You can subscribe to our clip channel, Sips With Aquinas here: kzfaq.info/love/uMg6A-lj1wnkTDcTZmRlbA

I'm a Catholic and I love both Dr. Craig and Jimmy Akin. The great thing about this debate is that we all win. They are both seeking the best way to show people that belief in God is reasonable. They are both a blessing. Thanks for setting this up, Matt.

I am catholic, thomist and I like Jimmy but I am with Craig here. Infinite is only a word to refer something unlimited. It cannot be anything material, it is not a real quantity and God is infinite only as a quality way of being, not a quantity way.

I love this. Two men that love Jesus arguing what is the most effective way to bring non believers to Jesus. Truly beautiful.

It's unusual to see a conversation like this in which each person doesn't interrupt and talk over the other. This went really well. I wish my conversations went that well.

Love dr. Craig, thanks for having him on!

Feser and Craig would be a mind bender! Would love to see it!

As a Catholic I've defended both William Lane Craig and modern Intelligent Design proponents because I don't think probabilistic arguments are necessarily weak arguments, which people like Ed Feser (whom I highly respect) claim

I've been following Lane Craig since 2007 and the precision of his language never fails to impress.

As a catholic, the only thing I did not appreciate is the sneaking of "that's contrary to catholic teaching"... I think that borderlines ambushing Dr Craig, when the debate was supposed to be clearly outside anything of a catholic-protestant discussion. In my opinion it spoils the pleasure of having him in a catholic channel. Jimmy could have mentioned that if he wanted in a post-debate video or blog post. I truly wish Matt brings Dr Craig again for any topic

Jimmy Akin and David Lee Roth discuss the Kalam argument.

Just as I've been listening to this and thinking about the concept of time and whether God exists in or out of it... I think it is really important to establish what time itself IS. Time is the unit in which we measure change. When "time stops" in movies everything freezes, no one ages, new memories are not made, plants do not grow, etcetera. Time is not just the hands in a clock spinning around, it is change itself and hours, minutes and days are the tools we use to measure that because something like a measuring tape is insufficient for such a task. Therefore change must occur in order for time to exist. However we know that by His very nature God is unchanging (that should be enough to say not only is He not bound by time, but it is impossible for him to be if He is to be understood as the Christian God). This means He must have existed in a reality which lacked all sense of time before he created anything at all, because there was nothing which could change until He created such a thing. His own existence is not dependent upon time to be observed. If He IS bound by time, his existence would be a changing one and He would be dependent upon something else which would have to be constant which could sustain His existence. Therefore our time-bound "God" would not in fact be God and would require another eternal, timeless Being to sustain him. This entrenches us in the same issue as long as we insist God is bound by time. The only way to reach the conclusion of a God as we know Him to be is to admit that He exists beyond time. With that established, I think Dr. Craig is wrong to say that God is bound by time. I actually do lean more toward Akin's perspective that if He desired, God could be working in creation now, constantly creating events that from our limited human perspective have already come to pass, as well as being active in the future we have not yet experienced. Although we know He has chosen not to do this, by virtue of Him being timeless I can't ignore the possibility. I actually think this is vital to the idea of a personal, infinitely powerful God who exists with us intimately in all moments of our lives. God could not be infinite if he was entirely bound by time. I love classical, Catholic theology so much. I hope I made sense.

Chuck Norris counted to infinity, twice. 😀

I would NOT like to debate WLC he is a beast 😂 love you guys

Incredible discussion that really brought absolute clarity to a fundamental theological difference of opinion that helps clarify to me at least what sets apart the Catholic faith and why it has come to make so much more sense to me after half a lifetime of reflection that started from Transhumanist Atheism in my pre collegiate years. Akin's take on divine timelessness seems to be a necessary property of an infinite intellect. Where as Craig's take that time asserts any kind of influence on God's intellectual scope would seem to contradict the guiding premise of an infinite scope or capacity for intellect which is the definition of a Godly intellect versus just any other finite intellect such as ourselves or any form of artificial intelligence we may give rise to.

Anyone think Dr. Craig's eyebrows have a K in the middle? K for Kalam?

This seemed like a mismatched debate. I'm not sure that Jimmy had a firm enough grasp on the philosophical workings to engage properly.

This was not a debate. It was a discussion. Both men were great.

