Maybe they should have interviewed Dr. Craig for this documentary? Lol

10:10 The atheist debunks himself right there. He states that 1+2+3… to infinite is -1/12. LOL. He’s applying the analytic continuation of the Riemann Zeta function outside of where it’s defined. However, the actual series itself still is divergent and is meaningless. Real mathematicians immediately laugh.

As someone who studied math in college, this reminded me why I love it so much. This one has me geeking out

a small thing but krauss' comment that "if you sum the series, “1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + 5 + 6…” to infinity, what’s the answer? “-1/12.” You don’t like it? Too bad!" enrages me as a mathematician, the infinite sum of n starting from 1 going onwards is simply *not* -1/12. it is divergent and thus doesn't *have* a limit. although he did mention complex numbers, this only makes sense in the context of the analytic continuation of the euler zeta function, the riemann zeta function, and does not apply to the real summation of the natural numbers. granted, it's a lot to squeeze into a debate about a completely different topic but it annoys me (and isn't particularly relevant to the argument at hand /anyway/) so there we are

Trent, you explained Dr Craig's "metaphysically impossible" argument much better than I've heard him make it... After the Akin-Craig debate earlier this year, I thought Craig lost because he didn't provide a good explanation of why it is reasonable to conclude that a real infinity, but I think you made that case

Fantastic. Extremely well thought out rebuttals to nearly every point they made. God bless you for your work!

The funny thing about the way humans conceptualize infinity in mathematics is that they always start with 1, at the beginning. But when applied to the universe, they want us to start from today and count backward into an infinite past. Even infinity in the abstract follows the Kalam Argument, as no matter how far you get counting upward into infinity, you can always turn around and go back to 1, which was set in place by some mathematician building an abstract Tower of Babel.

