I think the problem is Dr. Craig, you are arguing for a beginning In your first premise. They are trying to show you it doesn't necessarily follow that our universe had a beginning, just cosmic inflation, or time has a beginning. The universe (or the structure we call the multiverse) possibly existed indefinitely(eternally).there are even arguments for different cosmological models.so, the first of the kalamdoesnt work in a cyclic cosmology. Ultimately no one knows. Plus the Kalam breaks down as a fallacy of special pleading for who you "pick" to instantiate.
WLG wants to dishonestly refer to the Cosmos, as the universe, when talking about this universe. And claim that we have evidence The Cosmos, which he labels the universe begun to exist, by point out we have evidence this universe begun to expand. And he is not the only one that does this.
Unfortunate that someone did such effort assembling a documentary only to present arguments as if Dr. Craig made a TH-cam video years ago and disappeared forever. Never leaving anything besides that for us to think about.
Joe Schmid (Majesty of Reason) brought up a good point during a rebuttal to Trent Horn's rebuttal concerning Hilbert's Hotel. He points out that if we swap the rooms to days and the people within the rooms to the times in which the angels will sing for God, don't we arise to the same proposed "absurdity?" (I might have potentially misrepresented the argument, but this was how I understood it)
It seems to me concerning Hilbert's Hotel, that if there is just one infinite set (Aleph1), then at any point in infinite time there is an infinite number of occupants in an infinite number of rooms with an infinite number of people checking in and an infinite number of people checking out. Fun for grins and giggles, but not helpful for mathematics and even less helpful for understanding spatial reality. I agree with Craig, concerning Aleph0 and that nothing metaphysical can be infinite.
@@ricardooliveira9774 I think I remember something like that. Did it have something to do with how that would be potentially infinite singing and not actually infinite? Can’t fully recall
So there’s two options. Craig will say that the angels that WILL sing an infinite amount of times for God. It is just a potential infinite. And Craig argument only attacks the actual infinite. Furthermore I think Dr. Koons has addressed this objection quite well in his debate with Schmid.
I think that WLC evaded the last objection that malpass brought since the problem is not having a hotel that contains an infinite number of rooms but the problem raises from shuffling the guests and that is not analogous with past moments since presumably the past doesn't change
@@offense53 I think my point is clear and I think any non deaf rational person agree with it. Second there was response to this video here it's th-cam.com/video/femxJFszbo8/w-d-xo.html Enjoy Third of all please be polite to the lady
I don't think this objection has much weight to it though. If a scenario is metaphysically impossible, then there is some feature(s) of that scenario that is metaphysically impossible. In the case of Hilbert's hotel, the only feature that can possible be considered metaphysically impossible is the instantiation of an actual infinite in reality. Obviously there is nothing impossible about a hotel existing, having guests, or guests moving rooms. Therefore, the feature of Hilbert's hotel that is metaphysically impossible is the instantiation of an actual infinite in reality. And since a beginning less past would also entail the instantiation of an actual infinite in reality, that too would be impossible. You could actually create a new scenario of Hilbert's hotel to make it like an infinite past by thinking about guests leaving the hotel one at a time, once per day. If you start emptying the hotel from room 1, then room 2, then room 3 etc... then you would never empty the hotel, since there would always be aleph_0 guests left to empty on each day. But if the hotel had been emptying from eternity past, then it follows that the hotel never had any guests to begin with, which contradicts the premise that it contained an infinite number of guests at some point in the past. This is because on any given day (D), aleph_0 days have already elapsed prior to D in which all of the aleph_0 guests will have already left. As such, no guests are inside of the hotel on any day in the past. EDIT: Also, if Hilbert's hotel is impossible, then that rules out an eternal past right away. This is because if the past is eternal then there has been enough time to build Hilbert's hotel, instantiating it in existence. But of course, something that is impossible cannot be instantiated in existence, and any scenario that could possibly result in an impossible outcome is itself impossible.
Counting down from infinity, you will always be at infinity the way Malpass describes it you will always be infinitely far counting up to infinity, you will always be infinitely far away counting down from infinity, but for some reason Malpass doesnt see that.
20:52 Thus we have a contradiction. Does WLC disagree with this claim? This is what seemed to peeve the mathematicians. His claiming that it was contradictory rather than just something that seems metaphysically impossible.
actual infinites are logically posible, but metaphysically impossible. That's what WLC thinks. There isn't a matter of mathematical discussion but philosophical discussion.
@@simonocampo I don't mind Craig saying that he thinks it is metaphysically impossible. What I mind is the claim that it is/entials a contradiction. I think he should clearly retract that as to not confuse his followers.
You haven’t listened carefully. He says an “actual (metaphysically existing) infinite” leads to contradictions (metaphysical acts that contradict properties of infinite sets). Craig explains in this video that his words were a simplification for a broader population, but understood in context, they are not wrong. One of the deeply dishonest practices in that video is ignoring Craig’s scholarly work in favor of children’s video and popular talks taken out of context to present a incorrect understanding of Craig’s views and using those to straw-man him. Craig is entirely too kind and reasonable.
@@JohnBaskette I read/watch both. My annoyance is that Craig uses terms like contradiction to his lay audience. I think this is misleading. And I worry that his lay audience will think his argument is stronger than it actually is. It's like if some atheist says omnipotence is contradictory instead of that it just appears impossible. I've complained at atheist for doing this kind of thing so I feel like I am consistent.
I’m concerned having watched this that Craig is not answering Malpas adequately. Malpas transitioned the argument towards the properties of infinite past sequences. These sequences would not allow metaphysical actions that are not allowed as operations on infinite sets. It’s a good question that I hope he answers next time. But I think they are going on to the next section.
Craig already answered this in the animated video: if the eternal past were possible, then Hilbert's hotel would be possible, as it would be enough to build one room an hour. Furthermore, he has already said Hilbert's Hotel is just an illustration. This means that it is not paradoxical per se, but points to the absurdity of more basic premises. In this case, the falsity of Euclid's principle. Even if the events cannot be exchanged, you can enumerate each one and mentally perform the one-to-one correspondence necessary for Hilbert's hotel operations. The correspondences are there, even if no one is looking. These are theoretical truths.
@@HoneybunMegapack No, that the hotel is still expanding doesn't preclude it from being infinite. However if the hotel has always existed and always been under construction and adding rooms, then even though more rooms are added continuously the hotel is never any larger than it was before and no matter how far back in the past you go you will never reach a point where the hotel began to be constructed.
@@HoneybunMegapack No, you're stuck on thinking you started with a finite sized hotel and it has been expanding into perpetuity. Imagine you drive up to an infinitely long motel, the office is in a separate building. You look to your left and there's an infinite number of motel rooms, you look to your right and the motel is under construction adding more rooms. You ask the owner when they began the project to extend the hotel, and he answers forever ago, and since they've started they've added an infinite number of rooms. You ask how many they started with and he answers infinity. Confused, you ask him how that's possible, you couldn't even finish building an infinite number of hotel rooms to have an opening day. He replies we never had an opening day, because the hotel has always existed and has always been open.
William Lane Craig co-authored a chapter in Zondervan’s the “New Mormon Challenge” with Paul Copan. JP Moreland also contributed a philosophical critique of Mormonism in that same book.
@@NOOBKILLER052 I'm not too familiar with the religion. I've heard it said that we can become gods in the afterlife and that Jesus and Satan are brothers. Are there truths to these claims? Those are my biggest gripes but this is hearsay.
@@taylor6618 Google "becoming-like-god lds". It should take you to an official church source on the “gods in the afterlife” question. If you want a full in depth theological and historical back ground I encourage you to read it. TL;DR: we believe we are fully and completely gods actual children spiritually, not just creations. Latter-day Saints see all people as children of God in a full and complete sense; they consider every person divine in origin, nature, and potential. Each has an eternal core and is “a beloved spirit son or daughter of heavenly parents.” Each possesses seeds of divinity and must choose whether to live in harmony or tension with that divinity. Through the Atonement of Jesus Christ, all people may “progress toward perfection and ultimately realize their divine destiny.” Just as a child can develop the attributes of his or her parents over time, the divine nature that humans inherit can be developed to become like their Heavenly Father’s. Regarding the brothers question, Like other Christians, we believe Jesus is the divine Son of God. Satan is a fallen angel. As the Apostle Paul wrote, God is the Father of all. That means that all beings were created by God and are His spirit children. Christ, however, was the only begotten in the flesh, and we worship Him as the Son of God and the Savior of mankind.
Malpass argument counting down from eternity is absurd, you cant count down from infinity, you will always remain at infinity and remain infinitely far away from zero.
@@vaclavmiller8032 If it's beginningless, it never began, which means never started counting down, and if you want to use the word always counting down, you will also never reach any number because there will always be an infinite numbers before any single number, you wont even count a single number.
@@ceceroxy2227 That's just confused - he never started because he was always counting. To say otherwise is to beg the question, because if there was a beginning, it's trivial that the time between it and now was finite.
@@vaclavmiller8032 No I am sorry but its you who is confused. These are just semantic games, if there is no first member in a series, there is no series at all, even if you want to say he has "always" been counting, he will never even count one number because there will always be an infinite number of numbers that have preceded ever number, not one number will have ever been counted whether you use the word "always" or "never began". Even if you always have been counting down from infinity, you will "always" be stuck at infinity. The same way you cant reach infinity counting upwards, you will never leave infinity counting downwards, you will always be stuck on infinity, whats infinity minus 1, infinity, minus another one, infinity, minus another one, infinity, minus another one, infinity, minus another one, infinity. Even if I always count down from infinity I will be stuck at infinity. I could count down forever I will be stuck at infinity.
I am pretty sure he didn't. The thought is that Dr Craig is infallible; he's not. He makes errors at the same rate all of us do, which is to say a lot. Factor in a bias to confirm his favoured conclusion and you have all you need for everyone agrees to follow suit.
Very telling that the original video isn't linked to in the description. Poor form. For those who are looking for it: th-cam.com/video/pGKe6YzHiME/w-d-xo.html
Here's a kooky thought to consider, and I'm not sure where this leads exactly, except maybe -- say again, maybe -- to show another absurdity arising from insisting that the infinite can exist in the physical universe. One of the axioms (or maybe it's a postulate, I forget which) of geometry is that a point is of no size, or to put it another way, a point is infinitely small. Therefore, no matter how short the length of a line, it has an infinite number of points.
I hit send before I was ready. Anyway, therefore no two points can be next to each other. Because no matter how close together they are, there is still an infinite number of points between them -- each pair of which also has an infinite number of points between them...
The Grim Reaper paradox doesn't occur because an actual infinity cannot occur. The paradox is from the scenario itself. You cannot come from an infinity to a finite set. Thus the paradox says nothing actually. The Grim Reaper is an unsatisfiable pair in itself. It can simply be refuted. If I shoot an arrow towards you and I told you that this arrow travels half the distance left to it's target at any time than this is a true statement don't you agree? Now we can reason that this arrow will never reach its target right. Would you want to be the target? According to Craig's Grimm reaper it will never reach you correct?
@@Carlos-fl6ch "You cannot come from an infinity to a finite set." Not sure exactly what you mean. Are you saying that it's impossible for all the Grim Reapers to target a single individual?
@@sjeff26 Well an infinite set in itself has no first nor last member hence the infinite character of the set. The scenario is constructed such that only the first member of the set can act. But you purposely choose a set without a first member. This makes it a mutually unsatisfiable pair to begin with because the Grim reapers can only act in a finite amount of time. The contradiction doesn't occur as a result. The setup itself is contradictory. I shoot an arrow at you the arrow will travel q finite amount of distance. The fact that I can devide this finite amount of distance in an infinite amount of parts doesn't mean that the arrow will not reach you. In an infinite amount of time it is no problem to have different events that are separate by a finite amount of time. Also consider this. If I told you to take the next train from a to b if and only if you don't take the next train from a to b than we have an condition and a rule that are mutually unsatisfiable. Can I than conclude that there are no trains from a to b? Of course not. The scenario is impossible to satisfy and whatever conclusion we can come up with it just applies to the scenario itself. Further to that it's simply nonsensical. This goes for all Benedetti pradoxes.
23:06 Why not just model guests leaving the hotel with the set difference operator. It perfectly describes what happens without contradictory results. Also, with subtraction you can get negative results, which is nonsense in the hotel leaving case. Set difference gets this feature right again.
When we subtract quantities from quantities, we are subtracting in the classical sense of Peano arithmeric. There is no more reason to doubt this for transfinite than for finite numbers. Furthermore, in set theory there is no point in subtracting transfinite numbers. Subtraction is not an operation between specific sets, but between their cardinalities.
@@caiomateus4194 I would argue that just dealing with the cardinalities of the sets rather than the sets themselves leaves out information which we need to get a clear answer. It feels weird to leave out information on purpose and then complain you get several answers that are compatible. To me, it sounds like saying. I have a green, a red and a blue marble. I give two away. Which color is the remaining marble. The answer is, you didn't give me enough information to determine that. But if you give me the sets I can answer. Now in the infinite case we cannot even tell you how many there are unless you give us more information. Bur in reality there is the info of which guests were removed so we get clear answers. The only reason it appears contradictory is that you described what happened in a vague way.
@@Oskar1000 It's never been a problem to decide which members are left of an infinite set after the others are dropped. The paradox itself depends on the assumption that this is possible (by evicting all guests from the odd-numbered rooms of the infinitely occupied hotel, the definitive answer is that there are still infinitely many guests left in this scenario. By evicting guests from rooms numbered above 4, the definitive answer is that there are still only 4 guests left in this scenario). The problem is precisely that such definite responses are distinguished. From the point of view of handling collections (which is something purely logical and does not require any math), there is no contradiction, as the collections involved in the operation are different. But from an arithmetical point of view, there is a contradiction, since the quantities involved are not different. It is you who is disregarding one of these perspectives.
@@caiomateus4194 My point is that the arithmetic operation were you go Infinity - Infinity = 3 Or Infinity - Infinity = Infinity It looks like a contradiction, but that is just because our description is too vague. So there is no problem in reality here. But Craig says that this is a reason to think actual infinities can't exist in reality.
@@Oskar1000 Saying why contradictions work does not eliminate the fact that it is a contradiction. Given the meanings of the terms "=" and "+", these two propositions result in 3 = infinity.
21:52 "the counterintuitive existence" I though he agreed that we didn't care about the counterintuitive nature, but about the internal coherency. He admits that he didn't show any internal inconsistency, so why does he go back to counterintuitive ? I would add that the question illustrated here is solved in an intuitive manner in the surreal numbers formalism, in which the number of guests who have left the hotel in which three people are left would be ω-3, and the number of guests who have left the hotel in which people in odd rooms are left would be ω/2.
Craig does not agree that all or most of his interlocutors care only about the contradictory nature of something. Or, at least, he does not agree that this is a correct epistemic attitude. After all, if he was going to care about his interlocutors, then he couldn't even appeal to inconsistent internals. Malpass has already stated in interviews that he would be a dialetheist if there were empirical evidence for the existence of logical contradictions in the world, so that no a priori modesty would prevent him. Regarding the hotel problem, it is not true that it is intuitively solved by surreal numbers. It would still be the case that if we had two hotels where the respective pick-ups were made, we could switch all the departed guests from one to the other and relocate them so that both hotels would be full again.
@@caiomateus4194 *-"Or, at least, he does not agree that this is a correct epistemic attitude."* What is his *"correct epistemic attitude"* ? Hopefully he doesn't take intuition as its basis. *-" it is not true that it is intuitively solved by surreal numbers."* If you take the peano-type arithmetical rules as "intuitive", then yes, the surreal numbers formalism basically reproduces the same intuitions, since it is a abelian group for addition on infinite numbers and infinitesimals. *-"we could switch all the departed guests from one to the other and relocate them so that both hotels would be full again."* I'm not sure that is true. Are you are saying here that surreal number ω-3 would be equal to ω/2 ? Which would be false. If you are not saying that then we are talking about different definitions of "full" like Malpass explains in the video.
@@MrGustavier The correct epistemic attitude is obviously to trust intuitions. Why else would anyone think contradictions are absurd, if not because they are counter-intuitive? Field's axioms, present in the analysis of surreal numbers, are intuitive. But this is not the only thing that characterizes them, otherwise they would be finite numbers. I am using the sense of "completely full" that everyone (including finists) uses: the sense of Hume and Cantor's one-to-one correspondence principle. In this sense, such numbers are the same if they apply in reality, and this is what generates counter-intuitiveness.
@@caiomateus4194 *-"The correct epistemic attitude is obviously to trust intuitions."* I would say this is the perfect recipe for confirmation bias. But I also sometimes doubt that it be possible to do otherwise (see the problem of theory-ladenness) *-"Why else would anyone think contradictions are absurd, if not because they are counter-intuitive?"* Not everyone thinks contradictions are absurd, in fact contradictions are at the core of dialectical philosophy. Which is to whom Aristotle was responding in his fourth book of metaphysics. The entire philosophy of Hegel is based on contradictions, and all the philosophy that stemmed from him, like Marx and Engels is also based on the central role that contradictions play. I would go as far as to say that postmodernism would also fit in that category (debatable). And finally, the most prolific branch of the computational theory of mind (connectionism) proposes an explanation of what concepts, abstractions, universals are that renders all of those indissociable from contradictions. *-"Field's axioms, present in the analysis of surreal numbers, are intuitive. But this is not the only thing that characterizes them, otherwise they would be finite numbers."* I'm not sure you're answering the question here. *-I am using the sense of "completely full" that everyone (including finists) uses: the sense of Hume and Cantor's one-to-one correspondence principle. In this sense, such numbers are the same if they apply in reality, and this is what generates counter-intuitiveness."* Ok, that would be incorrect, since in the formalism of surreal numbers, I don't think there is a bijective fonction from ω-3 to ω/2 (I would have to spend time on it that I don't have to figure it out)
@@MrGustavier There is no cognitive bias in any negative sense here. Unless, of course, you're willing to say that all human knowledge is based on cognitive biases (that the outside world exists, wasn't created 5 minutes ago looking ancient, etc.). The fact that there are philosophies based on contradictions counts only against those philosophies. I can head off historical philosophical positions based on whatever madness you like (there are philosophers who even advocate contradictions WITHIN classical logic! That is, trivialism. It can hardly be said that there is anything more self-evidently false than that). It is not incorrect. Hilbert's hotel is structured in the order of natural numbers, and such correspondences are demonstrable within their proper sets. It is demonstrable that even numbers correspond one-to-one with numbers greater than 3. If surreal analysis cannot handle this, then it is simply not realistic.
