You ain’t a true Catholic if you haven’t read Trent Horns books in Latin

@issemayhem

11 ай бұрын

Latin? Bro, real REAL Catholics read his books in Koine Greek, ugh!

@mikeyangel1067

11 ай бұрын

🤣🤣🤣🤪🤪🤪 This is just funny. I wish I had one of Trent’s books in Latin, no kidding

@mbberry135

11 ай бұрын

I'm true Catholic, for I read Dei Verbum in the original Klingon. Lol. Please forgive me, I had to get that out. Please enjoy. Sincerely in Xto (Christo) Mike B. B. From Philly, P.A. U.S.A.

@Artaxian_Debacle

11 ай бұрын

Imagine the Gospel in cave paintings

@PeterMartyrVermigli_is_cool

11 ай бұрын

O Mother of Perpetual Help, thou art the dispenser of all the gifts which God grants to us miserable sinners; and for this end He has made thee so powerful, so rich, and so bountiful, in order that thou mayest help us in our misery. Thou art the advocate of the most wretched and abandoned sinners who have recourse to thee: come to my aid, for I recommend myself to thee. In thy hands I place my eternal salvation, and to thee I entrust my soul. Count me among thy most devoted servants; take me under thy protection, and it is enough for me. For, if thou protect me, I fear nothing; not from my sins, because thou wilt obtain for me the pardon of them; nor from the devils, because thou art more powerful than all hell together; nor even from Jesus, my judge, because by one prayer from thee He will be appeased. But one thing I fear: that in the hour of temptation I may through negligence fail to have recourse to thee and thus perish miserably. Obtain for me, therefore, the pardon of my sins, love for Jesus, final perseverance, and the grace ever to have recourse to thee, O Mother of Perpetual Help. This is a legit Catholic prayer, look up "O Mother of Perpetual Help" if you want to know if it’s legit. This is super heretical. This doctrine of invoking departed saints doesn’t seem just like "hey it’s like praying to a friend.".

Baptist apologist and theologian here. Despite our disagreements, I have a high respect for you when it comes to discussion and debates! Much love here❤

@S.LouisIX

Ай бұрын

Glad to see you hearing all perspectives, my brother in Christ! AVE CHRISTUS REX 💗💗

Some people have brought up Craig's flawed Christology or general Protestant beliefs that I should have addressed instead. I agree those are in error. But I chose this topic because this is Craig's flagship argument, so to speak, so it makes sense to address it from him. If Craig had built his career around defending monothelitism, for example, then I'd address that topic. But for now I think this is his "biggest mistake" in the sense of his major works.

@aaronmonteiro7185

11 ай бұрын

I was about to ask why you did not address his Protestant errors but thanks for clarifying.

@IIIUMlNATI

11 ай бұрын

Trent, you have any thoughts on bishop barron?

@therevivall

11 ай бұрын

@@aaronmonteiro7185 Catholicism adopted so many false things from the Paganism cult, which are denied by the believers of Christ and scriptures. Catholics made them protestant as they denied false things of Catholics. They don't have any identity or family card like Catholics family card. Read the Bible and understand the scripture.

@therevivall

11 ай бұрын

Dear brother, Don't explain from many different ideology books. Only read and understand the scripture of the Bible and follow accordingly.

@maciejpieczula631

11 ай бұрын

Craig debated this with Jimmy Akin on Pints with Aquinas.

I am hoping for a Trent/WLC conversation.

William Lane Craig is brilliant. My Catholicism must acknowledge that, respect it, and be grateful in using what is true in his work, passing over what I cannot agree with. I'm not surprised then that our best Catholic apologist has engaged Craig's work.

@radscorpion8

11 ай бұрын

lol

Though I'm a Protestant, Trent never disappoints me with his new video everytime ❣️ love this catholic dude

@catholicguy3605

11 ай бұрын

It's time to become Catholic friend.

@Kefa...

11 ай бұрын

"Though I'm a protestant" will get tons of likes💫

@DUZCO10

11 ай бұрын

The eucharist is real my brother. As written by St Ignatius of Antiochin 107AD, "They [the heretics] abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which the Father, in his goodness, raised up again." He was a direct deciple of the apostle John

@BenjaminAnderson21

11 ай бұрын

@@DUZCO10 Most historic Protestant traditions actually believe in the real presence of Christ's body and blood in the Lord's Supper. It is the modern Evangelical tradition that largely embraces memorialism.

