Is God the cause of the Universe? Andrew T Loke vs Alex Malpass

well today we're asking is God the cause of the universe and this is a classic one isn't it one we've a ground we've tread trod many times I would say on unbelievable in one form or another cosmological arguments are among the most popular arguments for theism today in apologetics especially in light of the evidence for the universe coming into existence with the Big Bang and someone who's developed some of those most popular arguments for God as a cause of the universe joins me today in studio Andrew Lok is assistant professor of philosophy and religion at Hong Kong Baptist University he's the author of God and ultimate origins in which he argues the philosophical case for God as the best explanation of the cause of the universe and today Andrew will be in conversation with atheist philosopher Alex Malpass from Bristol who blogs at the use of Reason website also runs the thought ology podcast so today we're asking is there good reason to believe that the universe began to exist firstly and if that's true does everything that begins to exist have a cause and well if that's true is God the best explanation of the cause of the universe looking forward to today's show Alex and Andrew welcome along to the program great to have you with me we'll start with you first of all Andrew never been on the show before and but I know that we've been in touch a little bit over the years because obviously so much of your work in this area coincides with some of the debates we've had on unbelievable over the years but tell us tell us how things began for you and how you ended up doing what you do at Hong Kong Baptist University I just like to be here this morning to talk to you so for me I have been thinking about the questions of ultimate origins since I was very young when Dan went one thing to file the to get to the bottom of things I know and when I was in medical school I had a friend who was an atheist and he would ask me challenging questions about why I think that the universe is created by God and so that got me interested in the in the cosmological argument you try to find answer to his questions and over the years I had the privilege of getting into a new discussion with Graham Opie who is not a top it is working on this if you and we had a hundred twenty in exchange on 120 email yes sixty from him and sixty four mere around it and so and at the end of this in the discussion I came to realize that the cosmological argument is still defensible mmm-hmm and I work out my response to his objections and eventually it became this book got in autumn origins so when he began that email exchange with good grammar people were you thinking along the lines of this being published or was it informal to the game with and then it became formalized later how did it work yeah I wasn't thinking that you'll become a book actually yeah I was just trying to show Graham that there's a plausible case we meet and wondering what are his objections and to what extent have you followed the lead of well-known philosophers like William Lane Craig who have obviously developed the Kalam cosmological argument are you building on that kind of work essentially yes indeed in fact quick answers I just looked many of my questions when I was wrestling with these issues and Crick was my professor at Biola University where I did my masters in philosophy so very influential and yes influence on me what to what extent would you say your you've taken that then and sort of developed your own particular ways of looking at these big questions yeah so when I was in this discussion with Graham I came to realize that some of Crick's arguments can be further refine don't address the objections that Grandpop erasers and and so the the refinements are documented in the book that I published do you do you find that this is a powerful argument in your view for persuading people of the of evidence for God I mean to what extent have you seen this argument actually make a difference I suppose I mean whether people are actually open to the evidence for God in the end I think this argument is very powerful actually at the very least it helps people to see that or is rational to believe in God but I think the argument is even more powerful than that I think it can be demonstrated with a kind of logical certainty that they must be the kind of divine first course and I use this argument with my students and they they find that there's no way they can get around it yeah and some of them have even come to believe in God I mean being 80s before they have converted and even become Christians great to have you on the program today and really pleased that we could we can make this happen while you're over in the UK briefly you've been at a conference just recently I know talking about these ideas in was it Cambridge I was at Oxford Centre for science and religions conference and conference yeah right great well and we're looking forward to at least getting the digestible version of that on Today Show I'm sure you went into much greater depth at the conference great to have on the line also joining us Alex Malpass Alex welcome to the show your your first time also what what what got you into engaging with well firstly philosophy generally but specifically your interest in engaging with the kinds of arguments that people like Andrew bring in terms of Christian theism how did it begin for you Alex yeah it's good question um I think that I've always been kind of philosophically inclined from an early age as far back as I can remember thinking about tones I've enjoyed thinking about these types of topics so philosophy was a natural subject for me to go into and I was I guess I wasn't inclined from an early age to get a sensible degree like law and medicine something like that so I am Telling actually really yeah why go for anything practical when you can do this sit in an armchair and think about the university that's right yeah so and so then I did that and I got a PhD and I was and I had a couple of teaching posts after that and I think I sort of fell out of love with philosophy briefly and I think it was partly because it wasn't it wasn't quite as fun when I think I got to a point with the thing I was specializing incredibly technical and I still fell out of love with anything so I decided to change careers and just do different things and so you can see what the rest of the world was like apart from philosophy department but then I think after giving up philosophy for a while through things like your show actually and I came back to re-engage with philosophy outside of the kind of extreme academic technical so and started engaging with things again that were interesting to a different part of my brain let's say so it's another area that's fun to play the way I approach this is it's a fun area to think about it's it's interesting to me it's a hobby it's what any that's what I like doing and so I don't take it quite as seriously as thinking that I will prove something with complete concrete certainty but I do enjoy thinking about them and playing around with their what what stroke alright I've appreciated in reading some of the posts on on your use of Reason website is that you're you're willing to critique your fellow atheist philosophers as much as the Christians and so and and so you I think you get flack from both sides probably in terms that the the willing to did being willing to do that I mean for you has has sort of atheism being the kind of you know that the position you've taken kind of naturally for a long time has there been any rethinking of that at any level as you've gone along in your you know thinking through these issues there's thinking about it of course it all it all philosophy religion is thinking about that question so I don't lots of thinking about it I suppose you're asking whether I've been inclined to change my mind and I'm not sure that I have I think so for me atheism has never really been much of a decision that I took any point I just found myself an atheist without any I mean I think my parents are not religious my dad used to be but isn't anymore I don't know if that made an effect on me it's hard to say but I grew up with a religious understanding he taught taught us a bit from the Bible so I have a general understanding as a child but I've never been drawn towards believing I've just always been an atheism the more I've studied philosophy religion I haven't seen anything that's made a particularly big impact in terms of persuading me to change my mind so I suppose I've got a prior probability to put it like that isn't being quite low and I haven't seen anything that's made me overcome that well look it's great to have you on the line today to engage with Andrew on this particular issue which I'm sure you're familiar with and that I've heard many a debate on before but I'll be interested to see the cific ways in which we're going to try and cash it out today because this book you've written Andrews is a big one God an ultimate origin tackling the the you know the cosmological argument from a number of different perspectives and why a first cause makes sense in your view philosophically but we're going to sort of narrow down on some specifics just for the sake of today's