@@Vic2point0 People who know the origins of the symbol will get the impression you're pagan, which is perfectly alright I guess if you're actually a pagan and not Christian.
@@xstatic-ow5mzto the pure, all things are pure. What matters is what it means to you. If you want to remove all things of pagan origin from your life, you’re gonna be in for it.
papacy debunked (youtube) I'm more blessed than mary Proof = Luke 11:27-28 27 And it happened, as He spoke these things, that a certain woman from the crowd raised her voice and said to Him, “Blessed is the womb that bore You, and the breasts which nursed You!” 28 But He said, “More than that, blessed are those who hear the word of God and keep it!” In Luke 11:27 that random woman LITERALLY said Jesus your mother is Blessed, but are Lord Jesus LITERALLY said Believers are more Blessed than mary. Amen and Amen _ CHRIST alone John 14:6 Jesus said to him, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me. ACTS 4:12 Nor is there salvation in any other, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved.” There is only One Mediator between God and men, LORD Jesus Christ= 1 Timothy 2:5 For there is one God and one Mediator between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus. Hebrew 9:15 And for this reason He is the Mediator of the new covenant, by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions under the first covenant, that those who are called may receive the promise of the eternal inheritance. Hebrew 12:24 to Jesus the Mediator of the new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling that speaks better things than that of Abel. Hebrew 8:6 But now He has obtained a more excellent ministry, inasmuch as He is also Mediator of a better covenant, which was established on better promises. Ephesians 2:18 For through Him we both have access by One Spirit to the Father John 15:5 5 “I am the vine, you are the branches. He who abides in Me, and I in him, bears much fruit; for without Me you can do nothing. Colossians 1:19-20 19 For it pleased the Father that in Him all the fullness should dwell, 20 and by Him to reconcile all things to Himself, by Him, whether things on earth or things in heaven, having made peace through the blood of His cross. _ Work of God = John 6:28 Then they said to Him, “What shall we do, that we may work the works of God?” 29 Jesus answered and said to them, “This is the work of God, that you believe in Him whom He sent.” _ 1 Timothy 3:2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, temperate, sober-minded, of good behavior, hospitable, able to teach Paul allows bishops to get marry, but catholic church goes against paul. Now these catholic will give a Verses from 1 Corinthians7 to say that paul gave the advice to stay unmarried. But they will not tell you that the same chapter they quote says 1 Corinthians 7:28 "even if you do marry, you have not SINNED". The passage literally says "young women, young men" and a bishop is supposed to be a Church ELDER. Mic drop _ Jesus said Matthew 23:9 9 Do not call anyone on earth your father; for One is your Father, He who is in heaven. And also said Holy Father to Heavenly Father= John 17:11 11 Now I am no longer in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to You. Holy Father, keep through Your name those whom You have given Me, that they may be one as We are. Jesus said call no one Father but still catholics call *pope holy father. Sad. A verse against the position of pope, 2 Thessalonians 2:4 4 who opposes and exalts himself above all that is called God or that is worshiped, so that he sits as God in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God. _ When a catholic argue about mary being the mother of God Use this to defeat the argument. Luke 8:21 But He answered and said to them, “My mother and My brothers are these who hear the word of God and do it.” Matthew 12:46-50 46 While He was still talking to the multitudes, behold, His mother and brothers stood outside, seeking to speak with Him. 47 Then one said to Him, “Look, Your mother and Your brothers are standing outside, seeking to speak with You.” 48 But He answered and said to the one who told Him, “Who is My mother and who are My brothers?” 49 And He stretched out His hand toward His disciples and said, “Here are My mother and My brothers! 50 For whoever does the will of My Father in heaven is My brother and sister and mother.”. Mark 3:35 For whoever does the will of God is My brother and My sister and mother.” John 19:26-27 26 When Jesus therefore saw His mother, and the disciple whom He loved standing by, He said to His mother, “Woman, behold your son!” 27 Then He said to the disciple, “Behold your mother!” And from that hour that disciple took her to his own home. ( Jesus basically said John is the son of mary, and mary is the mother of John from that time onwards). By the way sarah is the mother of all Gal 4:21-26. _ We should not pray to apostles Romans 1:25 25 who exchanged the truth of God for the lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen. Acts 10:25-26 25 As Peter was coming in, Cornelius met him and fell down at his feet and worshiped him. 26 But Peter lifted him up, saying, “Stand up; I myself am also a man.” Acts 14:15 15 and saying, “Men, why are you doing these things? We also are men with the same nature as you, and preach to you that you should turn from these useless things to the living God, who made the heaven, the earth, the sea, and all things that are in them, Revelation 19:10 10 And I fell at his feet to worship him. But he said to me, “See that you do not do that! I am your fellow servant, and of your brethren who have the testimony of Jesus. Worship God! For the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy.” Revelation 22:8-9 8 Now I, John, saw and heard these things. And when I heard and saw, I fell down to worship before the feet of the angel who showed me these things. 9 Then he said to me, “See that you do not do that. For I am your fellow servant, and of your brethren the prophets, and of those who keep the words of this book. Worship God." Colossians 2:18 18 Let no one cheat you of your reward, taking delight in false humility and worship of angels, intruding into those things which he has not seen, vainly puffed up by his fleshly mind, You cannot go to Father through saints nor mary, you can only go to the Father through Lord Jesus Christ= John 14:6 Jesus said to him, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me. Ephesians 2:18 For through Him we both have access by one Spirit to the Father. Holy Spirit intercedes for us=Romans 8:26 26 Likewise the Spirit also helps in our weaknesses. For we do not know what we should pray for as we ought, but the Spirit Himself makes intercession for us with groanings which cannot be uttered. And CHRIST as well=Romans 8:34 34 Who is he who condemns? It is Christ who died, and furthermore is also risen, who is even at the right hand of God, who also makes intercession for us. Hebrews 7:25 25 Therefore He is also able to save to the uttermost those who come to God through Him, since He always lives to make intercession for them. It's Christ and Holy Spirit who intercedes for us not apostles Even old Old Testament says Christ intercedes for us Isaiah 53:12 12 Therefore I will divide Him a portion with the great, And He shall divide the spoil with the strong, Because He poured out His soul unto death, And He was numbered with the transgressors, And He bore the sin of many, And made intercession for the transgressors. _ Apostles are allowed to marry, 1 Corinthians 9:1-5 1 Am I not an apostle? Am I not free? Have I not seen Jesus Christ our Lord? Are you not my work in the Lord? 2 If I am not an apostle to others, yet doubtless I am to you. For you are the seal of my apostleship in the Lord. 3 My defense to those who examine me is this: 4 Do we have no right to eat and drink? 5 Do we have no right to take along a believing wife, as do also the other apostles, the brothers of the Lord, and Cephas? If Peter (peter is cephas read John 1:42) the so called "first pope" was married, why does the catholic church doesn't allow "pope" to marry? _ The so called vicar of christ/ pope/holy father Peter called himself a fellow elder in 1 Peter 5:1, and as per the qualifications of elder in Titus 1:5-9 the elder is allowed to get married; then why does the "pope" is required to be celibate and catholic? ( when Peter was neither celibate nor catholic). 1)Peter was not perfect human nor was he a perfect disciple 2)He sank down while walking on water 3)Our Lord said to peter get behind me satan 4)Peter reject our Lord 3 times 5)Our Lord rebuked Peter for calling fire from heaven 6)Our Lord rebuked Peter when he cut of the soilders ear 7)Paul rebuked Peter for being hypocrite because he was acting different in front of Jews and different in front of gentiles. 8) Moses messed up, and he was a important part of Bible ( that's why he never entered the promised land), 9)David messed up ( and he has the Holy Spirit) 10)King Soloman messed up 11) Saul messed up and God regretted the decision (1 Samuel 15:10-11). Hatrick (Saul then David then Soloman back to back messed up) 12)The apostles run away a day before Lord Jesus got locked up. 13)The early church messed up Rev 2:18-20, 1 Corinthians, Galatians. 14) Apostle John when receiving Revelation worshiped an angel and the angel said "see you do not do that. Worship GOD" Revelation 22:8-9 15) Paul and Barnabas both had a sharp disagreement on John Mark( Acts 15:36-41). And remember that both were Apostles filled with Holy Spirit. 16) Church in Revelation 2:1-6 Lord Jesus Himself said to the church of Ephesus that "I know your works, your labor, your patience, and that you cannot bear those who are evil. And you have tested those who say they are apostles and are not, and have found them liars" but guess what that church still had problems and Lord also pointed that out "Nevertheless I have this against you, that you have left your first love......" So as you can see Churches can do Biblical and unbiblical things at the some time.
He deserves the recognition. Unfortunately TH-cam will do their best to keep his sub count down and to suppress his videos. They would rather promote godless crooks like SSSniperwolf
Honestly, in response to the whole timeline objection, we need to start asking for them to simply *show* us that this timeline will have an actually infinite number of events. And when they draw a timeline with a few years on it then a couple arrows, we need to stop them and say "That's not an infinite number of events at all".
Then I want to see an immaterial, timeless, spaceless mind that can exist eternally since forever and then suddenly make the decision to create a universe from nothing.😂
@@paulywauly6063 It seems just a little bit strange that people sometimes care if things can be demonstrated to be true and other times don’t care at all if there is any supporting evidence whatsoever if something is even possible.
@@ramigilneas9274 The existence of an immaterial, timeless, spaceless, eternal Creator of the Universe from nothing is entailed by the argument as Craig gives it. He has multiple long lectures online and entire books going over every aspect of this. The OP here isn't asking for anything close to that amount of justification from the "symmetry" people. He just wants to see the timeline point explicated. Btw, to the OP, Joe Schmid does exactly that in one of his videos.
Here are two arguments which I think are crushing refutations of the past-future symmetry objection: Quick note: When I use the term "are instantiated in reality" I am speaking of both the past and the present collectively. The past is instantiated in reality in the sense that it has been instantiated in reality, and the present is instantiated in reality in the sense that it currently is instantiated in reality. 1) For an endless future to entail the instantiation of an actually infinite number of days in reality, there must be some time at which it is true that an actually infinite number of days are instantiated in reality. 2) In an endless future there is no time at which it is true that an actually infinite number of days are instantiated in reality. 3) Therefore, an endless future does not entail the instantiation of an actually infinite number of days in reality. 1) For all the days of an endless future to be instantiated in reality, there must be some time at which it is true that all the days of the endless future are instantiated in reality. 2) It is only on the last day of a collection of days that all the days in that collection of days are instantiated in reality. 3) Therefore, it can only be true on the last day of an endless future that all the days in the endless future are instantiated in reality. 4) An endless future contains no last day in its collection of days. 5) Therefore, in an endless future there is no time at which it is true that all the days of an endless future are instantiated in reality. 6) Therefore, all the days of an endless future are never instantiated in reality. 7) If all the days of an endless future are never instantiated in reality, then an endless future does not entail the instantiation of an actually infinite number of days in reality. 8) Therefore, an endless future does not entail the instantiation of an actually infinite number of days in reality.
@wheatandtares-xk4lp "In your second block, 1-8 have a serious defect. Why are you saying "All the days" of an endless future?" - There is no defect. In order for an actually infinite number of days to be instantiated in reality in an endless future, all the days of the endless future must be instantiated in reality. "There are an infinite number of numbers between 1 and 2, but none of them are greater than 3." - So? That has no relevance to anything in my argument or to the question being discussed. "You don't have to find the "last number" in order to point to the infinite series of numbers before an arbitrary individual number." - I don't think you understand what is being discussed here. We are discussing whether an endless future entails the instantiation of an actually infinite number of temporal moments in reality. Your comments aren't relevant to this discussion.
@wheatandtares-xk4lp "I'm not sure that's true. It seems to be you're assuming the symmetry requires a ray from a center point, because in the first block, point 3 asserts the endless future can't have a day that has instantiated infinite days. But that's not true if the past is infinite. For all days of the endless future after infinite days in an infinite past, infinite days have been instantiated." - I genuinely don't understand what you are arguing here. Point 3 in the first "block" is the conclusion of the first argument. It follows logically from the premises. And again, the argument is about an endless future, not a beginning-less past. " In an endless future, we can buy definition skip infinite days, then count one day (let's call it the present), and then skip infinite days until the end. We don't have only one way to abstractly traverse an infinity." - There is no end to an endless future... Again, I don't think you understand the issue being discussed. It's hard to even understand the points you are making, let alone how they relate to the symmetry of the past and future.