@DUZCO10

11 ай бұрын

@BenjaminAnderson21 I suppose that's good for those more historic protestant traditions, but if to the extent they are more true to the historic belief of the eucharist, isn't it then best to go to the actual source of that belief in His holy Catholic and apostolic church? To quote St Ignatius again in His letter to the Philadelphians: "Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church."

Trent this was an excellent video as usual. However, I am extremely disappointed you didn't cover my niche problem with Craig's 30+ years of work. How come you don't solve my personal problem or all of the problems with Craigs work in a timely reasonable video? I dont understand why you focus on one topic and dont branch out into all apologetics problems in this video.😏

@TheCounselofTrent

11 ай бұрын

Believe it or not. It's actually intentional. If you feel singled out, you should. -Kyle

This channel is severely underrated!!

@Crusader-George

11 ай бұрын

I know right!

@r.m5883

11 ай бұрын

I know he should have at least a million followers

@mullcorin6810

11 ай бұрын

@@alonzoharris9049 thanks brah but I'll stick with the Christian trinity

@pdub69triniboy

11 ай бұрын

​@@alonzoharris9049incoming heretic 😂

@scroogemcduckismyspiritanimal

11 ай бұрын

​@@alonzoharris9049three persons in one God is not a logical contradiction

😂. This opening slayed. You nailed the stages. TST. Nice job Trent.

@extract8058

11 ай бұрын

Just earlier this week Joe Schmidt (someone who Trent is very buddy buddy with) posted a video attacking Craig and now suddenly this video gets posted... Is this a coordinated attack?

@alonsoACR

11 ай бұрын

​@@extract8058Why call it an attack? It's not refuting Craig's position, it's pointing out ways to strengthen it. The appropriate reaction to the video is gratefulness. Or so I think.

@CovocNexus

11 ай бұрын

What is up with black women's slang becoming so popular that even middle aged white men use it? Why are you saying "slayed?"

I think one important thing to remember is that not everything scientists say is scientific. Objections to scientific arguments from scientists aren't necessarily based on any actual science.

@jameseverett4976

6 ай бұрын

They're just people. They have biases, opinions, resistances to certain directions of thinking, and need funding to do their work, and in most cases that funding comes from someone who wants a particular outcome. "Science" has reached a stage where "it" can prove anything anyone wants it to.

My head hurts and I need to stop the video every few minutes. Yikes! Great work Trent! As a cradle Catholic you were the reason why I took my religion seriously. Thank you!

@ironymatt

11 ай бұрын

It's a "Kalam"ity, oh my! (13:04)

@lintoppthomas

11 ай бұрын

Religion can't save you.. Only relationship with Jesus Christ...Jesus rebuked religious people... Read your Bible

@boliussa

11 ай бұрын

His objections are problematic, but It's a very stupid thing to only do a video on. This is far more fitting as a blog post. or at least linking to a blog post. A written document is far more useful.

Bae grab my work boots we’re heading down the Lane to fix Craig

@valkyrieloki1991

11 ай бұрын

😂

@dbg-dabraziliangamer8163

11 ай бұрын

"Will" you really do that, sir?

@true_catholic

3 ай бұрын

@@dbg-dabraziliangamer8163 I’m surprised, he never responded, not even an “I am”

Thanks Trent. I too (as a Catholic) have much enjoyed William Lane Craig's debates/talks on YT.

How early do you have to wake up when staying at Hilbert's Hotel in order to catch breakfast before the bacon runs out?

@shlamallama6433

11 ай бұрын

Please someone tell me the answer, I'm on a trip and will actually be staying there!

@kellyepperson1619

11 ай бұрын

As long as you get there when only the odd numbered guests and a finite collection of even guests have gotten bacon, you're good. Once an infinite collection of even numbered guests has gotten theirs, the clock is ticking, and the bacon is running out!

@ironymatt

11 ай бұрын

You can never be early enough

Above my head. But I’m grateful someone is able to argue so powerfully.

@nickg5010

11 ай бұрын

It might be relevant to cosmology but what does it have to do with God?

@susand3668

11 ай бұрын

Dear@@nickg5010, everything has to do with God.

@kazumakiryu157

8 ай бұрын

​@@nickg5010well, we're trying to prove that the universe had a definite beginning, which would necessitate a cause outside the universe. See where we're going with this?

@nickg5010

8 ай бұрын

Not really - nor do I care ! @@kazumakiryu157

My favorite part of the video was the "kalam-ity" joke. Apparently it was the editor's favorite part too, since it popped up at around 13:03 and again at 13:20

Thanks for the philosophical workout Trent! I'll have to listen to this again to digest it all 😅

Trent I very much enjoy your videos. God bless you and your family.

