Did the Universe Begin to Exist? William Lane Craig + Alex Malpass

my name is Cameron Bertuzzi and I am exposing you to the intellectual side of Christian belief today I'm hosting a live discussion between dr. William Lane Craig and dr. Alex Malpass about the Kalam cosmological argument and instead of debate every aspect of the argument we decided to narrow in on the second premise that the universe began to exist the full argument goes basically like this everything that begins to exist as a cause the universe began to exist so therefore the universe has a cause and then in the version of the argument that dr. Craig gives he argues that the cause of the universe has properties that are very close to God spaceless timeless non-physical causeless powerful and also personal if you want to learn more about apologetics you want to see intelligent conversations between Christians and non-christians such as the one that you're about to see today then make sure to hit the subscribe button on my channel and turn on the little notification bell to all videos that way you can get notifications and come watch all the cool things that I'm that I'm hosting and the new videos that we're putting out so let me go ahead and introduce my guests here let me actually pull up my interview scene here I'm using some new software so I'm still kind of getting used to everything so I've got dr. William Lane Craig and dr. Alex Malpass let me just give some brief introductions dr. William Lane Craig needs very little introduction I think if you're watching this and you're interested in apologetics you probably know about him in his work he has two PhDs one in philosophy and the other in history he's debated some of the most popular atheists all over the world many regard him as the greatest living Christian apologist he runs a popular online ministry called reasonable faith that receives millions of views every year no doubt he may very well be the reason that you tuned in to watch this discussion dr. dr. Alex Malpass has been on capturing Christianity actually a few times now he has a PhD also in philosophy he's written blog posts and even some peer-reviewed articles criticizing the Kalam cosmological argument in a few different ways dr. Mel past like I said has been on capturing Christianity a couple times the first time we hosted him he was in conversation with dr. Luke Barnes on the fine-tuning argument the second discussion was between him and dr. Kirk McGregor on the grounding problem for mullen ism so if you'd like to check out those discussions check the link in the description of the video I have a link to all of the play a playlist of all of our past discussions of for the past two or your two or so years I've been hosting discussions like this about once a month so we do have a backlog of discussions if you want to go check those out I've hosted discussions between dr. Graham hoppy and dr. Josh Rasmussen dr. Graham moppy and dr. hood fazer and many many others so go check those out again the link is in the description all right so let me just lay out some of the basic format of how it's gonna go today and we've talked about this and we decided I think this is going to be what we're gonna try to stick to this as close as we can so the first hour and a half of the show today is going to be dedicated to discussion between dr. Alex Malpass and dr. William Lane Craig and the last 30 minutes will feature a live Q&A with the audience so this is going to be a very well attended live event so if you want to make sure that your question is asked during that last 30 minute period you may need to send it as a super chat going back to the discussion period the first hour and a half the the hour and a half time will actually be slit into split into two different sections so the first section we're going to devote to one argument that dr. Craig gives in defense of the beginning of the universe it's a philosophical argument both arguments were looking at or philosophical in nature and the second half of the show will feature the second argument and so with that dr. Craig why don't you go ahead and take it away so the first one is an argument against a beginningless past based on the impossibility of an actually infinite number of things so why don't you take a few minutes spell out the argument and then we'll get into this guy Thank You Cameron good to be with you today and good to meet you too Alex for the first time by way of background ever since I was a boy I have been fascinated with the question of the infinitude of the past I remember lying awake in bed at night thinking of the temporal regressive events going back and back and back every event preceded by another infinitely and it just seemed to me inconceivable that that could be the case it seemed to me there had to be a beginning for everything to get started well little did I know that in fact this argument had been discussed for literally centuries by some of the greatest minds in western world history it goes all the way back to the efforts of 5th century Alexandrian church fathers to refute Aristotle's doctrine of the Eternity of the world and when Islam swept across North Africa this intellectual tradition was absorbed into Islam where it became extremely sophisticated during medieval Islamic times it was then passed on to Jewish thinkers in Muslim and Spain who lived side by side with Muslims and they in turn transmitted the argument back into the Christian Latin West and the argument has pitted great minds in each tradition against one another Altus Ali versus have been Lucien sadhya been gaya and versus Moses Maimonides Thomas Aquinas versus Bonaventure ah the argument came to something of an indecisive halt in Immanuel Kant's thesis concerning his first antinomy about time in his great critique of Pure Reason in 1781 cut argued that the question of the finitude of the past has decisive rationally compelling arguments for opposite conclusions and that therefore it shows the bankruptcy of Reason in giving us knowledge of reality well after several centers of Eclipse this argument has come roaring back into prominence in the late 20th and early 21st century I think largely as a result of remarkable discoveries in Astrophysical cosmology which point to the Past finitude of the universe thus making people more open to the idea that the universe began to exist and so I've defended two philosophical arguments as you say in defense of this premise the first one is based upon the impasse the existence of an actual infinite and the second is based upon the impossibility of forming an actual infinite by successive addition now the first argument goes basically like this an actually infinite number of things cannot exist second beginningless series of events in time is an actual infinite 3 therefore beginningless series of events in time cannot exist and the crucial premise I think in this argument is the first that an actual infinite cannot exist viewers need to understand the difference between an actual infinite and potential infinite for most of Western world history the only concept of the infinite that was available was that of a potential infinite this is the idea of a collection which has a finite number of members but is always increasing limitlessly or rather with infinity as a limit it is increasing endlessly with infinity as a limit however in the late 19th century the German mathematician Georg Cantor developed infinite set theory he regarded the potential infinite as not the true infinite rather the true intent is the idea of an actual infinite in which you have a collection that it is not increasing toward infinity as a limit rather it actually has an infinite number of elements in that collection and Commodore was able to develop a whole system of transferring a finite arithmetic based upon this theory now the question is can an actual infinite exist in reality can an actual infinite be instantiate 'add in the real world skeptics argue that it can and as evidence of this they will give thought experiments illustrating the sort of absurdities that would result if you could have an actually infinite number of things one of my favorites is the brainchild of the great German mathematician David Hilbert called Hilbert's hotel Hilbert asks us to imagine as a warm-up a hotel with a finite number of rooms and he says suppose furthermore that all the rooms are occupied if a new guest shows up at the front desk asking for a room the manager apologizes sorry all the rooms are full and the new guest is turned away but now Hilbert says imagine a hotel with an actually infinite number of rooms and suppose furthermore that every room is occupied this needs to be clearly understood there is a real flesh-and-blood person in every room throughout the infinite hotel now suppose a new guest shows up at the front desk asking for a room of course says the manager and he shifts the guest who wasn't room 1 into room 2 he takes the guest who was in room 2 and puts him in room 3 he takes the guest who was in room through him puts him in room 4 on out to infinity as a result of these transpositions room 1 now becomes vacant and the new guests gratefully checks in and yet before he arrived all the rooms were already full in fact Hilbert says an infinite number of new guests could show up at the front desk asking for a room the proprietor says no problem no problem and he shifts the guest who was in room 1 into room 2 the guest who was in room 2 into room for the guest who was in room 3 into room 6 and so on out to infinity moving every guest into the room number twice his own now since every number multiplied by two is always an even number as a result of all these transpositions the odd burg rooms become vacant and so the infinity of new guests gratefully checks in and yet before they arrived all the rooms were already occupied I think that Hilbert's hotel illustrates very dramatically that the existence of an actually infinite number of things in reality is metaphysically impossible and since there's nothing about a hotel that is special in this case this argument goes to show that you cannot have an actual infinite in reality all right so let's pick it up there Alex would you like to yeah where would you like to begin with this so I guess one place to start is at the right start of this of course the term actual infinite and the term potential infinite is coined by Aristotle and then I'm stopped had a different beautiful writing Aristotle thought that the past was infinite and the future was infinite and he thought that you couldn't have an actually infinite and I claimed that couldn't exist and but the way he reconciles that is that the past the infinite passed in the infinite future are potentially and they're not actually infinite and that's because I roffels understanding of an actual infinite is something like this where the infinite so a quantity is actually infinite and Aristotle sense if it's in if it's infinitude is present all at the same time and a quantity is potentially infinite if it's infinity too spread out over time right so a line can be potentially infinitely divided in our local center look if you can keep dividing it right over time and keep cutting it in half cutting in half very fast if the infinite infinite divisibility is spread out over time there's no what one point in time where it's it's completely divided like the division is never it's never finished right so that way you think so if an infinity is spread out over time then it's potentially infinite and and if you think come to think about the extent of time obviously time itself the infinite past is never infinite at any one point right it's infinitude is spread out over time each time so that's in that sense you can reconcile those two ideas so just just to put a marker in the sand that there are different ways of using these terms in fact there are lots of overlapping in terms that use them on the terminology because it's similar use the same words into actual and potential in that Aristotelian metaphysics means something slightly different to how they do in this particular issue of infinity right so it's not necessarily the same thing to say that potential influence is to do with potentialities that will come actualize for instance a potential infinite can never become an actual infinite according to Aristotle and Anna called himself so it can't be a potential infinite just means something that could become infinite like that's not what the word potential infinite means it it so for the sake of our conversation I'm more than happy to just use use the terminology the way the bill does because and we're really talking about semantic difference here so for the tension to infinity is just something that's increasing over time while remaining finite but approaching infinity it's a limit didn't ever get to that's that's perfectly fine with me I mean there's there's contemporary skepticism about the coherence at the notion of potential infinite and you can find lots of philosophy of mathematics literature of people expressing doubt there's a coherent notion there again I'll leave that to one size was not that's not important but for our conversation so let's move on second bill brings up the idea of helpers hotel and you know there are a ton of these examples Hilbert's hotel is one of the more famous ones there's a similar example it's often called Craig's library which asks you to imagine a library which has infinitely many books on its shelves and then you can construct similar kind of scenarios like that like the one that they'll be you know check out a book from the infinite library and ask how many books there are left well that's the same number of books left as