🎯 Key Takeaways for quick navigation: 00:03 🎬 Introduction to rebuttal of a documentary critiquing the Kalam cosmological argument. 00:15 🧠 Explanation of the Kalam cosmological argument's structure. 00:42 📖 The Kalam argument isn't strictly for God; its cause analysis leads to divine properties. 01:24 🎥 Atheistic documentary critiquing Kalam argument lacks comprehensive response to objections. 02:10 🌋 Different origin myths vs. scientific and religious views on universe's beginning. 03:07 🧮 Infinity's abstract vs. concrete existence and mathematical coherence. 05:14 📚 Philosophers' interpretations of infinity's abstract nature. 06:24 🔀 Distinction between actual and potential infinity illustrated through examples. 08:54 🏠 Georg Cantor's work on infinite sets' correspondence properties. 09:33 🚫 Metaphysical possibility vs. strict logical possibility in relation to infinity's existence. 10:55 🤔 Craig's response to Lawrence Krauss's objection regarding infinite sums. 13:12 🧐 Acceptance of counterintuitive nature of infinity vs. rejection of counterintuitive divine attributes. 16:12 🏨 Hilbert's Infinite Hotel paradox as an illustration of problems with actual infinity. 19:56 🧠 Resolving paradoxes through changing the definition of "full" or rejecting actual infinity. 23:38 🚫 Contradictions in subtracting identical quantities from identical quantities in infinite sets. 24:46 🔄 Discrepancies between theoretical existence of actual infinite sets and their real-world implications. 25:01 🧮 Cantor's aleph infinities: There are different infinities (alephs), like aleph null and aleph seven, which behave differently from finite numbers when added or subtracted together. Infinities don't follow standard arithmetic rules. 26:22 ➖ Subtraction and infinite case: Subtraction of infinite numbers is not well-defined; there's no clear answer for what to subtract from an infinite number to get another infinite number. This highlights issues with dealing with actual infinities. 27:30 🏨 Hilbert's Hotel and subtraction: Subtracting infinite quantities isn't logically contradictory in mathematics but applying it to real-world scenarios, like the Hilbert's Hotel example, leads to contradictions and absurdities. 29:34 0 and actual infinites: Zero and actual infinities are problematic when instantiated in the real world, leading to contradictions. Zero is a description of absence, not a concrete thing with no value. 31:08 🌌 Metaphysical impossibility: Infinites in the real world lead to metaphysical impossibilities or contradictions, distinct from logical impossibilities. Philosophical discussions extend the argument's applicability. 32:29 ♾️ Mathematical vs. physical infinites: Craig affirms that actual infinites are accepted in mathematics, but they can't exist in the physical world. Disagreements arise regarding the definition and implications of "metaphysical possibility." 35:18 🕰️ Time and infinity paradoxes: Paradoxes arise when dealing with infinite causal chains or histories, indicating issues with the existence of an actual infinite past or set. The application of infinity in physics doesn't necessarily imply its existence in reality. 41:10 🧮 Mathematical use of infinity: Infinity is a valid concept in mathematics, but its use in equations and models doesn't guarantee its existence in the physical world. Mathematical models don't always correspond to reality. 43:26 🔍 Limitations of physics and models: Physics often uses mathematical concepts that might not correspond to reality, like imaginary numbers. The equations and models physicists use don't necessarily reflect how the world truly operates. 46:10 ⏰ Transition to infinity: Craig's argument is not about reaching infinity in a certain amount of time, but about the structure of time itself forming by successive addition. The infinite past is considered metaphysically impossible. 49:41 ➗ Rejecting premise 2: The documentary rejects the premise that the past is formed by successive addition, but it does so without providing a 49:54 🕒 The difference between potential infinite and actual infinite: An endless future is a potential infinite, while a beginningless past is an actual infinite collection of events. 51:18 🌌 Supporters of the Kalam argument emphasize the importance of an infinite future for cosmic and moral significance. 52:00 🔄 Meaningfulness of finite lives: The assertion that lives lose ultimate meaning without eternity is questioned, as human suffering still matters in the context of individual experiences. 53:23 🔀 An endless future vs. a beginningless past: Arguments about the possibility of infinity apply differently to future and past, with an endless future being potentially infinite and a beginningless past being actually infinite. 54:45 🏨 Infinite Hotel paradox: The comparison between infinite events in the future and guests in a hotel illustrates the compatibility of an infinite future with the Kalam argument. 56:25 🔃 Forming infinite collections: It's inconceivable to successively form an actually infinite collection, both in the case of future events and counting negative numbers. 57:05 🧮 Lok's version of the Kalam argument: An infinite past leads to paradoxes, implying its metaphysical impossibility. 58:29 🔄 Infinity in singularity vs. cosmic time: The concept of infinity in the context of a singularity and cosmic time is different, not refuting the Kalam argument. 01:09:02 ⏰ Relativity and the uniqueness of now: Craig's assumption of an absolute present moment contradicts relativity, but this doesn't directly challenge the Kalam argument. 01:13:00 📅 Different views of time: The Kalam argument isn't necessarily tied to an absolute present moment and can accommodate alternative views of time compatible with relativity. 01:14:07 ⏱️ Compatibility of presentism and special relativity: Presentism can be defended without fully accepting how special relativity is applied, as special relativity doesn't necessarily rule out a privileged reference frame. 01:14:47 🔄 Physics vs. reality: Equations and models in physics may not always reflect reality accurately, so the perceived incompatibility between the Kalam argument and special relativity equations might not translate to a conflict with reality. 01:15:17 🔄 Specific Kalam versions and objections: Some versions of the Kalam argument, such as Andrew Loke's and Alex Prus's, provide arguments against an infinite past that bypass the objections related to special relativity.

Can't wait for part 2

Amazing video. I'll be watching again.. really interesting. God bless you T-HORN. You're like the Thorn in Atheists arguments that makes them uncomfortable.

i have heard this video, three times now and it really makes me think, great stuff

Re: Hilbert’s Hotel. If infinite rooms are filled with an infinite number of people, then every existing person has a room; there will be no new guests.