Fascinating debate, and excellent performances by both Akin and Craig. I actually agree with Jimmy that there is no meaningful difference between logical contradiction and "strict" logical contradiction, yet I'm convinced that there is a logical contradiction in the existence of an infinite number of apples. EDIT: I don't think it's fair for Craig to say that Akin is leaning on theological presuppositions, given that Akins's theological arguments are driven by philosophical arguments regarding the nature of time, divine simplicity, etc. There's just not enough time in this debate format to flesh out all those points of disagreements.

Get Ed Feser on!

Wow! Two of my favorite Apologists . Great job Matt.

Wow! That was amazing. What are your initial thoughts? Who made the better case?

A discussion on God and time seems to be due for future episodes. (Please get Bill on again!)

This was great! I'm a non-Catholic Christian and have been truly blessed by Dr. Craig's work. This is my first time interacting with Akin's ideas and he also seems like a sincere and thoughtful apologist and person. I do think there is a lot riding on theology here in these disagreements. Dr. Craig's views on God's timelessness sans creation but temporal with creation does make sense to me, but even he admits elsewhere that (theologically speaking) his view (even amongst us protestants) isn't a majority position.

Incredibly interesting debate. Thank you.

Thank you very much Matt for this discussion! 1. I don't think Jimmys objections were theological, they were more of the form: 1. You claim x is metaphysically impossible 2. God can do anything metaphysically possible 3. God can do x 4. Therefore x is not metaphysically impossible Jimmy should have formulated it this way I think. 2. Unfortunately they didn't discuss the Grim Reaper Paradox. Nicholas Shackel in his paper "The Form of the Benardete Dichotomy" shows a clear logical contradiction in Paradoxes like the Grim Reaper Paradox, so Jimmy, there is your clear logical contradiction. I think it was an interesting discussion, unfortunately way to short. Thank you Matt, Jimmy and Dr. Craig!

Love it. I would love jimmy akin debating against some atheists for the existence of God.

I agree with Dr. Craig, and follow Dr. Craig, etc, BUT Akin gave very good ideas and had Dr. Craig thinking a lot. More than i’ve seen Dr. Craig have to organize his thoughts and really think a rebuttal through.

34:16 Matt has me so dead when he just shows up and wants to jump in but is trying to bite his tongue 💀🤣

If we could only engage in all forms of discourse like these two gentlemen do.

The issue here is set definitions, a huge obstacle of late because people make up their own. The only way to have a legitimate debate is by an agreement to definitions. To that, a is a and b is not a, therefore a is not b. A person is a person, and a number is not a person, therefore a person is not a number. I'm going to go pray... haha

I don't know why Dr Craig has such a hard time with subtraction working differently with finite vs transfinite numbers. Scalar multiplication is different than vector multiplication, but that does not make either form of multiplication metaphysically impossible

Amazing. Don’t think there is a clear winner. But what amazes me about Akin is the fact he has never lost a debate imho and the fact that he is basically an autodidactic who can take on the best with such comfort.

The essence of this questions seems to be about the nature of time itself. Disregarding more fantastical "theories" about time-space of modern science (which becomes less respectable every day) - time is just a change of matter in a space. Because we measure it by observing the almost impeccably regular cyclical changes in matter (revolution of the Earth around its axis, around the Sun, phases of the Moon, seasons of year) we've grown accustomed to think of time as some invisible, infinitely long ruler that measures all events, or as a hidden invisible camera, recording all material universe. If there is no matter, there is no time. Therefore, for a thing to be created, it means it has to have a beginning, so it cannot exist before its own creation. If an apple would be to exist in the hypothetical state of "having an infinite past existence" it would mean it wasn't created, so in some aspects it would be equal to God.

I thought it will be interesting conversation. I was wrong. It was very interesting conversation :D

It boggles the mind...I am resting in Christ's "bring the children" as that about sums up my faith and intellect..

During some debates, I've heard Dr. Craig say that sans creation, God is timeless and after creation, he's inside time. Dr. Craig confirms that in this video. He also rejects divine simplicity, that God has no parts of any sort. St. Thomas Aquinas teaches that since God is purely actual, he can't change in any way. But Dr. Craig implies that God changes when he, Craig, says that sans creation, God is timeless and after creation, God is in time. If God is the first cause, he can't change, since change is the actualization of a potential. If something that's already actual needs to cause a change and God can change, he can't be the first cause. So Dr. Craig's theism suggests a vicious infinite regress. But Mr.Akin can agree that merely Cambridge is possible for God. If I "shorten" because my nephew grows five inches taller than me, that's a merely Cambridge change in me. My nephew grew when I maintained my height. I didn't change. My nephew did.