What an astonishingly accurate portrayal of the WLC cycle.

@alisterrebelo9013

11 ай бұрын

I kinda skipped stage 2, because I was so grateful for his work in strengthening the thiestic position. I sort of acknowledged that no one person is perfect and unfortunately for WLC, his flaw is his Christology. Although, I was shocked the first time I heard someone call him a heretic without providing any context.

Trent you bring joy to a hopeless world

Sometimes I feel like I’m smart (or at least not dumb) and then I listen to a podcast like this and then I realize that I am, in fact, dumb. 😂 this is 100% out of my mental capacity. I’ll just leave the smart guys to talk about it and I’ll go play with my chickens 😂😂😂

@annmariefinnigan3096

11 ай бұрын

Lol 😂😅

@ironymatt

11 ай бұрын

There's all kinds of different sorts of smarts out there in real world land. I bet Trent sucks at playing with chickens

@harlowcj

10 ай бұрын

Far more likely is that you are indeed smart, but you don't have the foundation built to comprehend these arguments in real time. It's not so different from learning a new language. You wouldn't call yourself dumb on the basis that you don't speak Mandarin, but would recognize that it's a language that takes years of study to learn to speak fluently. Such is the language of philosophy.

🎯 Key Takeaways for quick navigation: 00:00 🎙️ Trent Horn introduces the topic of discussing William Lane Craig's Kalam cosmological argument. 01:11 🤷 Stages of engagement with William Lane Craig's ideas: hero worship, contempt, balanced appreciation. 02:16 🌌 The Kalam cosmological argument: Every being with a beginning has a cause. The universe began, hence it has a cause. 03:26 🌌 Craig's defense of premise 2 using modern cosmology and philosophical arguments. 05:02 📚 The role of scientific evidence as confirmation of the philosophical argument in the Kalam cosmological argument. 06:24 🚫 Arguments against the actual existence of an infinite number of things and the traversal of an actual infinite. 08:08 🔄 Different views on time: presentism and eternalism. Presentism affects the traversal argument for a finite past. 12:13 🔄 The symmetry objection: Arguments for a finite past can be applied to a finite future, weakening the Kalam argument. 13:35 🚧 Craig's argument revised: An infinite past allows impossible things to exist, leading to contradictions. 17:20 🏨 Analogies with Hilbert's Hotel and indestructible iron pellets illustrate the impossibility of an infinite past. 18:39 ↔️ Comparison of the effects of an infinite past to an infinite future clarifies differences and addresses the symmetry objection. 21:50 ⛓️ Causal chains cannot be infinite without leading to contradictions. 23:01 💡 A revised Kalam argument: An infinite past is impossible due to the potential for impossible effects. 23:54 🔚 Conclusion: A revised Kalam cosmological argument takes into account philosophical challenges and strengthens its position. 24:09 🧮 Infinite causal chains can lead to contradictions without a first member. 26:01 🚫 Rejecting an infinite past to avoid causal chains without a first member. 27:37 🧐 Newer Kalam argument formulation: Infinite past leads to contradictions; contradictions are not possible; therefore, the past is not infinite. 28:04 🙌 Acknowledgement and gratitude towards William Lane Craig for his work and influence on apologetics.

I truly appreciate the cut scene as you re-enacted the 3 types of people who know of WLC 😂 The comic scene is well placed in the beginning, whoever idea (you or your wife) is good

Great video Trent!

But wouldn't your point about Hilbert's Hotel only refuting there being an infinite number of things at the same "time" go toward showing that the B-theory of time and an eternal past cannot both be true? That is to say, if time is illusory and all moments exist right now, then Hilbert's Hotel would apply and it still can't be infinite. And I still think Craig's response to the "infinite future" rebuttal suffices. Just because you can't draw an infinite number of moments on a timeline doesn't mean there's something incoherent about potential infinites.

I'm at stage 1 but this video (and what I also learnt from the comments) has pushed me to stage 3. I will never go for stage 2. 🙂

@mattm7798

11 ай бұрын

Haha nice. Without God's infinite(pun intended) wisdom, we are all apt for mistakes. I'm so glad the Holy Spirit included thinks like Paul and Barnabas arguing over John Mark, or Paul rebuking Peter for sucking up to the legalistic Jewish Christians because it shows that although one can be saved and even an instrument in which God directly inspires His word to be written down...we are not perfect in this world.

While I like and admire Trent very much, it is a bit presumptious of Trent to just say Craig is wrong on all of these issues, now if you say I believe Craig is wrong on this or that and here is why, but to just say I am right and he is wrong without him being able to defend himself comes across as a bit arrogant to me, as WLC has spent the last 50 years working on these arguments. I think Trent is brilliant and would love to see a dialogue between these on different issues.