there was before you check that book out and it's so in that way what we're doing is generating yes absurdities which play around with it property there infinite actually infinite sets have that we can call Cantor's property which basically just says that you can if if a set or collection is is infinite then you can line up proper parts of it with the whole you can show that proper parts have our equinumerous with with the whole so there's just as many even numbers as there are whole numbers for instance and so any of these absurdities it seems to me always play on that property so anything with that property is problematic and can't be instantiated by anything concrete or take it that that's those fundamental metaphysical claim here and while I sort of sympathetic with that maybe it's intuitive right I think I do also wonder that it's not quite clear to me that there's necessarily a contradiction involved and there could be it depends how we draw draw out the absurdity and unless we do bring out a contradiction it's not quite clear to me if saying that something is absurd is the same as saying that it's impossible I mean I kind of feel like a third cert things well absurdity is kind of in the eye of the beholder right like I mean quantum mechanics has implications that many people would have considered to be absurd prior to their kind of empirical confirmation of superposition for instance sound seems a third quantum tunneling like you know how can something moved through a solid body to them without breaking through it like a bullet or something and yet that sort of thing happens and quantum teleportation but blah blah blah so there are things that you could think of as being absurd but we've grown to live with their weird consequences and I sort of feel like I'm I think some philosophers anyway there's a decent chunk of philosophers who feel the same way as I do about that that very well they may be absurd these consequences of actually infinite things but we would to see slightly more than that for us to feel confident in embracing the same conclusion that builders about that I mean maybe there are things that I think are absurd that are real right so maybe I could embrace an absurd thing right and philosopher has to be particularly open-minded about about the strangeness of reality and it might be that that's the case so there another thing that comes to mind real quick one of the things that comes to mind is quantum mechanics how the superposition there's a few different things in quantum mechanics it seemed on the on the face of it seemed absurd but you know we sort of just accept them because that's what we observe that's right so and I wonder whether maybe if I flew off in a spaceship and found a Hilbert's hotel in some particularly weird part of the universe and the doorman was particularly amiable and made room for me even though it was for one of those weird Star Trek episodes and that's what happens in that part of the years I don't know like you know Adams style view of the possibilities inherent in such a large place I mean I'm not saying I think that that's there of course obviously I'm just saying that strangeness is not a reliable guide for impossibility it seems to be not infallible going to a possibility anyway why don't we pause there and get Craig's thoughts and their wall will like because you have you have a bunch of different thoughts and objections to this to this first part so let's get Craig's thoughts here and then we'll move on Aristotle's position that Alex mentioned with regard to the infinitude of the past as a potential infinite was also the position adopted by Thomas Aquinas in his attempt to resist the arguments of the Arabic theologians and philosophers who argued against the infinitude of the past and it seems to me that this is a quite hopeless notion given a certain theory of time called the tensed theory of time I think it does make sense to treat the series of events later than any point in time as potentially infinite the number events will always be finite but increasing endlessly toward infinity as a limit but I think it makes no sense at all to treat the past as potentially infinite in order for the past to be potentially infinite it would have to be finite yet growing in the earlier than direction and that's just completely contrary to the nature of time which involves temporal succession of one moment after another in the later than direction so we mustn't confuse the mental regress of counting events beginning in the present and going into the past with the actual real progress of advance in time which would involve in a case of the beginningless series events without a beginning and then growing forward in time and if we were to ask how many events have transpired up to now the answer would be an actually infinite number of events if we were to divide time into hours and say how many hours have elapsed prior to the present hour the answer would be an actually infinite number of hours and that is true at every point in the infinite past at every point in the infinite past an infinity of events an actual infinity of events has already been instantiated in reality whether it whereas if you begin at a point in time and go forward in the later than direction on a tense theory of time you will have simply a finite number of events and ever more events being added successively so I'm not persuaded that the two mystic Aristotelian answer to these arguments is at all plausible now alex is certainly right that when we appeal to these absurdities we are not talking about logical contradictions or incoherences Jose been our debt in his book on infinity says that there's no logical contradiction involved in these monstrosity z-- but you have only the get them in there concrete reality to see that this is metaphysically impossible and there you can just multiply these illustrations endlessly been added gives an example of what we could call been our debts book which is a book in which the first page is one-inch thick very thick first page the second page is a half inch thick the third page is a quarter inch thick and so on to infinity each page being a half the thickness of the prior page so Benedict says let's turn the book over so that the back cover is facing us now he says slowly lift the back cover and ask what do you see there's nothing there to see because there is no last page of the block and if you try to touch that with your finger he says there will be an invisible barrier preventing your finger from penetrating the pages of the book what up to me after a while these kinds of absurdities just become so massive that it's no longer credible to think that such a thing could really exist and this is not at all like quantum mechanics that depends on your interpretation of quantum mechanics there are at least ten different physical interpretations of the mathematical formalism of quantum mechanics and I and many philosophers of science would agree that the Copenhagen interpretation the sort of traditional interpretation given by Niels Bohr is absurd but there are plenty of good interpretations of quantum mechanics that are fully deterministic that don't involve these sorts of bizarre results and therefore I don't think that's a good counter example so my strategy is that of Ludwig Wittgenstein Vic and Stein in answer to David Hilbert who said no one will drive us from the paradise the Cantor has created for us Stein says I wouldn't dream of trying to deprive anyone from this paradise instead he said I'd do something quite different I tried to show them that it's not a paradise so that you'll leave of your own accord he said I would say just look about you you're welcome to this and that's the same approach that I would take if you're willing to swallow these sorts of them series it's okay I can't I can't move you from that but I'm gonna leave the cantorian paradise to the realm of the conceptual rather than the realm of the real okay um I I'm gonna try and not respond to everything that feels to me like I want to respond to you so I mean we could keep talking about Aristotle's idea but but let's put a pin in that because it's not the most directly relevant thing and I'm quite happy to concede that the quantum mechanics analogy is an analogy only and it's not it's not absurd in the same way as the proposal back to the infinite things would be quite happy with that being bet they're different I mean there's only growing a passing analogy to illustrate the point I think I'm happy with him being different and very let me just very quickly say Benedetti he is very skilled at bringing out crazy crazy sounding implications of the actual implement that's true that's where we get the grim reaper paradox from for instance as well as well as a number of others and but but Benedetti was a defender of the actually not the book they that we're talking about the infinite Esther an essay in metaphysics is it you know it hits him trying to defend the possibility of the act of infinite so yeah he's a guy who's often wheeled out is someone who's showing you I shouldn't believe that these things exist but you know he was quite happy with them existing he has weird he's willing to expand his horizons beyond what many people are comfortable doing in order to try and understand what things would be like if they're if that was real so he's not only an enemy for you know the actual infinite even though he gives the enemies of the actual infinite much of their ammunition that that's that's very true but so let's put all the that's a one side it seems what I was hoping we could talk about a bit was a type of objection right which I written the paper with where's Morrison which you've read where so them trying to get out the basic contours of this objection so this isn't really a direct objection to this argument Alex I should mention that I've linked if you guys want to read Alex's paper or co-written paper with dr. Morrison check out the link in the description of the video I put a link there so if you guys want more if you you hear him explain it and you want to read more about it then you can check for it there okay cool thanks so this objection isn't direct and a direct objection to the argument that we're looking at right now rather it's as Craig said recently in print that this is an ad hominem and in a way is an ad hominem right but it's not an ad hominem in the sense of the fallacy ad hominem where what you're doing is is sort of attacking the person instead of the argument right what this is it's an ad hominem in that sort of nuance philosophical usage of that term which means drawing attention to it it's sort of conflicts between beliefs held that the person making the argument has and the implications that the argument that they're making might have for their beliefs right and so this is similar to the way I think they'll uses the moral argument right because I think an atheist could accept that there's no moral values if God doesn't exist and just bite the bullet and say ah I guess there's no moral values then and be a moral nihilus or something um and if so then did moral arguments not for him like but if there was an atheist who wanted to say that there are moral values then they have to unexplained how there are no values if God doesn't exist right and then the moral argument is kind of difficult for them if it's a puzzle that they have to answer and in that sense that it seems to me that the moral argument functions as an ad hominem in that way it's posing difficulty but how do you reconcile their moral argument with your belief that there are moral values right in here then that's how my arguments going to work right I think Bill's belief is that it's possible that the future has no end to it I think that's something that he thinks is true and that might be for theological reasons it might just be for metaphysical reasons and I think that the the argument that we've just been talking about which says if the past was have no beginning it would be an actual infinite can be mirrored into an argument in the future tempest so you effectively saying if the future has no end to it then there will be and an actually infinite number of events right so we could we could say that we can imagine an angel singing a praise to God once a day presumably angels are immortal so if the time has no end to it the future is never going to end you could ask how many praises will the angels sing right and it seems like it couldn't be any finite number of praises if the future has no end to it it would be just the same as if you said imagine angel has been singing for the whole of beginningless son you'd say actually the infinite number and it feels to me about once we switch the tenses around in question future are you are you Craig are you hearing some some breaking up here yes that's right I am Cameron I'm not getting all of Alex here it's breaking up okay so Alex you broke up just for a little bit but it looks like you might be back so so yeah just repeat the last couple of sentences so I'm saying if you thought of an angel who had been singing praises to God once a day throughout an infinite past and you asked how many praises has the angel son you would say and that he has sung an actually infinite number of praises and if we consider an angel who's singing praises throughout any infinite future if we ask how many praises will he sing we should give the same answer he will sing an actually infinite number of praises the only difference is that we've changed tense from the past tense to the future tense and it seems to me that that change of tense doesn't make any difference to how many praises there are it just changes our perspective on whether their