argument so it's because we can't cover too much ground if you're wanting to get in touch yourself about today's show don't forget you can get in touch but our email address unbelievable at premier dot UK there's also the social media at unbelievable JB for Twitter Facebook calm and Bull JB and those are available from the web page as well where you can find today's show subscribe to the podcast and share it with others too recording for video today as well so do check out the video version of today's program over at the unbelievable YouTube channel all of the links available from the show page premier Christian radio com forward slash unbelievable so um yeah I've promised the listening audience that we'll try and keep this even though we it's a it's a deep dive today that we won't get too out of our depth let's say Andrew but so I I know that you're going to do your book very level best to keep it accessible do you want to just spell out briefly you know what what is its simplest level this argument is and how do you then start to develop that in a few ways to kind of strengthen that and tease that out a bit more sure so in a nutshell the cosmological argument tries to show that an infinite regress of causes is impossible and therefore there must be a first course and this first course must be uncaused because it's a first and it must also be without beginning because everything that begins to exist has a cause and it must also be initially changeless because that can't be because there cannot be an infinite regress of changes and the first change that is the first events could not have begun to exist uncaused and so the first events must have been caused by initially changeless first host okay and for this initially changed this first course to cause the first event the first course must have to capacity to initiate the first event to initiate the first change in a way does not determine by prior events and you must also have the capacity to be able to prevent itself from changing initially and and such that it can be initially changeless and so these two capacity is not having the capacity to initiate the first event and also to be able to prevent itself from initiating the first events this dual capacity characterizes Lipitor in freewill and so this first course must have free will in order to freely bring about the first event from an initial changeless state and finally this first course must also have tremendous power to bring about the rest of other things right including early universe the universe yeah and so what we have here is first course that is uncaused we've got beginning has free will and tremendous power and I think that deserves to be called a creator and therefore the good reasons to believe that a creator of the universe exists that is it in a nutshell and we're obviously gonna tease that out obviously where does this connect in your view with Big Bang cosmology because that's obviously the thing people often think of when they think of the universe beginning to exist and so on do you tend to you know trace more of a philosophical argument than a scientific argument for that for the the fact the idea that the universe has a cause has a beginning in that sense I think both the philosophical argument and the scientific arguments are pretty powerful but I think the philosophy cut equipment is even more powerful because it can be demonstrated with a kind of deductive certainty actually now having said I need to clarify that and I'm not saying that in order for an argument to be a good argument it has to be deductive Asotin I'm not saying that I think it's not as you have better reasons to believe that is true rather than is false I think there'll be sufficient but however I do I myself do think that the the philosophy the philosophy aversion is actually pretty powerful in fact more powerful than the scientific version okay so it just tease that a little bit again then the philosophical version of this and you've already mentioned this idea that you can't have an infinite regress of causes okay so we we're all familiar with the idea that everything around us sort of has a cause for why things are happening and that if you traced back the history of us in the universe you would find cause upon calls upon calls leading to us and it leads you to that that question of well is is there is there a point at which we have an end to that you know or or could things simply stretch back into the eternal past if you like and there be an infinite regressive causes and for you that doesn't make sense philosophically there has to be something that if you like starts the whole thing off and that itself cannot be caused in that sense an uncaused cause first cause these are the kind of philosophical terms that were it were created but especially by you know live knits announce them and others who developed these arguments so so we essentially kind of taking that idea that's been around for a long time and saying okay this is my version of it if you like so in the history of philosophy there has been a number of arguments which has been offered to show that the infinite regress is not possible real imminent quick defendant two versions one is the argument for the impossibility of concrete infinities and he used the Hilbert hotel for example to illustrate the absurdities which will exist if and if a concrete actually exists yes that the idea of an actually infinite set of events is philosophically incoherent essentially well is the idea that because you can show that by using examples of impossible things that would happen if you had had an infinite number of events in the past yeah yes so that's the first argument right and the second argument is the argument for the impossibility of transversing and actually in finite which means that the number of events falling one after another can't cannot arrive at actually infinity and so the number of earlier events must be finite yeah there must be a first call in a sense we couldn't get to now if there was an infant chain of events up to now because you would never arrive it now if it was actually infinite in that sense yeah to put it simply yeah I mean it's kind of slightly brain boggling stuff that I like it there's this sort of sense in which I think most people can can intuitively grasp that idea that things can't have gone on forever in the past or we wouldn't get to now therefore things must have begun finitely at some point and then you obviously opens up that question well was there a beginning source of that and your view is obviously this this idea that the to have the characteristics as far as you can tell of God that then it would have to not it would have to cause the universe to come into existence and itself would have to have the ability to choose to do that it wouldn't be something that somehow it had to do it was something that's chosen and and for you this libertarian free will is an important aspect of the the nature of a being that we would describe as God essentially yes great I think I think we're there yeah but anything to add to it before we sure yes so in my book I added one more argument mmm and this is argument for the lack of capacity to begin to exist the capacity to begin to exist I can't tell us what that is so okay let me illustrate using a simple analogy suppose I have nothing and the only way for me to begin to have money is to get from you just okay right now suppose that you also have nothing and the only way for you to begin to have money is to get from ethics for example okay now if alex is also in a similar situation if everyone is like this right then there's there's no way that any one of us will ever begin to have money right so what is required is for there to be someone who doesn't need to get money from any other person but who is able to invent money or somehow to have come on money in order to start a whole chain going okay so likewise now I have no existence before I begin to exist right and so before I begin to exist my parents have to begin to exist and before they begin to exist the a parents have to begin to exist in my sexual now if everything everyone and everything is like this and nothing would begin to exist so what is required is there to be a is that there must be a first course which does not need to depend on another thing to bring into existence and such a thing what then have must also have the capacity to bring other things into existence and such a first course would have to be without beginning because everything that begins to exist requires a course right and so this is an argument to show that there must be a beginningless first course I mean it sounds similar in in a way to the you know the liveness you know argument of God being a necessary being in that sense you know while everything else appears so as you can see to be contingent to have a cause for any reason to be you know didn't have to be here in that sense is that is that energy but there's probably some differences I imagine between there are some similarities in the argument demonstration necessary being but there's also a difference as well cause in like it's inversion like this does not prove that the first course but let me see inversion doesn't consents the beginning of existence is relies on the principle of sufficient