 2014 book The Experience of God or Josh Rasmussen's work. Or check out Pat Flynn's new book The Best Argunent for God
@@TheProdigalMeowMeowMeowReturns I don't necessarily think it would be, I'm just curious on how to answer the objection that the universe does not need an explanation due to its infinite nature. Thanks for the book recommendation
Causal chains are great philosophy fun but are lame in the real world. Nuclear physics has a core property of "spontaneous decay", i.e. the atom decayed without cause. It's not that the cause is undiscovered but can't exist.
Why should I consider philosophical causality when real world causality doesn't play by those rules.