Thanks much for this video.

Nice use of syllogisms. Dr Trent.👍👍

Great video! I really appreciate your thoughtful and even-handed approach to these questions. I find the "infinite paper passing" thought experiment really interesting, but nonetheless I don't see it as a particularly strong challenge to the idea of an infinite past. It seems like the scenario assumes both an infinite past and a specific first event, which is almost trivially absurd. I would certainly accept that as a proof that an infinite past can't have a first event, but I don't think that's very illuminating.

@robertdolcetti450

11 ай бұрын

I agree. I didn’t like that example. The steel ball popping into existence makes much more sense.

I've always been in category 3, although I did love his lecture on the Criteria of Authenticity, in the context of Bart Erhman's misuse.

I've definitely gone away from WLC since getting into classical philosophy and realizing how important divine simplicity is, however at the end of the day he's still a man of God with a good heart bringing people to Christ and we should support him for that

Thank you.

Those poor hotel guests. The construction / deconstruction never stops.

@dougreformed8956

2 ай бұрын

It never stops but also never started. Craig is right

Ngl, I had no idea what Trent said. I don't really do philosophy. When I heard of the Hilbert Hotel thing a long time ago, I wondered how the room cleaners would have to work for infinity. But, he sounds very educated and smart! Lol Good job Trent! :D

Clicked the like button and it looked like it worked!

This is way above my pay grade😂😂😂. But great job Trent God bless u.

@michaellemmen

13 күн бұрын

Just look at 27:48 . I think people just get confused trying to keep up with Trent's explanation. But what's he positing is actually very simple. Again, Just look at 27:48

This was an excellent video Trent, thank you! And this is coming from a Protestant who used to dislike you a lot!

Great video! FWIF, it seems many philosophers of religion agree that the most formidable version of the Kalam is the one put forward by Alex Pruss and Robert Koons. Craig's version of the Kalam has been beaten to death by Oppy, Morriston, Malpass, Draper, Smith, and many others. Looking forward to the book on Atheism as well.

It seems like a very thoughtful video at first, but only to people who don't understand advanced physics and math. While eloquently spoken - philosophical arguments - by their nature - have no obligation to adhere with reality.

🤣🤣🤣🤣 I literally went through that series of thoughts on WLC. I never condemned him nor did I dislike him but, I did begin throwing in disclaimers and warnings when I recommended his books.

Terrific! My frustration with Craig and his defense of God and Christ lies in the many aspects of this explanation of the Kalam argument that you have presented. An "IF/THEN" argument is founded principally on the "IF" premise. And when using "INFINITY" as the beginning premise, we 'regular human beings' are immensely deficient in our understanding of infinity in terms of the creation of ALL creation. As you so clearly demonstrated from Cue: 13:49 and forward... We can move FORWARD from an Infinity we assume. But moving BACKWARD is a whole different "animal." What does infinity look like as it regresses? When does it "bump into" the first cause? I do appreciate all of the work Craig, you and other defenders of Christianity have put into such discussions. But, speaking as one who discounted God up and into my 40's before my personal conversion, I have never been compelled by the Kalam argument. I understand my misgivings much better with your presentation. Again, THANKS!

Trent please make a video defending the trinity

It seems like a major objection to your variant of Craig's argument, is simply to assert that what creates the actual infinity is the possibility for an infinite amount of particles in the universe. If new things cannot pop into existence except as rearrangements of particles (which is an objection Alex O'Connor brought up in your debate with him) and the universe is physically finite, then the contradiction is avoided since an infinite number of things can never exist in a single moment, due to the limited amount of matter.

Martin Luther once stayed at Hilbert’s Hotel. He had a few rooms removed he didn't particularly care for. (**ba-dum-tish**)

@halleylujah247

11 ай бұрын

😃

@ironymatt

11 ай бұрын

Thank ya, thank ya thank ya very much ladiesandgents

@rgvonsanktpauli6250

11 ай бұрын

@@ironymatt Catch my no-holds-barred Protestant stand-up at a super-monster-mega-church near you!! 😃

Trent, you definitely need to have a chat or debate with Jimmy Akin on this. He has good objections to the Kalam argument, and I would like to see you respond to what he calls the "first and last fallacy". God bless you all brothers

I honestly don't see how this is better or different

Very interesting

The funny thing about Malpass's response to Loke's thought experiment is that the impossibility of destroying the rooms is explicitly dependent on the present. For Hilbert's hotel to be impossible given an eternal future, it must be said that God cannot destroy, every day, a room in Hilbert's hotel (which exists in the present). However, for Hilbert's hotel to be impossible given an eternal past, it must be said that God cannot build a room every day. End. No reference to any events other than the individual days is made. So Trent's conclusion follows perfectly.