reason whereas the version that I'm defending here is based on the causal principle which is everything that begins to exist has a cause and demonstrating in that there must be a beginning those first course and which must also have free will right to begin the first event and so the history of events must have a beginning and that just shows that and that's the difference between my version and the Latin version yeah so great this is really helpful and we just needed a bit of time there I think Alex to spell this out this particular way of thinking about the argument and so it's really up to you Alex where you want to begin we've got about you know in five minutes this side of the the first break to took for you to start to open up some of your questions and objections to this so where do you want to begin Alex well I think I can say something very briefly about most of those things that have come up where we can we can go in more depth I think organically as in terms of because there may be something I'll save will sound more objectionable then something else so I think let's start at the beginning so we have a couple of philosophical reasons I mean that's just to some extent let's put the physics to one side I mean I think physics is hard neither of us are physicists and physics is in a weird state of change in it's very tentative area and I would be hesitant to draw much I would rely on you know I wouldn't bet my house on a cosmological theory contemporary cosmological theory because they're all kind of speculative and there's no particular agreement amongst cosmologists about exactly which theory is the best one so I well you know a big point towards their being a big bang very hot for a dense stage of the universe 13 billion years ago whatever but then there's the serious disagreement about what what the status of like immediately prior to that cool whether that's the beginning of whether there's some other stuff going on there's lots of different interesting models so and I you want to put to one site because it feels to me it's just a big mess and it's hard to know what to think about it well we've got a very very interesting show on that coming up in our next season of the big conversation when William Lane Craig and Roger Penrose sat down to debate some of those issues so yeah we'll leave that one aside for them to debate it at other time but go ahead what let's yeah let's stick with the philosophy this time then so go ahead yeah okay so let's say those on 100 is an argument which says something about there must be a beginning right there must be a first event otherwise there would be an endless series of events in the past and there can't be an endless series of anything because that would be a actual infinity which is a kind of technical term well that term means in set theory which is where it comes from is that it's a quantity where you can take a proper part of that quantity and line it up with the whole right so you can show mathematically that there are just as many even numbers as there are whole numbers and intuitive you think well it's got to be half as many when you can show mathematically that there's the same number right so infinite sets have that property and it's a weird property definitely what's counterintuitive and if there is an infinite series of events in the past then you could kind of number them and line up every other one with the total and you'd be able to sort of show that it had the same property and the thought would be well well you can have you can imagine things like that and set theory or whatever they were you know those types of consequences so Hilbert's hotel is the example it's about infinite guests in there but you can even if every room is full you can accommodate new guests by just getting everyone to move up one room yeah guest house one room to go into and it makes a new room for somebody else to come along so it was full but there's still room for someone else right so any of these and a weird consequences and I agree that's weird right but I I guess I get off the train at that point because I just kind of think it's weird but weirdness itself or as it's for absurdity you shouldn't put you off of the philosophical argument nor else you're not gonna get very far and and you know there's weird stuff that we think is true like super positions or whatever like if I gave you an a priori argument for a super position 150 years ago you'd probably tell me it was absurd and too weird to contemplate now we all think it's true so I don't know whether it being weird is a good reason to think that it couldn't exist and lots of the arguments turn on it seems to me some way of I think it's important just a flag down in there some way of reconciling our you know we're expecting things to be like we see them around us but if that thing's true things would be different from how they are to be around us and that's the reason so are you essentially at the outset questioning the idea that you couldn't necessarily have an actually infinite set of events you're saying okay yeah yes when we use things like Hilbert's hotel it seems to have absurd consequences to us commonsensical ii it doesn't seem to make sense but we know that weird stuff happens in reality and therefore we shouldn't necessarily grant this first premise of the argument that you can't have a an infinite set of events yeah okay so I think that's that's a good question to ask right at the outset and since we're already heading into our first break let's take a quick pause and then have Andrew respond to it and we'll do some more and see where we get to in the rest of the conversation deep dive today something we go you know come back to every so often I think about a year ago actually we last did the Kalam cosmological argument I think that was Alex O'Connor the cosmic skeptic on that occasion taking the atheist role opposite let me see who was it I can't remember it was probably Cameron Bertuzzi or someone like that but do go and check out the the past archive of unbelievable four more debates in this area something we come back to every so often my guest today Andrew loke assistant professor of philosophy and religion at Hong Kong Baptist University defending the idea that God is the best explanation of the cause of the universe Alex Malpass atheist philosopher from Bristol who's taking the the sceptical line on that one and we are going to be back in a short moments time with more from the show that aims to get you thinking unbelievable for more conversations between Christians and skeptics subscribe to the unbelievable podcast and for more updates and bonus content sign up to the unbelievable newsletter welcome back to this week's edition of the show doing a philosophical deep dive on whether God is the cause of the universe a common question we circle around to fairly frequently here on unbelievable cosmological arguments are probably among the most popular apologetic arguments kind of easy to grasp aren't they intuitively you know if the universe came into existence what caused the universe could that cause be God well Andrew loku assistant professor of philosophy and religion at Hong Kong Baptist University's passing through London has managed to come to my studio to talk about his own way of approaching this he's the author of God and ultimate origins or make sure there are links to that from today's program in conversation today with Alex Malpass who's an atheist philosopher from Bristol and he runs the thought ology podcast in the use of Reason website and just in that last section Andrew essentially Alex saying okay it's weird to us the idea of an actually infinite set of events in the past but hey weird things happen maybe we just aren't in a position to kind of you know rule it out necessarily so how do you respond to that yourself well before I respond to death let me first clarify that there is a there are a number of arguments to show that an infinite regress is not possible mm-hm and this argument there's objections is concerned with it's only one of the arguments right the people hotel arguments it's only one of the arguments and I want to emphasize that each of these arguments and in fact there are others so for example there's still one argument offered by this philosopher called Ben waters is called Methuselah die Reno which tries to show that there's some kind of paradox which would result if there's not even a pause and and can you I don't know if you could very briefly explain that cuz it sounds fascinating just from the name the Methuselah diary it's a diary okay can you explain what that that kind of particular objection to well it may take some time to explain okay but maybe we'll leave it probably opening your hand of worms I shouldn't you simply do it's not any one of these arguments will be if some will be sufficient to demonstrate the conclusion okay and so the defender of the column does not have to defend all four arguments he just have to defend one of them okay and and for me personally I think that all four then are defensible but to defend oh then I think would take too much time okay so but for the for the Hubert Hotel type of argument you can check out my book going autumn origins in Chapter two I explained that and the probably the concrete actually in tonight is