[4:04] Actually infinite number of things leads to self contradictions. Actually infinite number of things is metaphysically impossible." First sentence is about physical impossibility and second sentence is about metaphysical impossibility. Question is if there are difference between physical and metaphysical impossibilities?
Metaphysical impossibility can be used for a lot of things. I believe empirical and mereological impossibilities are also counted in that. For sure mereological ones at the very least. This seems more apt given it talks about physical substances but it's not perfect either imo.
29:37 - I don't understand why Malpass's objection is plausible. He's saying that the Hilbert's Hotel isn't contradictory if you seal everyone in and nobody moves, because of the static nature of the guests? If so, great job figuring that out, but how is that applicable in reality? It may be relevant in a universe where literally nothing ever happened or will ever happen, but it's pretty axiomatic that change happens. One of the primary functions of science in general is to measure change as accurately as possible. Present change becoming past change seems to align with the idea of guests switching rooms. What happens 10 seconds ago becomes what happened 20 seconds ago as you progress 10 seconds forward, and what was 30 seconds ago is now what happened 40 seconds ago, and so on and so on. So the guests always changing rooms is the only logical interpretation in the framework of Hilbert's hotel. I'm guessing that's why it was referred to as Hilbert's hotel and not Hilbert's Ever-Expanding Prison.
The fact that all these proeminent atheists philosophers incorporate the axioms of set theory into their retoric is infuriating. Why would you allow such a paradoxical, incoherent concept as infinity to muddy your epistemology and logic?? Cantor himself was a Christian zealot who equivocated infinity to God. No such thing (infinity) exists in reality anywhere. Doing maths based on this concept might be fine (it's not) but when it comes to describing reality in all its 100% finite glory, appealing to paradoxes should be totally unacceptable. It should fall on Dr Craig to show that such a thing as "an infinite property" is even compatible with reality since the validity of the whole Christian God concept is dependent on it.
@@NelemNaruNot sure if you are serious or not but you're taking about a mathematical expression or "object" describing a property. Just like multiplication or addition, it's mind dependent. Where does "addition" as concrete object exists in the universe? Pi when applied it's always used in a truncated finite form. Thirty-nine digits are sufficient to perform most calculations, because that is the accuracy necessary to calculate the circumference of the observable universe with a precision of one atom. So where would pi with infinite decimals be part of reality?
@@NelemNaru Yes. Complex brains are capable of imagining things. My dog is barking at something in her sleep that is clearly not "real" in the strict sense. We must to be able to make a clear distinction between real and not-real when describing reality. This shouldn't be controversial.
22:51 "inverse operations like subtraction and division are prohibited mathematically for trans finite or infinite numbers" That is incorrect, the surreal numbers formalism is an abelian group for addition on infinite and infinitesimal numbers.
The reason most people reject these nonstandard analyzes as alternatives to classical mathematics is that they end up offsetting these advantages with absurdities in other respects. For example, the idea of infinitesimals is almost completely unintelligible. It is for this reason that Craig does not argue for a distinct mathematics that is finitistic, such as constructivist (denying the excluded middle is extremely counterintuitive). If actual infinity exists, it is far more understandable that it behaves as defined in transfinite arithmetic based on the ZFC.
@@caiomateus4194 *-"they end up offsetting these advantages with absurdities in other respects."* What *"absurdities"* does the surreal number formalism give rise to ? What is *"unintelligible"* about infinitesimals ? *-"denying the excluded middle is extremely counterintuitive"* And yet, this is often the preferred move that is used by philosophers who want to preserve the correspondence theory of truth (CTOT). See Rasmussen's book "defending the correspondence theory of truth" page 197 : _"Unfortunately, I fail to see a way to keep_ _LEM unless (Containment)_ _is true or the framework for the_ _correspondence theory is false. This_ _result may seem costly, but there is a bright side: we have a solution that_ _avoids contradictions. Moreover, the_ _account of falsehood offered in_ _Section 5.10 implies that LEM is false if_ _any propositions lack a truthvalue._ _And there are independent arguments for_ _thinking that some_ _propositions, such as future-tense_ _propositions about free actions, lack_ _a truth-value. Even if those arguments are_ _unsound, their conclusion_ _isn’t obviously incoherent or absurd. Plus,_ _I will argue next that some_ _Liar sentences express propositions that_ _lack a truth-value, and if those_ _arguments are sound, then LEM is false."_ He abandons the LEM to preserve CTOT. Accepting CTOT and the three laws of classical logic (LEM, LNC and LOI) is inconsistent. Which is why so many philosophers reject classical logic (a quarter of philosophers as per philpapers' survey survey2020.philpeople.org/survey/results/4858)
@@MrGustavier “The only problem I have with all of this is that those numbers just don't exist. real number, but more than zero. The real numbers, as far as I understand them, go all the way to zero; they fill in all the space between, for example, zero and one. For example, there are the numbers 0.1, 0.01, 0.001, and so on, and you can go on like this indefinitely, finding real numbers as small as you like. I have no notion of such a degree of smallness that the real numbers never reach it. Indeed, it seems to me evident that there is no such degree of smallness. The same is true in the direction of magnitude: the real numbers get as big as you want them to be; I have no idea of a size so big that the real numbers never reach it. I therefore think that Robinson's infinite numbers are as much a fiction as are his infinitesimals." This is from the book "Approuching infinity" by Michael Huemer. It is for this reason that Conway and Robinson analysis are unintelligible. Furthermore, Oppy rejects the infinitesimal approach on the grounds that there is no way to identify a uniquely correct infinitesimal. Rasmussen is totally wrong. The solution of semantic paradoxes can be given by Tarski's degrees of metalanguage, or even by Koons' Aristotelian characterizations. Such solutions not only admit correspondence theory and the excluded middle, but require it. And future contingents have well-defined truth values, in a way that does not undermine the libertarian notion of human freedom. Craig defends this position, based on the T biconditional, very well in his book on divine foreknowledge and human freedom. The falsity of the excluded middle implies the illegitimacy of the actual concept of infinity in mathematics. I hope you know that this is counterproductive to all Craig objectors.
@@caiomateus4194 _"those numbers just don't exist"_ What does the predicate *"exist"* means when we are talking about mathematical concepts ? *-"It is for this reason that Conway and Robinson analysis are unintelligible."* Ok, so, if I understood well, you think infinitesimals are unintelligible because _"you have no notion of them"_ or because it seems _"evident to you"_ . I'm sure you know that this wouldn't be a sufficient justification in the context of an academical publication. I think infinitesimals are perfectly intelligible, I have a clear "notion" of them, and it seems "evident to me" that there be such "degrees of smallness", I just need to define them that way... *-"The solution of semantic paradoxes can be given by Tarski's degrees of metalanguage"* Sure, Tarski's solution abandons CTOT. Rasmussen writes a book about "defending CTOT", I'm sure you don't expect him to join Tarski in abandoning CTOT in order to save classical logic.... *-"characterizations. Such solutions not only admit correspondence theory and the excluded middle, but require it."* That's incorrect, both Krpike's and Tarski's solution abandon CTOT. It is even stated in the undefinability theorem from Tarski : "no language can account for its own truth predicate". *-And future contingents have well-defined truth values, in a way that does not undermine the libertarian notion of human freedom."* If that is the case, then the type of questions about the quantity of future events as asked by Malpass do have a *"well-defined truth value"* , and therefore the future would be an actual infinite : "how many days will someone counting the days count ?" Does this question have a well-defined answer ? Isn't the answer an actual infinite ? *-"Craig defends this position, based on the T biconditional, very well in his book on divine foreknowledge and human freedom."* I recommend Malpass's article on molinism on his blog "UseOfReason". This would launch us on a completely different topic but I would be interested to see WLC's response on Malpass's article. *-"The falsity of the excluded middle implies the illegitimacy of the actual concept of infinity in mathematics."* What does *"illegitimate"* means in that context ?
@@MrGustavier Huemer was speaking literally of existence, for he is a Platonist. However, he thinks that we can infer the existence of a number from the fact that its instantiation is possible, so we can translate his speech to mean that surreal numbers don't make sense. Certainly self-evidence is a good justification in the academic context of mathematics, metaphysics and logic. Despite the increase in the number of justifications based on scientific practice, the fact is that it is not possible to discuss the most basic truths without such appeals. Nor should we stop using this method just because of the supposed cognitive deficiency or lack of interpretive capacity of some (it would be like ceasing to believe that the moon exists just because everyone but me has gone blind). Tarski's solution is not opposed to correspondence theory, although it is compatible with defactionism. Popper even used it as a resource in favor of correspondence. I have no idea how the fact that a language cannot provide a predicate of truth for itself is contrary to correspondence. The question of how many events will occur is not undefined: it is potentially infinitely many events. That is, it is (definitely) false that it is a number. This is a notion captured by the concept of limit, in calculus, and there is no problem with the excluded middle here. This is also the answer to how many divisions can be done on any given volume. Malpass's objections to Molinism boil down, in the end, to restatements of the old grouding objection. Craig already responds to this indirectly, by rejecting truthmaker maximalism. That's as far as I could see on his blog, of course. Maybe I missed something. By "mathematical legitimacy" I meant sense. The axiom of infinity, like the axiom of choice, is dependent on the excluded middle. The successor function does not produce infinity, it is not computable from the finite. The adoption of constructive mathematics starts from the philosophical assumption that only what can be given in a predetermined order of construction makes sense.
LoL A blessing from Christ himself would target non believers before believers if you know your bible well that is. So this position cannot in any way be right.
Or…he is not a physicist and trying to tell the worlds best physicists that they are talking nonsense. I would always choose to listen to the actual physicist.
I want to hear a non Christian to come to your conclusions. Haven’t heard one yet. And yet, if it makes sense anyone should understand it but it is only Christians that do
As usual, WLC doesn't hit the 20 seconds mark without calling his critics some kind of idiots failing at logic . Way to go "doctor" WLC. Classy, as usual. If I have to choose, "doctor" WLC, I'd bet on those who shows how useless the arguement is, instead of you calling them names.
@@kenandzafic3948 No they didn't. This is WLC as usual. Say something really, really stupid, then when someone points it out just start the spin. But remember first to poison the well, declaring your opponent not understanding or not educated enough. And remember also to not really address the issue, because what you reaaly need is a smoke screen to reassure the fans. That's so blatant and clear MO. WLC is a confidence artist.
Send physicists, mathematicians and philosophy scholars to explain why WLC is wrong in his conclusion of the Kalam, and instead of taking it in and then thinking over critically about the objections, it seems to boosts his ego even more to the point of doubling down that he must be right. Once again, wrong conclusion by wlc. Plus just provide the work because speculations and opinions ain't going to cut it. Actually, just ask god to show up so we don't have to argue about these things anymore.
Isn't that what the scientific method is for, to take In and think over critically and find ways to disprove your hypothesis? Also in math my favorite proof is a counter example. These are our societies problem solvers and fact checkers. It's not their fault most apologists willfully ignore and double down that's what most of them do. We know these beliefs aren't just about the facts. But yeah Dr Craig is a double downer for sure, red herring and strawman with no pushback from the host. This place is a joke.
You know, if those weird maths apply in our world then we should be able to take a round object, cut it in pieces, rearrange it and produce another round with EQUAL size and weight. This is mathematically valid, (see Vsause's video on the paradox). The maths of this magic are valid using Canton's infinite set theory. Obsiously, you cannot cut a circle and create another one with the same mass and size. Amazing it is Atheists who insist in NOT trusting our intuitions if they lead into God.
Firstly, the Banach Tarski theorem only talks about the measures of sets of points. Second, can you show me non-measureable subsets in reality? Third, the Banach Tarski Theorem doesn't follow in ZF. It requires at least ZF+DC or smth stronger like ZFC NBG or smth even stronger than that. Fourth, I don't trust intuitions in general, the fact that the don't lead to god doesn't matter to me and stop generalising acting like all atheists do this. Many atheists agree with craig on infinite things not being physically possible and still dont believe that God exists eg: Nathan Ormand.
@@rishabwarrier2769 The point is not that there are no Lebesgue non-measurable sets in the physical world (you cannot guarantee that). The point is that they CANNOT exist. But if the axiom of choice is true (and it certainly is, if infinity exists. Otherwise, several greater absurdities would result, such as the possibility of multiplying null cardinalities of sets and obtaining a non-zero result), then such sets are possible. "The paradox only speaks of sets of points" Yes, but infinitists claim that space is (or could be) a set of points.
@@rishabwarrier2769 Ok, let's assume that they exist. How do we experiment on them to see them in action. If any infinite mass existed in our universe it would destroy it. So it becomes very unfashionable and since explanations of such objects are so out of our world, a simple and more parsimonious explanations is that they belong to the world of mathematics and abstract. Now, the only thing that could be "infinite" in the universe without ruining it, is space but unless we can see beyond the cosmic horizon (we can't) we'll never know. Yes, indeed there are Atheist such as Nathan than agree with finitism, the point is that if finitism was not used to argue for a God most skeptics would not disagree with it. Intuitions are also a great "pillar" of logic so not trusting them becomes counterproductive. Yes we must be careful not to over use them abusively (black swain falacy) but in this case I don't see how they should not be trusted. My point is that infinities create a lot more problems that they solve to be used as good explanations without much empirical evidence in our world. So I say that Finitism is more likely truth that not.
@@jaskitstepkit7153 "Ok, let's assume that they exist. How do we experiment on them to see them in action. If any infinite mass existed in our universe it would destroy it." Uh what lol. 1. First, you seem to be confusing an infinite mass object and the total amount of mass in the universe. I am not aware of anyone who claims that infinite masses exist. Think about it what people claim in regards to infinite past scenario is that it is the case that the set of past temporal instants is infinite. 2. Second, what on earth is 'it would destroy it.' even supposed to mean here? If its supposed to mean 'the universe would destroy the infinite mass' then how, and why? If it is supposed to mean 'the infinite mass would destroy the universe' then ig.. tho your usage of the word destroy is a bit akward here. But again this isnt what most ppl claim. "Yes, indeed there are Atheist such as Nathan than agree with finitism, the point is that if finitism was not used to argue for a God most skeptics would not disagree with it." Sure but i think thats true of nearly any position that has political strings. Usually that comes in the form of theistic arguments. "Intuitions are also a great "pillar" of logic so not trusting them becomes counterproductive. Yes we must be careful not to over use them abusively (black swain falacy) but in this case I don't see how they should not be trusted." How would we ever know where its being abused? From my prespective Craig seems to consistently abuse intuitions. "My point is that infinities create a lot more problems that they solve to be used as good explanations without much empirical evidence in our world. So I say that Finitism is more likely truth that not." So you truly believe that time and space have immediate successors and that space has bounds? (All of those follow from your 'physical finitist' position) Ngl all of those seem incredibly counter-intuitive. Also you can't quantify over time in the normal way we'd understand quantification in other situations. Also what problems are you talking about? The Banach Tarski paradox doesn't work under classical notions of volume and mass. Cantor's paradox just talks about the inconsistency of two statements within a larger set theory. Hilbert's hotel is just used as one of the many definitions for an infinite set. I wouldn't really consider these as problems. Another thing is that I do find massive chunks of infinite set theory quite intuitive. So why should I take any problem with these so called 'problems'.
How is it not a contradiction to state that gold does not have the atomic number 79? By definition, gold is a metal with the atomic number 79, and therefore the proposition that gold does not have the atomic number 79 is contradictory.
The word "gold" is a proper term that rigidly designates a natural type. This means that it is a word that connects directly to the thing in the world, having no definition (in fact, people already knew what gold is before they knew atoms exist). This is why there is no contradiction in Craig's example.
@@caiomateus4194 I am not talking about the word "gold"; I am talking about the thing (or kind of thing) denoted by the word. Part of the essence is gold is to have the atomic number 79; that is what distinguishes it from the other elements in the genus "metal". Accordingly, that gold should not have the atomic number 79 is in contradiction to the essence of gold; for then it just wouldn't _be_ gold. It is not true that people already knew what gold is before they knew that atoms exist. They knew the sense of the word "gold" (what scholastic philosophers called a "nominal definition"), just as physicists know the sense of the phrase "dark matter" or "energy"; but that does not give knowledge of the essence of their referents of the words. For that, one needs scientific investigation.
@@ob4161 Precisely. The contradiction is with the essence of the thing, not with the linguistic meaning of the name. This is exactly what a metaphysical impossibility is: something that contradicts the ontology we know to be the case. It is also part of the essence of quantities that they are greater than any of their parts (and therefore it is impossible for actual infinity to exist), although this is not part of the linguistic meaning of "quantity".
“The instantiation of an actual infinite in reality” is impossible, I would use in this existence rather than reality because I don’t consider this “reality”
The contradictory totals resulting from subtracting infinities suggest that the instantiation of any actual infinity in reality is impossible. - RF Admin
WLC also makes an assumption that physicists were duped by a straw man instead of considering they were aware of it on their own even before being interviewed. Ask Sean Carroll if he was debating a straw man.
The fact that they are responding to thing's Craig has never said would be good evidence that they are responding to a strawman of Craig's position. The other option would be that they simply don't understand Craig's argument, which would mean they themselves are the ones doing the strawmanning.
I’m extremely low level when it comes to mathematics. But does it not seem like those trying to argue against the metaphysical impossibility of an actual infinite are arguing from a conclusion, rather than arguing to a conclusion from the data? Seems like that to me. But maybe that’s just me.
@@HoneybunMegapack well, you can disagree with the data given to argue the metaphysical impossibility of an actual infinite, but the fact is that they are providing logical arguments. That’s arguing from data towards an argument. The flip side isn’t true. There is no argument for the possibility of an actual infinite being presented, only the assumption that it ought to be possible. That’s an argument from a conclusion.
@@HoneybunMegapack actually, they are. They aren’t empirical data, that’s for sure. But unless we are to throw out philosophy as a legitimate body of information, arguments just simply are legitimate bases to come to conclusions.