Thank you for introducing me to WLC.

Many things appear contradictory on the surface, but still have truth.

Excellent video. 13'06" and 13'21" - deja vu moment.

I haven't watched this yet, but I did watch WLC and J Akin debate the Kalam and Akin got rocked. I'm interested to see if Trent does a better job. Though Akin did bring up good critiques from a Catholic perspective, and in his defense, WLC is a master rhetorician so it's possible it just looked worse than it was in reality.

@don7502

11 ай бұрын

Why do you say Akin got rocked?

@carlossardina3161

11 ай бұрын

From what I saw, his objections were from Catholic Theology rather than philosophy. I also don’t see how Hilbert’s Hotel is not a logical contradiction.

@don7502

11 ай бұрын

@@carlossardina3161 On his website, Jimmy Akin has an article/post titled "Checking Out of Hilbert’s Hotel (Kalam Cosmological Argument)." I don't agree with everything Akin says in the article but he does show (imo) that the Hilbert hotel scenario doesn't involve any logical contradictions.

@carlossardina3161

11 ай бұрын

Unfortunately for Akin alluding to an article isn’t the best argument in a debate style discussion. Although, I’m interested in reading it.

@don7502

11 ай бұрын

@@carlossardina3161 He covered the same principles in the debate. I'll find the timestamps in a bit.

It is interesting that many voices in Physics and Cosmology avoid speaking about infinity. Mathematical equations which end up with infinity as an answer are assigned different boundaries(limits) to avoid such results.

I've struggled with Craig's argument on this, and I think this is genuine progress on the difficulties! Could you respond to the objection that every event is present in the mind of God into eternity, and thus represents and actual infinite? I've found Craig's idea of God binding Himself to time less than appealing. Is the this remedied through the idea that the collection ideas in the mind of God is not "actual" in some sense?

This is a fun recitation of your first discrete math college course. Infinity is weird and behaves counterintuitively!

An infinite past would still be moving in that direction, meaning that the whole causal reality could not hold true. Since new past events would be accruing, therefore changing the events.

@kazumakiryu157

8 ай бұрын

Oh yeah, you're right. Never thought about it that way. So, correct me if I'm wrong, you're saying that a past-eternal universe is also "occurring"/"unfolding" in the opposite "flow of time", so the past is always changing and therefore a past eternal universe would lead to an unstable present? I can see how this works, but I can also see a skeptic saying something like, "that's not how a past eternal universe works".

@JSRINTX

8 ай бұрын

@kazumakiryu157 Well, when you push them on explaining how it works. They will fall apart in making some vague argument that is basically atheism of the gaps. If they're really flustered, they'll try to use something like multi verse. Which they won't understand doesn't answer the question. But it just stretches it out to a longer time period. Just make sure that when they're answering. They are being consistent with what they say their foundation of reality is. So if they say their foundation is science and reason, show them how their arguments go against those. Science and reason are based on observation and causation.

@kazumakiryu157

8 ай бұрын

@@JSRINTX very well said, brother.

Ok cool this broke my brain. Going to have to watch this multiple times to grasp it. A lot of time, whatever that is, will be used to understand this haha

I intuited my own example to the infinite past problem that I’ve just realised is basically the same argument as Trent’s line with the paper. Imagine a ruler that extends to infinity behind you. Now you try to measure the on the ruler where you stand. It would be impossible for you to mark an increment on the ruler, because your 1cm increment would be based on the previous 1cm increment, which would be based on the previous 1cm increment…etc forever. Since there is no first increment, you’re never able to measure where yours would be.

I want to hear a whole time travel video from Trent

Trent you do a great job setting this up. You seem to be a lot more capable in arguments for God’s existence than you are in theological debates.

My boy Trent is wicked smaht! Hopefully, I understand this arguement well enough to use it as a point against atheists.