What do you make of the objections of Joe Shmidt from The Majesty of Reason to the Kalam? He has many thoughtful and distinguished philosophers on who agree and explicate the same objections which deal with in detail with every premise of the Kalam and the conceptual analysis of the cause as well. I haven’t really seen William Lane Craig do a response to them yet except 1 short video where he briefly responded to one of them. I think it would be really if Capturing Christianity could arrange a sit down between WLC and JS like he did between WLC and Scott Clifton where Clifton put some considerations about the argument to Craig and got responses to them. The only difference would be JS’s objections seem a lot stronger.
@@FrotanInferno I haven't seen all of Joe's objections, but I haven't found any of the ones I have seen to be very good. My OP here in this thread is a response to one of his objections, namely, the past-future symmetry objection. I would also point out that a lot of Joe's objections aren't new, they have been around for a while, and Craig has responded to most of them already in his published work.
It does seem a bit of flex to point out that you have actually written entire volumes examining BOTH sides of a debate on such a technical philosophical issue and tensed/tenseless time
Imputation is not putting sin or righteousness onto someone's account, but judging it is already there, sin is judicial condemnation, and righteousness is judicial approval.
An interesting thing to consider (from Joe Schmid and Alex Malpass) is that, even if the arguments for causal finitism succeed in demonstrating the beginning of *this* universe, what’s to say the universe(s) *prior* to this one isn’t non-metric?
questions for WLC - * how do we know the universe began ? * how would we know that everything that is 'outside' of this universe (the cosmos) can't be infinite ? * how would we know that IF there was an initial cause to the cosmos, that this cause was a 'god' ? * how would we know that this 'god', if proven, was an interventionist 'god' ? * how would we know that this interventionist 'god', if proven, was the 'god' of 'the bible' ?
"how do we know the universe began" That is literally what the video explains. "how do we know that everything that is 'outside' of this universe can't be infinite" I don't know what that is supposed to mean
@@briandiehl9257 question 1 - this video gives its opinion on the matter. if you think that this view is definitive, you're an idiot. which leads me to your comment on question 2. I believe you brian
@@haydenwalton2766 Yeah, Craig argues that the stuff outside of the universe has to be infinite, so I am not sure where you are going with the second one. The other questions are what he primarily debates, I could make arguments in favour of the others but I can't prove any of the claims.
@@briandiehl9257brian, if bill argues that everything 'outside' of this 'universe' (let's call it the cosmos) is infinite, then where is his initial cause (his god) ?!
Also, if we assert that God created time(and space etc) at creation, and that our ultimate Heaven experience is beyond time, then you wouldn't have an infinite number of "Heaven days"...it's possible we would exist in something beyond time that we don't fully understand yet. I think we get a small glimpse of this when we see Jesus' resurrection body, which appears to exist in more than 4 dimensions, so much the same way, our existence in Heaven isn't just a really long number of successive days, but beyond time. This is mostly speculation but it answers the critics who would say "well then Heaven is just an actual infinite number of successive moments into the future".
At 10:29: _"They_ [Malpass and Moriston] _simply _*_assert,_*_ that the past and the future are perfectly symmetrical and here I think your philosophy of time becomes absolutely critical..."_ Exactly, and as a response to that you, Craig, are assuming and asserting the opposite (further at 10:39): _"... On a tense theory of time, according to which temporal becoming is real, future events in no sense exist. There are no events later than the present. The only events, that actually exist, are those, that have transpired up until the present moment, so that if the past is beginning less there will have occurred an actually infinite number of events prior to the present. But if the future is endless, then the series of events will simply be potentially infinite. It will just keep growing and growing and growing. But at no point will you have more than a finite number of events. Now Malpass and Moriston say, that there will be an actually infinite number of events and that's again simply not true. There will never be an actually infinite number of events the series of events will always be finite and always increasing and this asymmetry, I think, between the past and the future shows, that the symmetry objection uh fails."_ So the past and the future is not symmetrical, because they are asymmetrical, because the past is not even potentially infinite but finite and the future is for sure potentially infinite and not finite. Malpass and Moriston are asserting the past and the future to be perfectly symmetrical, if and only if you, Craig, are asserting the past and future to be asymmetrical by the preassumption of your twisted version of the _"A-Theory"_ of time. Question for Bard: "What has more proponents? The A-Theory or the B-Theory of time?" The response from Bard: *_"The B-Theory of time, also known as eternalism, is generally considered to have more proponents among philosophers and scientists than the A-Theory of time, also known as presentism. This is likely due to the fact that the B-Theory is more consistent with the scientific understanding of spacetime as a four-dimensional continuum, in which all events exist simultaneously. The A-Theory, on the other hand, requires a more complicated explanation of how time can seem to pass if only the present is real._* _However, there are still many philosophers who defend the A-Theory of time. They argue that the B-Theory is counterintuitive and that it is difficult to reconcile with our everyday experience of time. They also argue that the A-Theory is more consistent with our common-sense understanding of free will and moral responsibility._ _Ultimately, the debate between the A-Theory and the B-Theory of time is a philosophical one that is unlikely to be resolved anytime soon. Both theories have their own strengths and weaknesses, and it is up to each individual to decide which theory they find more convincing."_ At 2:11: _"Well in fact philosophers are fairly evenly divided, Kevin, on the nature of time..._ Further at 2:48: _"... When I was doing my work on God in time, it occurred to me. that for every person, who holds to the tense less theory of time, I could think of at least two philosophers or physicists, who hold to the tense theory of time and are of comparable stature in the scholarly community... Fortunately the view, that I defend, is admitted by everybody in the debate to be the common sense view of time, that temporal becoming is real and not just illusory..."_ Hahahahahahahahahahahahhahaahhhahahhahahahahhahhahahahahahahahhahahahahahahhahahahahahahahhahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahhahhahahahhahahahahahhahahahahahahahhahahahahahhahahahahahhahahahahahhahahahhahahahahahhahahahahahhaahahahahahahahahhaha... Good old Craig - never ever admitting the actual state of affairs regarding the actual current philosophical and scientific consensus and never ever growing in Wisdom, Knowledge and Rationality.
I'm a theist, but my problem with Craig's version of the cosmological argument is the version of the principle of sufficient reason that he appeals to. He says that anything that begins to exist has a cause. But though that does seem self-evident to reason, it seems also seems self-evident to reason that anything that exists has an explanation. This then prevents one from just saying that God exists eternally. The question "and what explains God - why does God exist rather than not?" remains legitimate. My own solution to this - which i tentatively think is not incoherent, though happy to be proved wrong - is first to conclude that as there cannot be an actual infinity of explanations, then at least one thing must explain itself. But what kind of a thing could explain itself? Well, the only kind of thing that seems able to explain itself is an omnipotent person. An omnipotent person can do anything, and so therefore they can explain themselves. After all, if they could not, then there would be something they could not do. This self-explanation would seem to involve a contradiction. For self-creation to occur, God would have to exist and not exist at the same point. But this is not a problem, I think, for an omnipotent person can actualize contradictions. We should also note, that the law of non-contradiction by hypothesis does not exist at this point, for it is one of the things in need of explanation. Thus, though God's act of self-creation would involve a contradiction, it would not be one that would violate the law of non-contradiction, as that law does not exist at that point.
Dr. Craig does affirm that everything that exists had an explanation of its existence. See his work on the Leibnizian Argument from Contingency: www.reasonablefaith.org/Leibniz-Contingency-Argument. - RF Admin N.B. - Dr. Craig would reject the idea that the laws of logic are things that exist. He is an anti-realist regarding abstract objects. Rather, he would say that we can have true propositions which quantify over such putative objects without being committed to their real existence. For example, one could truthfully say "Today, I'm going to take a walk." One has quantified over "walk" as if it were an object, but scarcely anyone would say that walks are actual objects. Likewise, one could quantify over laws of logic in true propositions without committing themselves to their actual existence. If this is true, then the laws of logic are not things which need fall under the weak principle of sufficient reason used in the Leibnizian Argument from Contingency.
It's not simply that an infinite past would cause contradictions and that's why it's impossible. Its logically impossible for the past to have an infinite number of past days. It is a contradiction.
Everything added to the Kalam afterwards is the issue. You'd need a syllogism to show timeless and all the other qualities. You'd also need to properly define timeless. The Kalam is fine. Going beyond the Kalam is the issue.
@@Messianic-Gentile Actually there isn't a ind behind it. It has no name. If someone doesn't like this because of their biases, they can think something else. I can things without any backing too.
When you think about Trent Horn refutes himself. If there could be an actual infinite number of past days you could pick any day like Hubert's Hotels rooms and that day could never happen. In fact no point in a infinite past could happen. Five days ago could have never happened because there is an infinite number of days prior to it. A million years ago could have never happened because there is an infinite number of past days prior to that. A billion years ago couldn't have happened because there was an infinite number of past days before that. 13.8 billion years ago (origin of the universe) could have never happened because there were an infinite number of past days prior to that. So William Lane Craig is right and Trent Horn is wrong. It's not the case that that we can just imagine another past day occuring that there is no contradictions with an infinite past. Its a contradiction because every past day is infinity at the same time despite being a different day. So today would be infinity +1 and tomorrow is infinity+2. Yesterday was infinity -1 and the day before that is infinity -2. Yet everyday an infinite number of past days. Its ridiculous.
@wheatandtares-xk4lp Only if one assumes time is a dimension that exists which is false as it makes a category mistake and existential fallacy. In philosophy, time is change, change is becoming.
Trent Horn wasn't necessarily adjusting the Kalam, rather he was attacking William Kalam argument. There's a video I watched he said he doesn't like using Williams argument because to him it's flawed. I guess he's just misunderstanding the argument. He doesn't understand
And it makes even more sense why Trent did this once you become aware that it was the idea of secularist Joe Schmidt for Trent to make that video in the first place. It's literally a coordinated attack.
@@elgatofelix8917 I did not create this video in any collaboration with Schmidt. It comes from my genuine desire to strengthen the Kalam as much as possible, part of which is motivated by Schmidt, Malpass, and Morriston's objections I find compelling.
@@TheCounselofTrent Never said he "collaborated" on the video with you as it's quite obvious you're capable of producing such a low budget video all by yourself, but thanks for confessing that this video was indeed motivated by Schmidt, thereby corroborating my statement.
@@catfinity8799 Oh, then yes Craig would view an "endless" future as impossible on a tense less view of time as that would constitute an actual infinite being instantiated in the real world.
Not surprised to see this comment on this video since $chmidt is the secularist who put Horn up to this. Dr. Craig would obliterate $chmidt just as he did to $hmidt's secularist idols before him. $chmidt is just another garden variety troll with nothing of substance to bring to the table. He is not even worth Dr.Craig's time
@@elgatofelix8917It’s not fair to characterize Schmid this way, he is an intelligent and thoughtful philosopher and has made progress in advancing the dialogue in this area. I don’t think his objections on this topic work, but he’s far from an idiot and he is certainly no less worthy of Craig’s time than many others who Craig has interacted with. We should be more charitable to those with whom we disagree, this attitude reeks of fear of engaging.
8:20 Would heaven have time? Or is heaven outside it? But chronologically it would seem biblically that heaven has time by events that occurred in sequence.
Trent Horn's intention was not to "strengthen" the argument but to attack Dr. Craig's presentation of it. He was encouraged to do so by his bosom buddy Joe Schmidt - a very arrogant and bitter secularist who made a similar video on his own channel attacking Dr. Craig and the Kalam
So you deleted your original comment to remove my response calling you out for being hostile and bitter towards Trent and Joe, only to repost exactly the same comment again? That is incredibly sad...
@@jackplumbridge2704 wait what ever happened to "I'm not going to bother arguing with you" even "don't waste your time arguing with this guy" and now you're back and making baseless accusations for which you have no evidence whatsoever LOL this is incredibly sad...
@@jackplumbridge2704 Nope that's a direct quote from you. Nice projection. Not done arguing yet? Or care to lie some more about how you're done arguing? 😅
@@LindeeLove Sure. In his book, Reasonable Faith (3rd edition), Dr. Craig reviews a broad range of cosmological models and cites their most prominent proponents, as well as shows how they either imply an absolute beginning or, if they attempt to avoid such a beginning, shows where empirical observations have disconfirmed the models. He also provides strong philosophical arguments against a past eternal universe. - RF Admin
@@ReasonableFaithOrg I'd like to read an article that says our universe had an absolute beginning, I'm assuming you mean from nothing. Do you have a link to an article?
@@ReasonableFaithOrg_all of the scientific evidence indicates an absolute beginning of the universe_ No it doesn’t. If it did then why do so many scientists say we don’t if there was one?
