I love these high quality questions that we get and we have a few here that we like to get you to address. First one here from the United States, Seth says,

Dear Dr. Craig, the concept of the multiverse is something that is familiar as part of our culture now. This year has seen two very popular movies, Dr. Strange, in the Multiverse of Madness, and everything everywhere all at once. Those two movies gross big box office and receive favorable views. They both have as their concept that a person has many different versions of themselves that have superficial changes throughout the multiverse. For example, it is me, but with a different job or a different appearance. Now while this is a popular level understanding of a scientific concept, it still feels like it points to something missing in my or our understanding of the multiverse. If some core of myself is the same but has different changes made to it, then what does self mean? I find it interesting that a time travel movie will come out and people will have long discussions about the internal logic, but people take the idea of self at face value. Is there current modern work on the self right now? Can materialist even talk about a self? I think these are excellent questions from Seth, and it is, I think, vitally important that we understand that in this supposed multiverse of worlds, that the counterparts that resemble you in these other worlds are not you. Rather, these are counterparts of you, but they are not you. And so yourself is the self that you know immediately. And Seth is quite right to say that these other counterparts are not yourself. What they are, if they exist, are other persons who resemble you in various ways and do not resemble you in other ways. That they are not yourself is clear from the principle called the indesernability of identicals. And that is that if two things, x and y, are identical, then x has all the same properties as y and y has all the same properties as x. If x and y are actually the very same thing, they're identical, then they cannot differ in any of their properties. And since, according to this hypothesis, these people in these other worlds and the multiverse differ from you in various ways. They are not identical to you. They are other people who simply resemble you in various ways. And so this doesn't raise any of the sort of serious questions I think that set this troubled about that would be raised by say the time travel scenario where the time travel goes back in time and meets himself. There you really do have, I think, metaphysical problems because you have two selves who are, in fact, the same self at the same time, and yet they have different properties. So I'm inclined to say that for that reason, these kinds of time travel stories are metaphysically impossible. But the idea of a multiverse in which there are counterparts to view who are not identical to you, that's not problematic. And in terms of his question, there's lots of work on the self. My colleague, JP Moryland, is a specialist in this area. And Seth might take a look at the chapters that JP has written in our book, Philosophical Foundations for a Christian World View. This is a related question bill. It says, I've been quite curious about the impact of many world's theory quantum mechanics on morality in general. In a scenario of infinitely many real universes, doesn't morality become redundant given that one could be a pious saint in one universe and simultaneously a vicious thug and another one. Also with the existence of God, necessitate the existence of a single universal reality, wave, function, collapse, and give meaning to morality. T tabish in the United States.

I think what I've just said implicitly answers to Bish's question, namely, in these other universes, these people who resemble you or are morally different than you and character are not you. And so what you do morally continues to be significant and God will judge us on the basis of how we've lived our lives. But how somebody else lives his life and some other universe is a question that that person will face before God. It's important to understand these other people are not you because the indesernability of identical rules that out. Next question says, dear Dr. Craig, I'm a devout Christian hoping that you will share a bit of wisdom and guidance as I try to discern God's vocational calling. I'm a doctoral student in the Public Health Sciences, planning to graduate soon. I've been greatly encouraged to my faith while studying your Defender series and other resources during my weekly Sabbaths. The more I reflect on theological and philosophical matters, however, the more I question whether my vocational pursuits Align with God's will, I appear to have been relatively successful in my scientific studies, and I've found great joy in my research and scientific discoveries, which I attributed to God's blessing and provision. It's not clear to me, however, whether my work has any eternal significance, and when the aim of my profession is to minimize earthly physical suffering and premature death without regard for morality or matters beyond this life, I'm a young man, 27, single and financially stable. So there appear to be many paths to choose from, recognizing that such a choice is an unmerited blessing. I'm facing with the question, should I continue working in my field or pursue a vocation that more clearly has eternal significance aligning with my Christian faith such as ministry? Thank you for the work that you do. God bless Jacob in Canada. I remember Kevin when I was a young philosopher just starting out, Robert Adams, a great Christian philosopher, was visiting our school to give a lecture. And I remarked to him about my calling as a Christian to do something significant for Christ. And I quoted to him a little couplet that says, only one life to soon be passed only what's done for Christ will last. And Adam said, well, I would change that a little bit. He'd say, only what's done in Christ will last. And I thought that was a very profound statement. Work that is done for a secular calling, but done in Christ is just as significant as ministry undertaken for the sake of Christ.

If Christ has called you to be a doctor or to be a school teacher or to be a farmer, then fulfilling that vocation for your life is significant. meaningful if it is done in Christ,

that is to say under his lordship and in his power.

And so Jacob, I think, here has a wonderful opportunity

since he's financially stable

to make a decision to discern

where God's will for his life lies.