I believe you err in questioning WLC's use of the BGV Theorem since the theorum does, without question, state that in any expanding universe taken, naturally, in the inverse, has a beginning. You neglect to mention that Vilenkin confirmed Craig's assessment of the theorum. Also, Carroll commits an"Appeal to Authority Fallacy" in appealing to Guthe, who was a spectator, which is also against debate rules. I ask that you consider that these scientist claim not to know since they do not want a universe with a beginning since that does not comport to their worldview. Secondly, as scientist and philosophers argue, science is never settled hence Guthe's noncommittal response. Thank you and God Bless

Granted this conversation is making my head hurt just a little bit. But an analogy for an infinite past and future could be seen like a children's pop-up book. Imagine a book with infinite pages whose pages are infinitely thin they have no depth just height and width. So while those pages are together they are able to occupy no space. Only when you flip to a single page does that particular moment have depth. That particular moment would be the present. As soon as you flip to the next page you get a new present and the past becomes infinitely compressed with all of its past moments. Also the future is likewise compressed into a thickness that would prevent contradictions. So you could have an infinite number of moments occupying no physical space.

@kiryu-chan577

11 ай бұрын

God lives outside of time and can go back in forth into time....

@Circleofcocytus

11 ай бұрын

@@kiryu-chan577 some of the conversations I see sometimes get needlessly deep in my opinion. I think the mortal mind that is locked in this temporal reality is incapable of fully grasping a timeless existence. I can recall as a child having anxiety regarding the idea of eternity and existence. I actually was kind of frightened of the prospect of a never-ending existence, because it was so antithetical to what my material brain can handle. There is a book I read a long time ago called flatland where a being that lives in a two-dimensional universe is confronted with a three-dimensional being and is incapable of understanding its existence until it is physically removed from its own reality and shown how it works. Even then, when the being returned to its world it was unable to articulate the reality that it's seen and was if I remember correctly called mad.

@kiryu-chan577

11 ай бұрын

@Circleofcocytus Dude your brilliant. Yes the pop-up book analogy can work for dimensions that coincide with one another too. My tiny brain is mind blown. BTW, off subject but I have been contemplating lately that all these UAPs are from another dimension. Possibly because Christ is going to return soon.

@susand3668

11 ай бұрын

Dear@@Circleofcocytus, would the book you described about the three-dimensional being be "Flatland"? I loved that book!

@kazumakiryu157

8 ай бұрын

"This makes my head hurt" *proceeds to make everyone else's head hurt*

Would like to see Amazing Jimmy's take on this knowing he is one of the critics of the infinite past argument used by Dr. Craig.

Infinity is not a quantity. Infinity is a quality of a set. Done.

Regarding the example of passing a piece of paper to "Mr. Zero". Surely by definition of the paper originated at an infinite point away from him then it could not arrive. That is to say in infinite sequence movements to a terminus is impossible. Half of a half and so on...

Hi Mr Horn, could I ask if any progress has been made on the abortion debate with Destiny? I saw the community post where you said you were just deciding which channel to host it on 2 weeks ago so I was wondering if the debate is still on?

@TheCounselofTrent

11 ай бұрын

It looks like we will be on the Whatever podcast next week.

@littledrummergirl_19

11 ай бұрын

@@TheCounselofTrent will it be like a formal debate setup with timed openings, rebuttals, crossfires etc…? Or will it be more like the conversation style of Lila and Kristen’s discussion/argument with Destiny?

@someguyontheinternet2729

11 ай бұрын

Trent said that it'll be on the Whatever podcast so I'll assume that it will just be an informal dialogue/conversation between the two. Watching the "debate" between Lila and Destiny, and having been a long time destiny viewer, I think Trent should have just asked Destiny to an actual structured debate and there's a lot of platform that they can do that like the Modern day debate channel. Destiny's way of arguing is what I would call "aggressive fast talking" he's style is to actually make his interlocutor lose their patience because of his obnoxious way of speaking. Trent's a level headed person but I doubt destiny won't pull that same attitude towards their dialogue. A structured debate is far better Trent do thay instead.

Trent, Jimmy Akin has an article on his website titled "Checking Out of Hilbert’s Hotel (Kalam Cosmological Argument)." I don't agree with everything Akin says there but I think it's useful to show that the difficulties posed by the Hilbert hotel scenario are practical dificulties based on the physical structure/laws of the universe (which in theory could be alterted or suspended). But those practical difficulties aren't logical difficulties/contradictions. So I don't think premise 1 of your modified kalam argument need be accepted.

I feel like the situation as you describe it with regard to views of time is the opposite: most people I think hold to eternalism which is how we get time travel movies, but the philosophers I know hold presentism.

Sooooo.... what exactly was the mistake WLC made? I don't see how his argument is invalid. Philosophically speaking it makes sense to say that in order to get to the present day, we could not have traversed an infinite number of days, therefore the universe had a starting point. If the universe had a beginning, it logically follows that God exists. I am pretty sure that is all WLC is saying. What did I miss?