Thanks for addressing this one, Trent. Much appreciated even if some of the mathematical arguments hurt my head. Never been Catholic but I also appreciate the pun that is your channel name. Gold!

Seriously. I've started watching Craig Lane's debates in 2007 and after 15 years there are still people who don't understand what he's been explaining over and over again.

This is an underrated video. Very cool stuff going on in it

Ill point out also , even traveling to the past, you have changed something by merely occupying that space that was not occupied. Events and history arent just human actions but every physical interaction down to the quantum level.

Trent, I love your videos and your arguments. Have you or any of your compatriots done a video on how the Roman church can allow for concepts from the eastern churches like katharthis/theosis or if this is incompatible?

Appreciate this lovely information!

"Science" has become like those who argued how many angels could fit on the head of a pin. They've lost their common sense.

The Kalam cosmological argument isn't my go-to argument (I prefer Thomistic cosmological arguments) but it's often not really given the time of day by atheists, instead claiming it's been "debunked" without saying why.

You know, as a pretty firm thomist, I had hitherto believed the Kalam Cosmological argument was pretty weak, but looking at these objections, I see now how crap the arguments against it are.

A year old and Trent and co. getting into the source code of the universe still hurts my head.

The frequency with which "It's just different" is offered by people nowadays to avoid explaining their theories and propositions is amusing.

There is a joke that demonstrates this with negative numbers. A mathematician sees 2 people walk into a cave and then 3 people walk out and says: "if someone goes in there now, the Cave will be empty." In maths you can theoretically have a cave with negative 1 people in it, but in reality that is impossible. Theoretically you can have a universe with an infinite past, but in reality, it's impossible.

Great video T-Ho. Your genius lies in your ability to break down complex issues into understandable jargon. I've always recognized it, but here and in your debate with Dyer, it is most noticeable.

well presented. good job!

I think in the past few years Trent has really intellectually upped his game

I love this channel.