@@HoneybunMegapack I think we might be talking past each other a bit. You might be right in that Craig’s argument is fallacious (I‘m not conceding that, but it wasn’t the point I was going for). But he is proffering an argument, ie premises structured in a way he believes leads to his conclusion. And you obviously disagree with his argument, that’s fine. But successfully rebutting Craig’s argument is insufficient to conclude that actual infinites are metaphysically possible. The ones asserting so also have to construct arguments to support their position. It would be fallacious to say: “your argument for your position is fallacious, therefore my position is correct”. Which is why it seems to me that they are arguing from a conclusion. They’ve given no positive argument for the validity of their position.
Dr. Craig breaks down the concept and distinguishes it from strict logical possibility here: www.reasonablefaith.org/writings/question-answer/in-what-sense-is-it-impossible-for-the-universe-to-come-from-nothing. - RF Admin
@@ReasonableFaithOrg it’s not sufficient for the response video to leave the actual response to these objections to the supplementary material. It is meant to respond to their criticisms with clarifications and he has failed to do so.
Craig seems to miss an issue with Daniel Isaacson. Isaacson does not understand Craig’s argument. That’s obvious from his statements regarding the nearly universal acceptance of actual infinites by mathematicians. Isaacson speaks of actual infinites as valid mathematical constructs. That is why his responses seem so strange. It’s another example of the videos intellectual malpractice.
If WLC is only "skeptical about the metaphysical possibility of an actual infinite existing in reality", then doesn't it mean that he should accept its possible existence ? Wouldn't that mean that possibly the universe is past infinite, and wouldn't that mean that possibly there is no beginning to the universe, contradicting the second premise of the kalam ?
@@taowaycamino4891 If WLC had demonstrated the metaphysical impossibility of actual infinites, then he wouldn't be _"skeptical about them"_ , he would simply reject their existence. If he is only skeptical about them, it means that he cannot reject their existence, which is what he says in the video, he says that they are not logically inconsistent, he just says that they are counter-intuitive. If he cannot reject their existence he must admit their possible existence, which defeats the second premise of the kalam : the universe could have no beginning.
@@MrGustavier Either way, there is no evidence or reason to believe that they are possible in an actual physical reality regardless of what WLC believes.
@@taowaycamino4891 They are postulated in modern cosmological models... If these models make novel predictions, that could be an initial *"reason"* to believe they are possible in an *"actual physical reality"* , if those predictions were corroborated by observations, that would then be *"evidence"* of their existence... One has to be wary of not falling into confirmation biases or prejudices. I sometimes get the impression that theists reject the possibility of infinite regresses for the simple reason that it wouldn't fit with their pre-established worldview. And some atheists reject the possibility of a beginning to the universe because they don't want to leave the possibility of theism. Both would be examples of a lack of skepticism in my opinion. The Kantian critique of the cosmological argument in his transcendental dialectic (the critique of pure reason) as an "antinomie", and his skeptical conclusion is still relevant in my opinion.
In general it's a standard WLC appealing to intuition while we know that intuition is no pathway to truth. Just because something is counter intuitive doesn't make it false. That's a fallacy.
How do you know other minds exists? Or you are not part of an experiment? Intuition is reliable except there is strong reason to deny. Being counter intuitive doesn't make it false, it makes it unlikely. The people arguing against the Kalam don't claim actual infinites are possible in reality but that it is coherent. Not enough reason to deny Intuition.
@@Carlos-fl6ch many people use intuition in the context of rational insight grasped from introspection. This is usually in philosophical discussions about axioms
@@antipositivism3128 Nice. I am not going into this explanation you gave and why it doesn't lead to truth at this point. It is more important to see how it is used by WLC in particular and theists in general. We must agree that this word is frequently used when explaining argument to lay people. For example in this very video. We both know that intuition than is used like nothing more that a gut feeling. It would be very very very unfair that when talking to a lay audience Craig is referring to anything more than that.
5:09 "If Gold had the atomic number 3 it would be a different element, it wouldn't be Gold." Craig uses this as an example of a metaphysical impossibility that doesn't constitute a "strict logical impossibility". This is false, because the use of "gold" here carries with it the definition "The element with atomic number 79". Craig is basically saying: "The element with the atomic number 79 has the atomic number 3" which IS a logical contradiction. In the ice desk example he simply equivocates between the notion of "this desk" in the colloquial sense of "the desk I am sitting at could have been made of ice" and some strict "identity" of the desk as being the exact arrangement of matter as it exists now. "This desk could have been made of ice" is logically impossible in one sense, but not in the other. He simply uses the fact that "this" is ambiguous to make it seem like its not a strict logical contradiction Again, in the size and shape example, he fails to define what size means. A set of numbers has a size but that doesn't necessitate that it has a shape.
It is demonstrably false that the word "gold" means "the element of atomic number 79". People knew what gold was before they knew atoms exist. "Gold" is a word that has no meaning, as it is a singular term referring to a natural type. Linguistically, it is equivalent to a proper name, and proper names connect directly to their objects. Desks are not just their parts, as that would imply that desks do not exist, but the parts (the desk is a single object, and the parts are multiple objects). The parts are the essence of the desk, but this is not something that is logically proved. Desks, like gold, are terms that directly refer to individual substances in the world. So it has no meaning. Asking to define size is like asking to define the color blue. They are not definable descriptively, but only ostensibly: someone points to examples in the world, and then the other person understands what it is about.
@@caiomateus4194 None of what you said disputes the fact that what WLC did here with these three examples is use ambiguity of the terms in these examples to demonstrate some notion of "metaphysical impossibility" that is distinct from logical impossibility. While yes, Gold was a concept that people understood before they understood what atoms were, but that is irrelevant to the point WLC is trying to make. I'm happy to revise my original statement from "'gold' carries with it the definition 'The element with atomic number 79'" to instead be "Gold refers to a natural type", my point still stands. The natural type that we understand "gold" refers to has the atomic number 79. The statement "The natural type that 'gold' refers to has the atomic number 3" is logically contradictory. Regarding desks, I don't see how this refutes my point. My objection is not that *desk* is ill-defined, but that *this desk* is ill-defined. Saying "This desk could have been made of ice" is a logical impossibility if "this desk" refers to the object referred to as a "desk" that is in fact made of up of the wood parts. It however is not at all impossible that an object that was made of ice parts, could have existed that could be referred to as "this desk". My apologies on the size/shape portion, I was a bit lazy here. My point here is only that WLC fails to substantiate his claim that an object having size necessitates it having a shape. As I mentioned before, a set of numbers has a useful concept of size that we can point to and understand, while shape does not seem to be entailed in any meaningful way without bringing in other concepts. Similarly, if size and shape can only be defined ostensibly, what difference does this make? The metaphysical impossibility seems then to only be defined by disagreement over what the words mean to different people which is entirely my point.
@@lukas1826 Metaphysical impossibility is a category that has to do with the essence of things. It has to do with logical impossibility in the sense that, given the essence of something, it is strictly contradictory to say that this something has properties incompatible with that essence. However, deciding what is the essence of things is not a matter of logic, because the essence is not given entirely by the meaning of the terms. If "this desk" has all its parts as its essence, then it is contradictory to say that it could have different parts and be the same desk. But the very thesis that the parts of the desk are essential to it is disputed (it even has a name: mereological essentialism), since the parts of this desk are not part of the linguistic definition of "this desk". Likewise, it is essential for collections that they have the property of being larger than their parts, so it is contradictory to say that there could be any collection as large as some of its parts (infinite collections). But the very thesis that the property of being greater than its parts is essential to all collections is debatable (finitism), as this property is not part of the linguistic definition of "collection". You imply that the question of knowing the essences of things is purely conventional, so that decisions are always arbitrary. But note that the issue is not to decide the meaning of the words (this is optional), but the essence of things whose meaning of the words used has already been stipulated. Once we have ostensibly stipulated (that is, pointed out on a case-by-case basis) the meaning of "size", we can know that it would be impossible for something to have this property without having the "shape" property, which is also ostensibly defined. Your example involving "size" of sets is just a reframing of the word size, which is indeed arbitrary, but not an alternative essence to what people mean by "size". But of course there might be formal systems where something can have size, as commonly defined, without having shape. This is because formal systems say nothing about the essence of things. Knowing the essence of things involves deciding between which formal systems are instantiated in reality or not. A common example is the Banach-Tarski theorem, which is logically consistent, but cannot be instantiated in reality because it does not reflect the essence of things (it is essential for every set that it be Lebesgue measurable).
@@caiomateus4194 perhaps I need to educate myself more on Metaphysics, but it seems to me like metaphysical impossibility still hinges on logical contradiction. If something is metaphysically impossible, it seems to me from your explanation, that means instantiating that into reality would entail a logical contradiction with the real ontology of the world, but if we don’t know what that ontology is, how can we assert anything is metaphysically impossible without fully laying out what we mean by the terms in a statement or the assumptions behind a statement. If mereological essentialism is true, then the ice table is metaphysically impossible but also logically contradictory. If gold has the atomic number 79, gold with the atomic number 3 is metaphysically impossible but also logically contradictory. If prime minister refers to a human being and a human being is not a number, prime minister is a prime number is metaphysically impossible but also logically contradictory. Either way, it seems to me that all of these examples seem to not be logical contradictions because the terms are I’ll defined and the assumptions are not stated. Either way, I’ll be reading more about metaphysics in hopes of understanding better why you disagree with me here.
@@lukas1826 Yes, something is only metaphysically impossible given a certain metaphysics. But this also holds for the other categories of impossibility: something is only physically impossible given a certain physics, and logically impossible given a certain logic.
Dr. Craig, have you ever had a psychedelic experience? As a philosopher yourself, I think it behooves you to do so, if you haven't already. Especially now that it's accessible and legal. The psychedelic experience has serious implications for what constitutes "reality", and for our understanding of it. I think you would realize just how little we actually understand about this reality in which we find ourselves... And if anything, perhaps you will find philosophical inspiration in the experience. Cheers mate
Craig should reach out to these people and give the proper version of his argument instead of doing a whole correction of their misinformed response, if the person that presented it really did do a bad job.
Interesting. Each time a point was made, it was in direct response to either Craig's actual words or him speaking in a video. No one was misquoting Craig, he spoke for himself, no one was straw manning him. They responded directly to what HE said.
@@plasticvision6355 I haven't watched it so I wouldn't know, I just know that Craig could totally directly engage with these people, it's not like they would ignore him given how much time they spent discussing his work.
Why shouldnt he respond, doesnt take a genius or to be psychic to think he might respond. James is a smart guy, but a guy like WLC doesnt owe someone like James anything. James is a kid compared to WlC.
@@randomblueguy No, WLC is like 72 years old and James is probably in his late 20's I am guessing. Imagine when you are 70 years old and some brash kid comes and challenges after you have debated all the most prominent atheists around the world. WLC has other things he is working on, has no need for him to accept every young guy or person who wants to challenge him. James Fodor should go after someone like Trent Horn or other theist debaters.
@@ceceroxy2227 What does age have to do with any of this? Billy is not a good philosopher, I have elaborated on why that is elsewhere, and I can do it here too. And spoiler alert: it has nothing to do with the fact that I disagree with his philosophical positions. Billy has debated prominent atheists, indeed, and utterly lost to every half-decent atheist he debated. What are the things that Billy is working on exactly? He didn't know of the unsatisfied pair diagnosis on Cam's channel last week, which tells me he has not been keeping up with the literature AT ALL. Even people on reddit know about the unsatisfied pair diagnosis, guess Billy's just busy responding to TH-cam videos, don't you think? Yes, Billy is not forced to agree to a debate with anybody who challenges him, but if Billy is indeed interested in responding to strong critiques of his views (which any good philosopher should be interested in, but again, Billy is not a good philosopher), he should engage with James' material.
@@randomblueguy I think Billy is working on a book about systematic theology or something like that, maybe he is playing video games and watching porn like most atheists who think they are brilliant philosophers like you. If you say he isnt a good philosopher, it must be so. He lost all the debates, I guess youre not bias at all. Well I am sure good ole Billy needs to combat the great brilliant work of James Fodor, he will have to go to his grave no debating the great James Fodor. Blue, I am not sure youre the one to tell Billy he isnt a good philosopher, Billy was probably smarter than you in grade school.
The fact that you cannot count from an infinite past to now is true but it is irrelevant to the question at hand. The question would rather be if you can count from one event, the big bang to another event, you watching this video at any given moment in time. Fact is you can. Regardless of time being finite or infinite time will always separate events from each other. For example even though there are infinitely many natural numbers you can count from 0 (the big bang) to 13.7 billion (roughly today). The fact that a set is finite or infinite has no effect whatsoever on the distance between two events in the set in time.
It seems that you are conflating cosmic time with actual time. They are not the same. This is one of the reasons that Craig promotes a tensed theory of time. Indeed, it is the only theory of time that permits the universe coming into being as demanded by the Kalam, as on the tenseless theory of time (on which theory of relativity is based), you do not and cannot have a beginning (which is why Craig objects to it!). You simply have events in the earlier than direction.
@@Carlos-fl6ch Apologies for not making my comment clear. Cosmological time is not like standard time it is formulated to take account of Einstein's relativity and field equations (Hubble expansion, etc) from earth. All this means is that, as we know with relativity, there is no absolute, single reference point for time (it is a tenseless theory of time and so cannot provide absolute time measures). Such models only calculate expansion from a boundary (which is everywhere). Before the boundary, is where cosmological models apply and at the juncture and beyond the boundary is where cosmological time (it can never be absolute) applies. Craig asserts this boundary is 'beginning to exist' because it represents the expansion of space time, when in fact the BB theory describes an expansion prior to this boundary, which is not the same thing at all. In short, there was something (hot dense material) prior to the expansion, which is what cosmological theories described. One thing is for sure, there was never a state of philosophical nothing. That is just Craig's assertions and wishful thinking.
@@plasticvision6355 Thanks for you elaboration. I still cannot see where we disagree. I totally agree. I even dare to go as far as to state that Craig purposely misrepresent the science and makes appeals to intuition. I guess what I am trying to say is that Craig uses the intuition we build on the finite to project it in the infinite which simply muddies the water pretending that things cannot be counterintuitive while time itself is as counterintuitive as possible. The reason why I believe he does this on purpose is because he takes a complete opposite position when talking to layman as when he is talking with educated people. In such he completely misused the BGV theorem pretending that it in fact is pointing towards an absolute beginning of time. I think you agree with me that all his infinity paradoxes fail in the same manner because they only make an intuitive appeal and are presented to mislead. For example let's take Hilbert's hotel. If we where relocate all guests one room up in order to destroy one room every hour ad infinitum, we would come to the same apparent paradox that no matter how many rooms we destroy, we can still occupy an infinite number of guest. Therefore an infinite future with his god as he propagate is equally nonsensical. We agre
@@Carlos-fl6ch I understand now where I was wrong. You are right, I was wrong: we do not disagree at all. I think that you are right about how Craig misrepresents to laymen as opposed to his professional colleagues. In past conversations with Malpass, Oppy, et al, he demonstrably flip flops to suit wherever his argument is coming from to fend off prevalent objections, often unaware that in seeming to defend on position he refutes another. That is, he presents an opposing view if he sees that a contradiction may negate his preferred conclusion, but in the process negates another. For example, in discussing the second coming of Christ, Craig uses quantum fluctuation theorems to show that these are analogous to the second coming (he's on videotape saying this). On this theory he argues that a random quantum fluctuation could give rise to the instantaneous annihilation of this universe and it being replaced by another universe (math and theory shows this is possible), with different constants, initial conditions and so forth. But let us wind back a little. Let's assume we are in such a universe and we are trying to determine our origins. If so, our universe would not and could not have been created by a timeless, spaceless powerful anything. It would have necessarily been created by a quantum fluctuation in the previous universe. No god, no mid, no power, no freewill no anything needed. Hence, he refutes the Kalam in one fell swoop, rendering this entire debate useless. So even if he were to show the universe was finite in the past, the prior timeline would be shown to a previous universe and its quantum fluctuations on his own argument.
The *Kalam is circular.* It effectively starts with the conclusion. The universe is part of the “things” in premise 1. If it is not, then the argument is not valid - premise 2 is no longer solidly linked to premise 1. Premise 1 is not proven. We don’t know that all things that begin to exist have a cause, because we don’t know that the universe had a cause (assuming it began to exist). Kalam is trying to prove something about the beginning of the universe by claiming that we already know that very thing.
1. All men are mortal 2. Socrates is a man 3. So, Socrates is mortal. Is this argument "circular" because Socrates is part of "all men" in premise 1? Come now. In any case, if you don't understand universal quantification, the argument can be re-formulated as follows. 1. If the universe began to exist, then the universe has a cause. 2. The universe began to exist. 3. So, the universe has a cause.
@@legron121 Keep going. You were just about to prove me right. In the Socrates syllogism, part of our definition of man is that they are mortal, so P1 is true. The Socrates syllogism is *not* circular because it has not assumed something that we don’t know in order to prove that very assumption. But in Kalam, we do not know that everything that begins to exist has a cause - for example, *the universe.* That is what the Kalam is supposed to prove. Instead, it assumes it is true. In your correctly restated Kalam, you have shown the problem in P1. We don’t know that everything that begins to exist has a cause. That is Kalam’s assumption. In fact, we may know that P1 is false. Every *particular* outcome of a quantum collapse had a beginning, but no discernible cause. (That there would be *some* outcome has a cause, but the “decision” as to which outcome would result has no cause.)
@@kenandzafic3948 I have never heard Craig address these issues: All causes we know of are from within the same universe. Things that begin to exist have multiple, complexly-interacting causes, not “a” cause. Things begin to exist from other things. But his conclusion is that the universe began to exist from “nothing” being manipulated into a universe.
@@scienceexplains302 1. No, that's not his conclusion, that's your conclusion. 2. His arguments for the first premise are: 1) Strong intuition that supports her 2) Inductive argument 3) The fact that today things do not come out of nowhere.
