@PhilHalper1 recently made a documentary criticizing the Kalam cosmological argument. Trent Horn (@TheCounselofTrent) claims to have 'REBUTTED' the documentary. I claim he has done no such thing. Like the show? Help it grow! Consider becoming a patron (thanks!): https://www.patreon.com/majestyofreason If you wanna make a one-time donation or tip (thanks!): https://www.paypal.com/paypalme/josephcschmid RESOURCES Kalam documentary: https://youtu.be/pGKe6YzHiME Trent Horn's 'REBUTTAL': https://youtu.be/8V7BU3gvKdQ My Kalam playlist: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=irfj8N6uHYE&list=PLxRhaLyXxXkZzH2YffI32ViTZ73Tu8jSR Malpass, A. and Morriston, W. 2020. “Endless and Infinite”, The Philosophical Quarterly. Link: https://drive.google.com/file/d/15XuAPo3gVvivNKTi3bEUnUngU-TU0Qc0/view?usp=sharing Malpass, A. 2021. “All the time in the world”, Mind. Link: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1z07WpISpp0johDceI3KyYb0XsOdYUkGj/view?usp=sharing Malpass, "Craig's Five Point Response: A Response": https://useofreason.wordpress.com/2021/03/25/craigs-five-point-response-a-response/ Malpass, "The Paradox of Dry Eternity": https://useofreason.wordpress.com/2020/01/07/the-paradox-of-dry-eternity/ My review of the Horn-Watkins debate on @CapturingChristianity: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-b4Ziw4uZZw My video with Malpass on Hilbert's Hotel: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6RQa-mPKV8 My video with Malpass on the endless future problem for the GRP: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_L30MRWZlbU Malpass, Hedrick, and Morriston video on the Craig-Malpass debate on @thoughtology7732: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZZYSjuWjn70 My website: https://www.josephschmid.com NOTE: At 2:45:55, I say that an infinite intensive magnitude [e.g., infinite temperature or pressure] is an actual infinite despite not being a collection of definite and discrete elements whose cardinality is aleph-null [or, more technically and precisely, any transfinite cardinal number]. However, earlier in the video I had defined actual infinite as just such a collection. So, this note is a clarification that resolves this apparent conflict, and I apologize for the unclarity in this regard. A clarification could come in one of two ways, and I'm fine with either: first, we could say that an actual infinite is more precisely defined disjunctively as either infinite *number* of things [and so a collection of definite and discrete elements etc.] OR an infinite *quantity*. Second, if we instead leave the definition of 'actual infinite' unchanged, we could modify my claim that 'an infinite intensive magnitude is an actual infinite' to the claim that 'an infinite intensive magnitude is still a concretely realized infinity, and it, too, will possess (at least many of) the problematic aspects of infinity that people like Craig adduce.' Note that nothing of substance in my point in the video would be lost on either clarification, and so my original point stands.