At the heart of the Kalam Cosmological argument is the question of a past infinite universe is coherent or actual. Over the last 20-30 years, most of the development of the argument has centered on the growing body of evidence that our universe had a beginning approximately 13.7 billion years ago. While the research is promising and fruitful, it faces a notoriously petty objection of "we just don't know". Science primarily practices inductive reason, making certain knowledge, especially about the distant past, difficult to erect a case on. To be fair, this objection has been used on both sides - atheists writing IOUs for some future model that will extend the Universe into the past eternally and Young Earth Creationists writing IOUs that further examination will yield a young Earth. Thus, while this may be fertile grounds for exploration, it will never provide the certainty that math and logic can provide. Causal Finitism Causal Finitism is the principle that causal chains

cannot be past infinite. It has always had a certain intuitive appeal, but it has been difficult to draw out the exact logical incoherence. Drs. Pruss and Koons may have effectively exposed this incoherence once and for all.  Some Historical Objections First, let's talk about the objections to causal finitism through the years. The original formulations against causal finitism have aimed at the idiosyncrasies of the thought experiments that accompanied the argument. Perhaps the most famous of these arguments is the grim reaper experiment.  A grim reaper is assigned to kill Jack at 12:30 AM. However, another is assigned to kill Jack at 12:15. Yet another at 12:07:50 and so on and so forth, each time halving the time between Midnight and the last reaper. The paradox is this: there is no way for Jack to live past midnight, but there is also no grim reaper who can kill Jack, as there are always an infinite number of reapers between any…

How are we to decide what to do with our time in a moral sense? What guides us? How do we know?

How are we to decide what to do with our time in a moral sense? What guides us? How do we know?

A friend of mine who I admire quite deeply brought up a simple question about moral epistemology. How do we know we are doing right and how do we discern from whom we should be guided? He writes, "I have zero way to verify if what they’re telling me is actually the true will of the invisible judge." Now, I'm sure some would simply respond "read the scripture", but that begs the question in favor of a particular scripture. One would need to first come to a belief in the scripture, but even then the variety of interpretations may be a hindrance. However, I think there is a path forward, guided by our current position in our faith journey, that can be reasonably agreed upon. People should only be held accountable for what they are able to do.If there is a best or set of best possible things a person can do,

he or she should do it.We can conceive of the best possible thing we are able do with our time (in the next 5 minutes, 10 minutes, hour, etc.)We ought to do the best possible thing of which we can conceive. Unfortunately, this leads to a difficult if not depressing conclusion. None of us really takes the time to think, "what is the best possible thing I can do in the next hour" and then actually does it. We always live our lives not only below what a perfect being might desire of us, but below what we know we are capable of. I think this ultimately sheds light on the depravity of humanity. We constantly choose short term marginal pleasure (a better coffee, a new video game, another drink at the bar) over maximal relief (charity for those in dire straits). I am doing this now in writing this post.

A common (albeit unsophisticated) objection to God has been whether omnipotence is a logically coherent concept. This syllogism shows that the objection holds no weight.

Does this age old question carry any weight?

God is omnipotentOmnipotent either entails doing the logically impossible or it does not entail doing the logically impossible.If omnipotence entails doing the logically impossible, then the answer is Yes and No , as God can violate logical laws like the law of non-contradiction.If omnipotence does not entail doing the logically impossible, then the answer is No, but this does

not impact his omnipotence because omnipotence does not entail doing logically impossible things. Furthermore, on the issue of whether omnipotence entails logically incoherent acts... God is omnipotentOmnipotence means "able to do all acts"For an act to be done, it must be logically possible.Logically incoherent acts are not logically possible. Omnipotence doesn't entail doing logically impossible acts.

This is a short syllogism that I wrote. If counterfactuals can be true, then it seems we have an interesting argument for the existence of at least a minimalist form of moral realism.

Whether morality is real or not has long been a subject of debate in Philosophy. Here is a brief argument I produced in support of moral realism.

(P1) If a moral claim is true, it is good to behave in accordance with that claim. (P2) Premise 1 is a moral claim

(C1) At least 1 moral claim (Premise 1) is true (C2) Moral realism is true This whole argument hinges on (P1). Can subjunctive or counterfactual claims be true?

This question is often posed by non-believers as evidence of an egotistical God. This is the syllogism I present to show why God, in being the grounding for Goodness itself, logically necessitates that he command worship.

Some argue that a true God wouldn't demand worship - why would he need it? This simple syllogism shows why an all good God would necessarily command worship.

(P1) Worship means to show reverence for or adoration.(P2) Reverence means to show deep respect for.(P3) It is good to adore, revere, or show deep respect for what is good.(P4) God is Goodness itself (Mark 10:18, 1 John 4:8, 1 John 4:16).(C1) It is good to adore, revere or show deep respect for Goodness.(C2) It is good to adore,

revere or show deep respect for God.(P5) It is good to oblige one's dependents to be good.(C3) It is good for God to oblige us to be good.(C4) It is good for God to oblige us to adore, revere, or show deep respect for God.(C5) It is good for God to oblige us to worship God.