past or future but if you think that there can't be an actually infinite number of things like builders then you should think that the future can't be endless waiting it must come to an end at some point so this is a question of how do you reconcile the belief that the future it's possible - the future is endless with this mirroring like temporal mirroring of the argument we were just discussing and I think Bill's got a couple of symmetry breakers that he proposes which get around this objection or attempt to get around the objection so let me hand over to Bill and Cameron was that clear do you think my my argument yeah I think so and I'm gonna give a quick summary of it real quick just from from my perspective and then you can correct me if I'm wrong so it sounds like what you're saying is that when we're looking at the past there's an infinite number of things the person who wants to say that the past is infinite there's an infinite series of events that happened but what you're saying is that just in the same way as there's an infinite number of things in the past if we think about something that's happening in an endless future like angels then we still have an infinite number of things and it would be an actual infinite if we ask the right question if we say how many times will this angel or how many times will that's the emphasis I want to put how many times will this angel let's repeat this phrase and the answer will be if the future is infinite and if they are actually singing this every day then the answer will be an infinite number of things and so what you and Morstan point out in the paper is that there's got to be some kind of symmetry breaker and I think that's a technical term that might go over the heads of some of the audience that's that's watching but a symmetry breaker is where in Craigs case when he wants to say when the past there can't be an infinite series there can't be an infinite past because of at least with this first argument against an actual infinite if this works against a infinite past what Alex and Morrison are saying is that it's also going to work against an infinite future and so you can't have an infinite future or you've got to find some breaker between the situation with the past and the situation with the future and it doesn't seem like we have that kind of breaker at least that's what what Alex and Morstan believe in are you in the paper so I think that was I saw you nodding a bunch so hopefully that was that was enough yes well I have a five-point response to this of course you do the first two responses show problems with the objection itself the second three provide reformulations of the argument that break the parallelism clearly between past and future now I won't try to talk about all of those now so as not to dominate the conversation but alex has already anticipated my first point and raised it for me namely I think that this argument is just an ad hominem objection it doesn't expose any flaw in the reasoning it doesn't show any fallacy in the argument for the finitude of the past all it says is that it applies with equal force to the future and it is aimed therefore at only certain people for example those who believe in person Nolan tality or those who believe in angels or in the case of Andrew Lopes formulation those who believe in God can I just pose you that very quickly I think it's aimed also a people who believe it's possible that the future is endless it's not that you don't have to think that it actually is or that anyone lives forever right of course those people do right but then more contempt but more what am I trying to say that the last radical view that even a theist could think it's possible that the future is is endless or it's not just a theological view about the afterlife right now it's just and yes what I would say in that case is that the argument then is question begging is not ad hominem namely it just assumes that an endless future is possible even though you haven't oddly flawless argument that it's not and so I think that the argument is either question begging or its ad hominem because it doesn't do anything to expose a flaw in the argument for the finitude of the past it is as Alex as merely an indirect not a direct objection shall I go on no what you said you want all right now let's let's talk about the objection itself then if alex affirms that if a beginningless series of past events is impossible then an endless series of future events is impossible then that commits him I think to the position that there is no possible world in which the series of advance has a beginning but no end in other words he has to say that the view that the series of events in time is potentially infinite is not just false but impossible and that's a very radical thesis I think that would carry a heavy burden of proof sorry to I'll repeat that for me III don't think I swallow you know if a beginningless series of events past events is impossible then an endless series of future events is impossible that entails that there's no possible world in which the series of events has a beginning but no end and so that's a pretty radical position you've got to say that the position that the series of events in time beginning say at the Big Bang is potentially infant is impossible not just false and so the objector here has a heavy burden of proof to bear I think okay so that's an interesting reply and I think I think first of all I'm not sure I have a view on on that exact question in particular for instance I'm not sure that I think that past or future is is either infinite or finite I mean I just think it's beyond my Ken or one thing but of what I do think is that the balancing act of the arguments exploiting I think the consequence would be that the temporally asymmetrical metaphysical views are out and temporally symmetrical metaphysical views are in so what is also ruled out which I can create build would be quite happy with is you know the idea that although it's possible worlds where the past has no beginning but the future has an end right there impossible you you dude in my view yes so so we agree on that right and then I think that one's where the past in the future are both infinite and ones where the past and future about finite they're both possible as far as I can see broadly possible but where the future is different from the past in its cardinality if you like I think though that thatthat sort of temporal or asymmetry I think what my what my impressing you arm is that without a symmetry breaker you can't have those temporally asymmetric views well and my claim is that that is a very radical claim to make you're saying that the of you like the classical view of the series of events pred dominant viewed that the series of events beginning at the first event is potentially infinite is metaphysically impossible and so I'm just in attempting to increase the burden of proof on the objector here to say he's got a burden of proof to show that this is the case which is like well then let me go on rather than dwell on that claim to say that what the defender of the argument against the infinitude of the past who also believes in an endless future is that he will try to break the parallelism between the past and the future such that the past series of advance can be finite and yet a series of future events from any point in time can be endless in other words the it doesn't follow from the finitude of the future that the the future has to come to an end it can be endless but finite this is what Georg Cantor referred to as the potential infinite on to are called the potential and infinite a variable finite and so I think there is such an asymmetry why well because I hold of what's called a tensed theory of time according to this theory of time temporal becoming is an objective feature of reality and there are no events later than the present event so on a tense theory of time it would entail that there is no actually infinite number of future events on the contrary the number of future events is just zero there are no future events on a tense their time because they haven't yet come into being but the series of events from any arbitrary point in time going in the later than direction will always be potentially infinite that is to say it's always finite but it's increasing toward infinity as a limit it is potentially infinite by contrast as I said in my response to Aristotle and Thomas for the series of past events to be potentially infinite in the same way would have to be growing in the earlier than direction and be at every point finite which is contrary to the nature of temporal becoming so I would say that given the possibility of a tensed theory of time we have any symmetry between the passes to deflect the force of this objection asked in future perhaps it'd be helpful to get a little bit clearer on your your theory of time your tents theory of time you don't believe that the your you know what's called a present test so it's only through the only the the moment that exists right now is the only moment that exists and so the future is mere potential the past doesn't exist anymore what only what exists is the present moment and so that's why you're saying you can get this sort of symmetry now one one question one objection that I've seen and even in your defenders class some people have brought this up is that well if the past is not real how can you say that there's an infinite number of past events because we can count them they have been instantiated in reality I've made it clear that when I say that an actual infinite cannot exist I mean it cannot be instantiated in the real world and clearly past events have been instantiated in the real world the medieval would say they have exited from their causes whereas future events have not exited from their causes they have not been instantiated in reality on a tense theory of time they are unreal now to clarify the difference between these competing views of time on a tense last theory of time the future series of advance is just as real and existent as the past series of events and the notion of past present and future is purely a subjective feature of human consciousness rather like the here in space there is no place in space that is objectively here it is wherever the subjective observer is located and similarly on the tense les theory of time there is no objective now just different observers at their respective temporal locations will observe their moment to be now so these are two contrasting views of time and I would agree with Alex that if you are a tense less theorist of time then there is no symmetry breaker between the past and future and it would imply on a tense last theory of time that the future will come to an end just as the past as a beginning but my claim is that if you have a tensed theory of time according to which temporal becoming is not subjective but a real and objective mind independent feature of reality then it makes perfect sense to say that the past though endless is finite now I know that this is going to probably upset both of you guys but we're almost at the point where we've got to transition to the second half of the first part of the show so we can move on to the argument from the impossibility of forming as an actual infinite from successive addition so Alex why don't you give a response to this and then if we can move on but no I know I know that you might have some things to say so we'll just see where we can go sure I would but thank you so I do so I mean I am increasing me as I've studied that response when Bell's famous fact responds I increasingly find that to be wrong right I mean it all due respect I disagree very strongly with that because so saying that there are no future events we have to be very careful to get our tenses correct right I'm not making an objection that presupposes the B theory I'm more than happy to converse in the language of the a theory I'm very comfortable talking about tenses and we might pH use intense logic rinses yes that's a language I'm very familiar with so it's not that I'm making a B Theory Theory objection it's just that look of course on present ISM there are no future events right there are no like in now present tense and of course there also are no past events now right there's only the present event so it's not a symmetry breaking there just to appeal to the non-existence of future events if what you mean is not currently existing is that's true of past events - they don't currently exist and bill said well they have existed and that's the difference but of course future events will exist right so it feels to me like once you get your tenses in order then we're back to a symmetrical situation again I mean tenses are symmetrical by their very nature I everything you can say in the future tends you can say in the past tense there's no axiom of 10 in a tensed asymmetry I don't think my bed that's symmetrical so and look his it seems to me that this is a subtle point but it's relatively it was very important for this right that I think bill switches from the future tense to the future perfect tense when he's talking about the accumulation of things over time as it increases towards infinity as a limit without getting there and I think that when he says that the future is potentially infinite he's saying the number of events that we'll have being which is the future perfect tense is always finite increases as time passes and that much so here's an analogy I think if you were to imagine say putting a marble into a jar every day that goes past right once a day you put a marble into a jar let's say you do it at midnight as time passes you'd be putting more and more marbles into this