Trent Horn's Proof of God Debates

[quandy57]

Often Trent Horn, in his debates, explains that one of the proofs for God’s existence is that there cannot be an infinite past: if each day leads to the next we could never get to the day we are experiencing now. Or if you dont want to use time, use sequence of events (arguement paraphrased).

However, St. Thomas Aquinas argues otherwise: He stated that the creator could be perpetually creating by his very existence, thus there would be no moment which the universe began, as it is being made as the creator is.

Given this, which I am sure Trent Horn is familiar with, is Trent Horn not accidentally providing a non-proof as a proof for apologetics.

 

[IWantGod]

Aquinas believed that creation including time has a beginning. But he didn’t think that the arguments against an infinite regress were successful.

I disagree, because i think an infinite quantity of irreducible numbers is meaningless. There is not a number that is an actual infinite, so to suggest that a finite quantity can add up to an actual infinite is unintelligible, which is exactly what one is suggesting when they argue that there can be an infinite sequence of finite parts. An Infinite cannot be compromised of finite parts.

Irreducible numbers are only ever potentially infinite.

 

[IWantGod]

Often Trent Horn, in his debates, explains that one of the proofs for God’s existence is that there cannot be an infinite past: if each day leads to the next we could never get to the day we are experiencing now.

That is correct since we cannot achieve an actual infinite, and to reach today from an infinite past would mean that we have achieved an actual infinite, which is a contradiction.

 

[Vico]

Often Trent Horn, in his debates, explains that one of the proofs for God’s existence is that there cannot be an infinite past: if each day leads to the next we could never get to the day we are experiencing now. Or if you dont want to use time, use sequence of events (arguement paraphrased).

However, St. Thomas Aquinas argues otherwise: He stated that the creator could be perpetually creating by his very existence, thus there would be no moment which the universe began, as it is being made as the creator is.

Given this, which I am sure Trent Horn is familiar with, is Trent Horn not accidentally providing a non-proof as a proof for apologetics.

Yes, St. Thomas Aquinas argues the impossibility of an essentially ordered infinite regress, which is different than the kalam cosmological argument of the impossibility of an actual infinite.

 

[lagerald24]

This podcast by Trent may be helpful: https://www.catholic.com/audio/cot/12. Also, check out his podcast on Patreon. It’s called the Counsel of Trent.