🎯 Key Takeaways for quick navigation: 00:03 📺 The video is a rebuttal of an atheistic documentary criticizing the Kalam cosmological argument. 00:15 🤔 The Kalam argument states that whatever begins to exist has a cause; since the universe began to exist, it has a cause, which some argue could have divine properties. 02:10 🌋 The video contrasts creation myths with the Kalam argument, questioning its reliance on outdated cosmology. 03:07 📚 The atheist's documentary features critiques from scientists and philosophers, but it omits responses from defenders like William Lane Craig. 05:14 🧮 Infinity is debated: mathematicians differentiatebetween abstract and concrete infinities; philosophers like Aristotle distinguish actual from potential infinity. 07:31 🏨 Hilbert's Infinite Hotel paradox highlights counterintuitive outcomes with actual infinite sets and their implications in reality. 13:12 💭 Accepting counterintuitive aspects of the infinite in math, while rejecting similar counterintuitive attributes for God, raises questions about consistency. 16:12 🔀 The distinction between abstract and concrete infinities is crucial: mathematical operations on paper don't necessarily translate into reality without contradictions. 18:05 🏨 Hilbert's Infinite Hotel paradox showcases challenges with adding and subtracting from infinite sets, illustrating how reality diverges from mathematical operations. 21:20 ➖ Subtracting from infinite sets in reality results in counterintuitive outcomes, emphasizing the limits of applying mathematical principles directly to the physical world. 25:01 🧮 Cantor's infinities: There are different sizes of infinities (aleph-null, aleph-one, etc.), and adding infinities follows unique rules. 26:36 🧙‍♂️ Subtraction and infinite: Subtraction in the context of actual infinites is not well-defined; trying to subtract infinity from infinity leads to contradictions. 28:13 🤯 Infinity paradoxes: Manipulating actual infinites can lead to paradoxes, revealing their metaphysical impossibility in the real world. 30:27 🌌 Zero and infinity: Zero and infinity have distinct roles in mathematics, but when instantiated in the real world, they lead to contradictions. 32:17 🔄 Infinity views consistency: Craig maintains that his stance on infinity is consistent across various debates, considering metaphysical impossibility. 33:11 📐 Infinity in mathematics: Craig's appeal to Hilbert's Hotel does not reject mathematical infinity; he affirms actual infinity in the realm of mathematics. 35:48 🕰️ Infinite past paradoxes: Infinite causal chains and histories lead to paradoxes, indicating the impossibility of an actual infinite past. 39:19 🏢 Paradox of room construction: A hypothetical scenario of infinite room construction leads to contradictions, highlighting the impossibility of an infinite past. 43:13 🛠️ Physics and infinity: Physicists use mathematical models involving infinity, but this doesn't prove the actual existence of infinite quantities in the physical world. 44:34 🔮 Mathematical models: Physics models are mathematical tools, not necessarily accurate reflections of reality; some physicists view their theories as abstract calculations. 46:38 ⏰ Successive addition and infinity: Craig's argument relies on the idea that time forms through successive addition, leading to the impossibility of an infinite past. 48:57 🔄 Sequence of counting numbers: The sequence of counting numbers is infinite and lacks an end, which is consistent with the absence of an infinite past. 49:54 🕰️ Craig argues that an endless future is a potential infinite, which is possible, while a beginningless past is an actual infinite and impossible due to contradictions like Hilbert's Hotel. 51:18 🌌 Supporters of the Kalam argue that an infinite future provides meaningful significance, unlike a naturalistic worldview where everything ends in cosmic insignificance. 52:13 🤔 Critics question the claim that meaning relies on eternity, arguing that events' significance to individuals doesn't require cosmic permanence. 53:23 🏨 Hilbert's Hotel paradoxically illustrates that an infinite past (collection of events) is problematic, whereas an infinite future (collection of events) isn't contradictory. 55:14 🏨 Infinite past (completed by successive addition) and infinite future (formed by successive addition) differ; one is metaphysically impossible, the other isn't. 56:53 🏨 The proposed paradox about infinite future events doesn't apply, as these events don't all exist simultaneously; the same isn't true for infinite past events. 58:15 🔄 Lok's argument exposes the contradiction in assuming an infinite past and demonstrates that an infinite past is metaphysically impossible. 01:03:30 🔀 The claim that an infinite past and an infinite future are contradictory is incorrect; they refer to different concepts of infinity. 01:06:05 🌀 The singularity at the Big Bang doesn't necessarily imply an infinite past and doesn't refute the Kalam argument. 01:09:16 🕒 The Kalam argument doesn't require an absolute universal time; the objection based on relativity doesn't disprove it. 01:13:54 📜 The objection about relativity and the present moment doesn't undermine the Kalam argument; different views of time can be compatible with it. 01:14:07 🔄 Some physicists endorse the block universe view of time, while others support presentism; both views have their philosophical implications. 01:14:22 🤔 Special relativity's rejection of a privileged reference frame doesn't necessarily contradict presentism; this objection can be based on philosophical assumptions. 01:14:47 📡 The objection based on special relativity might not apply to reality itself, as equations and models in physics don't always perfectly reflect reality. 01:15:02 💡 The objection doesn't work against versions of the Kalam argument that demonstrate an infinite past is metaphysically impossible or show issues with infinitely long causal chains. 01:15:44 ⏭️ The next part will delve into the documentary's discussion of the Kalam's first premise and the scientific evidence supporting it.

Great overview

nice explanation of Zenos paradox solution.

Infinity plus 1, infinity plus infinity, we all said that as a kid, but the wonderfulness of being a child never ponders it to disbelieve all the possibilities in life.

Any new guest in Hilbert's Hotel is given a vacant room (Room 1, vacated by the previous guest who has been moved to the next room, Room 2) so I don't see see how, immediately prior to the new guest's occupancy of his room, the Hotel can say that all its rooms are full.

Awesome response!

Hello, I know that this is very late but wouldn't finitud of mater limit the creation of Hilberts Hotel in Andrew Loke's argument? God bless.