not just that there will be some kind of real results as alex says but that it will actually violate certain metal certain necessary truths even that and and therefore such a concrete actually even I cannot exist so is it the equivalent of saying like if we accept something like you know the law of non-contradiction you know that a and not a cannot both be the case you can't simply say oh well weird things happen so maybe that could be the case it's the know we've got to just accept that some things can't be on the basis of logic and and this is one of them as far as you're concerned you know so logical impossibility will be one kind of metaphysical impossibility other kinds as well which I explained in my book yeah but but for today's discussion I want to go there because I would take a long time sure right so I would like to focus on the new argument which I develop and the argument for the lack of capacity to begin to exists well let's just get a quick response from from Alex before we go there and we do want obviously folks on your specific argument but Alex you know obviously Andrew feels it is defensible and you can't simply say well you know maybe weird things happen as far as Andrew is concerned it's an impossibility that we're dealing with here yeah I mean okay so I mean obviously I agree there's more to be said than that but the I do have a feeling that a lot of the arguments trade around similar issues although there are different ways of stating the argument and my gut feeling is that most of them trade on that type of reaction I was sketching out very briefly that which I totally concede is massively inefficient to really this rate massively yes must be insufficient to yeah deal with the arguments on their own I do want to just very very briefly just say something about a logical impossibility is a matter of basically deriving a contradiction from a set of claims fair enough could say a lot about that but I went very quickly the idea that there's some other type of possibility that's called metaphysical possibility I am very dubious about this I just don't know what we're talking about there very often especially if they're very removed from our experience you know I'm perfectly clear that it's let's say metaphysically possible for me to have a conversation with you guys because that's happening right now and I guess everything that's actual it's possible but once we start straying very far away from our experiences I wonder the basis that we can really claim to know metaphysical possibility especially if it's not just reducible to logical possibility there's some other other grade of possibility that's why I'm very dubious of claims like that that are very far away from our experience yeah okay yeah no we're we obviously that because of time we will move things along and let you develop a bit more of your own argument here now Andrew and how do you want to move on you know in terms of this idea of her you know in your view you can't get this infinite regress you so you have to sort of have a backstop if you like to carry on the argument and let's see what while alex has to say yeah so let me say something about metaphysical impossibly first uhm yeah I I understand the reasons why Alex has some doubts about this notion and I think to address this thought we had to look into the details of the argument actually and so and try to act when I try to explain in chapter 2 my book why is it metaphysically impossible that a concrete infinities exist but I don't go further in that direction because I do focus on the new argument yeah which I presented very briefly just now which is that document for the lack of capacity to begin to begin to exist is the lack of capacity to begin to exist for you is a significant strengthening if you like argument on on the cosmological argument so spell it out for us again briefly and let's let's dive into it yeah and the reason why this this or new argument is receptacle addition to the other existing arguments is because this argument does not need to again do complicated debates about the nature of infinities which some people might have some talks about but which I think those stops are I mean can be address actually I think the argument is too defensible but my new argument doesn't need to go in you can kind of put that to one side yeah just really still have a very strong argument here in your view yes yes right yeah and so the argument in nutshell is III lost really analogy just now debts if everything that begins to exist requires a prior thing which itself also it requires something to bring in excellence then nothing would begin to exist so there needs to be a first entity light like with the analogy about the money you need money you want me to give it to you but I need money someone else to give it to me Alex and he needs someone with none of us are capable of producing the money ourselves we have to have an original source that can produce money and the same applies to the course of existence if you like the cause of the universe and everything we know so so the so you call this the lack of capacity to begin to exist and this is something in your view only God can can have this lack of capacity to begin to exist well the argument is actually based on the cause of principle that everything begins to exist has requires a course yes so what for me do begin to exist my parents have to begin to exist first before I can begin to exist and for them to begin to exist the apparence have to begin to exist person before data can be context is and so if that is all there is then nothing would just begin to exist just as each of us have no money or not and we need other people give us money then none of us were able to have money right so what is required is a first entity in the case of the causal repelled regrets there must be a first course to terminate that regress and the first course must have the must have independent existence right right independent existence in the sense that it does not require another thing to bring it into existence and in order for the first cost to have this independent existence it must be beginningless because everything that begins to exist requires a course so if the course of premise is true yeah then I think the conclusion follows right ok well let's go with that before we start to take any further Alex what what do you make of this particular way of expressing the argument yeah so um thanks I think it's helpful as I guess I'm wondering I missed the bit I guess where we excluded the possibility that there's an infinite chain of people say lending each other money how did we rule that out an infinite chain of people lending each other money so so so are you saying that that you you don't necessarily have to have someone starting that chain off it could just be me okay so obviously some point for me to exist my parents needed to have existed first room for them to exist above what I'm not I'm not catching the contradiction with the hypothesis that I mean we don't think this is actually true logically just think about a situation where everybody has parents every and the changes goes on without any beginning like what what's the objection in this argument to that hypothesis how did we rule that out go ahead okay so the objection to debt will be similar to the objection to say everybody who can begin to exist and can begin to have money will require another person to give it to him before he can have money in that case nobody and the problem is that nobody has money to begin with is like saying that each person has someone to give them money but the problem is that each person has no money and so there's no capacity for anybody to have money and likewise there's no capacity for anything to begin to exist if that's the case but if everybody if everybody borrows money from somebody right and then it feels like that first premise is satisfied right that no one has the capacity to make their own money or something everybody borrows money of somebody else sorry I miss them so but the is Andrew saying but the problem is that there's somebody else in question doesn't have any money either they're they're going to be borrowing it but the chain goes on no one in this this causal regrets industry never ever actually has any money they're waiting for the person who eventually can give the money and and that person never comes in a in an infinite regressive of people it's the way I'm saying this is that there's this premise which says that nobody can generate their own money right let's assume that that premise is true and then it feels like it you're what you want to say well it follows from that that nobody's got any money and I want to say well as if you could borrow money of someone that had money then you'd have money and I think you agree with that if somebody borrows money of someone who has money then they can have money and and it feels like the first premise is going to be true it's still right just the fact that you can't make your own money it's that's going to be true but you can still have money as long as you everybody's borrowed money off somebody else and and I'm not seeing that there's a logical contradiction with the hypothesis that there's just an infinite chain of people who borrowed money off the previous person