Totally agree with Bill. While I really like Trent Horn he is just wrong on this topic. The past is not perfectly symmetrical to the future in tensed theory of time. We would have to assume a tenseless theory of time where the future does not exist. For example, if there were an infinite number of past days prior to today then it would be logically impossible for today to have occurred because there would always be another past day before the present . However, if there were an infinite number of future days after today there is no problem or inconsistencies. The potentiel infinite number of future days is not actualized which is perfectly consistent with God's eternal nature and our eternity with God. If infinity forward could be actualized to me that implies the end of the future and nothing more could progress further. Now that may not be the case under the be theory of time but I think would be the case with a tensed theory of time. As an analogy we can imagine an object growing infinitely in size but we cannot imagine an objective shrinking in size. At some point the object will shrink until it no longer exists. Consider infinitesimal, if I were to try to touch a ball there ought to be an infinite number of smaller distances before I can touch the ball. This implies that I will never be able to touch the ball but we know that's not the case. The closer and closer I get to the ball the distance between us shrinks until eventually I can touch the ball. However, the same cannot be said if the ball continue to move further and further away from me infinitely. The further and further the ball moves away from me actually does imply I will never be able to touch the ball.
Each number corresponds to your original paragraphs, in chronological order: 1) This entire discussion is contingent on how you view God’s relation to time. If God is outside of time, it seems perfectly plausible that God knows of the actually infinite future. If we characterize God with traditional attributes (specifically omniscience), God’s knowledge doesn’t absorb information in Craig’s, “X then Y” process. Rather, because God sees all events equally, God experiences X and Y at the same time. If God is inside of time, then God would never absorb the actual future. This is because God entering time would restrict his transcendent capability (This isn’t to say that God doesn’t know the future, just that he doesn’t experience all of time equally). I may be mistaken, but I think Dr. Craig holds that God did enter time at the moment of creation. 2) As Graham Oppy said, there’s nothing paradoxical about an event, which just happens to be present, existing from an actually infinite past. While it may appear strange, strangeness is distinct from impossibility. 3) Your assertion, that a ball can shrink into nonexistence, is highly contested within philosophy. There’s nothing paradoxical about me splitting the ball from 1/2 to 1/8000000000. Obviously, this “X then Y” process would never arise an actually infinite number of splits, but nothing is restricting me from progressing towards infinity.
As someone who has a beginning the future will happen one second, minute, hour and day at a time and I will never exist for an infinity no matter how much time has passed. If something exists now then something has always existed and that something has to be infinite. Only an infinite being can explain everything that has happened and is happening. We can only observe this Universe that is run by laws and constants. We have minds with perceptive organs to observe the world around us. Only living organisms have minds and we have never observed any natural process that can create Minds except living organisms. This Universe is not infinite, there are no natural processes that can create a mind, so where did minds come from if not from another Mind? We cannot even find a relevant process that can create a living organism and the simplest independent organisms are more complicated than even the most complex structures in the Universe. So the Universe could not create Life, let alone a mind, but both exist. This has always bothered me if there is no Living Mind to create it. To create the Universe God must be powerful and all knowing, all powerful and I know what is good and what is evil so God must be good and judge evil. Whence cometh the evil Lord? So the idea of God as the greatest conceivable Being must be true and as the greatest Being than can be conceived it is inconceivable that Your Plan not be the greatest conceivable plan. So Your Will is the greatest Good. edit; Whether I like it or not. Do you have my son Jonathan Lord, is he with You? I know he wasn't living for You when Jonathan died, but he did trust in You when he was 12.
There can never be an infinite amount of substance because where does the new substance come from? Assuming actual infinites is assuming platonism. There is no set that exists distinct from substances and the continuous additional of more substances contradicts ex nihilo nihil fit. Let's get this straight. Proving events have a beginning does not prove the Universe which is a spatial substance had a beginning. The argument for a finite past does not prove the Universe came into being.
Sola Scriptura (Scriptures alone) defence. I'm gonna follow Sola Scriptura because when I'm standing in front of God and He ask' me why did you believed this when Scriptures are clear that Jesus is the Mediator. And why did you believed this when the Scriptures said Jesus and Holy Spirit is the Intercessor. Why did you prayed to dead human rather than the One who was resurrected and who is sitting at the Right Hand Side of Me. When I stand in front of God' throne on judgement day and when God ask me why did you believed this? I will answer and say because here it is in your Scriptures Almighty. I rejected everything that is not found in your perfect Holy Scriptures because I'm a good Berean, I decern, I test everything, and also I trust your Holy Scriptures first because your Holy Scriptures cannot get currpt but men can. Being Bible based tells me Saturday is Lord's Day(Sabbath) but catholic church tells us that sunday is the lord's day(sabbath). Like I said "to be deep in history is to cease to be Protestant"- John cardinal. I say "to be deep in Holy Scriptures is to cease to be a catholic/orthodox" - Sagar. _ Holy Spirit spoke the Scriptures. Acts 1:16 16 “Men and brethren, this Scripture had to be fulfilled, which the Holy Spirit spoke before by the mouth of David concerning Judas, who became a guide to those who arrested Jesus; Acts 28:25 25 So when they did not agree among themselves, they departed after Paul had said one word: “The Holy Spirit spoke rightly through Isaiah the prophet to our fathers, Mark 12:36 36 For David himself said by the Holy Spirit: ‘The Lord said to my Lord, “Sit at My right hand, Till I make Your enemies Your footstool.” ’ _ - 2 Timothy 3:15 says the Scriptures that make you wise for Salvation through Faith in Jesus Christ. Now this verse is talking about New Testament. Why? Because Salvation in Old Testament through obeying the 613 laws. And Old Testament is about old covent and New Testament is about the New Convent which is Salvation through Faith in Jesus Christ./Now why I don't care how many books are there in the Old Testament is because my Doctrine should come from the New Testament because I'm under the New Covenant which is signed by the blood of Jesus. - 2 Timothy 3:15-17 Now you might say it's the old testament refered to, but no, why? Let me explain. 2 Timothy 3:10 say that they have got the doctrine from paul( 10 But you have carefully followed my doctrine, manner of life, purpose, faith, longsuffering, love, perseverance,) And in 2 Timothy 3:15 paul says the Scriptures make you wise for salvation through Faith in Jesus Christ ( 15 and that from childhood you have known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.) So the Scriptures Paul is talking about is the New Testament. ((- Lord Jesus said Scriptures cannot be broken (John 10:35). Also Paul's epistles says "if anyone thinks he is prophet, let him acknowledge that my writing are commandments from God" ( 1 cor 14:37) he also says "not to go beyond what is written" (1 cor 4:6), he also say "to hold fast the traditions from his epistles" ( 2 Thessalonians 2:15). In 2 Peter 3:16 Peter calls all Paul's epistles Scriptures)) This is 2 Timothy 3:15-17 15 and that from childhood you have known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. 16 All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work. but what we have the Holy Bible is complete to explain our Salvation, Gospel, God's word, traditions, and what to do when we gather for sermons. Also paul himself taught the Corinthians Church but the church failed two times and he wrote 2 letter to explain everything again. And in rev 2:28 you can see that Lord gave thumbs up from most things the church was doing but also said that it got corrupt because they allowed spirit of jezebel. So you see that paul kept kinda repeating himself in all letters and the church can get currpt. - all Scriptures is God breadth, for correction, reprove and made on Christian complete. Scriptures is perfect, and if your satanic doctrine is not found in Perfect Scriptures then I know it's from satan. If a perfect Scriptures doens't have everything then it's not perfect. __ - 5 reasons why Bible is my sole authority for doctrine. 1) Bible tells me the Gospel. 2) Bible teaches me what is sin 3) Bible give me information on how a Christian can be completely equip for EVERY good work. 4) When I'm standing in front of the Throne of God, I don't want God to ask me "Why didn't you did what I said, rather you obeyed what some other person said? 5) Holy Scriptures is perfect. Human can sin and be wrong but Holy Scriptures is inspired by God. And when I'm reading the Holy Scriptures I'm not reading what just the apostles wrote. I'm reading what God wrote and commanded through them. _ - Why I have high value of Scriptures? - Scriptures is the Word of God. - Scriptures can foresee future. - prophecy is written in Scriptures which tells us the future. - Lord Jesus Himself took the Scriptures read it in the synagogue and said "this prophecy is about Me". - Scriptures are inspired by the Almighty Living God YHWH. __ -Your argument about "understanding Scriptures on ones own interpretation". Now that a bad argument because we agree on a lot of things for eg- Trinity, Jesus being the Son of God & Christ & God, virgin birth, literal death and resurrection of Jesus, believing that Heaven and hell is real place, believing that Bible is the Word of God. Following Biblical mortality, knowing that Lord Jesus is sitting at the Right Hand of God, all authorities is being given to LORD Jesus, and that we are not under law but under Grace. We agree on these things because these are found in Bible. I mean a difficult doctrine of Trinity is agreed word to word. I think it's not about interpretating Scriptures rather unfollowing doctrines which are not found in Bible. "Why do we agree on these doctrines and and not on other doctrines of roman? Simply because these doctrines are found in Scriptures"- my rebuttal of your argument. When apostles explained our Lord Jesus to the bereans searched the Old Testament to see the prophecies about Lord Jesus Christ, and at that time they didn't received Holy Spirit. After confirming from the Scriptures they believed in Lord Jesus as Christ. _ Phillip had apostolic succession and signs and healings but still samaria didn't receive the Holy Spirit until apostles came and prayed for and and laid hands on them acts 8 . You might say that's why apostolic succession is important but Phillip already had apostolic succession. Now these people will also talk about "traditions" in 2 Thessalonians 2:15, but they won't tell that this "traditions" is nothing but hard work. 2 Thessalonians 3:6 But we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you withdraw from every brother who walks disorderly and not according to the tradition which he received from us. 7 For you yourselves know how you ought to follow us, for we were not disorderly among you; 8 nor did we eat anyone’s bread free of charge, but worked with labor and toil night and day, that we might not be a burden to any of you, 9 not because we do not have authority, but to make ourselves an example of how you should follow us. You see these "traditions" is not eating of free, but of hard work. _________________________
I don't know what it is with Trent Horn but every time he opens his mouth I hold my face in my hands in shame, because he seems to espouse more nonsense and undermine the work of brilliant minds, like Dr Craig, rather than 'steel man' it. So, Trent, please. Stop doing this. Read the literature first. Understand the intent and meaning of the arguments and statements made, BEFORE you attempt to interact with them. Even for an utter layman like myself, I now understand the difference that Dr Craig makes, between logical and actual infinities and I find it bizarre that Horn has not even understood this simple distinction that Dr Craig makes, which was emphasised, over-and-over, by Dr Craig, during his response videos to the Skydive Phil documentary.
For the record, Trent Horn actually agrees with Dr. Craig and uses his arguments. In the original video he is just arguing that the formulation used in many of Craig's debates was incomplete
@@briandiehl9257I don't doubt TH's heart is in the right place but as you can see from this video, he misrepresents even the most SIMPLE claims made by WLC. And not just once. Further, beside another pointless example of infinity paradoxes, he seems to add NOTHING new to the conversation. It's all regurgitated or warmed over stuff that even a stupid layman like me now knows. And not through study but simply through devouring everything that Dr Craig puts out, over and over.