The hotel problem is stupid. If every room is full, it doesn't matter if the number of rooms is infinite, they are still ALL OF THEM full. So it doesn't matter who you are going to move into another room, that room will be already occupied. The process will stop at the first room you try to move anybody in. Infinity changes nothing and is irrelevant. If it doesn't work with 20 rooms, it doesn't work with infinite rooms, because the procedure stops at room 1, not 20.

Hello, this may sound dumb, but what is both actual and potential infinities? Moreover, what are their differences?

one could assume it would take an infinite amount of time and energy to manipulate an infinity of things .

It is curious how many atheists on the Internet insult Craig, call his argument stupid and claim "that argument is already refuted" without having read the papers and books where Craig talks in depth about the subject and answers many of the typical objections

My problem with the notion of infinity is that it does not allow for change. If we understand change as either promoting growth/development or regression/reversion, then the universe, over the course of infinity (which has already occurred and continues) should already be either fully actualized or fully unactualized. The only way, as far as I can tell, to avoid this is if the probability of growth (per instance of change) is absolutely equal to the probability of regression (again, per instance of change). But in this scenario, there would only be perpetual stasis - a steady state with no change. All three of these scenarios (fully realized universe; totally unactualized universe; and steady state) are empirically untenable.

10:13 Lawrence Krauss is trying to refer to the fact that zeta(-1) = -1/12, but he does this in a way that is just *wrong* (the Riemann zeta function and the series of 1/n^s are not literally the same function). This is the dumbest meme in youtube math.

One of the best minds Christianity has to offer today🙏🏻 thank you for making this video

Metaphysical possibility is a crucial distinction. My suspicion is that many forms of metaphysical possibility are related to causality. For example, Kripke's water=H2O shows that metaphysical necessity is grounded in instantiated causal relations. Metaphysical possibility and impossibility seem to relate to causal instantiation.

Any argument that convinces you that an eternal number of past events is not possible should also convince you that God has, so far, existed for a finite amount of time, has had a finite number of distinct thoughts. Therefore, at some point there is a first moment at which God began to exist. And if everything that begins to exist needs to have an explanation, then God also falls into the same bucket. Sorry I just find all this Kalam stuff really unconvincing.

I wonder if those philosophers and mathematicians interviewed actually read anything on Craig or watched any of his debates or understood the complexities of the Kalaam argument .. I think these so called critiques were mostly strawman arguments or at the very least incomplete understandings.. It seemed to me that they were stuck in explaining only the abstract view of the infinite.. rather than understanding the absurdity of how abstract or mathematical infinitude and the concrete infinitude cannot be reconciled..

Trent vs Malpass would be a good discussion

Joe Schmid just did a rebuttal to your rebuttal. Haven't watched it yet but a potential debate would be dope

You should do a video on Dr. Mike Heiser! I’d love to hear what you think of his work.

When can we expect part 2?

Why is the documentary "atheistic"? Atheism has nothing to do with the possible origins of the universe. It's simply a disbelief in a god or gods.

Great breakdown

This was excellent excellent excellent.

Does anyone have a reference for the philosopher Robert Kuhnz (or Kuhns or ...) to whom Trent refers at about 40:35? This is the source of the paper with the room number on it objection to an infinite past. If you know what writing of his was the inspiration for this story, that would be even better. I'd like to read the original source.

I think the internet is going to end up the other book end (metaphorically speaking) to Guttenberg's press. Not only are there ideas being proposed, but also real time frame explanations and responses.

How come you dont cite the original video in the description

Is it correct to call past events "things"? It seems like you might get around a lot of these objections by drawing an ontological distinction between an infinite set of past events and an infinite set of physical objects, particularly because operations like subtraction and division don't really make sense when you try to apply them to an infinite set of past events anyway. I could take away a baseball card from an infinite set of baseball cards easily enough, and that would create contradictions, but I have no idea how I'd go about subtracting a portion of time from the infinite past.

In relativity yes it does demonstrate that you cannot measure the simultaneity of two events. Not that they arent simultaneous. But then you are proposing invisible things. But the idea of a universal clock doesnt seem to be forbade by it, just us identifying and syncing with it.