jar and the number of marbles in the jar would increase it would always be finite but it would be increasing and if time continued like that forever there'd always be a finite number of marbles in the jar but that number would be increasing forever approaching infinity but it would never actually get there right so the number of marbles a yard if we get a potential infinite but then you've got to ask yourself what is the number of the jar counting it's counting the days that have been right at that point at any point if I look at the jar and I each one of them corresponds to a day that's in the past as of that moment right so what's increasing potentially potentially infinitely is the past like the future or wherever I'm getting these marbles frogs and big pile of marbles is in front of me that's the future not the marbles in the jar right the marbles I'm taking album and if I can keep taking marbles forever and putting them in the jar there has to be an infinite number of marbles in front of me right that's the future though because I will separate the jar right but I think they he's just switching from the future tense to the future perfect tense when he does that and it feels to me once you get your tenses in order then Dow home objection it just stops being a symmetry breaker it's just this effectively changing subject from from what the question was about but I know we disagree it would be nice to talk more about that we could talk about that exact point I think for a couple of hours without really getting much further with it but I mean I'm very interested to hear what your reply today is if you can spend a moment don't minding what you think that I can say just one thing and that is I think your own illustration shows there will never be an infinite number of marbles in the jar and but that it I do not mean simply there will not have been but there will not be an infinite number of marbles in the jar so there it is simply false that there will be an actually infinite number of events it will always be finite well okay that's the number of events because as I said each each marble in the jar corresponds to a day that's past so and I agree with you the past will never be actually infinite but we're talking about the future right the nut marbles I haven't put in the jar yet there are no such marbles I mean I remember temple becoming is real the marbles need to come into being it's not as though you've got a pile of future marbles what we're talking about temporal becoming right okay so let's suppose the marbles pop into existence just before I drop them into the jar right right how many moles will pop into existence but it will help a number a potential in number but they will never be an infinite number of marbles that pop into existence that still feels that's not right that the number of if I asked how many as of any time how many marbles will I have put in the jar then I agree with you potentially infinite but the ones that I will put in how many will pop into existence that I'll put in the jar if I never stop doing it then I will put you know there is an infinite and actually infinite amount of marbles that will be put in the jar even though there's no time no knowledge that's not true you there will never be and infinite number of marbles that you put into the jar all you have here is a potential infinite increasing toward infinity as a limit but the infinity is never instantiated ever and it doesn't do any good to change to the past or the future perfect the pure future is enough all right let's go ahead and move on I think that what you can do Alice cuz you guys have a discussion planned after this right and so in the description of the video once that video is up I'm gonna link to it you are you guys still planning on doing that future do such a thing no okay okay well we'll see what we can do if we can put together another discussion or if you guys want to organize one on an Alex's Channel either way I think it's time to move on and this has been super interesting already but let's see if we can let's move on to the second philosophical argument that that you present in your work dr. Craig and so just again take about five minutes or so laying out the argument and then we'll get Alex's thoughts okay let's suppose that alex is right and that an actually infinite number of things can exist there's a second independent argument for the finitude of the past based upon the impossibility of forming an actual infinite by successive addition it's important for your viewers to understand that in infinite set theory there is no successive formation of infinite sets all of the members of an infinite set are given simultaneously by the definition of membership but there is no account at all of adding members one after another to arrive at infinity and yet this is the way in which the past has been formed adding one event after another to form the collection of events which are passed at any point in the future so the argument would go like this an actually infinite collection of things cannot be form by successive addition secondly the series of past events in time has been formed by successive addition and therefore the breeze of events past events in time cannot be actually infinite and you can illustrate this as medieval x' and others have done with some very charming illustrations for example alphas Ollie imagined Jupiter and Saturn orbiting the Sun at different rates so that every time Saturn goes around the Sun once Jupiter goes around twice and if they've been if they orbit forever without an end the discrepancy between the number of orbits completed by Jupiter and the number completed by Saturn will grow and grow they will become increasingly divergent from each other indeed they will approach a limit at which Jupiter is infinitely far behind our Saturn is infinitely buffle far behind Jupiter sorry now turn it around and ask what would be the case if Saturn and Jupiter have been orbiting the Sun from eternity which one will have completed the most orbits by today well the answer mathematically is they're equal they have both completed an actually infinite number of orbits but this seems absurd because the longer they revolve about the Sun the greater the disparity comes becomes between them so how in the world does this difference suddenly evaporate simply by making the number of or making the series of revolutions about the Sun beginningless it it seems again crazy and then Alex mentioned earlier the Grim Reaper or paradox that Alexander preusse and Coons have used this is another illustration of the absurdity of forming an actual by successive addition in this story we are to imagine that you are alive at midnight but at 1:00 a.m. if you're still alive I'm then the grim reaper will swing his scythe and kill you but then there's another grim reaper number two who will kill you at 12:30 a.m. if you're still alive then but then there's a third grim reaper at a quarter past twelve who will kill you if you're still alive then and so on ad infinitum now if an actually infinite number of things can be formed by successive addition this leads to a contradiction namely you cannot live past midnight and yet you cannot be killed by any Grim Reaper because before anyone could kill you you would have already been killed so this is an especially powerful version of the argument because it shows not simply a metaphysical absurdity but an actual logical contradiction and again these sorts of illustrations can be multiplied to show that the idea of forming an actual ancient collection of things by adding one member after another is a hopeless task all right Alex where would you like to pick up here okay let's see which by the way Alex because you're talking through your phone it's a little difficult to hear you so sorry if you if you can't just try to make sure that you're you're talking to it yeah yeah okay cool so let's see so with the revolutions of the planets I I think it's a really good example for bringing out though the weirdness of the infinite property we were talking about before where if a sail collection is actually infinite then you can show that there are proper parts the sort of equivalent to the whole because you know just as Jupiter and Saturn have done the same number of orbits and it's kind of also true that Jupiter's only the Saturn's only done half as many offenses as Jupiter to write that both of those hold in the same way that you can you can kind of say well obviously there's only half as many even numbers as there are whole numbers but there's kind of also the same number right that the the notion of a fewer than and equina muris kind of break down when we're talking about infinite sets and I think that we kind of once you learn the rules of grammar of infinity we just learn to sort of say that both of those things well you can learn how to speak about that different ways of adopting terminology which make it seem much less problematic I mean like it's it's just you can't expect fewer than and equina murus to have the same meanings that they do just for finite collections now I think there's something weird about trying to imagine the transition from them having a finite number of orbits to suddenly being such that they have an infinite number of orbits each and I think that's the interesting part of this it feels to me like the rubber meets the road there right so the argument that interests me most the bill makes is neither I mean we can talk about the Grim Reaper argument but um I'd like to beg off doing that because my my thinking around that's less clear so it would be that's helpful and I think it's much more technical so I think it's I completely concede it's a very troubling argument and it's very difficult to understand so I should mention real quick Alex some someone in the cut in the live chat just said that you've done an episode on this on your channel on the Grim Reaper paradox I did I did a discussion with somebody at one point yeah and I have a couple of blog posts about that if people are interested to know what I think about that um but and I should also mention that I've interviewed Rob Coons about it as well on the Grim Reaper paradox so that's available in our archives if you want to search through our videos yeah and I have an email exchange with with Cruces about that too so anyway it's a fascinating argument but let me let me try and I because it seems to me that the rubber hits the road with the idea of transitioning from being in a finite state to being in an infinite one right and and bill brings that out really clearly in much many places in his writing by highlighting the connection between the impossibility of forming an actual infinite through successive addition and the impossibility of counting to infinity right and this is obviously very closely related to what we're just talking about a moment ago it seems to me that the basic idea is look you can't count to infinity right because Aleph naught becomes smallest number that's bigger than any finite number right so the smallest infinite number that doesn't have an immediate predecessor right but counting numbers is it just is stating the immediate successor of the number you've just stated right so how could you ever you know if all you're doing is counting you can't count any number that doesn't have an immediate predecessor right and because I'll if not doesn't have an immediate predecessor you're never going to count it no matter how long you count all right so any so here's a little thought experiment imagine imagine say Cameron is counting right starts counting now some arbitrary time T and let's imagine that there's a time in the future that's more than finitely far away from now in the future minded per impossible right let's just imagine that that were the case and that Cameron had been counting a steady rate for the entire period between now and then right we could ask what number was Cameron counting at that point and it couldn't be a finite number right he must be counting some infinite number but that means they must have already counted a number that didn't have an immediate predecessor how could he do that right so it feels to me that were built argument it exposes is that time couldn't have that type of structure right there couldn't be a time that's so far in the future why plane couldn't run on so long that more than an infinite amount of time had elapsed between now and there right so and I think that's fair enough I mean I'm quite happy to concede that that you can't count to infinity in Bill sense means that time has to have a certain type of ordering right it rules out there being times that are more than finitely far away from any other moment and anything that looks perfect be reasonable um it to me it's still I still wonder though whether and I think we're going to fall back into the same disagreement we had before which is I want to say something like drets these argument right which is that if Cameron starts counting now and never finishes then for each natural number n he will count that number and the holds for all of the natural numbers so although he won't count a number that's more than finitely far away from zero the quantity of numbers that you account like the cardinality is Aleph naught right I think that's not in terms of cardinality instead of ordinality it does feel like that type of counting to infinity isn't ruled as purely vice highlighting the impossibility of transitioning from the finite to the infinite I appreciate that that's somewhat technical so some members of the audience might find that difficult controlling but I'm sure that Bill's following me here and I'd be very interested to know what he says about that I