*The Enuma Elish would later be the inspiration for the Hebrew scribes who created the text now known as the biblical Book of Genesis.* Prior to the 19th century CE, the Bible was considered the oldest book in the world and its narratives were thought to be completely original. In the mid-19th century CE, however, European museums, as well as academic and religious institutions, sponsored excavations in Mesopotamia to find physical evidence for historical corroboration of the stories in the Bible. ***These excavations found quite the opposite, however, in that, once cuneiform was translated, it was understood that a number of biblical narratives were Mesopotamian in origin.*** *Famous stories such as the Fall of Man and the Great Flood were originally conceived and written down in Sumer,* translated and modified later in Babylon, and reworked by the Assyrians ***before they were used by the Hebrew scribes for the versions which appear in the Bible.*** ***In revising the Mesopotamian creation story for their own ends, the Hebrew scribes tightened the narrative and the focus but retained the concept of the all-powerful deity who brings order from chaos.*** Marduk, in the Enuma Elish, establishes the recognizable order of the world - *just as God does in the Genesis tale* - and human beings are expected to recognize this great gift and honor the deity through service. *"Enuma Elish - The Babylonian Epic of Creation - Full Text - World History Encyclopedia"* *"Sumerian Is the World's Oldest Written Language | ProLingo"* *"Sumerian Civilization: Inventing the Future - World History Encyclopedia"* *"The Myth of Adapa - World History Encyclopedia"* Also discussed by Professor Christine Hayes at Yale University in her 1st lecture of the series on the Hebrew Bible from 8:50 to 14:30 minutes, lecture 3 from 28:30 to 41:35 minutes, lecture 4 from 0:00 up to 21:30 minutes and 24:00 up to 35:30 minutes and lecture 7 from 24:20 to 25:10 minutes. From a Biblical scholar: "Many stories in the ancient world have their origins in other stories and were borrowed and modified from other or earlier peoples. *For instance, many of the stories now preserved in the Bible are* ***modified*** *versions of stories that existed in the cultures and traditions of Israel’s* ***older*** *contemporaries.* Stories about the creation of the universe, a cataclysmic universal flood, digging wells as land markers, the naming of important cultic sites, gods giving laws to their people, and even stories about gods decreeing the possession of land to their people were all part of the cultural and literary matrix of the ancient Near East. *Biblical scribes freely* ***adopted and modified*** *these stories as a means to express their own identity, origins, and customs."* *"Stories from the Bible"* by Dr Steven DiMattei, from his website *"Biblical Contradictions"* ------------------------------------------------------------------ In addition, look up the below articles. *"Yahweh was just an ancient Canaanite god. We have been deceived! - Escaping Christian Fundamentalism"* *"Debunking the Devil - Michael A. Sherlock (Author)"* *"The Greatest Trick Religion Ever Pulled: Convincing Us That Satan Exists | Atheomedy"* *"Zoroastrianism And Persian Mythology: The Foundation Of Belief"* (Scroll to the last section: Zoroastrianism is the Foundation of Western Belief) *"10 Ways The Bible Was Influenced By Other Religions - Listverse"* *"January | 2014 | Atheomedy"* - Where the Hell Did the Idea of Hell Come From? *"Retired bishop explains the reason why the Church invented "Hell" - Ideapod"* Watch *"The Origins of Salvation, Judgement and Hell"* by Derreck Bennett at Atheologica (Sensitive theists should only watch from 7:00 to 17:30 minutes as evangelical Christians are lambasted. He's a former theist and has been studying the scholarship and comparative religions for over 15 years) *"Top Ten Reasons Noah’s Flood is Mythology - The Sensuous Curmudgeon"* *"Forget about Noah's Ark; There Was No Worldwide Flood | Bible Interp"* *"The Search for Noah’s Flood - Biblical Archaeology Society"* *"Eridu Genesis - World History Encyclopedia"* *"The Atrahasis Epic: The Great Flood & the Meaning of Suffering - World History Encyclopedia"* Watch *"How Aron Ra Debunks Noah's Flood"* (8 part series debunking Noah's flood using multiple branches of science) *"The Adam and Eve myth - News24"* *"Before Adam and Eve - Psychology Today"* *"Gilgamesh vs. Noah - Wordpress"* *"Old Testament Tales Were Stolen From Other Cultures - Griffin"* *"Parallelism between “The Hymn to Aten” and Psalm 104 - Project Augustine"* *"Studying the Bible"* - by Dr Steven DiMattei (This particular article from a critical Biblical scholar highlights how the authors of the Hebrew Bible used their *fictional* god as a mouthpiece for their own views and ideologies) *"How do we know that the biblical writers were* ***not*** *writing history?"* -- by Dr Steven DiMattei *"Contradictions in the Bible | Identified verse by verse and explained using the most up-to-date scholarly information about the Bible, its texts, and the men who wrote them"* -- by Dr. Steven DiMattei
This is a nonsensical objection and also irrelevant as Craig is not a Platonist. Time is not an abstract concept like numbers; it is a property of physical space and is as real as the three spatial dimensions. Time is obviously real and obviously passes since nothing would ever change it it didn't. You are the one making a category error by equating the arbitrary demarcation of time into discreet units with abstract concepts like numbers. All temporal becoming states is that the past used to exist but no longer does, and that the future will at some point exist but doesn't right now.
@wheatandtares-xk4lp Nothing needs to be addressed. It's obvious that an infinite series can't have a finite number of elements, otherwise it wouldn't be an infinite series.
@@grantgooch5834 Strawman. My objection is not based on a category error related to the demarcation of time into discrete units and abstract concepts like numbers. Instead, my objection incorporates the view that the demarcation of time into discrete units (e.g., seconds, minutes) is a subjective human construct and that events, which are often used to measure time, are not concrete entities that exist in the same way as physical objects. My view is better understood as one unfolding event which has a boundary or a first instant i.e. from a static state Craig denies he is a platonist but he is! He assumes a mind is substance or a metaphysical possibility, i.e., something that exists, but his justification for this is fallacious as he uses S5 modal logic to go from logical conceivability to metaphysical possibility without even explaining how he establishes metaphysical possibility. The mind is a label for cognitive events. Please define the mind. All the attributes that are given to a mind are dynamic in nature, which supports the view that the mind is just a concept for a set of cognitive events. Time is also a concept, but it denotes change. It is the unfolding of an event. In physics, it is defined as a dimension which is a mathematical construct. Physicists use an operational definition of time which doesn't address the philosophical nature of the term. Time is not a real entity; this commits an existential fallacy. Time is has to do with an event-based ontology but events are not substances; substances exist, not events. Space is also often falsely defined as a three-dimensional construct. In reality, space is simply the collection of points. To be spatial, is to be a substance. It is an integral aspect of a single, ontologically independent substance which the big bang theory supports i.e. a single point of condensed energy. This point represents the location of the substance. Space is not a separate entity like a dimension, but rather an inherent aspect of substance. Emergent space is a concept among theoretical physicists aiming to reconcile general relativity with quantum mechanics, which has yet to receive direct experimental confirmation. Physicists speculate that space is emergent in their quest to develop a theory of quantum gravity, one of the biggest unsolved problems in physics. The correct view of space departs from both traditional Newtonian Substantivalism and the Einsteinian view in which it is an inherent aspect of the substance of reality, not something that exists independently. It's not a three-dimensional framework that exists out there; it represents a location for existing things. There are no infinitely divisible units of space. In theories like Loop Quantum Gravity, space is not infinitely divisible; it has a smallest possible scale (the Planck scale). The existence of any substance implies the existence of space, as measurement in physics relies on units of measure, which require a concept of space.
@@grantgooch5834 " an infinite series can't have a finite number of elements, otherwise it wouldn't be an infinite series" This is a non-sequitur. An infinite series of events is not equal to an infinites quantity of substances. Your logic is seriously flawed.
It seems one logical flaw in Craig's Kalam argument is the statement that "if the universe has a cause, then an uncaused, personal Creator of the universe exists." This does not follow. We do not have any way to know what "caused" the universe, and thus we do not know whether that cause was itself caused or uncaused. There are no grounds upon which to allege that the cause of the universe must of necessity been uncaused. Nor is there any reason to assume that the cause of the universe had an attribute of ""Personal." At least, I don't see the logic in making such an assumption. It sounds like religious rhetoric without a logical foundation.
"It seems one logical flaw in Craig's Kalam argument is the statement that "if the universe has a cause, then an uncaused, personal Creator of the universe exists." This does not follow." - It does follow. Once you analyse what the cause of the universe must be like, you arrive at a list of attributes that can only be explained by a personal creator. "We do not have any way to know what "caused" the universe, and thus we do not know whether that cause was itself caused or uncaused." - But we do know... Simply asserting that we can't know what cause the universe isn't a refutation of all of the reasons we can know. "There are no grounds upon which to allege that the cause of the universe must of necessity been uncaused." - But again, there are... Have you ever read any work written on the Kalam? Because you seem totally unfamiliar with anything relating to the second stage of the Kalam. "Nor is there any reason to assume that the cause of the universe had an attribute of ""Personal."" - Again, there are. "At least, I don't see the logic in making such an assumption. It sounds like religious rhetoric without a logical foundation." - Then perhaps you should read up on some of the work that has been done on the second stage of the Kalam.
You're confused, sir! Your logic is flawed. What has come into being without a cause? The moment something comes into being, there is a cause. You're assuming that before time, there was time, hence you're looking for a cause for the uncaused. If the universe has a beginning, then it logically follows that there was a cause. I guess you don't even know the argument.
@@eew8060 No, just pointing out that the argument makes no sense. One cannot leap from the premise "the universe has a cause" to the conclusion that "an uncaused Personal creator" must be the cause. Simple fact is that we have no way to know what caused the present universe to exist, so it is not possible to determine whether that cause was caused or uncaused.
A lot of what Trent says sounds like pure nonsense. I know that isn't philosophical but there you have it. An infinite past is completely nonsensical and illogical. Time rolls forward that is the difference.
Well Trent is a Catholic $hill who is close friends with $inister $ecularists like Joe $chmidt so of course he spouts nonsense. Self proclaimed "Christians" who maintain such relationships with these kinds of individuals are not to be trusted
@@iggyantioch that's what he is by definition. He works for Catholic Answers and therefore has a vested interest in defending so-called "Papal infallibility" no matter what the logical or ethical implications are.
How about letting the argument speak for themselves. Dr. Craig would never call out others like you do . He relishes and encourages these type of exchanges. As far as Catholic Answers being an employer. I don't know if the Council of Trent podcast is a production of Catholic answers. But even if it is so what. It's just a Philosophical argument.
@@iggyantioch and yet here you are NOT letting the argument speak for itself by posting your comments. Way to contradict yourself. Nothing I said is untrue and nothing you said proves me wrong or is of any relevance. I'm not Dr. Craig and don't pretend to be. Just as you are trying to call me out, I'll call out whoever I please. Keep crying about it.
I thought to myself, and I’m not kidding, I thought, if there’s just one chance in a million this is true, it’s worth believing. Far from raising the BAR in order for Christianity to be true, I, I LOWER IT!
Huge fan of both WLC and Trent Horn. This was awesome to listen to.
Why do you have the yin yang as your account pic? That's a pagan/Toaist symbol.
@@xstatic-ow5mz Originally, it's because I wanted to make a statement about how moderation/balance is ideal. These days I just like how it looks.
@@Vic2point0 People who know the origins of the symbol will get the impression you're pagan, which is perfectly alright I guess if you're actually a pagan and not Christian.
@@xstatic-ow5mz lol
@@xstatic-ow5mzto the pure, all things are pure. What matters is what it means to you. If you want to remove all things of pagan origin from your life, you’re gonna be in for it.
Stoked to listen to this right now.
Craig responding to Trent Horn is all I could ever ask for
@@santanoschsantosch3016he's a christian
@@santanoschsantosch3016 He is a Christian.
Love both Dr Craig and Trent. God bless🙏
This was kind of an embarrassing moment for Horn though to be sure.
I love the Kalam, its my second favourite argument for God's existence. My favourite being the modal ontological argument.
What is the Kalam? I never heard of it before.
@@mpr4christ1980 You have never heard of the Kalam cosmological argument?
It is a cosmological argument for God's existence.
@@jackplumbridge2704 Please explain.
@@mpr4christ1980 dr william lane craig has brilliant resources on the kalam :) look into it ! it's great
papacy debunked (youtube)
I'm more blessed than mary
Proof = Luke 11:27-28
27 And it happened, as He spoke these things, that a certain woman from the crowd raised her voice and said to Him, “Blessed is the womb that bore You, and the breasts which nursed You!”
28 But He said, “More than that, blessed are those who hear the word of God and keep it!”
In Luke 11:27 that random woman LITERALLY said Jesus your mother is Blessed, but are Lord Jesus LITERALLY said Believers are more Blessed than mary. Amen and Amen
_
CHRIST alone
John 14:6 Jesus said to him, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me.
ACTS 4:12 Nor is there salvation in any other, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved.”
There is only One Mediator between God and men, LORD Jesus Christ= 1 Timothy 2:5
For there is one God and one Mediator between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus.
Hebrew 9:15 And for this reason He is the Mediator of the new covenant, by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions under the first covenant, that those who are called may receive the promise of the eternal inheritance.
Hebrew 12:24 to Jesus the Mediator of the new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling that speaks better things than that of Abel.
Hebrew 8:6 But now He has obtained a more excellent ministry, inasmuch as He is also Mediator of a better covenant, which was established on better promises.
Ephesians 2:18 For through Him we both have access by One Spirit to the Father
John 15:5
5 “I am the vine, you are the branches. He who abides in Me, and I in him, bears much fruit; for without Me you can do nothing.
Colossians 1:19-20
19 For it pleased the Father that in Him all the fullness should dwell, 20 and by Him to reconcile all things to Himself, by Him, whether things on earth or things in heaven, having made peace through the blood of His cross.
_
Work of God =
John 6:28 Then they said to Him, “What shall we do, that we may work the works of God?”
29 Jesus answered and said to them, “This is the work of God, that you believe in Him whom He sent.”
_
1 Timothy 3:2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, temperate, sober-minded, of good behavior, hospitable, able to teach
Paul allows bishops to get marry, but catholic church goes against paul.