Trent you should talk with Jeremiah Bannister about apologetics, I think he has a really interesting take on apologetics and how we should go about talking with skeptics

There is a perfectly well-defined notion of removing elements from a set (infinite or not). It's called set difference. Cardinalities, in other words numbers, are a type of invariant for sets. You can do perfectly consistent things with infinite sets while the arithmetic of their cardinal numbers may not support a minus operation. That's because cardinality doesn't tell you all there possibly is to know about a set. For finite sets the arithmetic of their cardinalities has some nicer properties than if we allow infinite sets. But that's about it.

Thanks!

I'm watching this, by happy circumstance, after binging a slew of New Discourses videos, so I made the biggest double-take hearing James' name mentioned at 5:28 -- he really is a mathematician! Who'da thunk it.

Your arguments blow me away! Brilliant! My favourite has to be "Whenever we do math on a finite set of actual things, Euclid's principle holds true. Therefore Cantor's principle can't work on actual things and actual infinities can't exist." If you put it in simple words like this, anyone can understand why the atheist viewpoint is self-contradictory and wrong! "Infinities are strange and we accept those, why can't we then just accept God, who is also counterintuitive?" Exactly! Atheists hold such a double standard!

Whether mathematicians say it explicitly or not, "infinity" is not a number. It's a concept. All these statements about "the rules are different when dealing with infinities" support this notion. Adding or subtracting a number to/from infinity is akin to adding or subtracting heartburn to/from infinity. To do so in either case is absurd. Dr. Craig seeks to use mathematical reasoning about infinity to justify a particular mathematical/physics assumption -- that the universe must have had a beginning. Whether it did or not, to base an argument on such misplaced reasoning is equally absurd.

I still need to hear a valid reason for atheists looking for arguments against the existence of God. They certainly don't believe in God and believers in God will not be put off by any theoretical argument. God is constantly inviting all people to acknowledge Him by working miracles, sometimes even scientifically investigated ones. God also reveals Himself in the silence of the heart, for whom wants to listen.

Here I am, an equipment mechanic, sagely nodding my head, acting like I can understand any of this 😂

I’m interested in knowing the academic background of the presenter?

As a muslim I love your video's

God doesn't have properties; he has attributes.

@25:27 So if aleph numbers get absorbed by their larger counterparts, then the largest aleph number is the God number.

Hot take: We need to leave Cantor behind and embrace Conway. The surreal numbers are much more useful for weird abstract concepts. You can use numbers like ON and ω to be very specific about how your infinity behaves.

What’s with the constant shots of the interior of a church

My question to someone who thinks Hilbert's Hotel is possible in reality is, how do an infinite number of people get into the infinitely large hotel? If there are a finite number of entrances to the hotel, then an infinite number of people could never finish entering. We'd have to assume an infinite number of entrances to potentially permit it, but then one would have to finish travelling an infinite distance to get to the entrance... Not to mention that the infinite amount of matter making up the hotel would indicate an infinite amount of energy (matter and energy are transmutable) which contradicts the 2nd law of thermodynamics and would falsify the inevitable heat death of the universe.

Your depth of knowledge is impressive. Thank you for the time you put into issues like this.