And I think that pursuing a career in public health saving lives and alleviating pain and suffering is tremendously significant. Now I wouldn't presume to tell him what God's will for his life is. But I would say to him, do not think that Christian ministry is exclusively a divine calling. Other vocations as well can be a divine calling. And so he needs to try to assess which vocation God is calling him to. This next question from Brazil. Hello, Dr. Craig. I'm a great fan of your work. I thank you immensely for converting me to Christianity. My question is very important to me. It causes me discomfort. It makes me doubt my faith. Why supernatural events are not common? It seems to me that there are not many cases of demonic possession. Why don't we see the supernatural events more often, Vittor in Brazil? This is a really good question. I'm sure we've all asked ourselves. And when you look at the biblical record, what you find is that miracles are actually rather few and far between. The miracles of the Bible tend to cluster around great revelatory acts of God in history, like the Exodus out of Egypt, or hundreds of years later in the ministries of Elijah and Elisha, or especially in the ministry of Jesus Christ, God incarnate, whose miracles and exorcisms were demonstrations to people of the in-breaking of God's kingdom and His purpose into human history. And so I think when you look at the long run biblically, we shouldn't expect to see these sorts of miraculous events occurring all the time because they tend to be conjoined with these singular moments of divine revelation like the Exodus and the incarnation of the second person of the Trinity. Next question, hello, Dr. Craig. In your answer to Peter from the UK who asked about death, you explained that humanity missed a chance at immortality by eating the fruit from the tree of knowledge. But in your book, you say that the Garden of Eden was figurative, can you elaborate on that, please, sincerely? Sure, what I was speaking of was in the story, they missed a chance at immortality by eating of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. So I was referring to what happens in the story. And I think that's a way a lot of New Testament authors refer to these events as well. They relate, this is what happens in the story. But the story may well be figurative and therefore is not to be interpreted in a wooden, literalistic fashion. Next question, dear Dr. Cray, how does the theory of metaphysical time escape the problem of an actual infinite? If God counted down to creation, three, two, one, let there be light, wouldn't he have been counting down for an actual infinite amount of time? Wouldn't this be the same problem that atheists have who claim the universe has existed forever? They cannot account for how we have reached today if there has been an infinite number of days prior. Am I missing something? Phil from Canada. When I gave the illustration of God counting down to creation three, two, one, let there be light. I meant to illustrate only a finite number in the countdown, not that he's been counting down from infinity, but that he just counted down three, two, one, let there be light. And the point was to illustrate that these acts of counting would show that time

existed prior to the moment of creation simply in virtue of the mental events in the mind of God. But Phyllis, quite right, this cannot be extended backwards to infinity. Indeed, I argue you enumerous places that it's metaphysically impossible for someone to count down all of the negative numbers ending at zero. That would be an impossible task. Next question, dear Dr. Craig, is the awareness of God limited to those who have the capabilities

of knowing God, cognitively?

In other words, does God only exist for those people who have the mental faculties to perceive or question, study, relate with or emote God? Clinically depressed, anxious, traumatized, mentally disabled, mentally ill, cognitively impaired, or environmentally stressed people, many more have real life challenges that make it difficult to question God and to think theologically. What about them? Well, now, obviously, the existence of God does not depend upon our mental capacity to apprehend him. So, of course, God exists for these people who have these impaired mental faculties, they just may not be aware of his existence. But, clearly, if someone is so seriously impaired, that they cannot apprehend God, then they will have no consciousness of God. Someone who is in a deep coma, for example, or someone who is nearly brain-dead isn't going to have a consciousness of God. But having said that, I have met people who are severely mentally retarded, who have a deep love for Christ and a relationship with God. So it doesn't take a great deal of mental ability in order for a person to apprehend God and to come to know him because people who are mentally retarded often do have such an experience. Maybe the hidden question in PJ's inquiry is, well, how does God judge people who are so mentally deficient that they can have no apprehension of God? And I would say God's grace is extended to them, just as it is, to children who die in infancy before they have any sort of ability to apprehend God. Next question, dear Dr. Craig, why does early genesis have to be about physical material creation? Has anyone ever proven that in any way, shape or form? On one of Dr. John Walton's statements, Dr. Craig said that Dr. Walton had to prove that early genesis was not talking about material physical creation. Why does Dr. Walton have to prove that it's not physical material creation when no one has ever proven that it is? Material, physical creation. Could this be a giant assumption or error that could use some correcting chuck in the United States? The reason that John Walton has to prove that Genesis was not talking about material or physical creation is because Walton claims that it is not talking about material or physical creation. So if he makes a positive claim about it, he needs to provide evidence or reasons to support that claim. So it's just a matter of having the burden of proof to support your own assertions. Now the reason that early Genesis has to be about physical or material creation, I think, is because it describes the creation of material things. For example, verse 1 says, in the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. And that's an expression in Hebrew for the universe, God created the universe. And then it describes how he created the sun and the stars and so forth. He created the vegetation and the animals out of the earth. The earth brought these things forth when he creates Adam in chapter 2. He takes the dust of the earth and forms it into a man and breathes into this form the breath of life. So you have material physical creation described over and over again in the narrative. Now that does not exclude that God also specifies the functions that these things serve, which is one of the emphases of John Walton. Yes, God does specify their functions. He says the stars and the sun and so forth shall be for the purpose of measuring days and years and seasons and times. They have a function to fulfill. But to say that the creation narrative is only functional and does not describe material creation is a rather radical position that Walton needs to argue for. He needs to give some proof that this is not a both-and, but rather it's an either-or. And here I think that the virtually unanimously Old Testament scholars and

commentators will say that the creation there, it is both and God creates the

physical or material things and he specifies a function for them. Thanks for watching!