think Alex that this is a modal operator fallacy that I have seen a number of times in your blog's it is true that if the future is endless that Cameron will be able to count every number in the future but it doesn't follow from that that he will count all the numbers in the future and you in your response to yacouba's Erasmus seem to see this point that you did theirs it also emerges in the discussion of Andrew lokes example where even though for any future hotel room God could instantiate that in the present logically it doesn't follow from that that he can instantiate all all the hotel rooms in the present and in your response to Erasmus you say idiot you agree it is not possible for the now to traverse the interval between all the past events and now even though it can traverse the distance between any point in the past every point in the past and then now I would put it a little better I think by saying it is not possible for the now to successively denote all past events ending in the present even though it can designate every past event well I so if it's possible so if it's possible that Cameron counts to any M right yes it is why I think I need a little bit more to explain why the inference is invalid to then rule that he can count every natural number you know each it just doesn't follow it is it involves a modal operators ship that doesn't follow logically I am oh can you explain that one what do you mean by a modal operator shift well it's possible to well it has to do with the scope of the possibility or the necessity and by shifting these unconsciously one can make invalid inferences this is very easy to do and I think that Alex recognizes as himself in his dialogue with Erasmus about the past for any say see we enumerate the past using the negative number series ending in zero all right mm-hmm any number in that series is only a finite distance from the past but prescient right the only number in the series only a finite distance from the present and therefore that can be traversed but it doesn't follow from that that you can traverse all the numbers in the series you see there's a shift from every number in the series to all the numbers and and Alex recognizes this by saying to Erasmus it's not possible for them now to traverse the whole series even though it can traverse it part of it mmm it almost sounds like a composition fallacy yes I think it gives away I described it there it is a fallacy of composition because every part of the past is traversable does it follow that the whole past is traversable no that would be to commit that the fallacy of composition yeah okay so it seems to me I so the difficulty so that that exchange with Erasmus which I'm actually surprised to read because to my mind that's not been published anywhere so maybe maybe yeah Chiba himself but okay fine but let me try and explain the way I see it now right the pharmacy you're accusing me of would be like this it seems to me the the counter example right a clearer counter example would be like this okay say Cameron you in your next kit that you have if you have another child it's true for any name that you could name them that name right so you can name them Bill or you can name them Alex or whatever right um but it's let's say it's not possible that you name them every name right just cuz it's possible that you many may not possible that you name them every name yeah could I interrupt could I interrupt just to give it a different illustration it's a classic one that I should have thought of before from the fact that every human being has a mother it doesn't follow that there is a mother which every human being has okay you hear the difference from from the fact that every human being as a mother it doesn't follow that there is a mother which every human being has that involves this scope confusion sure but it's obviously not the case that every instance that follows that pattern is not truth preserving their artery preserving instances right so I'm I felt I can eat every I can eat any loaf of bread any slice of bread in the loaf and it follows that I can eat the whole loaf right oh it doesn't maybe it's too big a loaf and you can't you know Alex then that's a good example you can run a slice but not all of them what I'm saying is they're free there are truth preserving instances because of course I can't eat the whole I mean I have a loaf just don't make me in from if you announce prove their point but like there are moves where right where the first premise would be true and the conclusion would be true in that instance right even though I grant you that it's not true universally okay what my query is I need a little bit more because for me I'm still not seeing so let's go back to my actual example which the notion of traversal confuses me right mounting feels more straightforward right yes it actually in this case it's more like the loaf of bread right just feels like well if it's true that Cameron will counter let's say let's start it say Cameron will he starts counting now and no contingent impediment like falling asleep or going mad or anything befalls him so he just keeps counting right and the future has no end to it so as it were Cameron will fill the future with his counting events now it feels like now if that was true right I would be able to truly say now that Cameron will count say the number 10 that's true he will count the number million and 10 that's true for any number it's true the Cameron will count that number then it feels to me that this is like the loaf of bread one not like the every human has a mother and I want some I want you to explain to me although obviously I grant that this inference isn't universally truth preserving I'm just not sure why it's wrong in this instance right and just so saying that sometimes this pattern of inference is not truth preserving doesn't really help me here it seems to me that this is one of those cases where it is true preserving right and I'm not sure how else to say it apart from two like obviously if he's going to count all of those numbers it's true that he will count all of the numbers right just feels it feels obvious to me so so can do something to explain to me why probably because you can't convert a potential infinite into an actual infinite by successive addition or by Counting and that's why as I say set theory has been purged of all temporal notions you have to just have the actual infinite Gibbon tense lessly by the definition of set membership but you can't get there by successive addition and this is well illustrated in Russell's tristram shandy story where you remember tristram shandy writes is autobiography so slowly that it takes him a whole year to record the events of a single day of his life and he worries that he'll never at this straight be able to write all his autobiography and what Russell said was that if tristram shandy lives forever then there is no page in the autobiography that will remain unwritten but it doesn't follow the tristram shandy will therefore complete his autobiography that would be to make that same fallacious quantifier shift or operator shift so I guess I think again if this comes back down to the notion of converting a potential infant into an actual infinite I mean I feel like we're now we're having the same conversation we did a few moments ago because it feels to me like what's potentially infinite here is future perfect version right if I say how many numbers will Cameron count sorry how many numbers will Cameron have counted can you tell me about a future perfect means you should never but will have right like it will have been that P as opposed to it will be the P so if the idea is that the temporal location that you're specifying is one that comes after P it's in the future so let's say something like let's say it's this glass of water right now to say I will have drunk this glass of water means that there's some time after the drinking of the water is finished right and as of that time in the future coming after the drinking then it's there's a path then so even that's true says I have drunk the glass of water so you're saying there will be a point where it's true that there was a point where I drank the water right so it's a kind of forwards and then looking backwards my that's a future perfect the future the simple future tense just looks forward it just says I will drink the water I just saying as of now you know that that will happen at some point in the future so it's the future perfect is of slightly more logically complex than the simple future which is why it's called simple future cuz it's the most logically simple tense so I'm saying that bills tendency I guess I guess I could come up with a name for this and call it a some kind of fallacies and I guess it's a Penta logical fallacy but it seems to me that Bill's tendency is to fall into talking about things in terms of the future perfect tense and obviously he doesn't accept that this is my analysis is correct right but it seems to me that that it is anyway that bill talks about future perfect situations so how many numbers will Cameron have counted it's always a finite number and is it true that Cameron will have counted all of the numbers no it's not true and I agree with that right and I think that that don't cause bill into thinking well it must it can't be true then that he will count all of the numbers but I think that that's a fallacy which I think you could call that simple too simple to perfect inference like which is like if it's sorry there yeah simple to perfect so you would say something like if it's true if it's true that I will count if it's true that it will be the P then it must be true that it will have being the P right the simple perfect implies the the simple future implies the future perfect if it will be the P and it will have been and that's invalid like if that was valid then you would be able to demonstrate from the fact that it never will be that Cameron has finished counting all of the infinite numbers that it will be that he will count all of the infinite numbers right if that's valid you could draw that inference but a simple perfect inference is invalid and they're varied I mean I can draw you a picture which shows you why should invalid as well and presumably you accept a dunce an invalid inference and write in fact I I think that there need not be any any point in the future of which Cameron would look back and say I have I mean when I say he will not count an actually infinite number of numbers I'm not using the Future Perfect I'm using the ordinary future tense because after all you could just have that be the last moment of his life he could STIs to exist so there would never be a future perfect afterwards he could that could be the point at which he stops so I'm sticking with the simple future and just denying that it's true that there will be an actual infinite number of events in the endless future yeah okay well I think maybe we should move to the very last thing I wanted to bring up because it feels to me like them I think maybe we can discuss this in and maybe an email or something to continue that because we can there must be more to this that we can uncover through more serious attention but I just feel like if if we keep talking about this now we're going to go round and round in circles because I'm going to keep saying the same thing and I think you will too and we've both to be unmoved by each other's replies let me try and move on to the last thing I wanted to bring up if we've got a few minutes Cameron is that all right if we got yeah yeah we have about 14 minutes before we go to Q&A okay oh the counting upwards to infinity right from the idea of Cameron starting counting now and will he get to infinity blah blah blah in a sense that's all preamble right because it doesn't really matter in the sense that what we what's really analogous would be can Cameron have counted down from infinity because that's what the idea of the beginning this past and here I have some questions for bill but I think my thinking is less settled unless it turns out that it comes back to the simple future future perfect thing again let's hope not let's hope we can go somewhere new with this Bill's got a type of objection here so the only would be you come across someone and they're going you know three two one zero whew I've just finished counting all of the numbers in Reverse from infinity in the past and it didn't this is the point where I finished and you know this idea comes I think initially from Dickman Stein who said something about somebody reciting the digits of pi backwards and how that would be unreasonable to believe in any circumstance that that happened and it's similar to the kind of absurd objection but I think bill has well he has something that it seems to me is either a passage I don't understand which may well be true or it's a passage which I think really contains two are two distinct arguments one of which is an appeal to the principle of sufficient reason which is to say something like you know there's just no explanation for how this person finished at this point rather than some other point and then you could just say something like there are no events that violates the principle of sufficient reason this would be an event that violates the principle of sufficient reason therefore this event is impossible you could run a little argument like that but there's another argument that bill poses which is something like this which is to say you know a third sort imagine Cameron was finishing his countdown now you know then rewind the clock ten minutes he would have already had an infinite amount of time elapsed previously and then Bill says things like well