and now you can say where did the money come from right but and I'd be careful about saying that in a way that doesn't beg the question right because you want you can't say well who had the first money because on this hypothesis there is no first money right it's just an infinite regress that just goes back forever so there is no first so it would be question begging to say where did the first bit of money come from but my question is just where's the where's the contradiction I mean if there's no contradiction it just feels like there is a consistent way of making the premise that you can't make your own money or you can't be a train pulls itself without a car that's already moving pulling it or they can't be a cause an effect that doesn't have a cause in all of these arguments have basically the same way of saying different ways of saying the same thing we just feels like I I want I want a reason to rule out conceptually the idea that there's just a chain that goes back forever I'm still not quite getting you yeah so the reason that result is that zero plus zero plus zero is C equals zero right so money comes from right so I'm not begging the question but assuming that there's a first guy who has money but I'm saying that nobody has money right and just like also in the analogy of the Train you mentioned that just not animation in my book as well no supposed there's a series of train cars reg magan's right so before the last wagon can begin to move the wagon before it has to begin to move yes and before then reckon before that has been moved over the one before that has to begin to move yes if that's the case then no matter how many wagons we have right none of them will begin to move what do you need it's a it's a engine right of us a first mover kind of something that can begin to move by itself and doesn't require another thing to put it along for that to exist and begin the roof and then the rest will begin to move that's why it's quite a bit but your your problem here Alex to be your you're satisfied that you could in principle have an endless cause of things they are moving or where money is being handed along or things are being caused even if you never reached at first cause or an engine or someone with some money you could still have an endless chain of those things happening and obviously Andrew just fundamentally disagrees that you can't have that to start with without without the first call right so I mean I first of all I don't know right I'm not saying I believe - there's an endless cause of an endless chain of courses I don't know if there is or not right that's not my position but if Andrew wants to say that and you know such and such argument therefore there has to be a first cause and I just there needs to be something that's prevented this otherwise possible if these conceptually option there isn't a first cause but you know everything is just caused by something on so let's go back to the train analogy because certain the idea of the nor plus naught plus not whatever equals naught that comes from the book and I that I read prior to this so I had some thoughts about it so obviously it's true if you have a chain of train cars that's not moving right for them to start moving and let's say no they can't generate their own motion right they have to be pulled in order to move then they're not going to start moving unless there's one can generates its first motion my first puller as as you described it in the book that's true so I think if you have a bunch of stationary cars that can't start moving unless as a first bullet and they're not gonna start moving and that's the first of all I think it's a sort of plain and straightforward and I agree with that that's right and but I don't you know I want to say well why can't there be a an infinite series of train train cars each of which can't move unless it's being pulled by one that's moving which is moving right and then each one is pulling the next one right and so each one the sort of explanation for its movement is to be found in the one that's pulling it and that that explanation just goes all the way down the line and so - but you know Andrews mathematical expression of that was naught plus nor there's no equals not and I kind of want to say you know 1 times 1 times 1 is one if they're long as they're all moving and be the movement of the whole thing will be the same speed as any of them in particular so you know if we start off saying that they're not moving are they gonna start moving no they're not but what about if they were already moving then there wouldn't be any need for a first mover seems to me yeah so I just this objection in my book as well and my response to this is that if you assume that the shrink in the cars are already moving right then there'll be this analogous to the situation we have here which is things begin to exist requires a course right because if they already moving then they don't begin to move right they're already moving right breast the situation here is that no things do begin to exist and they can't begin to exist by their own power and so didn't require something else to begin to exist first and so yeah so I think your objection an alternative scenario that you mentioned will be this analogous to that my argument my argument and therefore doesn't constitute a relevant objection to my arguments okay good so I think I think I want to say two things if I can keep them straight in my head so I think the first thing to say is that saying that the causal chain so saying that the kind of train car series where it's where they're all moving is dis analogous I find that claim quite puzzling because to me it seems quite so let's just be clear about it the train cut the infinite series of train cars that are all moving seems quite analogous to me to an infinite series of causes each of which is sorry an infinite series of effects let's say where each one is caused by the previous effect and I just feels very similar like I'm not sure why it's dis analogous and if the the point of dis analogy is that they don't that there's no beginning to the movement then that feels like well it would be saying that it's dis analogous only that it doesn't have a beginning in it then you know my whole point here is that we're not considering a chain that doesn't have a beginning and not sure why and it's unfair to talk about a chain it doesn't have a beginning in that context so I'm not really getting wise yes so that this analogy is in the each of the individual members of the chaîne right so in each member so in the course of series so for me to begin do I exist because I I don't always exist right it's just like the train cars no they are not always moving they begin to move so so I I don't always exist I began to exist and for me to begin to exist my parents had to begin to exist first right and so to do have analogy that has analyzed analogous to that right we have to think about a train car that begins to move rather than a trinket that's always moving right to say that the trinket is always moving seems to be assuming that I similar to I always exist which is not a case yeah sure okay I think I see clear more clearly now what what's going on here maybe where the difference comes in so there is this helpful and distinction in the philosophy of time which and we could spend ages on of course as well but maybe very briefly just describe this you know you can characterize the same sequence of events in two ways either in a dynamic way in a static way quite so you can say something like my trip to the dentist is future in any weight and anything my trip to the dentist is present and then later on you say my trip to the dentist is past or something when see of this dynamic way of describing things but evil so you can describe exactly the same description at the same event say that with in a different way because you can say something like you know my my consoling myself about my sawtooth is before my trip to the dentist's earlier than the trip to the dentist and my feeling a lot better after having my tooth taken out is after the later than the trip to the dentist brighten it the first set of facts changes as time passes but the second set of facts doesn't change as time passes right and I guess I'm thinking about the sequence of causal events like in the second wave one so I'm saying okay I begin to exist at say TZ right that's true I don't exist at time earlier than T zero but on the other hand I'm just want to say from that static point of view earlier than my beginning to exist there's a cause and earlier than that there's a cause for whatever caused me to begin to exist and indeed later than me there'll be an effect but I have where I bring something into existence right after that so I'm just describing all of the sequence of causal events in a timeless perspective right now kind of static way which seems equally valid and so I don't see any reason why I can't talk about it like that and then if I do it now failed to see why you know all of those facts about the beginning and the ending they just seemed like they were timelessly true if you like about what happens in particular times right like I begin to exist at t0 that statement is true regardless of when I say it so now I feel like this yeah so I think the