This universe beginning to exist, and having a cause, does mean the Cosmos had a beginning, or say anything about the cause. As many people have pointed out, the Kalam at best gets you to this universe has a cause. This universe might not have a infinite number of things. that does not mean that the Cosmos did not always exist. And our understanding of our universe might not have always applied, or applied before the universe begun to expand. Again this universe might not be the Cosmos. You have not provided evidence that a infinitely number of thigs is impossible in the Cosmos. Even if it's impossible in this universe, that does not mean it is impossible in the Cosmos. And you are claiming you know more then physicist in general, who have degrees, and actually are in the field.
In the argument, "universe" means all of physical reality, not merely our local region. According to our best evidence, all of physical reality came into existence a finite time ago. Moreover, the philosophical arguments demonstrating the impossibility of actual infinities demonstrate that a past eternal universe is not possible. Essentially, what you're doing is appealing to mystery - a sort of "science-of-the-gaps" argument - by offering a promissory note that one day everything will be explained in scientific terms. But the more evidence comes to light, the more the Standard Model is confirmed and the stronger the conclusion is that all of physical reality had an absolute beginning. In other words, the scientific evidence itself is gradually destroying the hiding spots for proponents of a past-eternal universe. - RF Admin
@@ReasonableFaithOrg No, we don't need have have any evidence that all of the physical reality came into existence, or came existence a finite time ago. We have evidence that this universe, or our local universe came into existence a finite time ago. So under your usage of the universe, we don't have evidence the universe begun to exist. Nope, I never said, or implied that, one day everything will be explained in scientific terms. We might never have evidence in regards, anything before this universe begun to expand. We have no scientific model that says the Cosmos begun, which you are calling the universe begun to exist. This is why the best the Kalam Cosmological argument gets you is, this universe had a cause. And this is the Point, or one of the Point Matt was making. The argument does get you to what the cause is. If anything the evidence suggests suggest that Energy, which would be physical, always existed.
@@ReasonableFaithOrg If a statement or concept match reality is a Scientific question. So even if philosophy influenced you to think of the question, the question of does it match reality is a scientific question. And the argument is, or is not support by evidence. Saying Philosophical argument, is not really accurate, and does not avoid if it is supported by evidence. So, the statement, is there actual infinities, means is a scientific question. Again even if there is not actual infinities in this universe, that does not mean there is not actual infinities in the Cosmos. So, the statement, is there something that is physical that is infinite is a scientific question. Again even if this universe did not always exist, that does not mean the Cosmos did not always exist.
@@ReasonableFaithOrg *physical reality AS WE KNOW IT..... We have ZERO clue as to whether or not there is something beyond our local universe. You have no room to posit that all of physical existence came into being at a certain. The evidence that we have points to our local instantiation of the universe (as we know it) having a beginning, without having evidence of something outside of that. Our physical equations break down at that point and they all stop at infinity..... There is no logical impossibility of the total amount of energy that makes up the universe to have existed eternally.
26:24 Again, don't say contradiction to a lay audience. You have a lot of ethos with a lot of Christians. Please be clear with them and just say that you have a hunch that it is metaphysically impossible.
@@Oskar1000 Exactly! You need to assume the truth of a given axiomatic system, in this case Peano arithmetic. But according to this same arithmetic, infinite numbers (that is, numbers that do not increase when added) are also contradictions, due to the laws of commutativity, associativity, etc.
@@Oskar1000 Set theory is just an extremely ad hoc device that was invented precisely to deal with this problem. But if you can choose an arbitrary axiomatic system, then I can also choose an axiomatic system where 2+2=5 is not contradictory (say, an ultrafinitist).
This video is shared by skydeviphil and check the official video how i debunked the claims that claimed against WLC , as a rationalist muslim , check comments in official video. And i debated with the owner of the channel in comment also i debunked and destroyed him scientifically, he just tried to show some pseudo-philosopher and pseudo-scientist to defend his claims ( with respect to sir alexander vilenkin and alan guth ). th-cam.com/video/pGKe6YzHiME/w-d-xo.html
@@Hello-vz1md No only Alan Guth and Alexander where those people who i think they are smart and real scientist , most of them in the video just biased and fallacious philosophers.
@@thearmy8945 I mean, calling scientific luminaries like Carlo Rovelli and Sean Carroll 'biased and fallacious philosophers' because they don't share your belief in the Kalam Cosmological argument is hilarious. The fact you reckon you 'debunked and destroyed' someone is also pretty funny, you didn't, you applied your theistic biases to a discussion with an actual scientist. I haven't 'debunked' or 'destroyed' you here, I've just disagreed with you. Same as what you did with them. What exactly did you 'debunk' or 'destroy'?
You're not a physicist, nor a mathematician, Craig. When the real experts tell you what you've got wrong about their field, you listen. Don't be dismissive. This highlights the confirmation bias nature of Christian apologetics.
This may be a bit over my head but is the rebuttal just an attempt at dunking on Craig for possibly using the wrong terminology when it comes to assigning rules to abstract concepts that have no basis in reality? Also with Malpas' response regarding that the issue is shuffling the visitors around and that time is fixed so the hotel is more like people being locked into their rooms, is he arguing for conceptual infinite or metaphysical infinite?
I guess that he means that the fact that this little thought experiment leads to contradictions doesn’t mean that actual infinities are impossible… it only means that this specific thought experiment can not exist in reality but doesn’t tell us anything about actual infinities existing in reality.
@@ramigilneas9274 The thought experiment being Hilbert's Hotel? It doesn't seem to just be a mathematician waxing poetic. It seems to me to more sophisticated than that. The reason for the shifting of the guests is an analogy for the progression of time. It's exactly the reason that Malpass's idea that the past is fixed doesn't hold up at all. The exact present would be 10 seconds in to the past after ten seconds. In another ten seconds that exact present from before is now 20 seconds past in the new present. That idea works with cadences of 10 seconds, years, 1/1000th of a second, millennia, what have you. That concept is metaphorically visualized by the continuous shifting of hotel guests. Having Malpass say "well, sure but what if they were sealed in their rooms?" doesn't even seem relevant to the discussion. If he can imagine an infinite hotel where every guest is locked in their rooms, it would just suggest that in a universe where literally nothing whatsoever happens at all, there could be the possibility of infinite without contradiction. That has no bearing on our observable universe. Also, it kind of defeats the purpose to call that a hotel. There was a distinctive reason Hilbert used the hotel for the metaphor and Malpass didn't seem to get that.
Even given the Kalam's premises, it only proves a cause. It says nothing about that cause. Any statement about that cause is conjecture about a gap in out current knowledge. The Kalam does nothing to prove the god of the bible.
Theistically relevant properties emerge when one analyzes what it means to be a cause of the universe. It's not conjecture; it's logic. And Dr. Craig has been saying that the Kalam doesn't prove the God of the Bible from the very beginning. It's part of a cumulative case for Christian theism. - RF Admin
@@ReasonableFaithOrg the same emergent properties could be argued for a variety of causes. For example, the capricious nature of existence could point to an experiment by some master alien race. That cause is just as likely as WLC's. It sounds like you agree that the Kalam does not prove what the cause is. Is that a fair assessment?
@@johnelliott5859 This is the same move that Lewis Wolpert used in his debate with Dr. Craig. Wolpert (sarcastically) conceded all of the properties yielded by an analysis of the cause of the universe, but called it a "computer." As Dr. Craig notes, this is just calling God by another name. Calling the cause a "master alien race" doesn't change the properties of that cause: timeless, spaceless, immaterial, capable of creation ex nihilo, personal, etc. If you want to call such a cause an "alien," that's fine. It still transcends the physical universe and therefore significantly reduces the plausibility of atheism. - RF Admin
@@ReasonableFaithOrg that may be if you concede the premises of the Kalam, but that is not necessarily a given. For example, we don't know what the universe was made from, we can't assume it came from nothing. In our reality that wouldn't make sense. However our understanding of the physical processes involved break down before cosmic inflation. So to say a god did it is still a god of the gaps argument. History has not been kind to gods who were used to explain knowledge gaps. Appreciate the discussion.
@@johnelliott5859 First, when we say that the universe came from nothing, we mean that it didn't have a material, physical cause. Theists would obviously reject the claim that the universe came from nothing in the sense that it had no cause, since obviously we are committed to the claim that God created the universe. But of course, if there is a cause of the entire universe (ie all of physical reality), then the cause cannot be the universe itself or any part of it. In other words, the cause transcends the universe. Second, the conclusion follows even without a complete physical description prior to inflation. There are no empirically valid models of a past-eternal universe which enjoy the same scientific support that past-finite models do. In other words, history has not been kind to science-of-the-gaps proponents. If one has to appeal to aliens, invalid scientific models, unverifiable infinite multiverses, etc. in order to avoid the conclusion that the universe had a transcendent cause, then the theist seems to be on solid ground, rationally speaking. - RF Admin
“My studied position”. You keep using that phrase without having studied physics. Your studied philosophy position depends on assertions that don’t hold true or haven’t been demonstrated. Please demonstrate your claims rather than simply asserting there must be a cause. That’s just an assertion.
Craig is so smart that he's schooling actually mathematicians and physicists on their respective fields as if he has a PhD in both. Smartest man in the world. Give this guy a nobel prize for scientifically proving God.
@@theophilussogoromo3000 You clearly don't see the flaws in Craig's reasoning. He's not showing anyone anything. He is responding to people who are responding to HIS claims. Claims he has made on video and in print. Non one is misrepresenting him. And yes, you ave to smart to detect the flaws in his reasoning. Lot's of ex Christians have, which begs the question why you cannot. Are you not smart enough or do just want to believe for your own reasons. The whole enterprise is so childishly anthropomorphic.
William Lane Craig at 13:11: _"... and I don't challenge the internal consistency of cantorian or infinite set theory given its axioms and definitions. My question is rather is whether these actually infinite sets really can be instantiated in reality."_ William Lane Craig at 16:04: _"Well again at the risk of repeating myself the claim is not, that infinite set theory is self-contradictory or inconsistent. The question is rather is whether the couter-intuitive consequences of the real existence of an actually infinite number of things justifies skepticism about the metaphysical possibility of real actual infinities"_ Yes, you, William Lane Craig, are "assuming" cantorian infinite set theory in your arguments (15:18), but simultaneously you are assuming incompatible propositions to cantorian infinite set theory in your arguments. So no wonder you are getting counter-intuitive results. It's like someone asking, whether or not soup can actually exist and instantiated, assumes such a soup to actually exist and then that person wants and tries to eat that soup with a fork and wonders about getting "counter-intuitive" consequences like never being capable of enjoying that assumed to be existing soup with a fork. But that supposed to be possible. So the argument goes, that since that is "counter-intuitive" and hence actually not possible but supposed to be possible, therefore the existence of the soup is a lie or to say, that the existence of the soup is not metaphysically possible. And your argument for the metaphysical impossibility of an infinite, William Lane Craig, is basically that argument for the metaphysical impossibility of soup. Which rational person thinks like that and which other person is buying this irrational stuff? If you are "assuming" cantorian infinite set theory, then assume it properly. Otherwise you, William Lane Craig, are not better of a skeptic than a flat earther justifying his skepticism about the thesis of earth being spherical with his results of "counter-intuitive" consequences from the assumption of such a spherical earth. And yes, I also want to say with this, that subjective “counter-intuitive” consequences from a thesis or falsidical paradoxes, which have been already resolved a long, long time ago concerning that thesis, are no rational justification for skepticism about that particular thesis or subjective “counter-intuitive” consequences are no rational justification for anything, really.
I hope, sincerely, that you pose this question to him on his website where he might actually reply. Make sure to keep all of your unwarranted snark and ignorance in there. WLC would have a field day correcting your mathematical ignorance.
@@vinchinzo594 I'm not the mathematical ignorant person here. WLC and you are the mathematical ignorant ones here: *"Hilbert's paradox of the Grand Hotel"* ( en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hilbert%27s_paradox_of_the_Grand_Hotel ) Regarding these presented paradoxes with infinity these all have been already resolved. But you and WLC are ignorant to see that. Yes, this comment of mine is addressing and concerning the statements of WLC. But I'm not really expecting him to give an actual and proper response to my concerns, given how much of a smug he is while responding to valid objections: *"William Lane Craig: Hypocrite by Design"* by Venaloid ( th-cam.com/video/aDExcp2mS6s/w-d-xo.html ) So I'm just displaying my concerns about those statements of WLC to the public with my comment of mine here.
I dont understand why you need all these thought experiments with infinity, it seems to me that you cant have a quantifiable infinite just because there is no number that precedes infinity, so it would be impossible to reach an infinite.
Hello again lol. you kinda need these thought experiments to draw out a contradiction from an infinite past. Otherwise you are not showing that an infinite past is logicaly impossible (Contradictory). You are saying it is impossbile to reach an infinite since there is no number that precedes it, But nobody disagrees with this. Yes clearly you can never reach the infinite Number .But the infinite past scenario is a little bit different than your analogy. In the infinite past we are not trying to reach an infinite, we were always comming down from an infinite to reach 0. so if you look forward at anypoint in the infite past, there is always a finite number of days to reach today.
@@gogo-su6hr If the past were infinite wouldnt that mean there are an infinite number of seconds that needed to be completed to get to now. How do you come down from infinity to 0. If you cant reach infinity from 0 , how can you reach 0 from infinity. Please explain. Here's the problem with what you said at the end, if you look forward at any point in the infinite past, there is always a infinite past there will always a finite number of days to reach today, yes but in an infinite past, there is no beginning, so there is no number to start from, you can start from any number, because there is no beginning or start to a beginningless series of events which is what an infinite past is. There is your contradiction right there, you want to begin at a number for a beginningless series of events, that makes no sense.
@@ceceroxy2227 the whole point of an infinite past is that there is no beginning, so of course am not trying to put a beginning in an infinite past. Yes if the past is infinite, then an infinite number of seconds needed to be completed, but ask yourself why cant we count to infinity ? the only reason is because there is no number that precedes infinity. Now if we are counting down from infinity we can ask : do we have the same issue? The answer is no because there exists a number that we are trying to reach, which is 0.
@@gogo-su6hr So you are saying we cant count from 0 to infinity, but we can count from infinity to 0. How does that work, seems like the exact same distance.
Can't believe WLC still uses the so called paradoxes when they are not paradoxes at all. If you set up a scenario that is impossible you don't proof anything. The Grim Reaper wants you to provide a first member of a set that has no first member. That is nonsensical. Its Like telling someone to take the train from a to b if and only if you don't take the train from a to b. Equally that doesn't proof that you cannot go from a to b by train.
The whole point is that the reason it’s “set up” to be “impossible” is because it includes the actual infinite within the set up. That’s the point. There’s something contradictory about paper passers (which can be subbed out if you don’t want to accept grim reapers).
@@christianpaleocon6580 Sorry I responded to a similar argument so allow me to copy paste my answer. Wonder what your views are. And, I don't know paper passers. Well an infinite set in itself has no first nor last member hence the infinite character of the set. The scenario is constructed such that only the first member of the set can act. But you purposely choose a set without a first member. This makes it a mutually unsatisfiable pair to begin with because the Grim reapers can only act in a finite amount of time. The contradiction doesn't occur as a result. The setup itself is contradictory. I shoot an arrow at you the arrow will travel q finite amount of distance. The fact that I can devide this finite amount of distance in an infinite amount of parts doesn't mean that the arrow will not reach you. In an infinite amount of time it is no problem to have different events that are separate by a finite amount of time. Also consider this. If I told you to take the next train from a to b if and only if you don't take the next train from a to b than we have an condition and a rule that are mutually unsatisfiable. Can I than conclude that there are no trains from a to b? Of course not. The scenario is impossible to satisfy and whatever conclusion we can come up with it just applies to the scenario itself. Further to that it's simply nonsensical. This goes for all Benedetti pradoxes.
Craig claims that tbe Kalam is being misrepresented. You would immediately expect him to demonstrate that this is actually true. He has yet to substantiate this claim.
HELL-Oh! or Greetings. " I love Jesus/God because in HIS infinite LOVE HE is WEIRD, CRAZY, and DANGEROUS!!! We should/must all strive to be LOVING, WEIRD, CRAZY, and DANGEROUS, just like Jesus/God. Prove me wrong!"- The Bible "Iron sharpens iron, so one friend sharpens another"- The Bible
WLC’s legacy of work continues to provide us with rigorous arguments that the brightest of minds struggle to defeat! Thank you! May many brave men and women follow in your footsteps to defend the Christian faith!
@@KudaIzka according to him the BGV theorem proofs that the universe has a beginning. This is purposely misleading since the theorem focusses on the expansion of the universe that is inflation and not on the beginning of the universe. Also a scientific theory is not to be called proof especially when it deals with things that cannot be tested. Calling it proof is purposely misleading. But look at this video itself. Craig said quite firmly that an infinity is a contradiction. He now offers the excuse that it is difficult to understand and explain on an easy way to a lay audience. What does that mean? That he is allowed to lie if it gets him closer to his goal. I can go into the Benedetti paradoxes if You so wish but I think this is enough. Consider this. WLC say that the makers of this documentary are misrepresenting the Kalam. It has already been repeated by believers, can you tell me how he demonstrated that this claim is true?
The *accurate version* of the standard KCA would be 1) Things that begin to exist (and everything within the universe apparently began to exist) always or almost always have * *multiple,* complexly-interacting natural causes * That are physical and exist in space-time * from adjacent matter and/or fields *within their universe.* * Development thru gradient stages Not -Whatever begins to exist has a cause.- 2) our current instantiation of our local universe (not assuming that there have been other instantiations or that other universes exist) apparently had something like a beginning phase, but we have only one universe to examine and only indirect evidence about it’s beginning or lack thereof. 3) Therefore.... no specific conclusion results from 1 and 2. It would be consistent with #1 if our instantiation of the local universe had multiple, complexly interactive natural causes from things and/or processes in space-time, but to say “what is true of the parts is also true of the whole,” is an informal *fallacy of composition.* So the Kalamists are saying a powerful conscious being is able to exist without a preceding cause, but simple matter and energy cannot.
'That's just handwaving, an appeal to the unknown' That is certainly an odd criticism coming from someone trying to convince me of the existence of an omniscient and omnipotent being that created the universe. How are WLC's assertions of the existence of God not 'just handwaving, an appeal to the unknown'?