so he should have finished already by that point but then that's true also of course if we ran around ten minutes before that as well and you should have finished by that point too and what this shows I think in this argument unless I'm misunderstanding it is that you can kind of keep saying that about earlier in earlier points and if the inference in time was that Cameron should have finished by that point already there's no point at which it's it's not true that he should have finished it already and that kind of means that he would never be counting at any point in the past because he could have he should have already finished there every point in the past and that seems like it's a it's a different argument altogether because it's not saying well here's the thing with no explanation it's saying here's a thing which is impossible because it would have already finished beforehand and so since to me that those are two different arguments yet bill always talks about them in the same context and I think different authors have understood what he says they're in different ways so it's a good opportunity for me to find out more about how yes right the argument is a dialectical one in which the reasoning proceeds through various steps so the initial puzzle is how could any one count down all the negative numbers ending at today this seems like an absurd task because we for he could count any number he would already have to have counted an infinite number of prior numbers he just gets drift and back and back into the past so that no number ever seems to get counted so how could somebody finishes countdown today that's the initial foray that what one is asking now in your dialogue with Erasmus again you say we can cover an infinite interval just so long as we have an infinite amount of time so you can count down all the negative numbers if you have say an infinite number of seconds as you can count one number per second but then the question is as I say if that's a sufficient condition for finishing the countdown then why didn't he finish his countdown yesterday or the day before that by then he'd already had an infinite amount of time to finish his countdown and so he should already be done in fact no matter how far you regresses the past at every point he should have already finished because he's had an infinite amount of time to finish the countdown but then it's not true that he has been counting from eternity which contradicts hypotheses so that's a further problem with the argument now suppose the objector says well there just is no reason why he finishes today rather than yesterday or the day before there there is no explanation the objector says you're presupposing some version of the principle of sufficient reason that says there has to be a reason why he finishes today rather than yesterday and in my response to Graham I'll be on this what I argue is that I do not need to presuppose a radical principle of sufficient reason to Kindle likenesses but a very modest version of the principle of sufficient reason which would say that there needs to be an explanation for finishing the countdown when he does rather than at some earlier points so that's the dialectic of the argument that features these different responses and counter responses okay so I think then what you're saying is that there aren't distinct arguments there which is helpful so right so then let me respond in this in this way so first let's divide into two chunks right so on the one hand you're saying and you quote me ng which is nice by saying that they're a sufficient condition on finishing the countdown would be that there's been an infinite number of counting events in the past but it seems to me that if they said that in that paper than I think that's wrong it feels to me that it's a sufficient condition on the possibility of finishing a countdown now they're tearing into the number of countdown events in the past but of course just because you've been counting just because I count an infinite number of numbers inverse doesn't mean I'm counting zero now I could be counting any number now so you know I could still I could have only got as far as having seventeen numbers left right and I did yes just in counting forever so obviously so it seems to me that it's um it's not a sufficient condition of finishing now it's a necessary finishing now right if I've been King forever sorry if I'm finishing my countdown now then I've been counting forever and that's true but if I have been counting forever then I'm finishing my countdown now that's false right so it shows you the logical ordering of those but if that's right then I don't understand how so go back to Cameron finishing his count now what what's the relevance of show I think that 10 minutes ago he'd been counting an infinite number of numbers so he should have finished by then it doesn't feel right to me maybe he could have been here by then but it's wrong to say we should have done it seems like a modally too strong right yes and I'm not suggesting that you do think this is a sufficient condition but it seems to me that if one says that he has had an infinite amount of time to finish his countdown then I don't know what more is needed in order to finish the countdown that an infinite amount of time and setting up a one-to-one correspondence between the moments of time and the numbers counted the only way it seems to me to escape that would be by denying as I say the need for an explanation of when he finishes it and that would then get into the question of whether or not I can formulate and defend a modest version of the principle of sufficient reason that is plausible and that would demand that there be some reason and why he finishes today rather than yesterday yeah and in your reply to RP you you say well OP he likes a version of the principle of sufficient reason he says at least seems plausible if there are you know some partial explanations for contingent events right and it I mean now it's unfortunately the notion of partiality it's in play here I'm not quite clear what that's supposed to mean but one way of thinking about it is that you know the kind of van inwagen modal collapse argument shows everybody that really super strong versions or explanation are too strong and if the principle of sufficient reason was like that then we'd get modal collapse or that have to be some unexplained contingent fact so generally a partial explanation it I think it's supposed to be something weaker than an explanation that logically entails the thing that it explains in order to get around this modal collapse thing so if you mean I mean I it's not quite clear I think proof means by a partial explanation something which sort of displaces at least some of the mystery to something else so I think an example of that might be you know why was let's see it's taken proposition Bobby Kennedy is dead right and then the partial explanation of that is that he was shocked like that'sthat's why he's dead right that explains it for some extent but of course doesn't remove all of the mystery about it cuz you could say well why was he shot right and then you go well it's her hand Sirhan shot him right and then you might say well okay but why did Sirhan Sirhan shoot him and then we might find well I don't know why I shot him right stir answer hands motives are completely opaque and difficult to understand so that's my explanatory chain basically goes as far as a mystery about why Sirhan Sirhan did what he did but it feels to me that that's that doesn't undermine whatever its planetary value the partial explanatory value that we got from saying that the reason that Bobby Kennedy is dead is because we shot like that still Belle's explained me partially my displaces some of the mystery puts it on something else well if that's the type of explanation that you're asking for with the countdown event feels like I can give those types of stories for it right like I could say well why why did why did Cameron finish counting down now well because 10 minutes ago he had ten numbers to count and he counts at the rate of one number per minute I mean doesn't explain everything it's the can down the road I think a partial explanation though if it just sort of partially displaces the mystery I mean I just wonder what you're asking for in an in a partial explanation if well I'd have to refer you to my article in response to a P where he lays out a very modest version of the principle of sufficient reason that seems to me to be plausible at defensible but when you apply it to the case of the man finishing his countdown it turns out that principle is violated by such a scenario but like it's an explanation that seems to satisfy that version of the PSR it's a partial explanation unless that's not what you mean by partial explanation well I'd have to again refer folks to the original article which is a reply to eiope and i am i do not have memorized his version of the principle it just seemed to me that it was both modest and defensible but that it would be violated by the man finishing his countdown at one point rather than another there should be an explanation based on this principle but there isn't one I think this is actually a good time to switch to QA are you guys okay with that sure yeah yeah sure okay yeah let's go ahead and transition in and Bill do you have do you have the name of that paper you know toppy I don't but I can tell you where it is yeah just for anyone who's interested in looking for Japan has edited a really nice to volume collection on the Kalam cosmological argument and the first volume is on the philosophical arguments for the beginning of the universe the second volume is on the scientific evidence for the beginning of the universe and the first volume produces in it the papers by Wes Morriston Graham Oppie and many other of the critics that we've talked about today as well as responses from people like David Oda Burt myself and others so that can be found in that collection called the Kalam cosmological argument edited by Paul Copan alright Alex is there anything else to add before we worry move on the name of that paper is the ingeniously titled Graham up beyond the Kalam cosmological argument your memory is better than mine okay so let's move on to questions all right this one is from Andrew Hinson he asked us earlier on and it was through a super chat so thank you for that Hinson or Andrew he says my question calculus shows us that the limit of X as it approaches infinity is infinity but does this not then show that there must be an infinite gap between the value of x and infinity itself I'm happy to repeat that and whom is this directed toward this one is not directed to any one in particular well I think it's important to understand that in analysis the notion of the potential infinite is not a number Aleph null in set theory and trans-fat arithmetic is a number it is a cardinal number but the idea of a potential infinity is not a number it's a limit concept which you approach endlessly but you never actually arrive at so his question is just now posed there their analysis doesn't deal with the number of elements that lie between the limit and the number that you're feeding into the function any thoughts Alex yeah so there's this famous letter of Cantor - I think Dedekind where he talks about the he makes this argument where he says I mean this is too long to explain properly bhangra I was going to highlight it briefly it's so the idea is that if you have variable magnitude that can take any rain any any value like if you have a variable X and you can say it can take any real number or any natural number is about it as its value then you've got to think of the range those values that it can take and although it's it's reasonable to consider the variable itself as a potential infinite something that can slide along this scale as far as you like and one direction if you consider the range which would be all of the values that it can take the kind of scale along which its sliding that has to be actually infinite so it's cantle for the for the variable to be slidable infinitely in this direction i think he changed his mind about that but anyway he made this argument and it seems to me that there may be there's something about that that's going on now I feel like the questioner is trying to ask about the quantity in the range that the variable is allowed to take values from or something and I mean it's very difficult to explain and I think I'm probably butchering the argument to some extent I need to sit down and say it more carefully to get the new ones there but maybe I can see where it's coming from okay so the next question this is probably the most serious question we're gonna address today from Nathan Orman he says for Alex can he eat a whole loaf in front of us okay so this one is for dr. Craig's from cran man phono cinema he's our videographer dr. Craig I don't think you actually met him I had a different guy last time when we were doing our in-person interview which by the way I've linked in the description of the video we did an in-person interview with dr. Craig on the Atonement so if you wanna watch that check out the description he says this is John cran min dr. Craig can you offer a few brief arguments against the bee theory of time by the way Christianity is true everyone oh I thought that Alex might bring out the tents listeria of time today though he didn't defend it um but I've tried to do my philosophical duty with respect to the tensed theory of time so I've written two books that deal with this the first one is called the tensed theory of time a fill a critical examination and then the second one is called the tense less theory of time a