my argument against infinity goes something like this: in order for something to be a rational idea, the concept of it must at least in principal be conceivable to a sufficiently powerful mind. in order to really say "a mind has truly conceived of this thing", it must be possible for that mind to actually think of the *whole* of the thing. If you haven't thought of the whole of the thing, then you're thinking of a part of a thing, and a part is just a part - it isn't actually the thing. Only the whole of a thing, can really actually be that thing. Now, to think of the whole of something, you must think of it from beginning, all the way through to its end. An infinite object by definition is endless, it lacks an end, and so in principal, it is there is no possible way that you can fulfill the condition of thinking of it from beginning to end. Note how this is true even if the thinker is using an "infinite" mind, and that the greatness of your power does not do anything to change how the condition of "conceiving to end" is always remaining unfulfilled; no matter how infinitely big your brain is, you could never think of something from beginning to end something that lacks an end to think to - and so this leaves us with a situation where it is actually even in principal impossible that infinity could be conceived of by any mind, even by "infinite" minds. I say impossible, in the very literal sense of there not being a single possible way of actually doing it in principal. If there was one way it could be rational, but there is not one way, and so it is impossible. And of course, if there is any situation where there is not even a single possible way to conceive of something, its not a rational concept, and there's no way it could possibly actually exist. And so nothing is infinite, everything in this entire world is entirely limited. A thing that cannot be conceived of even in principal is also something that cannot actually be whole-ly mentioned or talked about at all - which if you think about it makes sense why we say such things are impossible. How are you supposed to make claims about an unmentionable thing? Whatever you mention is not actually talking about it, so its just kind of silly. Definitions require definite boundaries, limited beginnings and ends.

The answer to "How many future events will there be?" is not "Infinite". It is "There will never be a final number at all." That's the very nature of the distinction between actual and potential infinites to begin with. So Craig's argument against past infinity is fine as is, because he recognizes that to say the past is infinite = to say there have already been an infinite number of past events.

For the Kalam to be valid requires something like "everything that begins to exist has a cause". The original video that Trent claims to be rebutting shows why this is false, and this on its own refutes the Kalam. It also shows how William Lane Craig misuses the BGV theory. But Trent spends almost all of this video discussing whether an actual infinity can exist. Why didn't he address the other points in the original video? Could it possibly be because he has no rebuttal for them?

I always wonder if the people interviewed are just as deceptive as the people producing it. Craig shows an actual infinite hotel can't exist. Most mathematicians probably concur that no "hotel" could exist in the real world.

🇻🇦

Dr. Craig, its not subtracting the same quantities, they're different subsets of infinity. So it isn't surprising that there are different quantities left over.

Hey Trent, I’d love to hear your defense of evolution. I for most of my life believed in evolution, even if it may have been directed by God, however after i spent years teaching phd scientists at OSU, my mind was really changed. Im a linguist, not a biologist or paleontologist, so my job was to reduce the foreign phd students’ accents and teach them American pedagogical methods, so that they could teach undergraduate courses at OSU, which was part of keeping their research funding. So my classes consisted of 10 to 20 phd researchers from a wide variety of disciplines, from astrophysicists to molecular biologists and geneticists. My job was to listen to their practice lectures and I was to act as a student and test their ability to answer questions from a language standpoint. However, I was an intel analyst for the air force before getting into linguistics, so being essentially a former professional multidisciplinary researcher, I couldn’t help but test the disciplines against each other. I was shocked at how little the scientists knew about other disciplines. Even to the point where the physicists would contradict the biologists and so on. Even to point where I realized that the baseline evidence for things we take for granted, like evolution and the expansion of the universe fell utterly flat. I was seriously surprised to find that the empirical evidence for many theories is almost non existent. For example, there is no evidence from nature or a lab that genetic mutations exist in nature or in the lab. There is only evidence that genetic code can go missing, but there is no evidence that information can be added and passed on. This means there is evidence for devolution, or genetic entropy, but not evolution as I had been taught. So every genetic code on earth deteriorated over time, or has less information. This suggested to me that life is deteriorating not becoming more complex. Also, another example, the theory of red shift is the only empirical evidence for the expansion of the universe, however this has never been shown to be true in lab settings and that red shift is likely a misinterpretation of data. There is no other evidence that suggests an expanding universe, so this evidence has either been debunked or is incredibly weak depending on how you read it. The list could go on and on. I was also shocked to find out that radio carbon dating and the fossil record suggest that the top layers of the earth were laid at once, not over time, which would support a young earth and the flood. There isn’t any empirical evidence of an old universe without the expansion model, as radio carbon dating is incapable of dating beyond 10 thousand years or so. So, I’d love to know where you draw your support for evolution from? After years of teaching this course, I went from being an agnostic or atheist, to returning to the religion of my youth, thus after 30 years I reconverted to the Catholic Church.