WLC loves to act as if he has all the knowledge of a cosmologist and other areas of science . He is not a scientist and continues to misuse scientific statements made by the experts. This man is arrogant and a fake.
So Yet again, like for last 20 Years WLC states 'to me it's metaphysically impossible'. Well note taken but the question remains - so what? Problem is is that there are other philosophers and especially mathematicians that disagree with Craig view and to them it's perfectly possible (this was discussed probably hundreds of times) point is, there is no contemporary scientific consensus on points Craig is making. Especially what is fundamentally different between past infinity and future infinity. And yest this this is used as proof of something so fundamental as God? It doesn't even makes sense to repeat all those points, source material brilliantly shows some of them. It seems to me, yet again, that Craig is actually not interested in honest, scientific discussion as he shown multiple times in the past reiterating the same arguments; even after the very authors of theorems behind those arguments refuted Craig assertions and pointed out that Craig simply does not understand what their work proves and what not. Very good example is Borde, Guth, Vilenkin theorem - all of them a) stated that Craig basically is misinterpreting their theorem b) all three of them much say that Universe may be past-infinite. It would be fun to watch second part of this 'critique' where probably Craig would say something like Guth, Vilenkin and Bored does not understand their own theorems and are wrong about past-infinite universe. Indeed that would be fun.
I think that when Dr. Craig says that actual infinites are impossible in reality he means PHYSICAL reality. Otherwise it would be contradictory to theism(or would be a claim against God existing) since part of God's nature is reality itself or actuality.
Are you assuming that the impossibility of an actual infinity in any sense would preclude God's existence because God is infinite? If so, then it should be noted that Dr. Craig is always careful to differentiate between a quantitative infinity and a qualitative infinity. God qualitatively infinite, not quantitatively infinite. The arguments are against a quantitative infinity and so do not preclude God's being infinite in the qualitative sense. - RF Admin
@@ReasonableFaithOrg Well, there isn't any evidence that suggests that God could possibly not exist on any kind of actual infinite scenarios(physical, spiritual or any other possible scenario) But anyway, there is no evidence that shows even the possibility of God not existing.
Dr. Craig is not _seeking_ truth, he's simply trying to persuade others, and keep those who have doubts, in the faith. As well as earn a living doing it. Dr. Craig by the inner testimony of the Holy spirit _knows_ the truth.
@@dane947 Sure he is, he is looking for what the most rational arguments are for things such as the beginning of the universe and what is the best explanation for everything.
@@ceceroxy2227 Wrong, he presupposes at his core that God exists, and then finds philosophical reasonings to confirm this. And he has said that if every argument he makes if proven wrong, doesn't change a thing. That's not searching for truth. You really need to pay attention when he speaks.
@@dane947 Well I guess he just wasted the last 50 years of his life writing those books and papers. and earning those PHD's. I dont think he presupposes God exists, I know he had an experience in High School which shouldnt count for anyone else as evidence but is evidence for him. He is about as honest and decent person as I have said, I would say you are probably not seeking the truth, but yes I think Craig is.
The attempt to distinguish between strictly logically impossible things and metaphysically impossible things leaves me baffled. How could someone take such trite analysis seriously? "Gold has the atomic number 3" DOES involve a strict logical contradiction because "gold" is a proxy for "an element with and only with atomic number 79." That's what the word "gold" means. This is a pointless and in fact vacuous distinction used to try to make the hucksterish claim that actual infinites are metaphysically impossible. It's just grade-school level fallacy and non-sequitur, one after the other. A Hilbert hotel is not logically or metaphysically impossible - Craig just refuses to acknowledge it because he _wants_ it to be impossible. The Grim Reaper "paradox" is another example of bad reasoning. If, in fact, you had an infinite number of "grim reapers" and each of them said to themselves "I'm going to cut you down at time T_n" (where T_n meets the criteria Craig describes here) we *know* which Grim Reaper would end up killing you - it is the reaper who's time T_n is greater than but closest to the Planck time length after midnight - there exists only one reaper who could, in fact, end up killing you, and we know which one because we understand that time is quantized, not continuous. The paradox is not resolved by saying "actual infinites are impossible" - which is simply not a true claim (what's the proof of it?) - the paradox is resolved by _empirical_ observation of the way the physical world works. There's nothing impossible about an infinite number of grim reapers - it's just not physically possible to have an infinite number of grim reapers who move faster than the Planck time would allow. Throwing out "all actual infinites" with these kinds of examples to resolve these paradoxes just isn't necessary and I find it troubling a professional philosopher would make these kinds of arguments when they are so clearly vacuous. It's clear axe-grinding of the most nieve kind.
The word "gold" does not mean "element of atomic number 79", as people already knew what gold is before they knew atoms exist. The Planck time is not the shortest possible, but only the shortest in which we can physically describe the events. According to relativistic mechanics, time is continuous and not discrete. Furthermore, the reason philosophers pay attention to such paradoxes is that they are not only physically impossible, but LOGICALLY impossible. Just conceive of a world with different physical laws. In fact, Robert Koons has shown how to extend the paradox to a version involving an eternal past rather than a continuous time.
@@caiomateus4194 Though I appreciate your response the fact is none of the points you brought up matter. They're just grasping at straws trying to save irredeemable objections from their obviously fatal flaws. People "knew" what "gold" was before atoms existed only in the sense that they could look at a substance and see if it met their criteria for gold or not. "Fool's gold" exists *exactly because* people did not, in fact, "always know" what gold was. Gold has forever and always been the element of atomic number 79 - people just didn't define it that way in the past because they didn't have the method to verify it. Over time, categorization became more rigorous, particularly with the advent of chemistry, then physical chemistry. If you gave someone from ten thousand years ago a hunk of gold, and a hunk of a different metal that wasn't gold, but they couldn't distinguish the two, to them, they would think they "knew both were gold," but in fact, they would simply be wrong, precisely because one of those was element 79, and one wasn't. If your whole point is _really_ that "gold does not _mean_ element 79" then that's fine - the term "gold" has indeed been _more precisely defined_ over time. But the _referent ontological object_ "gold" has *never* changed once. This is precisely why it is *is* in fact a _logical_ contradiction to say that the ontological object "gold" is "element 3," - it never could have been "element 3" _logically_ because an intrinsic property of gold has always and forever been that it is element 79, and lithium is element 3, even if someone in the past would not have _known_ gold had 79 protons. That which has 79 protons *is* gold, so to say it has 3 protons is a logical contradiction, just like saying a square (which *is* a four sided geometric figure of 90 degree angles) has three sides *is* a logical contradiction. The distinction you are trying to establish between discrete and continuous time is irrelevant also. Our best physics has vindicated Aristotle's assertion that physical reality _must_ come in discrete units. (Aristotle suspected that physical matter could not be divided infinitely, so he effectively argued that physical reality was discretely quantized, and he was right. He didn't know that _time_ itself was part of the same 4-d manifold "spacetime" so he couldn't infer that time itself was quantized, but the *same* logic applies. Furthermore, if you want to take Zeno's Paradox seriously, that, too, implies a *discrete* and not a continous fabric of time. This idea of discrete time is in fact not a new idea). Time is, in fact, according to our best current physical theories, discrete, and NOT continuous, _exactly_ because of the reason I mentioned: the Planck time is the shortest possible _definable_ unit of time. The Planck time is close to 10^(-43) seconds. The fact that someone can take the symbol "seconds" and place it next to numbers smaller than this is irrelevant to the _properties_ of the ontological object "time" as defined in physics and science. You can say the words "10^(-100) seconds" but you aren't _actually_ saying anything, any more than thinking that by holding fool's gold you are holding real gold. The inability to see something's properties doesn't mean its properties aren't there. They are there, if you're a realist that is. To elaborate on this point for clarity, one must understand how physical definitions work. What IS, in fact, a "second" ? Just go look it up. You will find the definition: """[T]he second is equal to the duration of 9192631770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the hyperfine levels of the unperturbed ground state of the 133Cs atom. [2]""" (Wiki on "second")... The problem with _asserting_ that "time is continuous," is therefore obvious upon reflection: "second" is _defined_ in terms of _physical phenomena_ and therefore to _talk_ about "time" outside of the _phenomenological constraints of physical objects_ is *scientifically meaningless* AND just _wrong_ . Time is _literally_ contingent upon the properties of space and matter. Therefore, to say that "the Planck time is 'just' the shortest time we can measure," is fundamentally misguided. Yes, it is logically _possible_ there is a "shorter" time than the Planck time, but there's no _evidence_ for that, and like I said, even the ancients argued and _recognized_ that discreteness, not continuity, is the better model for understanding physical reality. It's not like we are just "limited" by our technology when talking about "time" and one day we will make better technology that can measure shorter than the Planck time. It's that _time itself_ has no _physical_ coherence _below_ the level of the Planck time. The problem is deeper than, I think, you thought it was. Another important point is that your point about relativistic physics is also irrelevant. It is _known_ by physicists that Relativity is simply wrong, just like Newton's physics is simply wrong. It's thus "not even wrong" to say "but Relativity says time is continuous" because it's irrelevant - there is no unified theory and Newton and Relativity break down at quantum levels, so you can't argue that reality is, in fact, discrete in this way when the theory you are invoking _simply_ does not apply at quantum levels. And it doesn't. It is _completely_ true that in Newtonian physics or Relativistic physics you can model the movement of bodies of _any_ arbitrarily defined size - even smaller than the Planck length. But it doesn't matter because those _objects_ are not physically possible and the theories that would "treat" them as continuous would be _wrong_ . So again, it's simply not correct to try to argue that because Relativity and Newtonian mechanics treat the universe as if it flows continuously, we should "think" of reality or time as being continuous. It's just not the case, and yet again, like I said before, even the ancients recognized the problems with arguing for continuous nature of time and matter. And so far, the more we learn about reality, the more it seems that it is, in fact, discrete and quantized, not continuous. I would like to see your reference to the Koons extension as well as the point you asserted about logical vs. physical impossibilities. I'd be very interested and hope you'll provide it. I want to just say one last thing about the physical vs. logical impossibility. The whole point I was making in my original comment was that Craig just makes facile arguments about this distinction and he doesn't really face the music. He's _trying_ to defend the primitive human intuition that time is continuous and that actual infinites are impossible etc. because he has a bunch of preconceived notions he wants to defend. What he should be doing is exploring these models and seeing which one most closely fits the data, instead of just making assertions. Paradoxes cannot, in fact, exist, but that does not mean that the paradox _actually_ describes a _real_ physical ontological object. The Grim Reaper paradox does not prove that actual infinites can't exist; it just proves that an infinite number of Grim Reapers that "will, in fact" kill you cannot exist. And _just_ like I said before, the resolution of the "paradox" is NOT the declaration that "actual infinites are impossible" - this is FAR too broad and hasty of a generalization, a move not parsimonious with the need to provide the _simplest_ explanation to resolve the paradox - the resolution of the paradox is that those ontological _objects_ as described could not, in fact, _physically_ exist for _physical_ reasons. The Grim Reaper paradox is just the same thing as Zeno's Paradox all over again anyway, but it's obvious that Zeno's Paradox suggests not that "actual infinites" can't exist, but again, rather, that time *is physically quantized* - which is _precisely_ why _both_ of those paradoxes do not support the notion that "actual infinites can't exist." The very last point is that conceiving of a world of different physical laws is irrelevant as well, because the _whole point_ of the paradoxes is *precisely* _that_ such worlds CANNOT exist in which those paradoxes hold true! There would _always_ be a fundamental unit to "time" because "time" is _always_ defined in terms of _other_ physical units, and there has to be an analogous relationship between the concept of what you and I are calling "time" and what these modified but alternative realities you refer to to make a point. If there was no such relationship, it wouldn't be "time" in any meaningful sense, any more than you could talk about "velocity" without "time" and "distance."
@@superdog797 "Fool's gold" is a definition given AFTER the discovery that gold does indeed have the molecular characteristics it has. It took place in the 40's. Furthermore, pyrite (which you call "fool's gold") does contain small amounts of gold when found in nature, although these cannot be extracted easily. It is absolutely false, therefore, that what defines gold is modern chemistry. What defines gold is its perceptible characteristics categorized by the ancients, so that "gold" could denote what we now call "metals" in general, if the ancients had so desired. However, what the ancients called gold always had the atomic characteristics that we now find it to have, and that is exactly what metaphysical necessity is all about: something is metaphysically necessary if its opposite is a contradiction to the ESSENCE of something, but not with its linguistic meaning (even because the word "gold" has no meaning, just a direct reference, as you say). Metaphysical necessity is a derivation of truths from what we know about the correct ontology of things. Of course, to discover the essence of gold, empirical data were needed. But that doesn't change the fact that it's just metaphysically impossible for gold to have an atomic number other than 79, not logically impossible. So the most you could question is the a priori method of discovering metaphysical needs. But it doesn't sound like you're skeptical about this, as you seem to be saying that it's metaphysically impossible for time to be continuous, since that's the conclusion of Zenao's paradox. Know, however, that the ancient Greeks also came to the conclusion that actual infinity is metaphysically impossible a priori. This reminds me, by the way, to correct you about another false historical data you are using. Aristotle did NOT think that time was discrete, as this too falls into one of Zenao's paradoxes. What Aristotle thought was that time was continuous, but not in the sense of a Cantorian or a mathematical continuum. Rather, a potential continuum, in the sense of being explanatory prior to its parts, and therefore indefinitely divisible. This still makes the Grim Reaper paradox possible (and see Robert Koons' version in his "a new kalam argument: revenge of the grim reaper"). In fact, your analysis of why the paradox is not instantiable in reality is totally wrong. There is nothing to be saved from it. You didn't realize that the paradox is formulable in terms of ANY infinite causal structure in a finite time span, just think of rocks, dragons, stars or anything in place of reapers. That's why the best explanation is causal finitism: it explains all the paradoxes, so it has full scope. Furthermore, even if the reason why the paradox is impossible to occur were not causal finitism, it would still be true that the falsity of causal finitism would imply the possibility of such a paradox occurring. There would be nothing to stop the infinite reapers from realizing the paradox if they existed (there is no mysterious force called "logic" to stop anything). Of course, if time is necessarily discrete, then the paradox cannot occur. But it is obvious that time is not necessarily discrete. At best, this would be a physical contingency as much as gravity. I say "at best" because time is not really discrete. The general theory of relativity treats it as a continuum, and I doubt you'll find any respectable physicist in the world categorically claiming it to be false. If the general theory of relativity is an approximation, then the quantum theory is also a mere approximation, so we have fallen into an absolute scientific anti-realism where we cannot assert anything based on any theory. But that doesn't really matter, because the truth is that time is not discrete even in quantum theory. Instead, time emerges from an imaginary coordinate related to space, which itself is continuous. Elementary particles are treated as geometric points in the wave function, to give you an idea. The only quantum theories that treat time and space as discrete are those based on loop quantum gravity, which has never been confirmed. In fact, no matter what the final theory that awaits us, all physicists expect it to describe events at intervals smaller than Planck's, and that is precisely what motivates the research. I'm not used to using authoritative arguments, but I have to say that your opinion on this topic doesn't make any sense. And I go further: it is metaphysically impossible for time to be discrete, due to two of Zeno's four paradoxes.