Now these catholic will give a Verses from 1 Corinthians7 to say that paul gave the advice to stay unmarried. But they will not tell you that the same chapter they quote says 1 Corinthians 7:28 "even if you do marry, you have not SINNED". The passage literally says "young women, young men" and a bishop is supposed to be a Church ELDER. Mic drop
_
Jesus said Matthew 23:9
9 Do not call anyone on earth your father; for One is your Father, He who is in heaven.
And also said Holy Father to Heavenly Father= John 17:11
11 Now I am no longer in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to You. Holy Father, keep through Your name those whom You have given Me, that they may be one as We are.
Jesus said call no one Father but still catholics call *pope holy father.
Sad.
A verse against the position of pope,
2 Thessalonians 2:4
4 who opposes and exalts himself above all that is called God or that is worshiped, so that he sits as God in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God.
_
When a catholic argue about mary being the mother of God
Use this to defeat the argument.
Luke 8:21 But He answered and said to them, “My mother and My brothers are these who hear the word of God and do it.”
Matthew 12:46-50
46 While He was still talking to the multitudes, behold, His mother and brothers stood outside, seeking to speak with Him. 47 Then one said to Him, “Look, Your mother and Your brothers are standing outside, seeking to speak with You.”
48 But He answered and said to the one who told Him, “Who is My mother and who are My brothers?” 49 And He stretched out His hand toward His disciples and said, “Here are My mother and My brothers! 50 For whoever does the will of My Father in heaven is My brother and sister and mother.”.
Mark 3:35 For whoever does the will of God is My brother and My sister and mother.”
John 19:26-27
26 When Jesus therefore saw His mother, and the disciple whom He loved standing by, He said to His mother, “Woman, behold your son!” 27 Then He said to the disciple, “Behold your mother!” And from that hour that disciple took her to his own home. ( Jesus basically said John is the son of mary, and mary is the mother of John from that time onwards).
By the way sarah is the mother of all Gal 4:21-26.
_
We should not pray to apostles
Romans 1:25
25 who exchanged the truth of God for the lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.
Acts 10:25-26
25 As Peter was coming in, Cornelius met him and fell down at his feet and worshiped him. 26 But Peter lifted him up, saying, “Stand up; I myself am also a man.”
Acts 14:15
15 and saying, “Men, why are you doing these things? We also are men with the same nature as you, and preach to you that you should turn from these useless things to the living God, who made the heaven, the earth, the sea, and all things that are in them,
Revelation 19:10
10 And I fell at his feet to worship him. But he said to me, “See that you do not do that! I am your fellow servant, and of your brethren who have the testimony of Jesus. Worship God! For the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy.”
Revelation 22:8-9
8 Now I, John, saw and heard these things. And when I heard and saw, I fell down to worship before the feet of the angel who showed me these things.
9 Then he said to me, “See that you do not do that. For I am your fellow servant, and of your brethren the prophets, and of those who keep the words of this book. Worship God."
Colossians 2:18
18 Let no one cheat you of your reward, taking delight in false humility and worship of angels, intruding into those things which he has not seen, vainly puffed up by his fleshly mind,
You cannot go to Father through saints nor mary, you can only go to the Father through Lord Jesus Christ= John 14:6 Jesus said to him, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me.
Ephesians 2:18 For through Him we both have access by one Spirit to the Father.
Holy Spirit intercedes for us=Romans 8:26
26 Likewise the Spirit also helps in our weaknesses. For we do not know what we should pray for as we ought, but the Spirit Himself makes intercession for us with groanings which cannot be uttered.
And CHRIST as well=Romans 8:34
34 Who is he who condemns? It is Christ who died, and furthermore is also risen, who is even at the right hand of God, who also makes intercession for us.
Hebrews 7:25
25 Therefore He is also able to save to the uttermost those who come to God through Him, since He always lives to make intercession for them.
It's Christ and Holy Spirit who intercedes for us not apostles
Even old Old Testament says Christ intercedes for us Isaiah 53:12
12 Therefore I will divide Him a portion with the great,
And He shall divide the spoil with the strong,
Because He poured out His soul unto death,
And He was numbered with the transgressors,
And He bore the sin of many,
And made intercession for the transgressors.
_
Apostles are allowed to marry,
1 Corinthians 9:1-5
1 Am I not an apostle? Am I not free? Have I not seen Jesus Christ our Lord? Are you not my work in the Lord? 2 If I am not an apostle to others, yet doubtless I am to you. For you are the seal of my apostleship in the Lord.
3 My defense to those who examine me is this: 4 Do we have no right to eat and drink? 5 Do we have no right to take along a believing wife, as do also the other apostles, the brothers of the Lord, and Cephas?
If Peter (peter is cephas read John 1:42) the so called "first pope" was married, why does the catholic church doesn't allow "pope" to marry?
_
The so called vicar of christ/ pope/holy father Peter called himself a fellow elder in 1 Peter 5:1, and as per the qualifications of elder in Titus 1:5-9 the elder is allowed to get married; then why does the "pope" is required to be celibate and catholic? ( when Peter was neither celibate nor catholic).
1)Peter was not perfect human nor was he a perfect disciple
2)He sank down while walking on water
3)Our Lord said to peter get behind me satan
4)Peter reject our Lord 3 times
5)Our Lord rebuked Peter for calling fire from heaven
6)Our Lord rebuked Peter when he cut of the soilders ear
7)Paul rebuked Peter for being hypocrite because he was acting different in front of Jews and different in front of gentiles.
8) Moses messed up, and he was a important part of Bible ( that's why he never entered the promised land),
9)David messed up ( and he has the Holy Spirit)
10)King Soloman messed up
11) Saul messed up and God regretted the decision (1 Samuel 15:10-11).
Hatrick (Saul then David then Soloman back to back messed up)
12)The apostles run away a day before Lord Jesus got locked up.
13)The early church messed up Rev 2:18-20, 1 Corinthians, Galatians.
14) Apostle John when receiving Revelation worshiped an angel and the angel said "see you do not do that. Worship GOD" Revelation 22:8-9
15) Paul and Barnabas both had a sharp disagreement on John Mark( Acts 15:36-41). And remember that both were Apostles filled with Holy Spirit.
16) Church in Revelation 2:1-6 Lord Jesus Himself said to the church of Ephesus that "I know your works, your labor, your patience, and that you cannot bear those who are evil. And you have tested those who say they are apostles and are not, and have found them liars" but guess what that church still had problems and Lord also pointed that out "Nevertheless I have this against you, that you have left your first love......" So as you can see Churches can do Biblical and unbiblical things at the some time.
Love you Dr. Craig. Thanks for being a philosophical father to me. 🥰 Papa Craig.
Wow Trent will get so happy with this video
Any day now 100k subs. Congratulations in advance 🙌
He deserves the recognition. Unfortunately TH-cam will do their best to keep his sub count down and to suppress his videos. They would rather promote godless crooks like SSSniperwolf
@@mugsofmirth8101
*"Unfortunately TH-cam will do their best to keep his sub count down and to suppress his videos."*
Evidence presented: zippo
This comment aged well 🙌
Trent trying to ride Craig's coattails. But more power to him.
I hope my subscription will make a difference. But either way, Thanks you WLC.
It does make a difference! Thank you! - RF Admin
Honestly, in response to the whole timeline objection, we need to start asking for them to simply *show* us that this timeline will have an actually infinite number of events. And when they draw a timeline with a few years on it then a couple arrows, we need to stop them and say "That's not an infinite number of events at all".
Then I want to see an immaterial, timeless, spaceless mind that can exist eternally since forever and then suddenly make the decision to create a universe from nothing.😂
@@ramigilneas9274 that's a totally different argument altogether
@@paulywauly6063
It seems just a little bit strange that people sometimes care if things can be demonstrated to be true and other times don’t care at all if there is any supporting evidence whatsoever if something is even possible.
@@ramigilneas9274 ok i see your point ..
@@ramigilneas9274
The existence of an immaterial, timeless, spaceless, eternal Creator of the Universe from nothing is entailed by the argument as Craig gives it. He has multiple long lectures online and entire books going over every aspect of this. The OP here isn't asking for anything close to that amount of justification from the "symmetry" people. He just wants to see the timeline point explicated.
Btw, to the OP, Joe Schmid does exactly that in one of his videos.
Here are two arguments which I think are crushing refutations of the past-future symmetry objection:
Quick note: When I use the term "are instantiated in reality" I am speaking of both the past and the present collectively. The past is instantiated in reality in the sense that it has been instantiated in reality, and the present is instantiated in reality in the sense that it currently is instantiated in reality.
1) For an endless future to entail the instantiation of an actually infinite number of days in reality, there must be some time at which it is true that an actually infinite number of days are instantiated in reality.
2) In an endless future there is no time at which it is true that an actually infinite number of days are instantiated in reality.
3) Therefore, an endless future does not entail the instantiation of an actually infinite number of days in reality.
1) For all the days of an endless future to be instantiated in reality, there must be some time at which it is true that all the days of the endless future are instantiated in reality.
2) It is only on the last day of a collection of days that all the days in that collection of days are instantiated in reality.
3) Therefore, it can only be true on the last day of an endless future that all the days in the endless future are instantiated in reality.
4) An endless future contains no last day in its collection of days.
5) Therefore, in an endless future there is no time at which it is true that all the days of an endless future are instantiated in reality.
6) Therefore, all the days of an endless future are never instantiated in reality.
7) If all the days of an endless future are never instantiated in reality, then an endless future does not entail the instantiation of an actually infinite number of days in reality.
8) Therefore, an endless future does not entail the instantiation of an actually infinite number of days in reality.
@wheatandtares-xk4lp "In your second block, 1-8 have a serious defect. Why are you saying "All the days" of an endless future?" - There is no defect. In order for an actually infinite number of days to be instantiated in reality in an endless future, all the days of the endless future must be instantiated in reality.
"There are an infinite number of numbers between 1 and 2, but none of them are greater than 3." - So? That has no relevance to anything in my argument or to the question being discussed.
"You don't have to find the "last number" in order to point to the infinite series of numbers before an arbitrary individual number." - I don't think you understand what is being discussed here.
We are discussing whether an endless future entails the instantiation of an actually infinite number of temporal moments in reality.
Your comments aren't relevant to this discussion.
@wheatandtares-xk4lp "I'm not sure that's true. It seems to be you're assuming the symmetry requires a ray from a center point, because in the first block, point 3 asserts the endless future can't have a day that has instantiated infinite days. But that's not true if the past is infinite. For all days of the endless future after infinite days in an infinite past, infinite days have been instantiated." - I genuinely don't understand what you are arguing here. Point 3 in the first "block" is the conclusion of the first argument. It follows logically from the premises.
And again, the argument is about an endless future, not a beginning-less past.
" In an endless future, we can buy definition skip infinite days, then count one day (let's call it the present), and then skip infinite days until the end. We don't have only one way to abstractly traverse an infinity." - There is no end to an endless future...
Again, I don't think you understand the issue being discussed. It's hard to even understand the points you are making, let alone how they relate to the symmetry of the past and future.
What do you make of the objections of Joe Shmidt from The Majesty of Reason to the Kalam? He has many thoughtful and distinguished philosophers on who agree and explicate the same objections which deal with in detail with every premise of the Kalam and the conceptual analysis of the cause as well. I haven’t really seen William Lane Craig do a response to them yet except 1 short video where he briefly responded to one of them. I think it would be really if Capturing Christianity could arrange a sit down between WLC and JS like he did between WLC and Scott Clifton where Clifton put some considerations about the argument to Craig and got responses to them. The only difference would be JS’s objections seem a lot stronger.
@@FrotanInferno I haven't seen all of Joe's objections, but I haven't found any of the ones I have seen to be very good.
My OP here in this thread is a response to one of his objections, namely, the past-future symmetry objection.
I would also point out that a lot of Joe's objections aren't new, they have been around for a while, and Craig has responded to most of them already in his published work.
It does seem a bit of flex to point out that you have actually written entire volumes examining BOTH sides of a debate on such a technical philosophical issue and tensed/tenseless time
Imputation is not putting sin or righteousness onto someone's account, but judging it is already there, sin is judicial condemnation, and righteousness is judicial approval.
Time is change. It cannot be tenseless. An illusion is still a dynamic process. Change begins, not an existent
An interesting thing to consider (from Joe Schmid and Alex Malpass) is that, even if the arguments for causal finitism succeed in demonstrating the beginning of *this* universe, what’s to say the universe(s) *prior* to this one isn’t non-metric?
They do not and cannot show that spatial substances have beginnings
"Universe(s) prior to this one" LOL is this a joke? 😂😂😂
@@CMVMic Joe Schmidt is a secularist troll like you, so sorry to burst your bubble but you're attacking your own comrade 😅
@@xstatic-ow5mz not as funny as positing imaginary beings who poof things into existence with his magical mysterious powers. Special pleading much..