Dear Dr. Craig, in Hubert's Hotel, it isn't the same number subtracted from the same number that results in different numbers. It is different subsets of numbers being subtracted. So it's ok that there are different answers. I love this discussion!

Jimmy made an argument that "prime minister is a person not a number", and hence in itself is not logical. I think this makes perfect sense. I don't understand why Dr. Craig still insisted that the statement is not "strictly illogical"..? Isn't that just a common sense..? I feel like sometimes learned people can be too theoretical to a point where they are detached from real world/common sense..

¡Viva Cristo Rey! Btw... we need another one with Dr. Rob Koons and or Dr. Gaven Kerr

Is it possible these two gentlemen have a theological difference over the meaning of God's "omnipotence"?

Love both Jimmy and WLC but at about the 41 min mark, WLC nails the coffin shut for this particular discussion. The debate was supposed to be about the philosophical soundness of Kalaam, and Jimmy retorts with only Christian theological arguments. WLC was in the right discipline (logic qua logic; metaphysics qua metaphysics), and Jimmy kept trying to argue from a different discipline (metaphysics of the Catholic Tradition). Love em both, though! Vivat Jesus!

Everything that begins to exist has a cause First problem is, from what we know we don’t have examples of things that begin to exist except for abstract things like ideas or different arrangements of entities like atoms, molecules that we call them new. Then the second part of the argument the cause, on our world we can see and effect in action, basically they are interactions which occur in time. So cause and effect works within our universe following the laws of physics. We can record a period of time and add the 3d space and create a 4d block. Within the block there is cause and effect but nothing can be said whether the block itself has a cause or not About infinities, they don’t make sense in physics, potential infinities are ok, but then the universe doesn’t need an infinite past. Time may have started at the Big Bang but it doesn’t mean it started from nothing. If we analyze the 4d block we can see a beginning with the first frame of the block. Before the first frame there are no other frames, it’s nothing there but the universe didn’t evolve from a nothingness state, such state didn’t exist. also the 4d block is still there. What about the infinity of space? It could be that in the initial phase the energy of the universe was all concentrated into a small space. Outside the space there was nothing so no infinity there. Then space expanded at the speed of light so if you are at the edge of space and shine a flashlight the beam will still travel at the speed of light as space expands with it.

Craigs concern about offering theological arguments in response to philosophical problems seems odd since that’s precisely what he did at SES during a discussion on God and abstract objects. Jimmy brought up thoughtful points, but hard to outgun Craig on these issues. Good discussion!

How exactly is metaphysically impossible for gold to have different atomic number??? Same with the table being from ice. It's certainly contingent.

I find W L Craig’s view a more effective in presenting this argument to unprepared people, because he intentionally avoid unnecessary concepts which surely could bring more confusion (such as omnipotence), leaving solid and easy to understand ones.

If a small number is a nearby fence, and very large number is like a distant fence, infinity is the lack of a fence. An infinite number is a contradiction in terms.

I didn’t understand the details of much of anything they said but it was still somehow really interesting. How does that happen? Maybe like going to a Latin Mass when you don’t speak Latin. Ha!

but... but... infinity isn't a quantity... it just means there's no end. You can have the infinity of whole numbers, subtract the infinity of odd numbers and still have an infinity left over.

Actually, the Kalam argument is valid. Aquinas stated in the Summa Theologia : A multitude is said to be infinite absolutely, when an infinite multitude is necessary that something may exist. Now this is impossible; because it would entail something dependent on an infinity for its existence; and hence its generation could never come to be, because it is impossible to pass through an infinite medium.

What an interesting show. I used to think I had a fairly good grasp of the Kalam argument. This disabused me of that notion. Great show. Thanks. A final thought is that it is wonderful as a Catholic to have the assurance of apostolic teaching for confident guidance.

It’s worth noting in this debate that one could hold to the idea that actual infinites exist (although I don’t) and still hold that the philosophical premises of the Kalam are correct using the newer paradoxes like the grim messenger and grim reaper paradox developed by Pruss and Koons that do get you to a logical contradiction.