Had a teacher at college who would get mad and correct anyone who said 'infinite' instead of 'approaching infinite' - he said it was an abuse of the mathematical language. He wore a shirt everyday that had the Ying yang symbol over the unit circle he was interesting.

I think jimmy akin is right when he says that everything logically possible is metaphysically possible, so I don't think the philosophical arguments for the kalaam work.

Time is not a "thing" that exists. Time is an observation of movement. Period. The observation can obviously differ according to many factors.

Any dissenters want to debunk the paper - “Torsion driving cosmic expansion” Or any other leading cosmological model which describes infinite cosmologies

That whole documentary just sounds like misrepresentation of Craig's proposition of infinity in the (meta)physical sense.

'It's possible if we just redefine what "full" means.' I suppose then that there is nothing that's impossible. Whatever it is, just redefine it til you get your way. We're seeing that everywhere these days, especially in women's sports and women's restrooms. This is part of what Fr. John Neuhaus meant when he said "What are intellectuals for but to complexify the obvious?"

Thanks for your work. I've realized that the true geniuses of this world are not those in the upper echelons of academia. The most intelligent and knowledgeable are actually the independent researchers who aren't as bogged down with worrying about conforming to the expectations of mainstream academia. I believe this has always been true. The true geniuses have always been those who got no, or little, recognition. Anyone who did get recognition may be intelligent, but they won't be pushing truth fully. I consider you to be very intelligent particularly due to your ability to explain very complex topics in a way that is easy to understand for anyone.

The level of dishonesty on Vilenkin is startling

A closed infinity would no longer be an infinity, so that objection to Hilbert's Hotel fails.

Nice vid

[QUESTION:] Just a theoretical speculation: What if an eternal, divine Creator - for whatever reason - has been creating since all eternity...? Wouldn't that mean that the creation (reality, cosmos, universe, world, existence) is eternal? Not inherently or by its own nature of course, but by divine ordination or "Fiat"? Corollary: If an eternal divine Creator has been creating from all eternity - and therefore, if the universe has always existed, just as the Creator has always existed - how would that affect Aristotelian/Thomistic causation-argumentation about God? The cosmos - as a product of divine mind and intention - would still be a derivative phenomenon, even though, like God, it has always existed, and so an eternally-created universe would not contradict God as First Cause.

I don't know I think Horn looks good through his new camera.

When the Church asserts that "God is not composed of parts" is this in an Euclidian sense, but not Cantorian - or is this a metaphysical and absolute assertion?

The first cause is 'anything that begins to exist' if it's a thing then zero don't apply. Zero means there isn't anything there. 45:46 "But what if we had an infinite amount of time..." This is to change the question and start another topic.

If the infinite past cannot exist in the real world outside of mathematics, then God cannot exist infinitely in the past outside of mathematics. So God's existence had a beginning. And as the kalam states, everything that begins to exist has a cause. So what I'd the cause of god. No doubt the answer will be either some kind of special pleading, or some kind of re-defining of terms to get out of a logical hole. I'd be interested to see if there is an answer to this conundrum that is neither special pleading or a redefining of terms.

If I have -1 (negative one) car and I sell it to an atheist mathematician, do they give me money and a car?

Excellent presentation. I also subscribe to the notion that only the present exists and the past is just an accumulation of permanent information of events that completed, and the future is just a set of potential states logically implied by the present.

WLC needs the concept of infinity to be only potential so that the Kalam works. But he relies on intuition which have been proven a realy bad tool to undersatnd reality. Many things that our intuition lets us believe are wrong.

infinity doesn't exist in the actual reality or the abstract reality, because the abstract reality is limited by the actual reality. Infinity is a theory, not something we can claim as truth.

Why was jimmy akin debating the negative of the kalam? Was he saying that God can create an infinite past and so it’s not a valid argument?