@@CMVMic spoken like a true average troll LOL 😂😂😂
For me, the Kalam C.A remains my number one favorite argument for God's existence. Big fan of Dr. Craig and Trent Horn's work.
And for me it doesn’t work as an argument for a God
@@therick363 different people have different sensibilities.
@@ericgatera7149 that is true
questions for WLC -
* how do we know the universe began ?
* how would we know that everything that is 'outside' of this universe (the cosmos) can't be infinite ?
* how would we know that IF there was an initial cause to the cosmos, that this cause was a 'god' ?
* how would we know that this 'god', if proven, was an interventionist 'god' ?
* how would we know that this interventionist 'god', if proven, was the 'god' of 'the bible' ?
"how do we know the universe began" That is literally what the video explains.
"how do we know that everything that is 'outside' of this universe can't be infinite" I don't know what that is supposed to mean
@@briandiehl9257 question 1 - this video gives its opinion on the matter. if you think that this view is definitive, you're an idiot.
which leads me to your comment on question 2. I believe you brian
would you like to ask some clarifying questions on the second question, brian ?
or even take a stab at the others ?
@@haydenwalton2766 Yeah, Craig argues that the stuff outside of the universe has to be infinite, so I am not sure where you are going with the second one. The other questions are what he primarily debates, I could make arguments in favour of the others but I can't prove any of the claims.
@@briandiehl9257brian, if bill argues that everything 'outside' of this 'universe' (let's call it the cosmos) is infinite, then where is his initial cause (his god) ?!
Anything that begins to exist has a cause.
The pain in my left foot began to exist.
Therefore it has a cause.
Was it caused by a pixie?
@@ataho2000
According to my wife, I deserve it.
@tedgrant2 If that's what your wife said, then it must be true based on wife law that states that "the wife is always right".
No it was just a brute fact
Also, if we assert that God created time(and space etc) at creation, and that our ultimate Heaven experience is beyond time, then you wouldn't have an infinite number of "Heaven days"...it's possible we would exist in something beyond time that we don't fully understand yet. I think we get a small glimpse of this when we see Jesus' resurrection body, which appears to exist in more than 4 dimensions, so much the same way, our existence in Heaven isn't just a really long number of successive days, but beyond time.
This is mostly speculation but it answers the critics who would say "well then Heaven is just an actual infinite number of successive moments into the future".
At 10:29: _"They_ [Malpass and Moriston] _simply _*_assert,_*_ that the past and the future are perfectly symmetrical and here I think your philosophy of time becomes absolutely critical..."_
Exactly, and as a response to that you, Craig, are assuming and asserting the opposite (further at 10:39):
_"... On a tense theory of time, according to which temporal becoming is real, future events in no sense exist. There are no events later than the present. The only events, that actually exist, are those, that have transpired up until the present moment, so that if the past is beginning less there will have occurred an actually infinite number of events prior to the present. But if the future is endless, then the series of events will simply be potentially infinite. It will just keep growing and growing and growing. But at no point will you have more than a finite number of events. Now Malpass and Moriston say, that there will be an actually infinite number of events and that's again simply not true. There will never be an actually infinite number of events the series of events will always be finite and always increasing and this asymmetry, I think, between the past and the future shows, that the symmetry objection uh fails."_
So the past and the future is not symmetrical, because they are asymmetrical, because the past is not even potentially infinite but finite and the future is for sure potentially infinite and not finite. Malpass and Moriston are asserting the past and the future to be perfectly symmetrical, if and only if you, Craig, are asserting the past and future to be asymmetrical by the preassumption of your twisted version of the _"A-Theory"_ of time.
Question for Bard:
"What has more proponents? The A-Theory or the B-Theory of time?"
The response from Bard:
*_"The B-Theory of time, also known as eternalism, is generally considered to have more proponents among philosophers and scientists than the A-Theory of time, also known as presentism. This is likely due to the fact that the B-Theory is more consistent with the scientific understanding of spacetime as a four-dimensional continuum, in which all events exist simultaneously. The A-Theory, on the other hand, requires a more complicated explanation of how time can seem to pass if only the present is real._*
_However, there are still many philosophers who defend the A-Theory of time. They argue that the B-Theory is counterintuitive and that it is difficult to reconcile with our everyday experience of time. They also argue that the A-Theory is more consistent with our common-sense understanding of free will and moral responsibility._
_Ultimately, the debate between the A-Theory and the B-Theory of time is a philosophical one that is unlikely to be resolved anytime soon. Both theories have their own strengths and weaknesses, and it is up to each individual to decide which theory they find more convincing."_
At 2:11: _"Well in fact philosophers are fairly evenly divided, Kevin, on the nature of time..._
Further at 2:48: _"... When I was doing my work on God in time, it occurred to me. that for every person, who holds to the tense less theory of time, I could think of at least two philosophers or physicists, who hold to the tense theory of time and are of comparable stature in the scholarly community... Fortunately the view, that I defend, is admitted by everybody in the debate to be the common sense view of time, that temporal becoming is real and not just illusory..."_
Hahahahahahahahahahahahhahaahhhahahhahahahahhahhahahahahahahahhahahahahahahhahahahahahahahhahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahhahhahahahhahahahahahhahahahahahahahhahahahahahhahahahahahhahahahahahhahahahhahahahahahhahahahahahhaahahahahahahahahhaha...
Good old Craig - never ever admitting the actual state of affairs regarding the actual current philosophical and scientific consensus and never ever growing in Wisdom, Knowledge and Rationality.
I'm a theist, but my problem with Craig's version of the cosmological argument is the version of the principle of sufficient reason that he appeals to. He says that anything that begins to exist has a cause. But though that does seem self-evident to reason, it seems also seems self-evident to reason that anything that exists has an explanation. This then prevents one from just saying that God exists eternally. The question "and what explains God - why does God exist rather than not?" remains legitimate.
My own solution to this - which i tentatively think is not incoherent, though happy to be proved wrong - is first to conclude that as there cannot be an actual infinity of explanations, then at least one thing must explain itself. But what kind of a thing could explain itself? Well, the only kind of thing that seems able to explain itself is an omnipotent person. An omnipotent person can do anything, and so therefore they can explain themselves. After all, if they could not, then there would be something they could not do.
This self-explanation would seem to involve a contradiction. For self-creation to occur, God would have to exist and not exist at the same point. But this is not a problem, I think, for an omnipotent person can actualize contradictions. We should also note, that the law of non-contradiction by hypothesis does not exist at this point, for it is one of the things in need of explanation. Thus, though God's act of self-creation would involve a contradiction, it would not be one that would violate the law of non-contradiction, as that law does not exist at that point.
Dr. Craig does affirm that everything that exists had an explanation of its existence. See his work on the Leibnizian Argument from Contingency: www.reasonablefaith.org/Leibniz-Contingency-Argument. - RF Admin
N.B. - Dr. Craig would reject the idea that the laws of logic are things that exist. He is an anti-realist regarding abstract objects. Rather, he would say that we can have true propositions which quantify over such putative objects without being committed to their real existence. For example, one could truthfully say "Today, I'm going to take a walk." One has quantified over "walk" as if it were an object, but scarcely anyone would say that walks are actual objects. Likewise, one could quantify over laws of logic in true propositions without committing themselves to their actual existence. If this is true, then the laws of logic are not things which need fall under the weak principle of sufficient reason used in the Leibnizian Argument from Contingency.
It's not simply that an infinite past would cause contradictions and that's why it's impossible. Its logically impossible for the past to have an infinite number of past days. It is a contradiction.
That like saying the hare would never win the race against the turtle.
The Kalam doesn't need fixing. It just shows the universe has a cause.
The cause doesn't have to be God.
Everything added to the Kalam afterwards is the issue. You'd need a syllogism to show timeless and all the other qualities. You'd also need to properly define timeless.
The Kalam is fine.
Going beyond the Kalam is the issue.
It does have to be a spaceless timeless inmaterial cause. Logically follows.
The mind behind the cause is called God. If someone doesn’t like the name because of their biases, they can feel free to call it something else.
@@Messianic-Gentile Actually there isn't a ind behind it. It has no name. If someone doesn't like this because of their biases, they can think something else.
I can things without any backing too.
@@ceceroxy2227is there only one possible choice for what you described?
What does Mr. Craig say about St. Thomas' 5 ways to prove the existence of God?
When you think about Trent Horn refutes himself. If there could be an actual infinite number of past days you could pick any day like Hubert's Hotels rooms and that day could never happen. In fact no point in a infinite past could happen.
Five days ago could have never happened because there is an infinite number of days prior to it. A million years ago could have never happened because there is an infinite number of past days prior to that. A billion years ago couldn't have happened because there was an infinite number of past days before that. 13.8 billion years ago (origin of the universe) could have never happened because there were an infinite number of past days prior to that.
So William Lane Craig is right and Trent Horn is wrong. It's not the case that that we can just imagine another past day occuring that there is no contradictions with an infinite past. Its a contradiction because every past day is infinity at the same time despite being a different day.
So today would be infinity +1 and tomorrow is infinity+2. Yesterday was infinity -1 and the day before that is infinity -2. Yet everyday an infinite number of past days. Its ridiculous.
The 2nd law of thermodynamics refutes an infinite regress of events. Infinites are fictions
@wheatandtares-xk4lp Only if one assumes time is a dimension that exists which is false as it makes a category mistake and existential fallacy. In philosophy, time is change, change is becoming.
@@CMVMic If time didn't exist then you couldn't have written this comment 15 hours ago.
This might honestly be dumbest thing I have ever heard.
Is that Ben Savage from Boy Meets World?
👍😂
Trent Horn wasn't necessarily adjusting the Kalam, rather he was attacking William Kalam argument. There's a video I watched he said he doesn't like using Williams argument because to him it's flawed. I guess he's just misunderstanding the argument. He doesn't understand
Thank you! This exactly what I have been saying.
And it makes even more sense why Trent did this once you become aware that it was the idea of secularist Joe Schmidt for Trent to make that video in the first place. It's literally a coordinated attack.
@@elgatofelix8917 I did not create this video in any collaboration with Schmidt. It comes from my genuine desire to strengthen the Kalam as much as possible, part of which is motivated by Schmidt, Malpass, and Morriston's objections I find compelling.
@@TheCounselofTrent Never said he "collaborated" on the video with you as it's quite obvious you're capable of producing such a low budget video all by yourself, but thanks for confessing that this video was indeed motivated by Schmidt, thereby corroborating my statement.
@@elgatofelix8917you said coordinated attack ? Why you contradict and attack so much, it’s childish
Do you believe that the tenseless theory of time entails the impossibility of an endless future as well as a finite past?
No, he doesn't. They discussed this in the video.
@@jackplumbridge2704 Oops, I put the wrong theory. I meant tenseless. 🤦♂️
@@catfinity8799 Oh, then yes Craig would view an "endless" future as impossible on a tense less view of time as that would constitute an actual infinite being instantiated in the real world.
I’d like to see Craig interact with Joe Schmid of Majesty of Reason.
Not surprised to see this comment on this video since $chmidt is the secularist who put Horn up to this.
Dr. Craig would obliterate $chmidt just as he did to $hmidt's secularist idols before him. $chmidt is just another garden variety troll with nothing of substance to bring to the table. He is not even worth Dr.Craig's time
You sound confident. How about we debate? Define God and Present your argument for God and I will present my argument against theism
@@elgatofelix8917It’s not fair to characterize Schmid this way, he is an intelligent and thoughtful philosopher and has made progress in advancing the dialogue in this area. I don’t think his objections on this topic work, but he’s far from an idiot and he is certainly no less worthy of Craig’s time than many others who Craig has interacted with. We should be more charitable to those with whom we disagree, this attitude reeks of fear of engaging.
He responded to one of Joe Schmid's arguments about how the future would be actually infinite as well, but I thought Joe's argument was quite weak.
@@mjdillaha Yes, his arguments for actual infinites do not work but we can still prove premises 1 and 2 are false.
Please give lins to the videos used here, in the description.
8:20 Would heaven have time? Or is heaven outside it? But chronologically it would seem biblically that heaven has time by events that occurred in sequence.
Both I and Craig would say that time will exist in heaven.
I believe true eternity requires separation from time.
Trent Horn's intention was not to "strengthen" the argument but to attack Dr. Craig's presentation of it.
He was encouraged to do so by his bosom buddy Joe Schmidt - a very arrogant and bitter secularist who made a similar video on his own channel attacking Dr. Craig and the Kalam
So you deleted your original comment to remove my response calling you out for being hostile and bitter towards Trent and Joe, only to repost exactly the same comment again?