@@caiomateus4194 So for sanity's sake I will narrow the scope, at least for now. And I do appreciate all your comments and have them on the table. But for now, talk about the Reaper paradox. Ruling out the existence of _all_ actualized infinities is simply a non-sequitur of the paradox. The word _actualized_ *means* that you are talking about _physical objects_ that obey the laws of _physics_ as we understand them, not some other hypothetical metaphysical world. On this particular point, I'm not interested in the metaphysical possibilities of the worlds that don't exist - I'm interested in the question of whether or not, in this world, the world we live in, based on our observational knowledge, if it is, in fact, impossible for an infinite quantity to exist. And the simple fact is it is not - there is *no* contradiction in the existence of such a set, and I challenge you to _point out explicitly_ the existence of such a contradiction. Take, for example, the following scenario. The observable universe is (essentially) a finite sphere with the Earth at the center. There is a known volume that exists beyond that sphere that we can scientifically infer exists, though it is beyond our "direct" observation (whatever constitutes a "direct" observation). Then, there is what _may_ or _may not_ be "the rest of the universe," - and there is *no* contradiction in this volume being infinite. It is simply _unknown_ what this volume, if any, is, because the Big Bang theory is nothing more than the inferred evolution of a particular volume of the universe which we know has been expanding over the last 14 billionish years. There is no reason to think that it is _impossible_ the big bang sphere was part of an infinitely large volume that was itself in a state of expansion at any given point within it 14 billionish years ago. Moreover, there is no reason to think it is _impossible_ the big bang was just some localized expansion of some other infinitely large manifold that exists. The fact that there is no empirical evidence for this does not mean it contains any _contradiction_ because it does _not_ in fact contain any such contradiction. Can you just point one out? What is the _logical contradiction_ in the ontological object of an "infinite volume of space"? (If you do in fact hold that it is impossible, you must be able to point to such a contradiction...but what would you maintain it is?). The fact that a single mind or observer of finite attributes could never instantiate an _observation_ of all that manifold at a given moment does _not_ imply that the manifold itself is an absolute, logical impossibility - it would just be impossible to _verify_ (at least in that way). So what is the contradiction? On the GR paradox, the person who sets the paradox up does so (perhaps unwittingly though) _purposefully_ so as to include _impossible_ attributes that _cannot_ actually exist, and _thereby_ argue that infinite quantities can't exist. This won't work though because the GR paradox does not include member _objects_ that could physically exist in our world, _based_ on our observational knowledge of the world. Hence, the paradox is resolved more _parsimoniously_ by _realizing_ that _this simply isn't how the world works_ and that, therefore, the paradox is _irrelevant_ to the question of whether or not you "really could have an infinite number of grim reapers." The answer is that you can, in fact, have an infinite number of such grim reapers, as _long_ as each member reaper does not contain attributes that would be impossible in our world. To illustrate, consider it further. If there are an infinite number of reapers, each individually labeled T_n, where n is an integer, and each reaper says to himself "I'll cut you down at 1/n seconds from twelve o'clock" then you could, in fact, _have_ such a set. There is no _contradiction_ in the existence of such a set. This does not _mean_ that, in fact, the reapers are all _capable_ of carrying out their plan, because again, they are _material_ objects that must be constrained by the laws of physical possibility, and there is, in fact, only _one_ reaper who will be able to act in time and ultimately cut you down. There are not, in fact, therefore, an "infinite number of reapers" who will contain the contradictory properties of having cut you down, and yet there being only _one_ reaper who cuts you down. There simply is no paradox - it is resolved not because infinites are impossible, but because time and space are, in fact, discrete. Now I'm going to add some caveats here. I have been a little overzealous (though somewhat purposefully) in my assertion or notion that the universe is discrete, because as you correctly pointed out, we have no unified physical theory, and so it remains an _open question_ . I also _recognize_ that IF actual infinites _cannot_ or do not exist, then the paradox is ALSO resolved - I do not _deny_ that at all. But the WHOLE point I'm making is that it is NOT, in fact, the case that we _know_ infinites can't exist _because_ of the reaper paradox - the paradox does not _deal_ with aspects of the universe as we _know_ it, and because of this, it is simply an irrelevant artifact that _cannot_ do the work people want it to do. I even _admit_ that IF time and space are, in fact, continuous, then the GR paradox is _very_ powerful. But that is an IF, and the whole point I was making before is that physics _strongly_ suggests, or points to, quantization of the fundamental elements of reality. There are many ways to illustrate this, but the _most fundamental way_ to _realize_ that this is implied by _physics_ is the fact that *all basic units in physics must be defined in terms of other units which are, in fact* quantized. Units are not _abstract objects_ and are always defined in terms of _physical_ phenomenological _objects_ which *are observably quantized* - at least in the sense that (1) wave functions "collapse" when observed, and (2) (apparently) fundamental particles are now known to exist. This whole idea that reality is continuous is actually highly problematic, _precisely because_ it gets you into situations LIKE the GR paradox! It is so much _simpler_ to just say that reality is discrete and quantized instead of rejecting ideas that contain no obvious contradictions - like an infinite set. Why do you think the ancients conceptualized an atom? It's because they _realized_ or _felt_ that on some level the continuous nature of a physical reality would lead to absurdities, hence the hypothesis, now confirmed, of the _discrete_ atom. One quick attempt at explicitly showing the impossibility of continuous reality is to imagine a finite physical object. Can the object, in fact, _be_ made of continuous physical elements? It doesn't seem to make conceptual sense, in the following way. The "object" of finite size represents a set of constituent elements. That set is either infinite or finite, but in any case, you have a complete set. If the object is made of a finite number of discrete objects that exist as _fundamentally discrete objects_ then there is no problem - you have n elements, each of a unit volume of 1, which add up to the total volume of the object, nx1. It's simple, and clear. The only unexplained thing is "Why is there a fundamental unit?" but that is an _entirely_ different question. On the other hand, if you argue that reality is _fundamentally_ continuous, including the material the object is made of, then one has the paradoxical problem of saying that this finite object is made up of an infinite number of particles, _each of which is infinitely small_ - but how can an object that is _infinitely small_ exist? One's intuition might suggest it _cannot_ ; ergo, reality must, in some sense, _be_ discrete. This is not a wholesale proof but it is _suggestive_ of a discrete aspect to reality, along with many other things. And of course now I've already said quite a lot so I need to stop here.
It is not a matter of having balls. It is just that Craig is not interested in having public debates with mere popularizers without relevant academic credentials.
Love it when apologists pretend to know multiple fields of science better than the experts in them explicitly saying it's wrong. Then again, this particular apologist has already admitted he believes because of feelings and evidence will not change his mind, and Kent Hovind does it better anyway...
Besides what they don't say, why do you think they didn't ask Vilenkin if the eternal universe models were viable, also all they read in the video was that they were making up sci-fi models out of nothing to save the eternal universe.
God is claimed to be the first cause, an uncaused cause, an unmoved mover and the creator of _everything_ . So let's quit with all the philosophical smoke screens and show the Kalam in the way christian's _actually_ *believe* shall we: 1. Whatever begins to exist has a God(cause). 2. The universe began to exist. 3. Therefore, the universe has a God( cause). There you have it, reasonable(?) faith!
There is nothing new in this video. For the past thirty years Craig has the same arguments. The most stupid thing he says is that the popularizers, as if he is not a popularizer, misrepresent the Kalam. First as so often he doesn't provide any argument to substantiate this claim and he pretends like none of those people in this video understand the Kalam. What arrogance. Lol
1.Except they literally misrepresented the argument in the video, or are you going to bury your head in the sand like an ostrich and pretend it's not true?
@@kenandzafic3948 don't try mockery or insults. Those my friend are no arguments. If you want to prove me wrong state your argument. All the other stuff don't have any effect with me at all. You want to make a joke out of me. Bring your argument. Tell me where I am wrong.
@@Carlos-fl6ch Here it is: 1. If the universe had a beginning, the universe has a cause. 2. The universe had a beginning. Conclusion: The universe has a cause.
@@kenandzafic3948 I expected a bit more from you. What it seems is that you pretend to know what you're talking about without actually knowing what you're talking about. Let me explain. What you presented is the Original argument formulated by Al ghazali. Al ghazali is probably the worst thing to ever happen to Islam. This is his argument. In 79 wlc presented his own version of the Kalam. I doubt if you even understand why he changed it and what effect he intended to reach with it. It seems you're just being a parrot. If you had the understanding you would have simply said the video says ..... But wlc premises are ..... And the difference between the two is .... Which has implications because...... You don't do this which I hope you still will. If anything wlc is constantly misrepresenting scientists as is also exposed in many videos. Especially Sean Carroll, who fillet him in his debate, demonstrated how he doesn't understand the science he tried to discuss and he he misrepresents it. Please look up the correct wlc argument. I don't even think you understand the difference between existence ex materia and existence ex nihilo. Therefore it will be impossible for you to see the internal inconsistenties in the argument itself.
@@Carlos-fl6ch 1. This is just an ad hominem attack and nothing more. 2. You have not disproved any premise of the argument, and therefore neither the conclusion. 3. Honestly, Carroll in that debate, if you followed a little better, he did not do what scientists do, Carroll himself said that bad models never disappear, they are just replaced by better models, but still the same Carroll is in the debate with Craig, we only ask that models of the eternal universe be coherent regardless of whether they are probable or not. Also in that debate Carroll never once refuted what Craig always says that it is possible to construct an eternal model of the universe but all those models suffer from serious problems. 4.th-cam.com/video/Gye1XE0kVJY/w-d-xo.html
WLC needs to remix Tupac's Me Against the World and respond in song
You did a Phenomenal job responding to the Video
I think the problem is Dr. Craig, you are arguing for a beginning In your first premise. They are trying to show you it doesn't necessarily follow that our universe had a beginning, just cosmic inflation, or time has a beginning. The universe (or the structure we call the multiverse) possibly existed indefinitely(eternally).there are even arguments for different cosmological models.so, the first of the kalamdoesnt work in a cyclic cosmology.
Ultimately no one knows. Plus the Kalam breaks down as a fallacy of special pleading for who you "pick" to instantiate.
WLG wants to dishonestly refer to the Cosmos, as the universe, when talking about this universe. And claim that we have evidence The Cosmos, which he labels the universe begun to exist, by point out we have evidence this universe begun to expand. And he is not the only one that does this.
Unfortunate that someone did such effort assembling a documentary only to present arguments as if Dr. Craig made a TH-cam video years ago and disappeared forever. Never leaving anything besides that for us to think about.
Excellent as always dr. Craig!
Joe Schmid (Majesty of Reason) brought up a good point during a rebuttal to Trent Horn's rebuttal concerning Hilbert's Hotel. He points out that if we swap the rooms to days and the people within the rooms to the times in which the angels will sing for God, don't we arise to the same proposed "absurdity?" (I might have potentially misrepresented the argument, but this was how I understood it)
It depends on if there's an asymmetry between past and future events.
I think WLC answered something similar in an event, I don't remember which lecture was it though.
It seems to me concerning Hilbert's Hotel, that if there is just one infinite set (Aleph1), then at any point in infinite time there is an infinite number of occupants in an infinite number of rooms with an infinite number of people checking in and an infinite number of people checking out.
Fun for grins and giggles, but not helpful for mathematics and even less helpful for understanding spatial reality.
I agree with Craig, concerning Aleph0 and that nothing metaphysical can be infinite.
@@ricardooliveira9774 I think I remember something like that. Did it have something to do with how that would be potentially infinite singing and not actually infinite? Can’t fully recall
So there’s two options. Craig will say that the angels that WILL sing an infinite amount of times for God. It is just a potential infinite. And Craig argument only attacks the actual infinite.
Furthermore I think Dr. Koons has addressed this objection quite well in his debate with Schmid.
I think that WLC evaded the last objection that malpass brought since the problem is not having a hotel that contains an infinite number of rooms but the problem raises from shuffling the guests and that is not analogous with past moments since presumably the past doesn't change
@@offense53
I think my point is clear and I think any non deaf rational person agree with it.
Second there was response to this video here it's th-cam.com/video/femxJFszbo8/w-d-xo.html
Enjoy
Third of all please be polite to the lady
I don't think this objection has much weight to it though.
If a scenario is metaphysically impossible, then there is some feature(s) of that scenario that is metaphysically impossible.
In the case of Hilbert's hotel, the only feature that can possible be considered metaphysically impossible is the instantiation of an actual infinite in reality.
Obviously there is nothing impossible about a hotel existing, having guests, or guests moving rooms.
Therefore, the feature of Hilbert's hotel that is metaphysically impossible is the instantiation of an actual infinite in reality.
And since a beginning less past would also entail the instantiation of an actual infinite in reality, that too would be impossible.
You could actually create a new scenario of Hilbert's hotel to make it like an infinite past by thinking about guests leaving the hotel one at a time, once per day.
If you start emptying the hotel from room 1, then room 2, then room 3 etc... then you would never empty the hotel, since there would always be aleph_0 guests left to empty on each day.
But if the hotel had been emptying from eternity past, then it follows that the hotel never had any guests to begin with, which contradicts the premise that it contained an infinite number of guests at some point in the past.
This is because on any given day (D), aleph_0 days have already elapsed prior to D in which all of the aleph_0 guests will have already left.
As such, no guests are inside of the hotel on any day in the past.
EDIT: Also, if Hilbert's hotel is impossible, then that rules out an eternal past right away.
This is because if the past is eternal then there has been enough time to build Hilbert's hotel, instantiating it in existence.
But of course, something that is impossible cannot be instantiated in existence, and any scenario that could possibly result in an impossible outcome is itself impossible.
Wow. That's a heck of a reply, Jack! Your time and effort is appreciated - that was an exemplary demonstration.
Beautiful video and r accurated explanation by William Craig! GOD bless you Sir!
Counting down from infinity, you will always be at infinity the way Malpass describes it you will always be infinitely far counting up to infinity, you will always be infinitely far away counting down from infinity, but for some reason Malpass doesnt see that.
20:52 Thus we have a contradiction.
Does WLC disagree with this claim?
This is what seemed to peeve the mathematicians. His claiming that it was contradictory rather than just something that seems metaphysically impossible.
actual infinites are logically posible, but metaphysically impossible. That's what WLC thinks. There isn't a matter of mathematical discussion but philosophical discussion.
@@simonocampo I don't mind Craig saying that he thinks it is metaphysically impossible. What I mind is the claim that it is/entials a contradiction. I think he should clearly retract that as to not confuse his followers.
You haven’t listened carefully. He says an “actual (metaphysically existing) infinite” leads to contradictions (metaphysical acts that contradict properties of infinite sets). Craig explains in this video that his words were a simplification for a broader population, but understood in context, they are not wrong.
One of the deeply dishonest practices in that video is ignoring Craig’s scholarly work in favor of children’s video and popular talks taken out of context to present a incorrect understanding of Craig’s views and using those to straw-man him. Craig is entirely too kind and reasonable.
@@JohnBaskette I read/watch both. My annoyance is that Craig uses terms like contradiction to his lay audience.
I think this is misleading. And I worry that his lay audience will think his argument is stronger than it actually is.
It's like if some atheist says omnipotence is contradictory instead of that it just appears impossible. I've complained at atheist for doing this kind of thing so I feel like I am consistent.
I’m concerned having watched this that Craig is not answering Malpas adequately. Malpas transitioned the argument towards the properties of infinite past sequences. These sequences would not allow metaphysical actions that are not allowed as operations on infinite sets. It’s a good question that I hope he answers next time. But I think they are going on to the next section.
Craig already answered this in the animated video: if the eternal past were possible, then Hilbert's hotel would be possible, as it would be enough to build one room an hour.
Furthermore, he has already said Hilbert's Hotel is just an illustration. This means that it is not paradoxical per se, but points to the absurdity of more basic premises. In this case, the falsity of Euclid's principle.
Even if the events cannot be exchanged, you can enumerate each one and mentally perform the one-to-one correspondence necessary for Hilbert's hotel operations. The correspondences are there, even if no one is looking. These are theoretical truths.
@@HoneybunMegapack No, that the hotel is still expanding doesn't preclude it from being infinite. However if the hotel has always existed and always been under construction and adding rooms, then even though more rooms are added continuously the hotel is never any larger than it was before and no matter how far back in the past you go you will never reach a point where the hotel began to be constructed.
@@HoneybunMegapack No, you're stuck on thinking you started with a finite sized hotel and it has been expanding into perpetuity.
Imagine you drive up to an infinitely long motel, the office is in a separate building. You look to your left and there's an infinite number of motel rooms, you look to your right and the motel is under construction adding more rooms. You ask the owner when they began the project to extend the hotel, and he answers forever ago, and since they've started they've added an infinite number of rooms. You ask how many they started with and he answers infinity.
Confused, you ask him how that's possible, you couldn't even finish building an infinite number of hotel rooms to have an opening day. He replies we never had an opening day, because the hotel has always existed and has always been open.
He’s not answering any of them adequately.
I would LOVE to hear WLC talk about mormonism
William Lane Craig co-authored a chapter in Zondervan’s the “New Mormon Challenge” with Paul Copan. JP Moreland also contributed a philosophical critique of Mormonism in that same book.
Hey there, I’m a member of the church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. Do you have questions?
@@NOOBKILLER052 I'm not too familiar with the religion. I've heard it said that we can become gods in the afterlife and that Jesus and Satan are brothers. Are there truths to these claims? Those are my biggest gripes but this is hearsay.
@@taylor6618 Google "becoming-like-god lds". It should take you to an official church source on the “gods in the afterlife” question. If you want a full in depth theological and historical back ground I encourage you to read it. TL;DR: we believe we are fully and completely gods actual children spiritually, not just creations. Latter-day Saints see all people as children of God in a full and complete sense; they consider every person divine in origin, nature, and potential. Each has an eternal core and is “a beloved spirit son or daughter of heavenly parents.” Each possesses seeds of divinity and must choose whether to live in harmony or tension with that divinity. Through the Atonement of Jesus Christ, all people may “progress toward perfection and ultimately realize their divine destiny.” Just as a child can develop the attributes of his or her parents over time, the divine nature that humans inherit can be developed to become like their Heavenly Father’s.
Regarding the brothers question, Like other Christians, we believe Jesus is the divine Son of God. Satan is a fallen angel. As the Apostle Paul wrote, God is the Father of all. That means that all beings were created by God and are His spirit children. Christ, however, was the only begotten in the flesh, and we worship Him as the Son of God and the Savior of mankind.
It would be such an honor to meet and even talk with such a brilliant and great man like WLC.
Malpass argument counting down from eternity is absurd, you cant count down from infinity, you will always remain at infinity and remain infinitely far away from zero.
You can't count down from infinity *if you start at a point in time*. But the entire point is that the counting is beginningless.
@@vaclavmiller8032 If it's beginningless, it never began, which means never started counting down, and if you want to use the word always counting down, you will also never reach any number because there will always be an infinite numbers before any single number, you wont even count a single number.
@@ceceroxy2227 That's just confused - he never started because he was always counting. To say otherwise is to beg the question, because if there was a beginning, it's trivial that the time between it and now was finite.
@@vaclavmiller8032 No I am sorry but its you who is confused. These are just semantic games, if there is no first member in a series, there is no series at all, even if you want to say he has "always" been counting, he will never even count one number because there will always be an infinite number of numbers that have preceded ever number, not one number will have ever been counted whether you use the word "always" or "never began". Even if you always have been counting down from infinity, you will "always" be stuck at infinity. The same way you cant reach infinity counting upwards, you will never leave infinity counting downwards, you will always be stuck on infinity, whats infinity minus 1, infinity, minus another one, infinity, minus another one, infinity, minus another one, infinity, minus another one, infinity. Even if I always count down from infinity I will be stuck at infinity. I could count down forever I will be stuck at infinity.
@@ceceroxy2227 Do you not see that that's begging the question?
Did WLC noticed that he completly missed the point from the latest comment of Dr Malpass?
I am pretty sure he didn't. The thought is that Dr Craig is infallible; he's not. He makes errors at the same rate all of us do, which is to say a lot. Factor in a bias to confirm his favoured conclusion and you have all you need for everyone agrees to follow suit.
Love your work
Very telling that the original video isn't linked to in the description. Poor form.
For those who are looking for it: th-cam.com/video/pGKe6YzHiME/w-d-xo.html
As set is never infinite because you can always add another number, thereby showing what you have is is never infinite.
Here's a kooky thought to consider, and I'm not sure where this leads exactly, except maybe -- say again, maybe -- to show another absurdity arising from insisting that the infinite can exist in the physical universe.
One of the axioms (or maybe it's a postulate, I forget which) of geometry is that a point is of no size, or to put it another way, a point is infinitely small.
Therefore, no matter how short the length of a line, it has an infinite number of points.
I hit send before I was ready.
Anyway, therefore no two points can be next to each other. Because no matter how close together they are, there is still an infinite number of points between them -- each pair of which also has an infinite number of points between them...
Great work; I really liked the Grim Reaper analogy. Hope A- and B- theory of time will be addressed in a future video.
The Grim Reaper paradox doesn't occur because an actual infinity cannot occur. The paradox is from the scenario itself. You cannot come from an infinity to a finite set. Thus the paradox says nothing actually. The Grim Reaper is an unsatisfiable pair in itself.