If you assume a hilbert room (existing infinitely), why do you need iron pellets to prove anything more? If an infinite item is a given, then why is it necessary to prove anything more?

You should respond to Craig’s position of God being “in time”. I must say I found Craig’s argument very convincing as it resolves a lot of the challenges that may come from the timeless interacting with those in time.

@don7502

11 ай бұрын

Many classical theist (who hold that God is timless) offer solutions to such difficulties (Gaven Kerr and Eleonore Stump are 2 that have discussions available on youtube on such topics). Also Craig doesn't just hold that God is in time. He holds that God sans creation is timeless but with creation he is temporal, which is not possible. Timelessness and temporality are modes of existence. His position is like saying something can be immaterial and then become material.

@bruhmingo

11 ай бұрын

@@don7502 thanks for the resources, I’ll check these out. Craig’s position is not that God became a temporal being, but that he entered the temporal realm. To some extent you must believe this is possible, as we accept the incarnation. If God can willingly humble himself as a human, I see no reason to think he cannot willingly enter our temporal experience.

@TheCounselofTrent

11 ай бұрын

I may do that but I think Craig's approach creates more problems. Craig says God is timeless without creation and temporal with creation. This would imply that God changes when he creates, but classical theism holds that God is pure act and so he cannot change.

@don7502

11 ай бұрын

@@bruhmingo As I understand it, Craig's poistion is that God ceases to be timeless once He enters the temporal realm. (If his position is that, once He enters the temporal realm, God is both timeless and temporal then that's just nonsensical.) For the classical theist, in the Incarnation God doesn't cease being eternal anymore than he ceases being God. That is, He doesn't go from being timeless to being temporal; and He doesn't go from being God to being human. Rather he unites to Himself (hypostatic union) a temporal, human nature.

@yajunyuan7665

11 ай бұрын

@@TheCounselofTrent Classical theism denies the incarnation, that is an objective change which does not negate His omniscience and omnipotence.

Can anyone tell me who was the original creator of "passing the paper" analogy? It's extremely illustrative and well made

God bless WLC! ❤🙏💕 He helped me see the errors of Protestantism & become Catholic. And Trent has helped me stay that way.😉

@jwatson181

11 ай бұрын

Just curious, why are you Cathalic? You just don't get anything close to the Marion dogma until the 5th century. Even Cathalic apologist admit it is a late addition.

@jwatson181

11 ай бұрын

@nauticalmiles8752 sinlessness.... Cathalic apologists even admit this is a late tradition. It is directy contradicted in the Bible. Obviously, people had respect for Mary.

@jwatson181

11 ай бұрын

@nauticalmiles8752 They all agree. It is scholarly consensus. One question, why do you reject what the Bible says about all of us being sinners?

@jwatson181

11 ай бұрын

@@nauticalmiles8752 could you answer my question about the scripture? Why believe something specificly rebutted in the Bible? Why not just be protestant?

@jwatson181

11 ай бұрын

@@nauticalmiles8752 for all have sinned and fell short of the glory of God. Roman 3.23

I came across a video from “The Magic Skeptic” called “5 ways to know that God exists, debunked - when theists fail” where they guy goes over one of the Thomistic Institute videos (that gives an introduction to all the 5 ways, not in depth). I’d be interested to hear Trent respond to the arguments he makes; there’s one where he claims (at least) the first 3 ways commit a fallacy of composition where what’s true of the parts of the universe, like having potentiality and actuality, causality, and contingency, is not necessarily true of the universe itself; or that quantum mechanics disproves Aristotelian physics which invalidates Aquinas’s thought.

I had a filtered stage 1 since i heard the Kalam argument referred to by others first (Brandon Vogt) but I got hit with both 2 and 3 at the same time watching Jimmy Akin and WLC together!

I'm a bit surprised that you made no mention of the work of Georg Cantor.

I think that one of the most common mistakes thelogians make is applying relative concepts which are useful to function in everyday life to the sphere of the transcendent. We should take the discoveries in physics seriously which showed that laws of nature are quite different at the level of the smallest compared with the macroscopic. If that is the case in physics, how more so when it comes to the truly transcendent. Beginning and cause are fine concepts to deal with everyday life or even with the the macrocosm, but how certain are we that those concepts are still valid in the transcendent. For instance cause and effect might be meaningful in time, but as creation is per definition outside of time, the notion of something causing something else or something having a beginning might be illusory. When we state that the universe has a beginning, we assume that the universe even is a thing. Moreover, we only know that within the universe cause and effect make sense, but what makes you believe that cause and effect exist before the universe. Moreover cause and effect are only meaningful when there is separation - a this causing something else. Separation itself is a perceptual phenomenon - boundaries are seen through perception - there are no actual boundaries in the physical universe. Even in Craigs presentation he is talking about an infinite number of past things. Now what would a "thing" be. The notion of a thing or object comes from out practical requirements in everyday life, where a thing is something else than another thing. However who sais that this concept has absolute validity. It's like assuming that borders are a valid concept in absolute reality. The biblical stories when talking about absolute reality must necessarily lend ideas from our practical lives to communicate ideas. But we should not assume that these ideas apply to absolute reality.