That is incredibly sad...
@@jackplumbridge2704 wait what ever happened to "I'm not going to bother arguing with you" even "don't waste your time arguing with this guy" and now you're back and making baseless accusations for which you have no evidence whatsoever LOL this is incredibly sad...
@@jackplumbridge2704 Also incredibly sad is your defense of evil secularists like Joe. Very suspicious.
Your hypocrisy is astounding.
@@elgatofelix8917 Thank you for proving that you are a liar.
Do you claim to be a Christian?
@@jackplumbridge2704 Nope that's a direct quote from you. Nice projection. Not done arguing yet? Or care to lie some more about how you're done arguing? 😅
9:02 false, because the past had a start, but the future will have no end. For those who believe.
Is it possible to test with science any of your theories?
All of the scientific evidence indicates an absolute beginning of the universe, which is a key premise of the Kalam Cosmological Argument. - RF Admin
@@ReasonableFaithOrg Can you cite your source? I'd like to read about that absolute beginning you mention.
@@LindeeLove Sure. In his book, Reasonable Faith (3rd edition), Dr. Craig reviews a broad range of cosmological models and cites their most prominent proponents, as well as shows how they either imply an absolute beginning or, if they attempt to avoid such a beginning, shows where empirical observations have disconfirmed the models. He also provides strong philosophical arguments against a past eternal universe. - RF Admin
@@ReasonableFaithOrg I'd like to read an article that says our universe had an absolute beginning, I'm assuming you mean from nothing. Do you have a link to an article?
@@ReasonableFaithOrg_all of the scientific evidence indicates an absolute beginning of the universe_
No it doesn’t. If it did then why do so many scientists say we don’t if there was one?
Totally agree with Bill. While I really like Trent Horn he is just wrong on this topic. The past is not perfectly symmetrical to the future in tensed theory of time. We would have to assume a tenseless theory of time where the future does not exist.
For example, if there were an infinite number of past days prior to today then it would be logically impossible for today to have occurred because there would always be another past day before the present . However, if there were an infinite number of future days after today there is no problem or inconsistencies. The potentiel infinite number of future days is not actualized which is perfectly consistent with God's eternal nature and our eternity with God. If infinity forward could be actualized to me that implies the end of the future and nothing more could progress further. Now that may not be the case under the be theory of time but I think would be the case with a tensed theory of time.
As an analogy we can imagine an object growing infinitely in size but we cannot imagine an objective shrinking in size. At some point the object will shrink until it no longer exists. Consider infinitesimal, if I were to try to touch a ball there ought to be an infinite number of smaller distances before I can touch the ball. This implies that I will never be able to touch the ball but we know that's not the case. The closer and closer I get to the ball the distance between us shrinks until eventually I can touch the ball. However, the same cannot be said if the ball continue to move further and further away from me infinitely. The further and further the ball moves away from me actually does imply I will never be able to touch the ball.
Each number corresponds to your original paragraphs, in chronological order:
1) This entire discussion is contingent on how you view God’s relation to time. If God is outside of time, it seems perfectly plausible that God knows of the actually infinite future. If we characterize God with traditional attributes (specifically omniscience), God’s knowledge doesn’t absorb information in Craig’s, “X then Y” process. Rather, because God sees all events equally, God experiences X and Y at the same time. If God is inside of time, then God would never absorb the actual future. This is because God entering time would restrict his transcendent capability (This isn’t to say that God doesn’t know the future, just that he doesn’t experience all of time equally). I may be mistaken, but I think Dr. Craig holds that God did enter time at the moment of creation.
2) As Graham Oppy said, there’s nothing paradoxical about an event, which just happens to be present, existing from an actually infinite past. While it may appear strange, strangeness is distinct from impossibility.
3) Your assertion, that a ball can shrink into nonexistence, is highly contested within philosophy. There’s nothing paradoxical about me splitting the ball from 1/2 to 1/8000000000. Obviously, this “X then Y” process would never arise an actually infinite number of splits, but nothing is restricting me from progressing towards infinity.
Debate jay Dyer
As someone who has a beginning the future will happen one second, minute, hour and day at a time and I will never exist for an infinity no matter how much time has passed.
If something exists now then something has always existed and that something has to be infinite. Only an infinite being can explain everything that has happened and is happening. We can only observe this Universe that is run by laws and constants. We have minds with perceptive organs to observe the world around us. Only living organisms have minds and we have never observed any natural process that can create Minds except living organisms. This Universe is not infinite, there are no natural processes that can create a mind, so where did minds come from if not from another Mind?
We cannot even find a relevant process that can create a living organism and the simplest independent organisms are more complicated than even the most complex structures in the Universe. So the Universe could not create Life, let alone a mind, but both exist. This has always bothered me if there is no Living Mind to create it. To create the Universe God must be powerful and all knowing, all powerful and I know what is good and what is evil so God must be good and judge evil. Whence cometh the evil Lord?
So the idea of God as the greatest conceivable Being must be true and as the greatest Being than can be conceived it is inconceivable that Your Plan not be the greatest conceivable plan. So Your Will is the greatest Good. edit; Whether I like it or not. Do you have my son Jonathan Lord, is he with You? I know he wasn't living for You when Jonathan died, but he did trust in You when he was 12.
That’s a while lot of assumptions and claims there. I see a lot of god of the gaps.
There can never be an infinite amount of substance because where does the new substance come from? Assuming actual infinites is assuming platonism. There is no set that exists distinct from substances and the continuous additional of more substances contradicts ex nihilo nihil fit.
Let's get this straight. Proving events have a beginning does not prove the Universe which is a spatial substance had a beginning. The argument for a finite past does not prove the Universe came into being.
Sola Scriptura (Scriptures alone) defence.
I'm gonna follow Sola Scriptura because when I'm standing in front of God and He ask' me why did you believed this when Scriptures are clear that Jesus is the Mediator. And why did you believed this when the Scriptures said Jesus and Holy Spirit is the Intercessor. Why did you prayed to dead human rather than the One who was resurrected and who is sitting at the Right Hand Side of Me. When I stand in front of God' throne on judgement day and when God ask me why did you believed this? I will answer and say because here it is in your Scriptures Almighty. I rejected everything that is not found in your perfect Holy Scriptures because I'm a good Berean, I decern, I test everything, and also I trust your Holy Scriptures first because your Holy Scriptures cannot get currpt but men can. Being Bible based tells me Saturday is Lord's Day(Sabbath) but catholic church tells us that sunday is the lord's day(sabbath). Like I said "to be deep in history is to cease to be Protestant"- John cardinal. I say "to be deep in Holy Scriptures is to cease to be a catholic/orthodox" - Sagar.
_
Holy Spirit spoke the Scriptures.
Acts 1:16
16 “Men and brethren, this Scripture had to be fulfilled, which the Holy Spirit spoke before by the mouth of David concerning Judas, who became a guide to those who arrested Jesus;
Acts 28:25
25 So when they did not agree among themselves, they departed after Paul had said one word: “The Holy Spirit spoke rightly through Isaiah the prophet to our fathers,
Mark 12:36
36 For David himself said by the Holy Spirit:
‘The Lord said to my Lord, “Sit at My right hand, Till I make Your enemies Your footstool.” ’
_
- 2 Timothy 3:15 says the Scriptures that make you wise for Salvation through Faith in Jesus Christ. Now this verse is talking about New Testament. Why? Because Salvation in Old Testament through obeying the 613 laws. And Old Testament is about old covent and New Testament is about the New Convent which is Salvation through Faith in Jesus Christ./Now why I don't care how many books are there in the Old Testament is because my Doctrine should come from the New Testament because I'm under the New Covenant which is signed by the blood of Jesus.
- 2 Timothy 3:15-17
Now you might say it's the old testament refered to, but no, why? Let me explain. 2 Timothy 3:10 say that they have got the doctrine from paul( 10 But you have carefully followed my doctrine, manner of life, purpose, faith, longsuffering, love, perseverance,)
And in 2 Timothy 3:15 paul says the Scriptures make you wise for salvation through Faith in Jesus Christ ( 15 and that from childhood you have known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.) So the Scriptures Paul is talking about is the New Testament.
((- Lord Jesus said Scriptures cannot be broken (John 10:35).
Also Paul's epistles says "if anyone thinks he is prophet, let him acknowledge that my writing are commandments from God" ( 1 cor 14:37) he also says "not to go beyond what is written" (1 cor 4:6), he also say "to hold fast the traditions from his epistles" ( 2 Thessalonians 2:15). In 2 Peter 3:16 Peter calls all Paul's epistles Scriptures))
This is 2 Timothy 3:15-17 15 and that from childhood you have known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.
16 All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.
but what we have the Holy Bible is complete to explain our Salvation, Gospel, God's word, traditions, and what to do when we gather for sermons.
Also paul himself taught the Corinthians Church but the church failed two times and he wrote 2 letter to explain everything again. And in rev 2:28 you can see that Lord gave thumbs up from most things the church was doing but also said that it got corrupt because they allowed spirit of jezebel. So you see that paul kept kinda repeating himself in all letters and the church can get currpt.
- all Scriptures is God breadth, for correction, reprove and made on Christian complete. Scriptures is perfect, and if your satanic doctrine is not found in Perfect Scriptures then I know it's from satan. If a perfect Scriptures doens't have everything then it's not perfect.
__
- 5 reasons why Bible is my sole authority for doctrine.
1) Bible tells me the Gospel.
2) Bible teaches me what is sin
3) Bible give me information on how a Christian can be completely equip for EVERY good work.
4) When I'm standing in front of the Throne of God, I don't want God to ask me "Why didn't you did what I said, rather you obeyed what some other person said?
5) Holy Scriptures is perfect. Human can sin and be wrong but Holy Scriptures is inspired by God. And when I'm reading the Holy Scriptures I'm not reading what just the apostles wrote. I'm reading what God wrote and commanded through them.
_
- Why I have high value of Scriptures?
- Scriptures is the Word of God.
- Scriptures can foresee future.
- prophecy is written in Scriptures which tells us the future.
- Lord Jesus Himself took the Scriptures read it in the synagogue and said "this prophecy is about Me".
- Scriptures are inspired by the Almighty Living God YHWH.
__
-Your argument about "understanding Scriptures on ones own interpretation". Now that a bad argument because we agree on a lot of things for eg- Trinity, Jesus being the Son of God & Christ & God, virgin birth, literal death and resurrection of Jesus, believing that Heaven and hell is real place, believing that Bible is the Word of God. Following Biblical mortality, knowing that Lord Jesus is sitting at the Right Hand of God, all authorities is being given to LORD Jesus, and that we are not under law but under Grace. We agree on these things because these are found in Bible. I mean a difficult doctrine of Trinity is agreed word to word. I think it's not about interpretating Scriptures rather unfollowing doctrines which are not found in Bible. "Why do we agree on these doctrines and and not on other doctrines of roman? Simply because these doctrines are found in Scriptures"- my rebuttal of your argument. When apostles explained our Lord Jesus to the bereans searched the Old Testament to see the prophecies about Lord Jesus Christ, and at that time they didn't received Holy Spirit. After confirming from the Scriptures they believed in Lord Jesus as Christ.
_
Phillip had apostolic succession and signs and healings but still samaria didn't receive the Holy Spirit until apostles came and prayed for and and laid hands on them acts 8 . You might say that's why apostolic succession is important but Phillip already had apostolic succession.
Now these people will also talk about "traditions" in 2 Thessalonians 2:15, but they won't tell that this "traditions" is nothing but hard work. 2 Thessalonians 3:6 But we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you withdraw from every brother who walks disorderly and not according to the tradition which he received from us. 7 For you yourselves know how you ought to follow us, for we were not disorderly among you; 8 nor did we eat anyone’s bread free of charge, but worked with labor and toil night and day, that we might not be a burden to any of you, 9 not because we do not have authority, but to make ourselves an example of how you should follow us.
You see these "traditions" is not eating of free, but of hard work.
_________________________
I think you posted this on the wrong video.
Hahaha I think your still traumatized from Trent Horns debate with Gavin Ortlund on sola scriptura.
@@CatholicSpartanThat’s not a good objection.
@@catfinity8799 Dr. Craig defends sola scriptura. That’s probably why the comment was posted on this video.
@@rosamorales729 It wasn't supposed to be an objection. His posting on the wrong video.... this video isn't about Sola scriptura
I don't know what it is with Trent Horn but every time he opens his mouth I hold my face in my hands in shame, because he seems to espouse more nonsense and undermine the work of brilliant minds, like Dr Craig, rather than 'steel man' it.