difference is that you want to talk about it in a dynamic way whereas I think I'm talked about in a kind of static way and that might be where at this Freeman connection I think I should just want to I think I'm tracking with this but you may have slightly lost me and you that means you may have lost some of the audience but let's let's keep going and if you want to just maybe restate again Alex's position they're just just for my benefit as much as anyone else is oh yeah so Ellis thinks that my argument is based on a dynamic view of time okay first is assuming a static for your time and and just again the difference being the the dynamic view sees things as past present and future and and a static view is more just just to get I'm not sure I quite grasped that the difference between the static if you want to try get it sorry later done so earlier than and later and how is that different to past and future well because so take for instance World War one and World War two right World War one is earlier than World War two yeah well later than World War one well but that fact about their relation being earlier and later than each other is independent of whenever I'm speaking doesn't make any difference why see my current OSI film from where you're from from your position that they're both in the past but right and yes and that changes because I mean I I wasn't ever in the future for me but you know presumably for some people it was in the future and then they experienced it and then it was in the past where is the relational fact about which ones earlier on which ones later doesn't change when it's right okay to change as time passes the state what's right in line and that's the static view and you're saying you're thinking of it in the static way and you're thinking of it in the dynamic way and this is where we're having a difference of opinion on on how you conceive this this endless chain of potential causes in effect okay yeah yes so I want to clarify by saying that my argument doesn't depend on the dynamic view of time even on the static view it's still the case that a later de Vence are in a way dependent on earlier events so for example if you know a hydrogen isn't formed in the earlier history of the universe right later on there won't be water right so the existence of water you know on earth is required requires that the hydrogen is formed at the early history of the earth noise so and that is true required regardless of whether the dynamic view or static view is is true yeah so my argument is not based on a particular view of time but is based on the notion of dependence right that later events are in a way dependent on earlier events later point little events to begin to exist earlier events have to begin to exist first and that is the problem and that gives you your your infinite regress which in your view has to be terminated in in a first cause I mean I don't want to maybe didn't do it do we want to kind of accept that obviously you you're not I'm not going to get you guys to agree on this maybe program B there's just a difference in perspective it might just be me being thick as well as remember that's no I'm sure it's not that I'm sure it's it's that you guys are busy thinking about this in different directions before we go to a final break and where does this take is if we if we were to again try and just move on a bit do you have any fundamental problems Alex with you know if if you were to if to be convinced that that there's a sort of first cause is necessary that you have to have someone given the money or starting the train off or whatever and in the case of our existence there has to be a first cause starting that that that that cause would would look something like god or do you contest that kind of a and home from this yeah that bit I also find very confusing so I predicted you would somehow but well I'm happy to talk about less and put that to one side and let's just say for the sake of argument do we hit a staff feel definitely that was a fair cause I know you can problems up with that well what why don't we do that and we'll give us as a little time now we'll go to our break slightly early and we'll we'll come back for a good a good amount of time to flesh this one out because I think that's an important thing to also talk about on the show today is God the cause of the universe we're asking it may have sounded at times like we were having a financial program today with all this talking money and who's going to pay the bill at the end of the day but though this is a philosophical debate on an unbelievable today and appreciate you being with us for this Andrew loke assistant professor of philosophy and religion at Hong Kong Baptist University is making the case for God as the best explanation of how things came into beginning in the very first place and Alex Malpass our atheist philosopher is a dude doing his job trying to make the case against so um we'll continue this discussion in a short moments time here on the show that aims to get you thinking very hard this week unbelievable if you listen to unbelievable Justin brierley on premier Christian radio and enjoy the conversations between Christians and skeptics then this is the perfect app for you for the latest updates with podcasts videos articles bonus content and much more download premier unbelievable app today [Music] so in the final part of today's discussion big philosophical discussion on whether God is the cause of the universe we've been hearing from Andrew Lok from Hong Kong Baptist University and Alex Malthus atheist philosopher again do make sure to check out the links from today's show to both of their works God and ultimate origins is the big book from Andrew arguing the philosophical case for God as the cause of the universe and Alec sir runs the use of reason website and the thought ology podcast which you might want to check out as well premier Christian radio calm forward slash unbelievable for Today Show and the links there and just in that last section I think we decided by consensus that we'd maybe agree to disagree on this idea of whether you know you it's necessarily wrong to talk of it I mean for that series of causes and effects and say well let's say we are agreed maybe we need a first course okay let's move to that part of the argument and in your view that first cause would be God would be the best explanation of this first course you want to just spell it out briefly again and then we'll get Alex to respond Andrew yeah I saw earlier on explained that infinite regress of course it's not possible and that I also explained that my argument is not dependent on a dynamic or static view of time they regard as right no matter what your time is true in the notion that the dependence relation diversity requires a first cost as independent right mom anything else and so this independent first course must be uncrossed obviously right cause it's the first you can exist independently and and in other way to exist independently it must also be without beginning because everything that begins to exist requires a course and I defend this key premise in chapter 5 of my book ok I give a deductive arguments to proof that everything that begins to exist has a cause I'm not sure and we have time to discuss this and just then you say we are short time yeah anyone find out they can check out my book my book so given that that is the case the first cost must be without beginning and the first course must also be initially changeless because an infinite regress of Changez it's not possible and I defined a change as an event there's something that has big beginning of existence you can't have the infinite regress of death and therefore there must be and also the first events right must have come begin to exist on course as well on the basis of the course of principle right and so the first event must have been brought about right by a first course which is initially changeless mmm and for the initially changeless first course to cause the first events to change and costly recipients the first course must have the capacity to initiate the first events and also have the capacity to prevent itself from changing initially such that it can be initially changeless and so the first customer says this doer capacity right to initiate the first event and also to be able to prevent itself immediately if I'm initiating the first events and this to the diversity to choose essentially is essentially yes yeah to just freely start things off right and this characterized free will and so the first cost must attribute and finally the first cost must also have tremendous power right to bring about this entire universe and actually this juncture some you know I also bring in say considerations based on fine-tuning for example but there was another way and also argue that this first cost must be highly intelligent as well you know they bring about a universe that's mighty ordered and fine-tuned attention other capabilities and things to this this first cause but in the end even just when the the idea of this first course having free will and enormous power you're already looking at something that looks like the classical view of a greater essentially of ever Creator God so yeah I mean so basically Alex checkmate a theist there you go