Had to parse the disagreement in this discussion it would be a disagreement of whether or not you form apologetics first on Revelation, or first on logic / reason/philosophy. What was very unexpected for me in this podcast was my perception that Revelation took a back seat for the Protestant position and was the lead justification for our classic Catholic faith. What a great discussion very enlightening. I want to thank everybody who participated immensely. Well I do think that in the broad argument William Lane Craig appear to be more concise I really appreciated and agreed with Jimmy's orientation of Revelation first apologetics where we use Revelation as the basis for our reason and argue a reason that is not in conflict with any aspect of Revelation.

This might be glossing over some of the technical aspects of the discussion, however, I would be happy to acknowledge with Dr. Craig that the nature of the physical universe as we observe it does not support the existence of actual infinities and therefore, from a natural perspective, the universe must have had a beginning. However, I would also be happy to acknowledge with Mr. Akin that the miraculous is possible and God is not confined to act only according to the laws of nature. Therefore, "actual" infinities are possible for God in some sense (that I personally can't conceive of). However, either argument points to the necessity of a force outside of nature to explain the existence of nature, which is normally the point the Kalam argument is trying to make anyway.

Coming back to this intentionally today and thought of this. Akin says if God can imagine a number line composed of all the positive integers why could he not make a line of hydrogen atoms, one for each positive integer. Here is the thing. Infinity is not a number you count up to or add to until you get it. It is a size of a set which is composed of an indefinitely large number of items. Everyone knows this, so I don’t mean to bore you, but Cantor famously compared different sizes of infinity. He proposed a mental experiment where you write down all the real numbers, all infinity of them. Then you compose a new number. The first place is taken from the first place of the first number on the list plus one. The second place from the second place of the second number plus one and so on. This new number will differ from each number in the list. Cantor showed that you could always add new real numbers to the set of the real numbers even though you started out with the set of all infinite real numbers. I think that there is a prima fascia case that an infinite set of abstract items such as real number is logically possible but that it is metaphysically impossible to have a set of an infinite number of physical hydrogen atoms. For these reasons: 1) No matter how many hydrogen atoms God creates, even if we assume God created an infinite number of them, one can always imagine that God could create one additional hydrogen atom, or two extra, or an infinite number more, or an infinite number more hydrogen atoms an infinite number of times, and still you could imagine he could create one more. There is a logical contradiction since the infinite number of hydrogen atoms at any step is not actually infinite since you could always add one. 2) An infinite number of hydrogen atoms would take up an infinite amount of space. But even if you had enough space required to house an infinite number of hydrogen atoms you could always add a few cubic meters. 3) The point is that infinity is, by definition, not a definite quantity, it can never be reached by adding physical items or units of space or time or anything measurable. Because it is by definition the size of a set with an indefinite and unmeasurable quantity. 4) In the above examples, because we are adding up measurable quantities, our first infinity turns out not to be infinite after all. Thus, the size of our infinity is always going to be both infinite and not infinite at the same time and in the same respect. A logical contradiction. 5) if you simply say that all the initial infinities were not actual infinities, this would save the logical consistency of the claim, but whatever set of hydrogen atoms you claim are the final infinite number of hydrogen atoms, one more could be added. There is no stopping point. There is no realistic actual quantity of hydrogen atoms that would satisfy the definition of a final infinite number of measurable hydrogen atoms.

I really wish this could have been extended another hour instead of artificially cutting it short.

I really enjoyed this. Surprised how philosophically well-versed Jimmy was.

That was awesome ! Hope I can see those two wonderful apologists again on your channel!

The debate I wanted to watch. As a Catholic, who loves St. Thomas Aquinas, I however support Kalam argument. My reasoning is simply that if universe has an infinite past, then present is infinity realized (actual infinity), but then present elapses into past, meaning it's only potential infinity, not actual. I have read Akin's argument on his blogs, but really not able to comprehend it well enough. May be I need more time to digest Akin's thought.

Aw dang! I was using that word Kalam in a science fiction book to represent an object. Now I have to change it! Do you know how hard it is to come up with a word that hasn't already been used in science fiction!? ROFL!

Great job and clear thoughts from William Lane Craig. Great philosophical discussion.

What I found most interesting was that a great scholar like Dr. Craig was more visibly perplexed by a Catholic council's defining God being outside time. "It wasn't definitive" he said or something rather. Hmm. Anyone else catch that? Why would a Baptist care what Lateran said? and why would he feel it, the council, left him room to speculate on his position on God being temporal? I hope Mr Frad can comment on this. Is the good Dr on his way Rome-ward? God bless both of them, and a special thanks to Jimmy who helped my faith heaps back in the day.