critical examination both of these published by Kluwer academic press and in these books I examined the arguments in support of the tensed theory and against the tensed theory and then the arguments in support of the tense less theory and the arguments against the tense less theory now the question he asked I think was arguments did he say against the tensile steering correct yeah I refer to the book the tensest theory of time but one of them for example is that the tensile Asteria time implies a view of personal identity over time that seems to be quite objectionable on a tense theory of time three-dimensional objects and doer through time but on a tense listeria Reda mention illogic SAR merely time slices or stages or temporal parts of four-dimensional objects which are extended throughout time and this I think makes non sense of personal identity over time since these stages are not identical with one another which means that no stage ever endures from one moment to another the alux that we're looking at on the screen now is not the same alex that we were looking at on this Green when we started this interview this makes moral plate praise and blame impossible because the person who is punished or praised is not the same person as the person who did the crime were commendable act unless you say that persons are the whole four dimensional object in which case persons are not self conscious individuals endowed with freedom of the will and rationality so the problems involved with per Durance as opposed to endurance i think are a major deficit of the tense listeria time that's just one of them okay yeah if you want more than check out his book someone in the live chat just recommend or just suggested dr. Craig that we do a an interview just going through all of the books that you've written in taking a few minutes to explain them that might actually be fun all right next one next question is from John DeRosa he says and this is another stupid chat so thank you John he says what do you mean by actually infinite and do you agree with each other on this definition do you want to take that Alex well okay sure I I'm happy to follow Bill's lead on what he uses a term to mean well so I take it that that the idea is I mean I have I have I have philosophy of mathematics friends who think I I may be using the word incorrectly but I think that there's different pockets of the dialectic where different communities using the word in five different ways but I take it for those usage here is that any quantity or collection that has Cantor's property is that yes and and yes so there are people in philosophy mathematics so it will say only actually think that my potential ists don't think that they would think that in addition to having that it has to be true that all of the property all of the things that we're talking about can exist together and in the same that's the same sense or whatever so you find potential ists will say that the natural numbers are not actually infinite anyway but we I worry about that I think I'm an actual list by intuition anyway so that means that I agree with Bill there so there's but there is a debate I mean there's there's a hideous around with nuance with how these things like I mean just for the purposes of this discussion I mean in this piece of the literature actually infinite just means house candles property of being able to line up proper parts and show that they're equivalent to the whole and that's more or less all there is all there is to it yes all right let's move on to the next question and this one is another super chat from maverick Christian thank you so much he says for Malpass in Bruce's 2009 Grim Reaper slash Hilbert's hotel deductive argument a brief argument at and he gives a link to it which premise do you reject and what is your response to the justification of said premise I'm not sure if you're I do yet know with the exact okay not at publication and I know the argument because it's similar to Lok's argument effect this is very similar argument altogether but with a grim reaper twist to it um and i often took my head i can't remember the numbers of the premises or whatnot i think if if i'm remembering it rightly that it involves the notion of accumulating things over an infinite time and if anyone's interested in the response to that type of argument then i refer to the final section in the paper that where's and I published the other day which I guess Cameron is linking to where I set out what I think is the fallacy with that if you just have to think about the grim reaper argument in general um I don't have a killer knockdown objection to it right and what I'm interested in doing at the moment is seeing how you can temporarily mirror arguments that show that the universe had a beginning and grim wreaker argument is one of the more interesting ones to do that with so Cohen has this nice argument cloud mirroring a bunch of arguments for the beginning of time and he has a version of mirroring the Grim Reaper argument to show that it must also imply that the future has an end and I've developed that some extent but I won't go into the detail now because it will take in about ten minutes to get the idea properly and I'm not 100% sure whether it has any merits or not it might be I think might be a dead ends okay I'll spare the audience the the unnecessary detail perhaps at this point I might refer our audience to Alexander Bruce's brand-new book which is called causation paradox and infinity this is I think the most brilliant book on the Kalam cosmological argument ever written it just came out last year and it is really a tour de force and what's especially significant about Bruce's argument is that it breaks or it avoids rather the parallelism between past and future that Alex alleges against my formulation of the argument Cruz's argument is that no event can be the effect of an infinite number of causes no event can be the effect of an infinite number of causes that rules out an infinite beginningless pasts series of causes but it obviously doesn't rule out a forward series of causes on into the future so Bruce's calls his view causal finite ISM as opposed to full finite ISM and so if you are troubled by this argument about parallelism of past and future Bruce's causal finite ISM is always an option for you and it is kind of the breaking stuff in philosophy or that's a terrible way of phrasing that but it's it's groundbreaking work it's new stuff it's really cool I have the book as well I haven't written I haven't read through the whole thing but it's great what I've what I've read so far so just wanted to emphasize that so we have a few more questions that are already lined up if you guys want to ask a question make sure to say who you're addressing your question to but also make sure to tag at capture at capturing Christianity and the live chat so that way I can make sure to see your question last thing I wanted to say to everyone is if you're watching this you've enjoyed the show hit the subscribe button on the YouTube channel and turn on notifications so you can get notifications when we post new videos and thank you for doing that in advance so here is the next question from vana dime and a few people have asked this and so I'm gonna go ahead and just just get it out here this one is for you dr. Craig he says would would you or would he be keen to debate Graham Oppie at some point perhaps in this format on capturing Christianity Wow I don't see how I could refuse I think when you have credible credentialed opponents like Alex Malpass then yes it's it's obligatory to engage with one's critics and so while I've often declined to debate popularizers with bona fide scholars like Malpass and hoppy I think that this is something that I have to do well cool then I'll reach out to uh to Graham and we'll see if we can put something together let's grab okay all right this one is from more tech 101 and this one is another one for dr. Craig he says his argument that eternal causes lead to temporal effect equals personal I'm not sure how he's he's trying to phrase this he's also working within the confines of the character limit that's set by YouTube he says with a probability if cause is timeless must the effect still be temporal probably won't add up over time so I'm not sure if that's coming through if that's yeah I think it's not a coherent question what it's related to is what you said Cameron and your introduction that having arrived at the conclusion that a cause of the universe exists I then tried to deduce some of the properties that it must have and a number of theologically striking properties emerge and one will concern the temporal relation of this cause to the series of events and I worked on this for 11 years full-time the the question of the nature of time and temporal becoming and the position that I came to was that the cause of the universe is timeless saws creation but temporal since the moment of creation it's a strange hybrid view but so far as I can see it's coherent and I think it's the most plausible view okay so here's another super chat from striker Knight he says William Lane Craig do you have an object of moral duty to be so decisively intelligent yet charming and cordial thank you for all you do charming and cordial this is this desert John my memory though about something Alex said I don't think the moral argument alex is an indirect at hominem argument in the way that your objection is in the moral argument it is true I've argued with Objectivists like Eric Whelan Berg to say hey what is the best explanation for the moral values we both hold dear and adhere to but I'm also happy to debate against moral nihilists and to defend the truth of the second premise that objective moral values and duties exist so it's not ad hominem it's not aimed at people who believe in objective moral values and duties but don't recognize their ground in God no I'm unwilling to defend the argument against all all comers all right so we have a question for Alex now this one is another super chat from in dear ish Alex do you feel that the objections you raised today are the strongest arguments you could raise against the beginning of the universe I [Music] don't think that they're so my inclination is to think that they are the objections that are the most plausible are the ones that disarm the arguments for beginning at the universe rather than argue against the beginning it's not like I have a positive argument that there was no beginning to the universe I'm not a an infinite pastor or something I'm merely skeptical of the I don't ferocity or whatever the arguments at trying established that it had a beginning and and you can dismantle an argument which reaches a conclusion without showing that the conclusion was arguing for response so that that's my position here it's more of skeptical you know in in a way cliche douchebag atheist guy is the one who's been not offering a positive argument but just merely critiquing the Christians positive argument I guess that's that's what's happening here but you know yeah I don't have an argument that the the universe doesn't have a beginning and I'm not sure there are any particularly plausible I mean Aristotle has one that seems laughably bad and Kant argument in the thesis of his first antinomy I think is also just horrible yeah the beginningless Ness of the past okay sorry we're gonna pick back up on one of the questions that we got from Wade just Tamra I actually have the link pulled up here and so he's really curious Alex what your thoughts are on this argument from from Alexander Proust he says this premise one if there could be a backwards infinite sequence of events Hilbert's hotel would be possible that's premise one and this is all very relevant to the discussion today premise 2 if Hilbert's hotel were possible the grim reaper paradox could happen from hysteria from his three the grim reaper paradox cannot happen and then the conclusion therefore there cannot be a backwards infinite sequence of events yeah and then in in the blurb underneath that statement he gives the sort of supporting argument for premise one right where he says if there could be a backwards infinite sequence of events they could be backward backwards infinite sequence of events during which a hotel room is created and none is destroyed an infinite number of hotel rooms would then be the result and that's the premise one is the one I'm arguing against there and if we want some number and I would suggest that he reads section I guess six or seven of the paper seven which addresses that precisely so rather than well the basic way of putting it with something like this right I mean let's assume creation ex nihilo is possible at all I guess if it is and then you've got a wonder how many hotel rooms is it possible that could be created at any one time right so I mean let's personalize it God can create hotel rooms x9 hello how many can he create at any one time his omnipotence surely doesn't extend so far that he could create infinitely many hotel rooms all in one go otherwise that means that God's existence would entail the possibility of a Hilbert's hotel right so God's omnipotence and surely he can make one hotel ring or two or three bla bla bla but he can't make infinitely many so it must be that God's omnipotence is limited at least to making only finitely many hotel rooms at any one time less an infinite Hotel be possible following between God's existence and I think once you put that restriction and you can think of it as the restriction on God's omnipotence how we put it in the paper but you know you doesn't have to be about God you can think of it as a restriction on the possibilities of what can be created