So, Trent, please. Stop doing this. Read the literature first. Understand the intent and meaning of the arguments and statements made, BEFORE you attempt to interact with them.
Even for an utter layman like myself, I now understand the difference that Dr Craig makes, between logical and actual infinities and I find it bizarre that Horn has not even understood this simple distinction that Dr Craig makes, which was emphasised, over-and-over, by Dr Craig, during his response videos to the Skydive Phil documentary.
For the record, Trent Horn actually agrees with Dr. Craig and uses his arguments. In the original video he is just arguing that the formulation used in many of Craig's debates was incomplete
@@briandiehl9257I don't doubt TH's heart is in the right place but as you can see from this video, he misrepresents even the most SIMPLE claims made by WLC. And not just once.
Further, beside another pointless example of infinity paradoxes, he seems to add NOTHING new to the conversation.
It's all regurgitated or warmed over stuff that even a stupid layman like me now knows. And not through study but simply through devouring everything that Dr Craig puts out, over and over.
*The Enuma Elish would later be the inspiration for the Hebrew scribes who created the text now known as the biblical Book of Genesis.* Prior to the 19th century CE, the Bible was considered the oldest book in the world and its narratives were thought to be completely original. In the mid-19th century CE, however, European museums, as well as academic and religious institutions, sponsored excavations in Mesopotamia to find physical evidence for historical corroboration of the stories in the Bible. ***These excavations found quite the opposite, however, in that, once cuneiform was translated, it was understood that a number of biblical narratives were Mesopotamian in origin.***
*Famous stories such as the Fall of Man and the Great Flood were originally conceived and written down in Sumer,* translated and modified later in Babylon, and reworked by the Assyrians ***before they were used by the Hebrew scribes for the versions which appear in the Bible.***
***In revising the Mesopotamian creation story for their own ends, the Hebrew scribes tightened the narrative and the focus but retained the concept of the all-powerful deity who brings order from chaos.*** Marduk, in the Enuma Elish, establishes the recognizable order of the world - *just as God does in the Genesis tale* - and human beings are expected to recognize this great gift and honor the deity through service.
*"Enuma Elish - The Babylonian Epic of Creation - Full Text - World History Encyclopedia"*
*"Sumerian Is the World's Oldest Written Language | ProLingo"*
*"Sumerian Civilization: Inventing the Future - World History Encyclopedia"*
*"The Myth of Adapa - World History Encyclopedia"*
Also discussed by Professor Christine Hayes at Yale University in her 1st lecture of the series on the Hebrew Bible from 8:50 to 14:30 minutes, lecture 3 from 28:30 to 41:35 minutes, lecture 4 from 0:00 up to 21:30 minutes and 24:00 up to 35:30 minutes and lecture 7 from 24:20 to 25:10 minutes.
From a Biblical scholar:
"Many stories in the ancient world have their origins in other stories and were borrowed and modified from other or earlier peoples. *For instance, many of the stories now preserved in the Bible are* ***modified*** *versions of stories that existed in the cultures and traditions of Israel’s* ***older*** *contemporaries.* Stories about the creation of the universe, a cataclysmic universal flood, digging wells as land markers, the naming of important cultic sites, gods giving laws to their people, and even stories about gods decreeing the possession of land to their people were all part of the cultural and literary matrix of the ancient Near East. *Biblical scribes freely* ***adopted and modified*** *these stories as a means to express their own identity, origins, and customs."*
*"Stories from the Bible"* by Dr Steven DiMattei, from his website *"Biblical Contradictions"*
------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition, look up the below articles.
*"Yahweh was just an ancient Canaanite god. We have been deceived! - Escaping Christian Fundamentalism"*
*"Debunking the Devil - Michael A. Sherlock (Author)"*
*"The Greatest Trick Religion Ever Pulled: Convincing Us That Satan Exists | Atheomedy"*
*"Zoroastrianism And Persian Mythology: The Foundation Of Belief"*
(Scroll to the last section: Zoroastrianism is the Foundation of Western Belief)
*"10 Ways The Bible Was Influenced By Other Religions - Listverse"*
*"January | 2014 | Atheomedy"* - Where the Hell Did the Idea of Hell Come From?
*"Retired bishop explains the reason why the Church invented "Hell" - Ideapod"*
Watch *"The Origins of Salvation, Judgement and Hell"* by Derreck Bennett at Atheologica
(Sensitive theists should only watch from 7:00 to 17:30 minutes as evangelical Christians are lambasted. He's a former theist and has been studying the scholarship and comparative religions for over 15 years)
*"Top Ten Reasons Noah’s Flood is Mythology - The Sensuous Curmudgeon"*
*"Forget about Noah's Ark; There Was No Worldwide Flood | Bible Interp"*
*"The Search for Noah’s Flood - Biblical Archaeology Society"*
*"Eridu Genesis - World History Encyclopedia"*
*"The Atrahasis Epic: The Great Flood & the Meaning of Suffering - World History Encyclopedia"*
Watch *"How Aron Ra Debunks Noah's Flood"*
(8 part series debunking Noah's flood using multiple branches of science)
*"The Adam and Eve myth - News24"*
*"Before Adam and Eve - Psychology Today"*
*"Gilgamesh vs. Noah - Wordpress"*
*"Old Testament Tales Were Stolen From Other Cultures - Griffin"*
*"Parallelism between “The Hymn to Aten” and Psalm 104 - Project Augustine"*
*"Studying the Bible"* - by Dr Steven DiMattei
(This particular article from a critical Biblical scholar highlights how the authors of the Hebrew Bible used their *fictional* god as a mouthpiece for their own views and ideologies)
*"How do we know that the biblical writers were* ***not*** *writing history?"* -- by Dr Steven DiMattei
*"Contradictions in the Bible | Identified verse by verse and explained using the most up-to-date scholarly information about the Bible, its texts, and the men who wrote them"* -- by Dr. Steven DiMattei
Premise 1 and 2 are false. Nothing begins to exist.
You never began to exist? - RF Admin
@ReasonableFaithOrg no, I am the cognitive events of a brain. Events are not existents.
Events are not things that exist. Becoming is not Being. Craig is making a category mistake by assuming platonism
@wheatandtares-xk4lp Thank you!
This is a nonsensical objection and also irrelevant as Craig is not a Platonist.
Time is not an abstract concept like numbers; it is a property of physical space and is as real as the three spatial dimensions. Time is obviously real and obviously passes since nothing would ever change it it didn't. You are the one making a category error by equating the arbitrary demarcation of time into discreet units with abstract concepts like numbers.
All temporal becoming states is that the past used to exist but no longer does, and that the future will at some point exist but doesn't right now.
@wheatandtares-xk4lp Nothing needs to be addressed. It's obvious that an infinite series can't have a finite number of elements, otherwise it wouldn't be an infinite series.
@@grantgooch5834 Strawman. My objection is not based on a category error related to the demarcation of time into discrete units and abstract concepts like numbers. Instead, my objection incorporates the view that the demarcation of time into discrete units (e.g., seconds, minutes) is a subjective human construct and that events, which are often used to measure time, are not concrete entities that exist in the same way as physical objects. My view is better understood as one unfolding event which has a boundary or a first instant i.e. from a static state
Craig denies he is a platonist but he is! He assumes a mind is substance or a metaphysical possibility, i.e., something that exists, but his justification for this is fallacious as he uses S5 modal logic to go from logical conceivability to metaphysical possibility without even explaining how he establishes metaphysical possibility. The mind is a label for cognitive events. Please define the mind. All the attributes that are given to a mind are dynamic in nature, which supports the view that the mind is just a concept for a set of cognitive events.
Time is also a concept, but it denotes change. It is the unfolding of an event. In physics, it is defined as a dimension which is a mathematical construct. Physicists use an operational definition of time which doesn't address the philosophical nature of the term.
Time is not a real entity; this commits an existential fallacy. Time is has to do with an event-based ontology but events are not substances; substances exist, not events.
Space is also often falsely defined as a three-dimensional construct. In reality, space is simply the collection of points. To be spatial, is to be a substance. It is an integral aspect of a single, ontologically independent substance which the big bang theory supports i.e. a single point of condensed energy. This point represents the location of the substance. Space is not a separate entity like a dimension, but rather an inherent aspect of substance.
Emergent space is a concept among theoretical physicists aiming to reconcile general relativity with quantum mechanics, which has yet to receive direct experimental confirmation. Physicists speculate that space is emergent in their quest to develop a theory of quantum gravity, one of the biggest unsolved problems in physics.
The correct view of space departs from both traditional Newtonian Substantivalism and the Einsteinian view in which it is an inherent aspect of the substance of reality, not something that exists independently. It's not a three-dimensional framework that exists out there; it represents a location for existing things.
There are no infinitely divisible units of space. In theories like Loop Quantum Gravity, space is not infinitely divisible; it has a smallest possible scale (the Planck scale). The existence of any substance implies the existence of space, as measurement in physics relies on units of measure, which require a concept of space.
@@grantgooch5834 " an infinite series can't have a finite number of elements, otherwise it wouldn't be an infinite series"
This is a non-sequitur. An infinite series of events is not equal to an infinites quantity of substances. Your logic is seriously flawed.
It seems one logical flaw in Craig's Kalam argument is the statement that "if the universe has a cause, then an uncaused, personal Creator of the universe exists." This does not follow. We do not have any way to know what "caused" the universe, and thus we do not know whether that cause was itself caused or uncaused. There are no grounds upon which to allege that the cause of the universe must of necessity been uncaused. Nor is there any reason to assume that the cause of the universe had an attribute of ""Personal." At least, I don't see the logic in making such an assumption. It sounds like religious rhetoric without a logical foundation.
"It seems one logical flaw in Craig's Kalam argument is the statement that "if the universe has a cause, then an uncaused, personal Creator of the universe exists." This does not follow." - It does follow. Once you analyse what the cause of the universe must be like, you arrive at a list of attributes that can only be explained by a personal creator.
"We do not have any way to know what "caused" the universe, and thus we do not know whether that cause was itself caused or uncaused." - But we do know... Simply asserting that we can't know what cause the universe isn't a refutation of all of the reasons we can know.
"There are no grounds upon which to allege that the cause of the universe must of necessity been uncaused." - But again, there are... Have you ever read any work written on the Kalam? Because you seem totally unfamiliar with anything relating to the second stage of the Kalam.
"Nor is there any reason to assume that the cause of the universe had an attribute of ""Personal."" - Again, there are.
"At least, I don't see the logic in making such an assumption. It sounds like religious rhetoric without a logical foundation." - Then perhaps you should read up on some of the work that has been done on the second stage of the Kalam.
You're confused, sir! Your logic is flawed. What has come into being without a cause? The moment something comes into being, there is a cause. You're assuming that before time, there was time, hence you're looking for a cause for the uncaused. If the universe has a beginning, then it logically follows that there was a cause. I guess you don't even know the argument.
@fotoman
Are you trolling?
@@eew8060 No, just pointing out that the argument makes no sense. One cannot leap from the premise "the universe has a cause" to the conclusion that "an uncaused Personal creator" must be the cause. Simple fact is that we have no way to know what caused the present universe to exist, so it is not possible to determine whether that cause was caused or uncaused.
@@fotoman777
But as the two responses above explain, it's not a "leap" to God. It's a reasoned inference. The best explanation.
A lot of what Trent says sounds like pure nonsense. I know that isn't philosophical but there you have it. An infinite past is completely nonsensical and illogical. Time rolls forward that is the difference.
Well Trent is a Catholic $hill who is close friends with $inister $ecularists like Joe $chmidt so of course he spouts nonsense. Self proclaimed "Christians" who maintain such relationships with these kinds of individuals are not to be trusted
@@elgatofelix8917
Ouch. That's a rough statement.
Judging a bit. Shilling?
@@iggyantioch that's what he is by definition. He works for Catholic Answers and therefore has a vested interest in defending so-called "Papal infallibility" no matter what the logical or ethical implications are.
How about letting the argument speak for themselves. Dr. Craig would never call out others like you do . He relishes and encourages these type of exchanges.
As far as Catholic Answers being an employer. I don't know if the Council of Trent podcast is a production of Catholic answers. But even if it is so what. It's just a Philosophical argument.
@@iggyantioch and yet here you are NOT letting the argument speak for itself by posting your comments. Way to contradict yourself. Nothing I said is untrue and nothing you said proves me wrong or is of any relevance. I'm not Dr. Craig and don't pretend to be. Just as you are trying to call me out, I'll call out whoever I please. Keep crying about it.
I thought to myself, and I’m not kidding, I thought, if there’s just one chance in a million this is true, it’s worth believing. Far from raising the BAR in order for Christianity to be true, I, I LOWER IT!
No, it doesn’t.