I seem to be in the minority, but Akin won IMO. Craig spent much more time trying to invalidate Akin’s arguments by calling them theological or otherwise trying to hand-wave them away then he did actually responding to the arguments that were presented. Appreciate the debate though! Thank you Matt for hosting and thank you to both Jimmy and Dr. Craig for participating!

Haven't watched much yet but if only we could have an Aquinas - Pruss discussion on causal finitism 🥺 That would be so epic

Jimmy is so coherent to listen to.

🍿 Super Kind Discussion. Didn’t understand a word but looked great. I’m a visual learner so if you could get them to draw out their arguments next time?

Two gifted and fascinating minds - One God - Bravo!

Laplace has an answer to the infinite series between a current point and an initial point.

Craig was very concise and logical, i must say he persuaded me to concede that the argument does in fact work, great debate

A fascinating charitable discussion.

my favorite guy was clearly right, and my second favorite guy was less right but still really cool!

I love that music prior to this discussion.. been enjoying the music on “The Hallow application well...” 🙏🏻🙏🏻🙏🏻 Good Day to all and the rest of the day to you... 🙏🏻🙏🏻🙏🏻

57:55 what a terrible time for Matt to jump in on. I really wanted to hear Jimmy's response to Craig's non-response.

It’s funny, because the Kalam always gave me pause for reasons I couldn’t quite put to words, but of course Jimmy comes through for me. Not entirely happy about it, but good for you sir.

I agree with Akins position but the absurdities that arise from an actual infinite as opposed to a potential one have to be dealt with and till now I don't think they have and it's quite difficult.

Jimmy Akin needs to read WLC's book Time and Eternity.

Wow. Very good debate. They are both excellent debaters.

I'm with Jimmy on this one. I think Craig failed to grapple with Jimmy's challenge of Craig's distinction between logical & metaphysical contradiction. Jimmy refuted specific examples given by Craig & Craig only responded by repeating "that's not a strict logical contradiction". &, overall, Craig kept falling back on "that just seems inconceivable to me!" responses, despite Jimmy pointing out he (& others) have no issue conceiving such things. & Craig pulling the "I can follow the arguments where they lead because I don't share Jimmy's theological presuppositions" was annoying & offensive. Jimmy gave strictly philosophical refutations, not just theological ones.

It’d weird how Matt prefaced at the beginning of the debate that this WOULD NOT be a Protestant vs. Catholic argument. Akin himself acknowledged mutual agreement and respect for Craig’s methodology from the onset. And yet, due to Akin’s more integrated theological approach to the Kalam…it ended up inadvertently becoming a Catholic vs. Protestant issue. Great conversation regardless but still weird. Lol.

St. Thomas makes a distinction between something existing in God vs existing in his knowledge. This is important for example when he argues for a multitude of Divine ideas. There are many ideas in God's knowledge but it is not regunant to God's simplicity.

I wish David Bentley Hart had a better attitude to participate like this, he is sorely missed around the way. So much to contribute and he hardly ever does. It is terrific that both Dr Craig and folks like Graham Oppy make the time as they do much appreciated.

Need this but longer! :) great discussion

I don't think it's fair for Craig to peg Akin's objections as _merely_ theological. God, His attributes/powers, and the nature of time/eternity and of the universe are all subjects of philosophy. Just because Catholicism embraces a certain view of God's omnipotence, eternity, and relation to time does not mean that that view is _merely_ theological. As I'm sure some atheists/agnostics would agree, such a view of eternity and the universe can make sense from a purely philosophical perspective too, and so the Kalam argument may appeal to premises that seem intuitively true to many from the human perspective but not strictly logically necessary.

I love Jimmy Akin

There is an issue here. Not all infinities are equal, thank you Dirac!

Oppy and Craig on Kalam please!

Catholic here. As a listener, it's going to be really difficult (philosophically) to push forward Jimmy Akin's arguments from God's eternity without giving some argument for the B theory of time. He states that this model is consistent with the councils (it's unclear to me if that gives B theory the status of dogma), but the problems of B Time are very difficult to solve. I don't have a flag in either theory since the question is so difficult, but ultimately, it seems like that's the foundation this argument reduces to.