I dont buy the symmetry argument. Past and future are assymetrical.

I’m not too up to date on all the time, infinite, paradox, etc terms and scenarios going on in this video 😅 just not how my brain operates. But the Grandpa Paradox just makes me think of Futurama where Fry fixes the “killing your grandpa” issue: Become your own grandpa! 😂😂 which then saves you from being mind controlled by a bunch of floating space brains while the rest of the world falls to stupidity 😅.

This is why I favor Classical Theism and why it makes sense that it is taught by the Catholic Church. It is the only airtight defense of theism in my view.

That hotel theory went way over my head haha

solidly in stage 1 at the moment

Yeah I'm definitely at stage 1 at this point but then again I'm at stage 1 with Trent. I wonder what will it take to take me to stage 2 for both of you guys xD.

I have a different argument for the Ground of Being that does not invoke the argument (as old as ilm al-Kalām as presented by al-Ghazzali but modified otherwise by such as Thomas Aquinas) against an infinite causal series. My argument involves four ideas and one fact: (1) everything either is of its own or is radically created by another; (2) every thing either acts because its activity inheres in its being or has no activity inherent in its being, unless its activity is created; (3) if an entity whose activity inherent in an entity ceases to act, it must cease to be; (4) I cease to act (I do it all the time, it's called "sleep"); (5) hence my activity is created.

I put it this way: The present moment is actuallized by the past moment, and itself actualizes the potentiality of the future moment. This analysis of temporal relation renders the causal series of actualities in time (moments) a _per se_ series. Q.E.D. The past is not symetrical with the future, and not infinite. [Offer any critiques, corrections, or rebuttals you find necessary: help me finish my thought.]

This has always been my favorite though experiment against an infinite past. A light bulb switches on and off in 1 second intervals from an infinite past. What state is the lightbulb in now? Any answer to the question seems like a contradiction. So the past can't be infinite.

@galaxyzoom3403

8 ай бұрын

wow

Playing minecraft with trent in the background is a vibe

Have you considered responding to Craig Truglia’s Errors of the Catholics video?

Have Craig on now!

Craig actually responded Horns' objections on his Reasonable faith podcast. It would be worth listening to them too.

Holy crap Laura Horn’s husband is smart?!

@karenglenn2329

11 ай бұрын

I need to revisit this podcast. But l need a Laura Trent podcast to make sense of my mundane life.l am 'infinitely 'grateful for both of them.

Thanks for the video! One question though: Couldn't you refute the premise that an infinite past involves contradictions with the premise that indestructible objects (such as the paper being passed or the iron coming into existence) are impossible because such indestructible objects would have to traverse an infinite number of steps (days)? If there are no objects that can exist forever, traversing an infinite to reach the present, than I don't see any obvious contradictions in an infinite past -- if the past no longer exists!

Interesting video. What are your thoughts on Meyers's Return of the God Hypothesis?

«We’re absolute beginners…» Bowie

@ironymatt

11 ай бұрын

Scott Lucas and the Married Men do a cracking version of Absolute Beginners

@ironymatt

11 ай бұрын

Their live version is the go-to

WLC's biggest mistake is his defense of neo-appolinarism.

@mattm7798

11 ай бұрын

When you get into the hyper specifics of the nature of God and more over, how the incarnation worked down to that detail, I don't think we can be dogmatic. We see in the NT, the rejection of gnosticism and what would later arise in Arianism, but as to how exactly the mind, soul and such worked with Jesus in His incarnation, not sure we can be dogmatic.

The Reformed theologian Karl Barth actually did believe that the future was finite, because he believed the Bible affirmed the notion that time would end. He dismissed the notion of heaven as living in an otherworldly paradise as "pagan"

WLC is a wonderful man but I agree with Trent's criticism and of course its always surprising that intelligent people of good will can miss the clear truth of the religion Christ founded personally, Catholicism.

Trent was awesome in Whiplash.