not really I I know that there's lots you want to say about how we got here but let's go with this first cause idea what what's your view does would would this first course have to look like a God Creator God in the way that Andrew is spelled out here yeah so I'm not convinced obviously no surprise right but so it's try and think about the clearest way of stating so to me like this there's something kind of difficult to grasp about the notion of a so let's be clear about it the first cause is is being posited as a personal being right who has free well libertarian free will and makes a decision chooses to cause the world to come into existence or it's not a mechanism that's forced to do it because the cogs were turning and it just did it eventually or something it's an agent making free choice now I am dubious here as as to the legitimacy of that concept once we've deviated so far away from our ordinary experience of agents so for instance I don't I've obviously never experienced any agents that weren't located in time right I'm certainly not that located in space as well and I'm not completely convinced that it makes sense to say that you could decide to make a choice based on a reason unless you're already in time I'm not sure what that can really mean I'm happy to go into more detail yeah but a struggling and the very same thought struck me as well that can you even speak of choosing something if the concept of time hasn't yet kind of been created you know because it does appear that when I choose something that there's a passage of time and a sequence of events if you like and if I could just develop the thought a very tiny bit further so that it's not just simply me saying well that's weird because I checked it a minute ago just saying everything it's weird is false right but I said I do think just don't just start that off by saying it is weird and I'm not quite sure whether it makes sense to say that there's an agent that can make choices it doesn't exist in time but I also want to point out that it feels to me like there's a kind of move which strikes me as at least worth bringing up right so if there's a point in Andrews book where he refers to an objection by Quentin Smith and I'm very briefly read this I because Smith contends that there's no standard theory of causation according to which an agent could have caused the universe to exist and so he's saying what does it mean to say an agent cause of the universe to exists and in you quote Craig is saying and reply to Smith Craig of so the definition is discussed by Smith or it's called be concerned with natural physical causes and I'm not intended to cover since reckoned I cases as divine causation that the origin of the universe dot dot one must be careful not to beg the question against of divine cause by defining causality in such a way that the definition expresses a prejudice against the possibility of divine cause and so what I take that to mean is it Smith saying look take causation from like physics or whatever and there's no special bit in that that like all agents doing stuff right all agent causes as described by physics are just normal types of physical causation right there's no additional type of causation so agent causation is already a type of causation that doesn't fit in to our best physical understanding of what causation is and Craig's saying yeah but you shouldn't expect our best physical description of causation to be the one that's relevant here because we're talking about the beginning of the universe so it's going to be different from our normal experience of things and I think okay that's fair enough right you can it is possible of course if there's a different type of causation that's at play here but I just want to note that if if the move is to abandon the normal type of causation at that point and to say that it's not we should expect it to not be the type of causation that we see in everyday life then the inference from all of those things reset everything that begins to exist around me has a cause well that's a different type of cause right so it already makes me think that that you know we've shifted away from the okay good then don't give basis that we had and now we're talking about agents making choices but of course it's not an agent like one we know right because all the ones we know about are in time they take it in time and so does this amount to kind of a sort of special pleading for for God by you know that we're okay with if there's a problem talking about causation in time and space we're just going to say well that's it's something different here and yeah it feels to me like if the door has been open to start talking about things are completely different to anything we've experienced before then there are other options out there so for instance says it's nice paper by Alexander Vilenkin from 1987 I think where he talks it's a four-page paper it's mainly equations a basic picture of it is that the universe tunneled into existence from nothing my crazy idea but it's quite cool but basically what he has to have there is that there are laws of physics pre-existing that the universe coming into being and they somehow have a causal input input into that tunneling event but you know someone might want to say laws of physics they don't cause stuff right in like abstract objects and then cause anything but to quote Andrew you one must be careful not to beg the question against a theory of laws of nature causing stuff right even though we've no experience of that happened before maybe that's just what happened you know we shouldn't okay you prejudiced against a possibility so I feel that once we've opened the doors there you limit right and and yeah and enough it feels like we we've approached you know I did a show with that was more in the scientific realm with Sean Carroll and Luke Barnes a while ago where they basically got down to the point about brute facts see are you gonna just have a brute fact that reality exists or that God is the brute fact behind reality and so on and it feels a bit like you know well I'm just going to choose my special calls and you'll choose your special calls and we'll both agree to so so where do we go with this entry how do you reconcile this idea that you know are you begging the question by saying well we're talking about different kind of cause when it comes to a an agent like God who exists outside of time and space whereas all the other causes we know about you know exist within that particular kind of framework yeah so let me clarify for saying that my conclusion that's there must be your first course roof review is arrived at deductively right so I deduce right then that you must have the capacity to initiate the first events in a way that's not determined by prior events and also had the capacity to prevent yourself I'm changing now alex is concern that in in our ordinary experiences we had no experience of such a thing but my response is that well you know there are things that we can know without having to experience ourselves so for example I can know that there is no such things as a shapeless square for example right because it values the laws of logic right and so I don't have to experience the whole universe I don't have to check every part of the universe to make sure oh you know there's no shape no square here there's no disk right there in order to know that there can be such a thing right I just have to understand it I just have to understand what a shape means and what a square means and then I'll be able to deduce that there cannot be such a thing as a shapeless square so likewise I don't have to experience the first cost myself or don't know that oh you know it has three but I can arrive it by Mojang by deduction and I have clear sense of the and so and so um so yeah other stairs caused by this deductive understanding actually yeah I don't and and then what about the actual agency there and that's the thing about that so let me move on yeah so that's my first point of response second response it was to say that you know in fact agent causation is not all debts unfamiliar to us in fact our basic notion of causation is primarily agent causation so for example for me it seems to me that I I can choose to come here this morning and I can choose not to compute this morning and also agent causation is in fact something from very familiar to us now some of course know there'll be people who say that well no that's just an illusion agent causation is asian and everything can be explained by the deterministic law of physics right and I think that's where Quentin Smith is coming from yeah but well but regardless of whether that is true or not so right this notion itself is intelligible right whether it can be explained by causal determinism guys another question what I'm saying is that this notion is familiar to us is intelligible and the first cost must have this in order to bring about the first events okay and the reason why the first cost must have this is it follows from the premises of my arguments right so the first course must have this capacity for agent causation yes just in order for there to be something that begins everything and gets us here and Alex though I think is saying but the only way we understand agent causation is in terms of time