Terrific discussion. Craig seemed a tad rattled at points, perhaps from being presented with some arguments he'd never considered. He seemed to resort to just repeated himself more insistently without addressing the content of the points.

Lane is committing the sin, or error of Idolatry of his own thoughts. Man's thought is not God's thought. God Bless both of them and Matt.

Whether actual infinites lead to what is technically considered a *logical* contradiction or not, saying that infinity minus 1 gives the same exact amount as infinity minus 1,000 is a contradiction, if you take infinity seriously as an amount. Just because you can type the word "infinity" (or draw a symbol) in both equations doesn't reserve it as a coherent idea in the face of trying to do any actual mathematical work with it. "God knows the set of all natural numbers which is infinite." That's begging the question, saying that there *is* an actually infinite amount of numbers, but the possibility of an actual infinite is what's in question. Similarly, saying that God can imagine an actual infinite is assuming that's a possibility. But if for some reason its existence isn't possible, then it would not be the case that God could imagine it. It's like saying "God knows that Elvis Presley was a kangaroo". He wouldn't and couldn't know that, since it's not true. Nor could he imagine that who we know of as Elvis Presley was a kangaroo, because it would then be an entirely different entity. Moreover, when it comes to talking of "natural numbers" and counting, what people don't realize is that this is only demonstrating the notion of a *potential* infinite, not an actual infinite. The act of counting forever in either direction (past or future) doesn't prove that there can already *be* an actually infinite amount of something. "All infinite means is it's unlimited." No. If we're taking "infinite" seriously as an amount of something already in existence, we need to distinguish between potential infinity (an unlimited process of counting, or getting apples, etc.) and actual infinity which means more than that. It means that we can observe the total all at one time, no successive counting or taking necessary. Akin actually gives a great argument to show the logical contradiction Craig was talking about. He admits that both counts of him "giving an infinite" number of apples to Craig would be different procedures. But how can one thing (the act of giving an infinite) be two distinctly different things at one time?

I LOVE both Jimmy and William (Brit Prot here)!!!!

I really appreciate your stating that any quoting of Aquinas is illegitimate due to it being taken out of context due to his ignorance in comparison to what we know today. That is we have no context for what he would have stated had he been born in the modern age.

What's really interesting is that Jimmy Akin's argument against the Kalam argument requites a presupposition of God's existence! And not just any God but the God of Christianity. Both apologists successfully use the Kalam argument to prove the existence of God, one in the affirmative, one in the negative!

Matt at the beginning: This is not a protestant vs Catholic debate. Jimmy later on: Dr. Craig believes things that are not taught by the catholic church and so he is wrong.

Jimmy Akin states that only the contradictory is impossible. That would lead us to many truths which is a contradiction. That is, if it is said that there are aliens as large as a galaxy, it is not a contradiction, but it does not imply that it is true. What Dr. Craig says is what is most plausible. If an infinity, or a finite. His arguments suggest that finitude is more plausible without implying that infinity is false.

"All this would prove is Christians shouldn't use the argument" cue kenobi...that's why I'm here Akin is an unsung hero

Something that wasn’t clear at first is that Jimmy is an eternalist about time, for theological reasons, because God is outside of time and therefore sees the temporally infinite 4D universe as real. Because God’s perspective on reality is surely more veridical than our finite temporal perspective, it would seem to follow that timelessness implies eternalism… But there are views that try to make sense of divine timelessness with presentism. I don’t necessarily agree with them but I just want to raise awareness that those types of views are out there, and they are endorsed by Catholics no less. I think maybe Brian Leftow, and Eleonore Stump/ Norm Kretzman defend views like this? Someone double check for me. So, Jimmy’s inference from divine timelessness in Catholic theology to eternalism is too quick. But anyway, does Catholic theology really require timelessness? I am a new Catholic and this is news to me…

Thanks much for this video.

Dr. Craig is right. To include theology in the debate would make it a different debate. Best to have tested the merits of the argument purely philosophically. It's good for the listeners though to also have been reminded that they also need to be verfied theologically, thiugh for a different purpose. Maybe Jimmy is in a quest to lead Catholics to think catholic, not only philosopers.

Didnt Aquinas use the same philosophical argument for argument from movement and contingency pointing out how infinitely long chains in the past cannot expplain the present, or infinite regress or something like that. if annybody knows what is the diffrence here please share :D