DEBATE: with William Lane Craig | Does the Kalam Argument Work?

From Pints With Aquinas (7/23/2021).

Dr. William Lane Craig and Jimmy Akin discuss whether the philosophical version of the kalam argument works. Dr. Craig says yes, Jimmy says no.

[iqgustavo]

🎯 Key Takeaways for quick navigation:

00:25 *🧠 Dr. William Lane Craig and Mr. Jimmy Aiken discuss the philosophical version of the Kalam cosmological argument, aiming to determine its efficacy.*
02:05 *🤔 Aquinas set a high standard for successful arguments in natural theology, leaning towards strict demonstrations over probability.*
03:41 *📚 Aiken acknowledges the appeal and logical validity of the Kalam argument but questions its success from a philosophical standpoint.*
05:08 *🤝 Dr. Craig and Mr. Aiken discuss the philosophical arguments for the finitude of the past, exploring concepts of actual infinity and metaphysical possibility.*
07:57 *💬 Aiken emphasizes the importance of theological consistency in arguments, ensuring they align with Christian faith, particularly regarding God's omnipotence.*
10:47 *🧐 Craig challenges Aiken's theological critique, distinguishing between philosophical and theological objections to the Kalam argument.*
14:42 *💡 Aiken argues that theological considerations are crucial in evaluating arguments for non-believers, aiming for coherence with Christian theology.*
17:00 *🧩 Craig defends a broader understanding of omnipotence, incorporating metaphysical impossibilities beyond strict logical contradictions.*
21:55 *🔄 Aiken challenges the notion of actual infinity, proposing scenarios where God's omniscience allows for the conceptualization but not the real existence of infinity.*
24:40 *🤔 Divine thoughts are considered simple and undivided, not comprising an actual infinite number of thoughts, as per Aquinas and William Lane Craig.*
26:28 *💭 The ability to conceptualize an infinite multitude doesn't imply its actual existence, as illustrated by Hilbert's hotel paradox and other examples.*
28:20 *🔢 Infinity is not treated like any other number; it doesn't follow the same rules, particularly regarding subtraction and division.*
32:57 *🍏 Different procedures of subtraction can yield different results even with an infinite number of items, as illustrated with the apple analogy.*
37:47 *🕰️ Understanding the nature of time is crucial to grasp philosophical arguments about the past and the present, particularly concerning the existence of an infinite past.*
42:45 *⏳ The debate involves contrasting views on the nature of divine eternity and how it relates to the existence of an infinite past, with perspectives ranging from God's timelessness to his simultaneous creation of all time.*
48:07 *🕰️ Dr. Craig emphasizes that objections to the Kalam argument are primarily theological rather than philosophical.*
49:30 *📚 Dr. Craig advocates for a unified approach to knowledge, integrating philosophy, theology, and science in his arguments.*
51:09 *💬 Both Dr. Craig and Jimmy Akin appreciate the importance of integrating philosophy, theology, and science in theological discussions.*
52:18 *🔄 Dr. Craig and Jimmy Akin acknowledge that their differences are more theological than philosophical, especially concerning God's nature and relationship with time.*
54:35 *🤔 Jimmy Akin argues against the premise that forming an actual infinity by successive addition is impossible, suggesting it can be done from a prior infinite collection.*
58:17 *🛤️ Dr. Craig emphasizes how theological presuppositions influence acceptance or rejection of natural theological arguments.*
59:37 *🌌 Jimmy Akin considers the Kalam cosmological argument valid and sound, but sees scientific evidence as more convincing than purely philosophical arguments.*
01:00:48 *🎙️ Dr. Craig directs viewers to reasonablefaith.org for more resources, while Jimmy Akin points to catholic.com and jimmyakin.com for further exploration.*

[meganwarr]

Thank u so much for ur understanding of number, set, & group theories in math. As a math person it is very satisfying to have u understand that “subtraction” is simply one type of process and there r other processes that are “subtraction-like” but not the same.

[ImDanWhoAreYou]

I can’t take Jimmy seriously without the cowboy hat.

[JScholastic]

i love this very simple to understand very respectful no interrupting. Godbless you Akin and Craig ❤🙏

[jesushernandez-eofq]

Love your work Jimmy, your the best... we need ample time for round 2

[erintaylor]

Five minutes ago I thought I was smart.

[jaspersparents]

I love how 2 gigantic brains come together and show how miniscule mine really is... 😭😭😭

[roen]

I think these guys should write a book together.

[rappmasterdugg]

You really need Kamala Harris here talking about the significance of the passage of time.

[thorobreu]

I honestly feel like the articulacy here is going to make my head explode

[chrishand]

Omg omg omg this is gonna be Fan of both

[annahallahan]

I just want to point out that the closed captioning consistantly writes "aiken". "It's so simple A K I N, Jimmy Aiken."

[tonyl]

Jimmy, I agree we shouldn't use arguments that are not consistent with the rest of our worldview. Thanks for pointing out to all of us the Craig's version of the Kalam argument insinuates, if not requires, a "God" bound by time and not actually omnipotent in the classical sense. With regard to God's eternity, it occurred to me that, even before any Lateran or Vatican council, earlier councils condemning Arianism would have elaborated on the eternality of Christ, and thus of God, more specifically. If there was never a time when the Son was not, then that seems to imply God outside of time, but I can imagine someone quibbling with that too. Craig is also a monothelite too apparently, so no surprise he rejects other attributes of God. Found it odd that he tried to appeal to councils when he explicitly rejects the council(s) condemning monothelitism.

[mercifulpianist]

Amazing conversation. Thanks for this.

[luisblanco]

Thank you Jimmy. I always liked the kalam argument only in the logical premise that everything that begins to exist has a cause. I did notice that when I looked into Craig's work on time, I kept thinking that God was a philosophical object and not the God of Jesus Christ. Thank you for hashing this out with him. Now I really understand the details of why the infinite past is possible and why the Kalam argument is probably not important for us as Catholics.

[beorbeorian]

Wonderful people. Thank God for these wonderful men defending the faith. It is obvious they are intelligent, and also have put in many many years of hard work to be so good at debating and discussing the faith.

[theautodidacticlayman]

So many points in this convo had me wondering if the issue could be resolved with an idealist metaphysics, especially the part about denying the reality about math and the absolute infinite amount of real numbers, or the decimal divisions between 0 and 1…

Samuel Lebens has an argument from God’s omnipotence to idealism that is absolutely killer for me. I’d love to hear your take on it, Jimmy.

[MyContext]

This is the first time of which I am aware of your existence and while I may be completely at odds with the idea of theism of any sort, I do find that I appreciate the authenticity that you bring. *Special salute to you on character alone!*
-
This also had the consequence of casting Craig even lower in my character assessment, since he is actively arguing that any argument that convinces whomever should be considered legitimate even if such an argument is inherently in conflict with what he actually believes.

[RumorHazi]

I think if I had an infinite number of apples, my head would not hurt any less…

[Jrce]

6:45 I never even CONSIDERED this question before. Really thinking outside of the box.