and space and and things following sequentially in events and you're talking about something that that seems to exist outside of that reality beyond that reality so at that point you know who knows what we could posit here so this brings me to the point of response and so I don't think there's anything essential to the definition of a joke relation that requires it to be always in time I don't think this attending essentially that to the definition I think it's just an accidental property note that we we you know you know what we happen to do we we are in time and we understand ourselves to be acting in time but I don't think it's essential to do that condition itself that requires it that it must be in time right so that's this on the right hand on the other hand no again I say no what follows deductively from the premises that is that no that there must be such a first course right that has this ability to bring about other things and in order for it to start of us even it must have this preview and let me just add also that I don't think the notion of deliberation is necessary for agents as well so just now Justin I think you mentioned that for us right making a decision next time and we need to delete deliberate right before we decide right but for but the notion of deliberation is not essential to a libertarian free choice in fact if if a divine force cause exists if God is omniscient for example it doesn't have he wouldn't need to deliberate right oh sure I do should I create elects or should not create Alex he doesn't need to deliberate he would have known from eternity and so III if if such a divine force cause exists we wouldn't need deliberation and I have written by my argument that there must be such a fast horse we are gonna have to start wrapping this up on the fried and that's a shame because we there's so many more things that we could uncover here I'm sure Alex dear with that in mind jump in quick response and then we'll ask you to start sort of concluding gentleman sorry okay and like all these things you know I can't have an infinite chain of arguments on my program and that's just the reality for Kerry can be the only way of settling this absolutely okay so it does feel to me like I guess you can have libertarian free choice without deliberation right so but it does I can pick things at random I guess if I have a libertarian choice but if I'm doing things for reasons but there's no process of deliberation first then start to wonder why it's different from a random choice you know it's all you so you can say maybe God considers the reasons for doing the action simultaneously with doing the action and that feels to me very much like I mean it's only take any other case of somebody doing something and not thinking about why they're doing it first but thinking about it whilst they're doing it well I certainly take someone who thought you I chose to have coffee instead of tea I'm gonna make my mind up about why I did that after I make that choice you'd say that was nonsense why you can't it's too late to make your mind up about it right if you had reasons for it they have to be before the event maybe there can be simultaneous with but I think that what you've got there if someone's considering the actions as they're doing it I think that's basically indistinguishable from somebody doing something for no reason I'm not sure that there's I think that's a distinction without a difference so I think that in that case I'd be I'd be questioning whether or not you end up with a theology that God just makes the world randomly and then I kind of think well what's the difference in that and just saying happen for no reason so I think you know you have to have a process of deliberation in the first place in order for it to fit into the the idea of it being done for a reason right and I think that's crucial to to the account quick response Andrew then we will okay so yeah for a finite human - no we for us to be teaching we need to you need time to do it but for infinite mind you know God God has reasons why God doesn't have to require time in order to make up his mind to think through these things he can have all these reasons in eternity and so my view of God is that God exists beginning lessly timelessly and changeless t without the first events and in that state and God is already aware of all the reasons he doesn't need time to think about them and then he freely chose to undertake right to bring about the first events and just with me for reason reason to do so we will leave it there and I fully understand you would you would disagree and have further questions on that Alex final thoughts from you Alex as we as we close out today's show and thank you so much for being such a willing participant and and keeping things at a level where I was able to follow as well yeah go ahead oh yeah well thanks very much for having me it's been an enjoyable conversation and I guess I want to say that the I think a lot of these arguments while they look ironclad and deductive on paper they often end up requiring a kind of and intangible and like Gestalt shift between perspectives right so like the duck rabbit thing where you can see it in two different directions as a dark or as a wrap and you just sort of adopt a way of looking at a perspective or something things seem different so for instance with the notion of the traversing the infinite I totally understand you know to just feel like you know if the moving now had to traverse an infinite number of previous moments it would never arrive here that does feel completely you know convincing to me I totally understand that but then I have a a ninja a then shift from looking at it as a duck to looking at it as a rabbit and I see I think well if it had been doing it for an infinite amount of time already that would have been enough time for it to get here an axe seems perfectly ironclad as some intuitions and they both going to dissolve in contact with each other and I'm left wondering well I just I don't know I think that's where I feel with these things is we can only go so far before I think that my perspective and there are people who are much cleverer than me but my perspective is that at some point my brain is unque unable to clasp onto anything with enough solidity to form a concrete and opinion about it that's and sometimes the way I feel at the end of a philosophical discussion and unbelievable as well but final thought Andrew is as we close our show well want to say is that yes our minds are finite but we do have the ability to know certain truths so some of the truth or logic for example and on the basis of this truth we can deduce that a divine first course exists and I would also want to say that it's not in order for us to we need to have a better and so that's the solution to the issues that Alex raises is actually to have a better understanding of of the issues of one modality means on what the causal principle means what libertarian view means and once we get these notions clear I think the conclusions follows and the condition will be undeniable actually in their sense and I mean you really see this is a really strong I mean to use Alex's phrase ironclad argument in that sense for God yeah interesting it's it's pretty unavoidable if you follow the the evidence as far as you're concerned yeah it's just like I can do that there can't be anything like a shapeless square and I can just write it once understand what means and what square means and likewise when we understand the relevant notions for the cost mulching argument I think we will come to the conclusion well I finally as well so for me this divine force course right it's not just some cow abstract philosophy notion rather is something is a it's a something concrete mmm something that brings about the entire universe and also it's a divine person whom I can know personally as well right so I can't have this relationship with him my true Jesus Christ and what and experience this divine first course but it's really the greatest blessing in the whole entire universe right to know the source of all joy and goodness and blessing that's the most wonderful thing in the whole universe and it is my prayer and hope that an election and all the listeners can experience it yeah of course because view this is far more than just a analytical philosophical argument in the end it's it's it's the source yeah appreciate you saying that and thank you very much for being on the show today Andrew Alex thanks for being with us today as well and it's been great to have you both on do make sure to check out the websites of both my guest today and make sure there are links from today's show and look forward to hearing your thoughts as well as feedback to today's program but for the moment Andrew and Alex all the very best and see you next time for more conversations between Christians and skeptics subscribe to the unbelievable podcast and for more updates and bonus content sign up to the unbelievable newsletter you

Channel: Premier Unbelievable?

Views: 20,632

Keywords: unbelievable, justin brierley, premier christian radio, christianity, atheism, philosophy, faith, theology, cosmological argument, kalam, william lane craig, God

Id: e6y2V8e0uiQ

Length: 71min 43sec (4303 seconds)

Published: Fri Aug 16 2019