It can simply be refuted. If I shoot an arrow towards you and I told you that this arrow travels half the distance left to it's target at any time than this is a true statement don't you agree? Now we can reason that this arrow will never reach its target right. Would you want to be the target? According to Craig's Grimm reaper it will never reach you correct?
@@Carlos-fl6ch "You cannot come from an infinity to a finite set." Not sure exactly what you mean. Are you saying that it's impossible for all the Grim Reapers to target a single individual?
@@sjeff26 Well an infinite set in itself has no first nor last member hence the infinite character of the set. The scenario is constructed such that only the first member of the set can act. But you purposely choose a set without a first member. This makes it a mutually unsatisfiable pair to begin with because the Grim reapers can only act in a finite amount of time. The contradiction doesn't occur as a result. The setup itself is contradictory.
I shoot an arrow at you the arrow will travel q finite amount of distance. The fact that I can devide this finite amount of distance in an infinite amount of parts doesn't mean that the arrow will not reach you.
In an infinite amount of time it is no problem to have different events that are separate by a finite amount of time.
Also consider this. If I told you to take the next train from a to b if and only if you don't take the next train from a to b than we have an condition and a rule that are mutually unsatisfiable. Can I than conclude that there are no trains from a to b? Of course not. The scenario is impossible to satisfy and whatever conclusion we can come up with it just applies to the scenario itself. Further to that it's simply nonsensical. This goes for all Benedetti pradoxes.
@@Carlos-fl6ch What kind of incoherent babble is this?
23:06 Why not just model guests leaving the hotel with the set difference operator. It perfectly describes what happens without contradictory results.
Also, with subtraction you can get negative results, which is nonsense in the hotel leaving case.
Set difference gets this feature right again.
When we subtract quantities from quantities, we are subtracting in the classical sense of Peano arithmeric. There is no more reason to doubt this for transfinite than for finite numbers. Furthermore, in set theory there is no point in subtracting transfinite numbers. Subtraction is not an operation between specific sets, but between their cardinalities.
@@caiomateus4194 I would argue that just dealing with the cardinalities of the sets rather than the sets themselves leaves out information which we need to get a clear answer.
It feels weird to leave out information on purpose and then complain you get several answers that are compatible.
To me, it sounds like saying.
I have a green, a red and a blue marble. I give two away. Which color is the remaining marble.
The answer is, you didn't give me enough information to determine that. But if you give me the sets I can answer.
Now in the infinite case we cannot even tell you how many there are unless you give us more information. Bur in reality there is the info of which guests were removed so we get clear answers. The only reason it appears contradictory is that you described what happened in a vague way.
@@Oskar1000 It's never been a problem to decide which members are left of an infinite set after the others are dropped. The paradox itself depends on the assumption that this is possible (by evicting all guests from the odd-numbered rooms of the infinitely occupied hotel, the definitive answer is that there are still infinitely many guests left in this scenario. By evicting guests from rooms numbered above 4, the definitive answer is that there are still only 4 guests left in this scenario).
The problem is precisely that such definite responses are distinguished. From the point of view of handling collections (which is something purely logical and does not require any math), there is no contradiction, as the collections involved in the operation are different. But from an arithmetical point of view, there is a contradiction, since the quantities involved are not different. It is you who is disregarding one of these perspectives.
@@caiomateus4194 My point is that the arithmetic operation were you go
Infinity - Infinity = 3
Or
Infinity - Infinity = Infinity
It looks like a contradiction, but that is just because our description is too vague. So there is no problem in reality here. But Craig says that this is a reason to think actual infinities can't exist in reality.
@@Oskar1000 Saying why contradictions work does not eliminate the fact that it is a contradiction. Given the meanings of the terms "=" and "+", these two propositions result in 3 = infinity.
Where is the original video William Craig Is responding to
“Skydivephil” if you search you find it.
Space is finite, although expanding. It could only hold a finite amount of things at any moment. In our reality, infinite is not possible.
21:52 "the counterintuitive existence"
I though he agreed that we didn't care about the counterintuitive nature, but about the internal coherency.
He admits that he didn't show any internal inconsistency, so why does he go back to counterintuitive ?
I would add that the question illustrated here is solved in an intuitive manner in the surreal numbers formalism, in which the number of guests who have left the hotel in which three people are left would be ω-3, and the number of guests who have left the hotel in which people in odd rooms are left would be ω/2.
Craig does not agree that all or most of his interlocutors care only about the contradictory nature of something. Or, at least, he does not agree that this is a correct epistemic attitude.
After all, if he was going to care about his interlocutors, then he couldn't even appeal to inconsistent internals. Malpass has already stated in interviews that he would be a dialetheist if there were empirical evidence for the existence of logical contradictions in the world, so that no a priori modesty would prevent him.
Regarding the hotel problem, it is not true that it is intuitively solved by surreal numbers. It would still be the case that if we had two hotels where the respective pick-ups were made, we could switch all the departed guests from one to the other and relocate them so that both hotels would be full again.
@@caiomateus4194 *-"Or, at least, he does not agree that this is a correct epistemic attitude."*
What is his *"correct epistemic attitude"* ?
Hopefully he doesn't take intuition as its basis.
*-" it is not true that it is intuitively solved by surreal numbers."*
If you take the peano-type arithmetical rules as "intuitive", then yes, the surreal numbers formalism basically reproduces the same intuitions, since it is a abelian group for addition on infinite numbers and infinitesimals.
*-"we could switch all the departed guests from one to the other and relocate them so that both hotels would be full again."*
I'm not sure that is true. Are you are saying here that surreal number ω-3 would be equal to ω/2 ? Which would be false.
If you are not saying that then we are talking about different definitions of "full" like Malpass explains in the video.
@@MrGustavier
The correct epistemic attitude is obviously to trust intuitions. Why else would anyone think contradictions are absurd, if not because they are counter-intuitive?
Field's axioms, present in the analysis of surreal numbers, are intuitive. But this is not the only thing that characterizes them, otherwise they would be finite numbers.
I am using the sense of "completely full" that everyone (including finists) uses: the sense of Hume and Cantor's one-to-one correspondence principle. In this sense, such numbers are the same if they apply in reality, and this is what generates counter-intuitiveness.
@@caiomateus4194 *-"The correct epistemic attitude is obviously to trust intuitions."*
I would say this is the perfect recipe for confirmation bias. But I also sometimes doubt that it be possible to do otherwise (see the problem of theory-ladenness)
*-"Why else would anyone think contradictions are absurd, if not because they are counter-intuitive?"*
Not everyone thinks contradictions are absurd, in fact contradictions are at the core of dialectical philosophy. Which is to whom Aristotle was responding in his fourth book of metaphysics.
The entire philosophy of Hegel is based on contradictions, and all the philosophy that stemmed from him, like Marx and Engels is also based on the central role that contradictions play.
I would go as far as to say that postmodernism would also fit in that category (debatable).
And finally, the most prolific branch of the computational theory of mind (connectionism) proposes an explanation of what concepts, abstractions, universals are that renders all of those indissociable from contradictions.
*-"Field's axioms, present in the analysis of surreal numbers, are intuitive. But this is not the only thing that characterizes them, otherwise they would be finite numbers."*
I'm not sure you're answering the question here.
*-I am using the sense of "completely full" that everyone (including finists) uses: the sense of Hume and Cantor's one-to-one correspondence principle. In this sense, such numbers are the same if they apply in reality, and this is what generates counter-intuitiveness."*
Ok, that would be incorrect, since in the formalism of surreal numbers, I don't think there is a bijective fonction from ω-3 to ω/2 (I would have to spend time on it that I don't have to figure it out)
@@MrGustavier
There is no cognitive bias in any negative sense here. Unless, of course, you're willing to say that all human knowledge is based on cognitive biases (that the outside world exists, wasn't created 5 minutes ago looking ancient, etc.).
The fact that there are philosophies based on contradictions counts only against those philosophies. I can head off historical philosophical positions based on whatever madness you like (there are philosophers who even advocate contradictions WITHIN classical logic! That is, trivialism. It can hardly be said that there is anything more self-evidently false than that).
It is not incorrect. Hilbert's hotel is structured in the order of natural numbers, and such correspondences are demonstrable within their proper sets. It is demonstrable that even numbers correspond one-to-one with numbers greater than 3. If surreal analysis cannot handle this, then it is simply not realistic.
[4:04] Actually infinite number of things leads to self contradictions. Actually infinite number of things is metaphysically impossible." First sentence is about physical impossibility and second sentence is about metaphysical impossibility. Question is if there are difference between physical and metaphysical impossibilities?
Metaphysical impossibility can be used for a lot of things. I believe empirical and mereological impossibilities are also counted in that. For sure mereological ones at the very least. This seems more apt given it talks about physical substances but it's not perfect either imo.
physically impossible or logically incompatible with X should work fine
29:37 - I don't understand why Malpass's objection is plausible.
He's saying that the Hilbert's Hotel isn't contradictory if you seal everyone in and nobody moves, because of the static nature of the guests? If so, great job figuring that out, but how is that applicable in reality? It may be relevant in a universe where literally nothing ever happened or will ever happen, but it's pretty axiomatic that change happens. One of the primary functions of science in general is to measure change as accurately as possible.
Present change becoming past change seems to align with the idea of guests switching rooms. What happens 10 seconds ago becomes what happened 20 seconds ago as you progress 10 seconds forward, and what was 30 seconds ago is now what happened 40 seconds ago, and so on and so on. So the guests always changing rooms is the only logical interpretation in the framework of Hilbert's hotel.
I'm guessing that's why it was referred to as Hilbert's hotel and not Hilbert's Ever-Expanding Prison.
The fact that all these proeminent atheists philosophers incorporate the axioms of set theory into their retoric is infuriating. Why would you allow such a paradoxical, incoherent concept as infinity to muddy your epistemology and logic?? Cantor himself was a Christian zealot who equivocated infinity to God. No such thing (infinity) exists in reality anywhere. Doing maths based on this concept might be fine (it's not) but when it comes to describing reality in all its 100% finite glory, appealing to paradoxes should be totally unacceptable. It should fall on Dr Craig to show that such a thing as "an infinite property" is even compatible with reality since the validity of the whole Christian God concept is dependent on it.
Are you saying that the ratio of a circle's radius to its circumference expressed in base 10 decimal system isn't an infinite that exists in reality?
@@NelemNaruNot sure if you are serious or not but you're taking about a mathematical expression or "object" describing a property. Just like multiplication or addition, it's mind dependent. Where does "addition" as concrete object exists in the universe? Pi when applied it's always used in a truncated finite form. Thirty-nine digits are sufficient to perform most calculations, because that is the accuracy necessary to calculate the circumference of the observable universe with a precision of one atom. So where would pi with infinite decimals be part of reality?
@@adamtokay So you're saying mathematical expressions aren't part of reality but they are mind dependent? Yet minds are dependent on reality.
@@NelemNaru Yes. Complex brains are capable of imagining things. My dog is barking at something in her sleep that is clearly not "real" in the strict sense. We must to be able to make a clear distinction between real and not-real when describing reality. This shouldn't be controversial.
22:51 "inverse operations like subtraction and division are prohibited mathematically for trans finite or infinite numbers"
That is incorrect, the surreal numbers formalism is an abelian group for addition on infinite and infinitesimal numbers.
The reason most people reject these nonstandard analyzes as alternatives to classical mathematics is that they end up offsetting these advantages with absurdities in other respects. For example, the idea of infinitesimals is almost completely unintelligible. It is for this reason that Craig does not argue for a distinct mathematics that is finitistic, such as constructivist (denying the excluded middle is extremely counterintuitive).
If actual infinity exists, it is far more understandable that it behaves as defined in transfinite arithmetic based on the ZFC.
@@caiomateus4194 *-"they end up offsetting these advantages with absurdities in other respects."*
What *"absurdities"* does the surreal number formalism give rise to ?
What is *"unintelligible"* about infinitesimals ?
*-"denying the excluded middle is extremely counterintuitive"*
And yet, this is often the preferred move that is used by philosophers who want to preserve the correspondence theory of truth (CTOT).
See Rasmussen's book "defending the correspondence theory of truth" page 197 :
_"Unfortunately, I fail to see a way to keep_ _LEM unless (Containment)_
_is true or the framework for the_ _correspondence theory is false. This_
_result may seem costly, but there is a bright side: we have a solution that_
_avoids contradictions. Moreover, the_ _account of falsehood offered in_
_Section 5.10 implies that LEM is false if_ _any propositions lack a truthvalue._
_And there are independent arguments for_ _thinking that some_
_propositions, such as future-tense_ _propositions about free actions, lack_
_a truth-value. Even if those arguments are_ _unsound, their conclusion_
_isn’t obviously incoherent or absurd. Plus,_ _I will argue next that some_
_Liar sentences express propositions that_ _lack a truth-value, and if those_
_arguments are sound, then LEM is false."_
He abandons the LEM to preserve CTOT.
Accepting CTOT and the three laws of classical logic (LEM, LNC and LOI) is inconsistent. Which is why so many philosophers reject classical logic (a quarter of philosophers as per philpapers' survey survey2020.philpeople.org/survey/results/4858)
@@MrGustavier
“The only problem I have with all of this is that those numbers just don't exist. real number, but more than zero. The real numbers, as far as I understand them, go all the way to zero; they fill in all the space between, for example, zero and one. For example, there are the numbers 0.1, 0.01, 0.001, and so on, and you can go on like this indefinitely, finding real numbers as small as you like. I have no notion of such a degree of smallness that the real numbers never reach it. Indeed, it seems to me evident that there is no such degree of smallness.
The same is true in the direction of magnitude: the real numbers get as big as you want them to be; I have no idea of a size so big that the real numbers never reach it. I therefore think that Robinson's infinite numbers are as much a fiction as are his infinitesimals."
This is from the book "Approuching infinity" by Michael Huemer. It is for this reason that Conway and Robinson analysis are unintelligible.
Furthermore, Oppy rejects the infinitesimal approach on the grounds that there is no way to identify a uniquely correct infinitesimal.
Rasmussen is totally wrong. The solution of semantic paradoxes can be given by Tarski's degrees of metalanguage, or even by Koons' Aristotelian characterizations. Such solutions not only admit correspondence theory and the excluded middle, but require it.
And future contingents have well-defined truth values, in a way that does not undermine the libertarian notion of human freedom. Craig defends this position, based on the T biconditional, very well in his book on divine foreknowledge and human freedom.
The falsity of the excluded middle implies the illegitimacy of the actual concept of infinity in mathematics. I hope you know that this is counterproductive to all Craig objectors.
@@caiomateus4194 _"those numbers just don't exist"_
What does the predicate *"exist"* means when we are talking about mathematical concepts ?
*-"It is for this reason that Conway and Robinson analysis are unintelligible."*
Ok, so, if I understood well, you think infinitesimals are unintelligible because _"you have no notion of them"_ or because it seems _"evident to you"_ .
I'm sure you know that this wouldn't be a sufficient justification in the context of an academical publication. I think infinitesimals are perfectly intelligible, I have a clear "notion" of them, and it seems "evident to me" that there be such "degrees of smallness", I just need to define them that way...
*-"The solution of semantic paradoxes can be given by Tarski's degrees of metalanguage"*
Sure, Tarski's solution abandons CTOT. Rasmussen writes a book about "defending CTOT", I'm sure you don't expect him to join Tarski in abandoning CTOT in order to save classical logic....
*-"characterizations. Such solutions not only admit correspondence theory and the excluded middle, but require it."*
That's incorrect, both Krpike's and Tarski's solution abandon CTOT. It is even stated in the undefinability theorem from Tarski : "no language can account for its own truth predicate".
*-And future contingents have well-defined truth values, in a way that does not undermine the libertarian notion of human freedom."*
If that is the case, then the type of questions about the quantity of future events as asked by Malpass do have a *"well-defined truth value"* , and therefore the future would be an actual infinite : "how many days will someone counting the days count ?" Does this question have a well-defined answer ? Isn't the answer an actual infinite ?
*-"Craig defends this position, based on the T biconditional, very well in his book on divine foreknowledge and human freedom."*
I recommend Malpass's article on molinism on his blog "UseOfReason". This would launch us on a completely different topic but I would be interested to see WLC's response on Malpass's article.
*-"The falsity of the excluded middle implies the illegitimacy of the actual concept of infinity in mathematics."*
What does *"illegitimate"* means in that context ?
@@MrGustavier
Huemer was speaking literally of existence, for he is a Platonist. However, he thinks that we can infer the existence of a number from the fact that its instantiation is possible, so we can translate his speech to mean that surreal numbers don't make sense.
Certainly self-evidence is a good justification in the academic context of mathematics, metaphysics and logic. Despite the increase in the number of justifications based on scientific practice, the fact is that it is not possible to discuss the most basic truths without such appeals. Nor should we stop using this method just because of the supposed cognitive deficiency or lack of interpretive capacity of some (it would be like ceasing to believe that the moon exists just because everyone but me has gone blind).
Tarski's solution is not opposed to correspondence theory, although it is compatible with defactionism. Popper even used it as a resource in favor of correspondence.
I have no idea how the fact that a language cannot provide a predicate of truth for itself is contrary to correspondence.
The question of how many events will occur is not undefined: it is potentially infinitely many events.
That is, it is (definitely) false that it is a number. This is a notion captured by the concept of limit, in calculus, and there is no problem with the excluded middle here. This is also the answer to how many divisions can be done on any given volume.
Malpass's objections to Molinism boil down, in the end, to restatements of the old grouding objection. Craig already responds to this indirectly, by rejecting truthmaker maximalism.
That's as far as I could see on his blog, of course. Maybe I missed something.
By "mathematical legitimacy" I meant sense. The axiom of infinity, like the axiom of choice, is dependent on the excluded middle. The successor function does not produce infinity, it is not computable from the finite. The adoption of constructive mathematics starts from the philosophical assumption that only what can be given in a predetermined order of construction makes sense.
Why don't you link the source video?
WLC is a literal blessing straight from Christ for the apologist community
LoL
A blessing from Christ himself would target non believers before believers if you know your bible well that is. So this position cannot in any way be right.
Or…he is not a physicist and trying to tell the worlds best physicists that they are talking nonsense. I would always choose to listen to the actual physicist.