x9 hello in any one moment and if we're putting a fine artist restriction on that it turns out when you think about it carefully do it then doesn't follow that just because of an infinite number of pastimes that help its hotel is possible but I refer wait could the paper because I spent more time going through that more carefully and it's peer reviewed it's in a good journal so it's better than me saying off top my head and maybe getting it wrong I don't know if Bill you read that section and maybe you have a crushing objection to it well I did read it and I want to just say that the point that we're talking about now is related to the last three points of response that I had to your critique which are that there are reformulations of the argument that don't require the sort of symmetry breaking move that I myself defend and these would be versions by Landon Hedrick by Andrew Lok and then by Alexander preusse so I just want to draw our viewers attention to these various different formulations of the argument to which the objection based on the symmetry of past and future are inapplicable all right so let's move on but Landon just got a paper published he's a friend of mine we spent a few hours tonight and he has a new paper coming out that just published in their in the religious studies I think and I thought great I read I've read it so in particular Bell you should go and read that yes it sounds like there is a good ongoing debate which is just terrific all right next question this one is another super chat from Dan Philpott he says Craig say that I count infinitely many X's if for any natural number in I count in X's if I count indefinitely is it not true that I will count past any in and so count infinitely many X's oh no that's obviously wrong you you if you're counting natural numbers in then you will just count limitless I mean not limitlessly endlessly toward infinity as a limit but you'll never get there you just will count for every finite natural number you will count that number but you'll never count all the numbers or arrive at infinity that's the very nature of the the potential infinite as Alex said okay so we have very briefly I go for that sounds to me like an another version of Bill making the same move it seems to meets again so the the way that you put it then with you know that you'd count however it was to any n but you're never going to get there get to infinity when it makes me think that what you're saying is you're never going to get to the point where it's done and you're like oh that's over now and then looking back all that's done you know and I agree with that but that's not what we're asking it's it's just whether you will count each of them you know is each of them such that you will count it I know you should much more than that you're you're saying much more than that Alex you are saying much more than you will count each of them because that's not in dispute um just as us in an infinite past each number is a finite distance from the present this is part of the bizarre and fascinating nature of the infinite is that in an infinite series of events every event in the series is only a finite remove from the the present or the end and you would think well if everyone is only finite then the whole thing must be finite but that's not the way it works with infinity you you can't logically make that kind of inference and as I say I think this comes up again and again in your blogs and and articles Alex is this illicit move from every to all yeah and I think I I don't know I I don't think that it's illicit I think that and so we basically have an impasse here that I I disagree with you on your analysis of whether I'm making a mistake here I think you're making a mistake and you disagree with me about whether I'm right and thinking me you're making a mistake so I think we have to maybe talk more about about this because it might be that I'll change my mind but you know at the moment I'm not I hadn't been graded by anything you've said that what I'm doing is actually an instance of the fallacy or suggesting I need I need to counter model actually drawn out for me before I'm gonna be able to occur all right we're about to run out of time here so let's get on to just a couple more questions and then we'll close it out so this one is another one from our videographer kranj Minh which by the way he did a short film recently called the promise which is one of few awards it's a really really excellent short film i recomment I recommend that you go check it out I don't have any links to it I can actually put a link to it in the comments so if you want to check it out do so it's really really cool he says Alex what would it take for you to be a theist what arguments do you find most compelling and a question for dr. Craig he says will you endorse cameron's show now first it's probably an easier one for you yes I hereby enter scam and Bertuzzi's program I think he has on very fine guests and very interesting discussions I think he's doing a terrific job and so I commend it wholeheartedly thank you so question what would make me become a theist or humans do you find us compelling so those are two questions I think I don't know they're different I don't know what would do it but I yeah it's difficult to predict in advance what's going to change your mind I'm not a huge fan of those these types of questions just to be honest and I don't think that bill is either is that right I don't know these types of like what which hindrances which arguments do you find most persuasive I think that's fair that's not a personal question the other one is rather personal yeah I mean the problem with the first one is it's like saying what would make you fall in love with me or something it's like you know it just happens when it happens right like it's out of your control and it's only looking back on it that you can make sense of that you commonly predict it in advance or classifier systematize that anyway it's a I guess what would make me believe in tears I would be an argument that I found persuasive that's not helpful so which arguments do I think almost I think that I have to say that Grim Reaper argument is the one I find the the one that I find hardest to put to bed in my own mind you know I sometimes I will consider an argument it seems new and interesting and contours if it needs to be gone over and and after a while I can sort of rest easy enough with my understanding of it and then Grim Reaper I always find it difficult to put it down you know I keep coming back to it and I don't feel like I've really I feel like there's still more I need to do on that so I'm not sure if it's the means that it's most persuasive but I think it's the hardest just a duco puzzle to solve that I've Macross sofa that's what I would look at alright last question from Elliot Hopkins he says to both of you what would you say to those who affirm the compatibility of a tense list theory of time in the universe having a beginning we'll start with well I think the it certainly is compatible and there are good many physicists today who on the basis of the Astrophysical evidence would affirm that space-time has a boundary in the earlier than direction now whether it has a boundary in the later than direction will depend upon things like its expansion speed and the best evidence is that the universe will go on expanding forever and will not recon tracked in which case the series of events beginning at the initial cosmological singularity if there was such a thing is going to be potentially infinite all right we'll get a quick response from Alex and then we'll move to some closing statements and then close out the stream the question again I dragged it but yep no worries he says what would you say to those who affirm the compatibility of a tense list theory of time and the universe having a beginning oh I see well question logical compatibility it just is logically compatible there's not much else to say about it from that point of view I have many logicians hat on I don't know enough about physics say any of those types of things but as you know tense logician which is what I was perfectly i there's there's just no reason to think that they're not compatible yeah fair enough all right well let's move into closing statements and I also wanted to mention that if you guys want to support the show went to support capturing Christianity you can do that at patreon.com slash capture and christianity we're actually in the middle of launching a Spanish YouTube channel where we're transcribing some of our videos into Spanish we have some voice actors that we're working with to overdub the the audio so it's not just transcription at the bottom of the screen or anything so so yeah that's what we're working on currently if you want to support patreon.com slash capture and christian well let's start with you dr. Craig give take about 60 seconds if you can and summarize your thoughts so far or thoughts of the discussion and then we'll move to Alex and close it out all right I hadn't thought about a closing statement so let me just do this off the cuff it seems to me that the Kalam cosmological argument for a personal creator the universe is one of the most powerfully supported theistic arguments the first premise that whatever begins to exist has a cause seems to be virtually undeniable for any intellectually honest Enquirer the second premise that the universe began to exist is supported not only by the two philosophical arguments that we've discussed today but also by stunning Astrophysical our confirmations both from the expansion of the universe and from the large-scale thermodynamic properties of the universe which indicates that the universe is finite in the past and had a beginning and this tells you then a cause of the universe which is beyond space and time enormous ly powerful and immaterial which brought the universe into being and I think this also requires credibly that this cost be personal so that you get a personal causeless spaceless timeless immaterial enormous ly powerful creator of the universe out of this argument which is I think the core concept of God all right Alex ok so I think fundamentally Craig and I disagree on something to do with this tense inference between this and each perfect tense and sorry Bill did you want to go back and say something about that not only the importance of the tensed theory of time for the Kalam cosmological argument I think can't be overstated - right right I mean and so well you know in some respects that the tense theory of time is although bills obviously done a lot to them to present a passionate defense of that theory it's still somewhat controversial it's not like a consensus view amongst philosophers there's a lot of dissenting views among philosophers there and I guess if you had to count people's views you probably find more people would be theoretic or confused rather than committed atheists make make of that what you will so it feels to me like there's a lot of things you have to buy to get at the end of the conclusion that I find problematic and anyway so in our particular disagreement it feels like comes down to something very difficult to that it may have been some part of talking past one another here it would be nice to be able to reach a moment of communication over this that might take longer than a two-hour conversation where we're able to understand one another's positions more clearly because I think that to some extent Craig battled by my my view and I think that I'm equally baffled by his in reply so that that I think indicates like maybe that I'm a complete idiot that does certainly possible or that there's a communicative barrier there that that still needs to be worked through to some extent but in until we do I I'm not sure that I've got the type of resolution or the kind of adequate rebuttal that to the point that I was bringing up there yeah and and it would be the rest of the stuff I'm still making my mind up about it so and I'm very happy for the bill to set me straight if I if I go wrong and I might show him a draft of a new paper as it's it's mainly focused on the second part of the argument - he might have a crushing rebuttal that will destroy the whole project but hopefully not anyway we'll see that's not much of a closing statement I'm not very good at closing statements or editing stick ready oh stop talking I have to stop it well I appreciate both of you guys taking the time to do this I know that we're the with the whole virus situation it's sort of given us the opportunity to even have something like this but I appreciate you either way putting the the time aside to do this so thank you thank you good to do it all right we have a few more live discussions and interviews and everything coming up so if you want to get more updates on everything that's happening on the YouTube channel coming up like on Thursday I'm interviewing a guy on the hallucination hypothesis he's actually a medical doctor who's written a paper on this and and thinks it's the it's a very very bad argument there's a whole bunch of cool things coming up on the channel so check the home page on YouTube of capturing Christianity so you can get more information there and so next time we'll see you guys later so thank you so much for tuning in

Channel: Capturing Christianity

Views: 41,243

Rating: 4.866848 out of 5

Keywords: William Lane Craig, William Lane Craig Debate, William Lane Craig Kalam Debate, Kalam Cosmological Argument Debate, WLC, WLC Debate, WLC Kalam, Alex Malpass Debate, Alex Malpass, Malpass Debate, Kalam Debate, Kalam, the universe begin to exist

Id: uWo9qU2dhpQ

Length: 125min 9sec (7509 seconds)

Published: Tue Mar 24 2020