@@courgette3401 that's a no brainer
Bill, you have to watch Trent Horn response on this as well. He defends your premises and basically shows that they are arguing against a strawmam.
I want to hear a non Christian to come to your conclusions. Haven’t heard one yet. And yet, if it makes sense anyone should understand it but it is only Christians that do
As usual, WLC doesn't hit the 20 seconds mark without calling his critics some kind of idiots failing at logic . Way to go "doctor" WLC. Classy, as usual.
If I have to choose, "doctor" WLC, I'd bet on those who shows how useless the arguement is, instead of you calling them names.
Except that he didn't call them out anywhere, he just said that they misrepresented his views, which they did.
@@kenandzafic3948 No they didn't. This is WLC as usual. Say something really, really stupid, then when someone points it out just start the spin. But remember first to poison the well, declaring your opponent not understanding or not educated enough. And remember also to not really address the issue, because what you reaaly need is a smoke screen to reassure the fans. That's so blatant and clear MO. WLC is a confidence artist.
Send physicists, mathematicians and philosophy scholars to explain why WLC is wrong in his conclusion of the Kalam, and instead of taking it in and then thinking over critically about the objections, it seems to boosts his ego even more to the point of doubling down that he must be right. Once again, wrong conclusion by wlc. Plus just provide the work because speculations and opinions ain't going to cut it. Actually, just ask god to show up so we don't have to argue about these things anymore.
Isn't that what the scientific method is for, to take In and think over critically and find ways to disprove your hypothesis? Also in math my favorite proof is a counter example. These are our societies problem solvers and fact checkers. It's not their fault most apologists willfully ignore and double down that's what most of them do. We know these beliefs aren't just about the facts. But yeah Dr Craig is a double downer for sure, red herring and strawman with no pushback from the host. This place is a joke.
@@Bostonceltics1369 yup!
I also found the criticisms of 'hand waving, appeals to the unknown' pretty amusing from a bloke trying to 'prove' the existence of god :)
You know, if those weird maths apply in our world then we should be able to take a round object, cut it in pieces, rearrange it and produce another round with EQUAL size and weight. This is mathematically valid, (see Vsause's video on the paradox). The maths of this magic are valid using Canton's infinite set theory. Obsiously, you cannot cut a circle and create another one with the same mass and size. Amazing it is Atheists who insist in NOT trusting our intuitions if they lead into God.
Firstly, the Banach Tarski theorem only talks about the measures of sets of points. Second, can you show me non-measureable subsets in reality? Third, the Banach Tarski Theorem doesn't follow in ZF. It requires at least ZF+DC or smth stronger like ZFC NBG or smth even stronger than that. Fourth, I don't trust intuitions in general, the fact that the don't lead to god doesn't matter to me and stop generalising acting like all atheists do this. Many atheists agree with craig on infinite things not being physically possible and still dont believe that God exists eg: Nathan Ormand.
@@rishabwarrier2769
The point is not that there are no Lebesgue non-measurable sets in the physical world (you cannot guarantee that). The point is that they CANNOT exist.
But if the axiom of choice is true (and it certainly is, if infinity exists. Otherwise, several greater absurdities would result, such as the possibility of multiplying null cardinalities of sets and obtaining a non-zero result), then such sets are possible.
"The paradox only speaks of sets of points"
Yes, but infinitists claim that space is (or could be) a set of points.
@@rishabwarrier2769 Ok, let's assume that they exist. How do we experiment on them to see them in action. If any infinite mass existed in our universe it would destroy it. So it becomes very unfashionable and since explanations of such objects are so out of our world, a simple and more parsimonious explanations is that they belong to the world of mathematics and abstract. Now, the only thing that could be "infinite" in the universe without ruining it, is space but unless we can see beyond the cosmic horizon (we can't) we'll never know.
Yes, indeed there are Atheist such as Nathan than agree with finitism, the point is that if finitism was not used to argue for a God most skeptics would not disagree with it. Intuitions are also a great "pillar" of logic so not trusting them becomes counterproductive.
Yes we must be careful not to over use them abusively (black swain falacy) but in this case I don't see how they should not be trusted.
My point is that infinities create a lot more problems that they solve to be used as good explanations without much empirical evidence in our world. So I say that Finitism is more likely truth that not.
@@jaskitstepkit7153 "Ok, let's assume that they exist. How do we experiment on them to see them in action. If any infinite mass existed in our universe it would destroy it."
Uh what lol.
1. First, you seem to be confusing an infinite mass object and the total amount of mass in the universe. I am not aware of anyone who claims that infinite masses exist. Think about it what people claim in regards to infinite past scenario is that it is the case that the set of past temporal instants is infinite.
2. Second, what on earth is 'it would destroy it.' even supposed to mean here? If its supposed to mean 'the universe would destroy the infinite mass' then how, and why? If it is supposed to mean 'the infinite mass would destroy the universe' then ig.. tho your usage of the word destroy is a bit akward here. But again this isnt what most ppl claim.
"Yes, indeed there are Atheist such as Nathan than agree with finitism, the point is that if finitism was not used to argue for a God most skeptics would not disagree with it."
Sure but i think thats true of nearly any position that has political strings. Usually that comes in the form of theistic arguments.
"Intuitions are also a great "pillar" of logic so not trusting them becomes counterproductive. Yes we must be careful not to over use them abusively (black swain falacy) but in this case I don't see how they should not be trusted."
How would we ever know where its being abused? From my prespective Craig seems to consistently abuse intuitions.
"My point is that infinities create a lot more problems that they solve to be used as good explanations without much empirical evidence in our world. So I say that Finitism is more likely truth that not."
So you truly believe that time and space have immediate successors and that space has bounds? (All of those follow from your 'physical finitist' position) Ngl all of those seem incredibly counter-intuitive. Also you can't quantify over time in the normal way we'd understand quantification in other situations.
Also what problems are you talking about? The Banach Tarski paradox doesn't work under classical notions of volume and mass. Cantor's paradox just talks about the inconsistency of two statements within a larger set theory. Hilbert's hotel is just used as one of the many definitions for an infinite set. I wouldn't really consider these as problems.
Another thing is that I do find massive chunks of infinite set theory quite intuitive. So why should I take any problem with these so called 'problems'.
@@rishabwarrier2769 OUCH!!
Paraphrasing WLC’s opening “This video makes me feel so important!”
Is he wrong?
Huh?
How is it not a contradiction to state that gold does not have the atomic number 79? By definition, gold is a metal with the atomic number 79, and therefore the proposition that gold does not have the atomic number 79 is contradictory.
The word "gold" is a proper term that rigidly designates a natural type. This means that it is a word that connects directly to the thing in the world, having no definition (in fact, people already knew what gold is before they knew atoms exist). This is why there is no contradiction in Craig's example.
@@caiomateus4194
I am not talking about the word "gold"; I am talking about the thing (or kind of thing) denoted by the word. Part of the essence is gold is to have the atomic number 79; that is what distinguishes it from the other elements in the genus "metal". Accordingly, that gold should not have the atomic number 79 is in contradiction to the essence of gold; for then it just wouldn't _be_ gold.
It is not true that people already knew what gold is before they knew that atoms exist. They knew the sense of the word "gold" (what scholastic philosophers called a "nominal definition"), just as physicists know the sense of the phrase "dark matter" or "energy"; but that does not give knowledge of the essence of their referents of the words. For that, one needs scientific investigation.
@@ob4161
Precisely. The contradiction is with the essence of the thing, not with the linguistic meaning of the name. This is exactly what a metaphysical impossibility is: something that contradicts the ontology we know to be the case. It is also part of the essence of quantities that they are greater than any of their parts (and therefore it is impossible for actual infinity to exist), although this is not part of the linguistic meaning of "quantity".
Great
Would Hilbert's hotel fit on the Earth? The Solar System? The Universe?
“The instantiation of an actual infinite in reality” is impossible, I would use in this existence rather than reality because I don’t consider this “reality”
The contradictory totals resulting from subtracting infinities suggest that the instantiation of any actual infinity in reality is impossible. - RF Admin
@@ReasonableFaithOrg hahah...
@@ReasonableFaithOrg Is this Dr Craig himself responding?
@@leonardu6094 It says "RF Admin" so no.
@@leonardu6094 Of course not, he has better things to do.
WLC also makes an assumption that physicists were duped by a straw man instead of considering they were aware of it on their own even before being interviewed. Ask Sean Carroll if he was debating a straw man.
The fact that they are responding to thing's Craig has never said would be good evidence that they are responding to a strawman of Craig's position.
The other option would be that they simply don't understand Craig's argument, which would mean they themselves are the ones doing the strawmanning.
I’m extremely low level when it comes to mathematics. But does it not seem like those trying to argue against the metaphysical impossibility of an actual infinite are arguing from a conclusion, rather than arguing to a conclusion from the data?
Seems like that to me. But maybe that’s just me.
@@HoneybunMegapack well, you can disagree with the data given to argue the metaphysical impossibility of an actual infinite, but the fact is that they are providing logical arguments. That’s arguing from data towards an argument.
The flip side isn’t true. There is no argument for the possibility of an actual infinite being presented, only the assumption that it ought to be possible. That’s an argument from a conclusion.
@@HoneybunMegapack actually, they are. They aren’t empirical data, that’s for sure. But unless we are to throw out philosophy as a legitimate body of information, arguments just simply are legitimate bases to come to conclusions.
@@HoneybunMegapack I think we might be talking past each other a bit. You might be right in that Craig’s argument is fallacious (I‘m not conceding that, but it wasn’t the point I was going for). But he is proffering an argument, ie premises structured in a way he believes leads to his conclusion. And you obviously disagree with his argument, that’s fine.
But successfully rebutting Craig’s argument is insufficient to conclude that actual infinites are metaphysically possible. The ones asserting so also have to construct arguments to support their position. It would be fallacious to say: “your argument for your position is fallacious, therefore my position is correct”.
Which is why it seems to me that they are arguing from a conclusion. They’ve given no positive argument for the validity of their position.
Repeatedly asserting that things are metaphysically impossible without defining what that means is not cool
Dr. Craig breaks down the concept and distinguishes it from strict logical possibility here: www.reasonablefaith.org/writings/question-answer/in-what-sense-is-it-impossible-for-the-universe-to-come-from-nothing. - RF Admin
@@ReasonableFaithOrg it’s not sufficient for the response video to leave the actual response to these objections to the supplementary material. It is meant to respond to their criticisms with clarifications and he has failed to do so.
“Plausibly metaphysical impossible “ smh
Craig seems to miss an issue with Daniel Isaacson. Isaacson does not understand Craig’s argument. That’s obvious from his statements regarding the nearly universal acceptance of actual infinites by mathematicians. Isaacson speaks of actual infinites as valid mathematical constructs. That is why his responses seem so strange. It’s another example of the videos intellectual malpractice.
I noticed that WLC only says "plausibly metaphysically impossible" ...
Does that mean he doesn't think he demonstrated it ?
If WLC is only "skeptical about the metaphysical possibility of an actual infinite existing in reality", then doesn't it mean that he should accept its possible existence ? Wouldn't that mean that possibly the universe is past infinite, and wouldn't that mean that possibly there is no beginning to the universe, contradicting the second premise of the kalam ?
@@MrGustavier No reason why that should or must follow.
@@taowaycamino4891 If WLC had demonstrated the metaphysical impossibility of actual infinites, then he wouldn't be _"skeptical about them"_ , he would simply reject their existence.
If he is only skeptical about them, it means that he cannot reject their existence, which is what he says in the video, he says that they are not logically inconsistent, he just says that they are counter-intuitive.
If he cannot reject their existence he must admit their possible existence, which defeats the second premise of the kalam : the universe could have no beginning.
@@MrGustavier Either way, there is no evidence or reason to believe that they are possible in an actual physical reality regardless of what WLC believes.
@@taowaycamino4891 They are postulated in modern cosmological models... If these models make novel predictions, that could be an initial *"reason"* to believe they are possible in an *"actual physical reality"* , if those predictions were corroborated by observations, that would then be *"evidence"* of their existence...
One has to be wary of not falling into confirmation biases or prejudices.
I sometimes get the impression that theists reject the possibility of infinite regresses for the simple reason that it wouldn't fit with their pre-established worldview.
And some atheists reject the possibility of a beginning to the universe because they don't want to leave the possibility of theism.
Both would be examples of a lack of skepticism in my opinion.
The Kantian critique of the cosmological argument in his transcendental dialectic (the critique of pure reason) as an "antinomie", and his skeptical conclusion is still relevant in my opinion.
In general it's a standard WLC appealing to intuition while we know that intuition is no pathway to truth. Just because something is counter intuitive doesn't make it false. That's a fallacy.
How do you know other minds exists? Or you are not part of an experiment? Intuition is reliable except there is strong reason to deny. Being counter intuitive doesn't make it false, it makes it unlikely. The people arguing against the Kalam don't claim actual infinites are possible in reality but that it is coherent. Not enough reason to deny Intuition.
You assumed a definition of intuition without any serious philosophical analysis
@@antipositivism3128 enlightene me
@@Carlos-fl6ch many people use intuition in the context of rational insight grasped from introspection. This is usually in philosophical discussions about axioms
@@antipositivism3128 Nice. I am not going into this explanation you gave and why it doesn't lead to truth at this point. It is more important to see how it is used by WLC in particular and theists in general.
We must agree that this word is frequently used when explaining argument to lay people. For example in this very video. We both know that intuition than is used like nothing more that a gut feeling. It would be very very very unfair that when talking to a lay audience Craig is referring to anything more than that.
5:09 "If Gold had the atomic number 3 it would be a different element, it wouldn't be Gold."
Craig uses this as an example of a metaphysical impossibility that doesn't constitute a "strict logical impossibility". This is false, because the use of "gold" here carries with it the definition "The element with atomic number 79". Craig is basically saying: "The element with the atomic number 79 has the atomic number 3" which IS a logical contradiction.
In the ice desk example he simply equivocates between the notion of "this desk" in the colloquial sense of "the desk I am sitting at could have been made of ice" and some strict "identity" of the desk as being the exact arrangement of matter as it exists now. "This desk could have been made of ice" is logically impossible in one sense, but not in the other. He simply uses the fact that "this" is ambiguous to make it seem like its not a strict logical contradiction
Again, in the size and shape example, he fails to define what size means. A set of numbers has a size but that doesn't necessitate that it has a shape.
It is demonstrably false that the word "gold" means "the element of atomic number 79". People knew what gold was before they knew atoms exist.
"Gold" is a word that has no meaning, as it is a singular term referring to a natural type. Linguistically, it is equivalent to a proper name, and proper names connect directly to their objects.
Desks are not just their parts, as that would imply that desks do not exist, but the parts (the desk is a single object, and the parts are multiple objects). The parts are the essence of the desk, but this is not something that is logically proved.
Desks, like gold, are terms that directly refer to individual substances in the world. So it has no meaning.
Asking to define size is like asking to define the color blue. They are not definable descriptively, but only ostensibly: someone points to examples in the world, and then the other person understands what it is about.
@@caiomateus4194 None of what you said disputes the fact that what WLC did here with these three examples is use ambiguity of the terms in these examples to demonstrate some notion of "metaphysical impossibility" that is distinct from logical impossibility.
While yes, Gold was a concept that people understood before they understood what atoms were, but that is irrelevant to the point WLC is trying to make. I'm happy to revise my original statement from "'gold' carries with it the definition 'The element with atomic number 79'" to instead be "Gold refers to a natural type", my point still stands. The natural type that we understand "gold" refers to has the atomic number 79. The statement "The natural type that 'gold' refers to has the atomic number 3" is logically contradictory.
Regarding desks, I don't see how this refutes my point. My objection is not that *desk* is ill-defined, but that *this desk* is ill-defined. Saying "This desk could have been made of ice" is a logical impossibility if "this desk" refers to the object referred to as a "desk" that is in fact made of up of the wood parts. It however is not at all impossible that an object that was made of ice parts, could have existed that could be referred to as "this desk".
My apologies on the size/shape portion, I was a bit lazy here. My point here is only that WLC fails to substantiate his claim that an object having size necessitates it having a shape. As I mentioned before, a set of numbers has a useful concept of size that we can point to and understand, while shape does not seem to be entailed in any meaningful way without bringing in other concepts. Similarly, if size and shape can only be defined ostensibly, what difference does this make? The metaphysical impossibility seems then to only be defined by disagreement over what the words mean to different people which is entirely my point.
@@lukas1826
Metaphysical impossibility is a category that has to do with the essence of things. It has to do with logical impossibility in the sense that, given the essence of something, it is strictly contradictory to say that this something has properties incompatible with that essence. However, deciding what is the essence of things is not a matter of logic, because the essence is not given entirely by the meaning of the terms.
If "this desk" has all its parts as its essence, then it is contradictory to say that it could have different parts and be the same desk. But the very thesis that the parts of the desk are essential to it is disputed (it even has a name: mereological essentialism), since the parts of this desk are not part of the linguistic definition of "this desk". Likewise, it is essential for collections that they have the property of being larger than their parts, so it is contradictory to say that there could be any collection as large as some of its parts (infinite collections). But the very thesis that the property of being greater than its parts is essential to all collections is debatable (finitism), as this property is not part of the linguistic definition of "collection".
You imply that the question of knowing the essences of things is purely conventional, so that decisions are always arbitrary. But note that the issue is not to decide the meaning of the words (this is optional), but the essence of things whose meaning of the words used has already been stipulated. Once we have ostensibly stipulated (that is, pointed out on a case-by-case basis) the meaning of "size", we can know that it would be impossible for something to have this property without having the "shape" property, which is also ostensibly defined. Your example involving "size" of sets is just a reframing of the word size, which is indeed arbitrary, but not an alternative essence to what people mean by "size".
But of course there might be formal systems where something can have size, as commonly defined, without having shape. This is because formal systems say nothing about the essence of things. Knowing the essence of things involves deciding between which formal systems are instantiated in reality or not. A common example is the Banach-Tarski theorem, which is logically consistent, but cannot be instantiated in reality because it does not reflect the essence of things (it is essential for every set that it be Lebesgue measurable).
@@caiomateus4194 perhaps I need to educate myself more on Metaphysics, but it seems to me like metaphysical impossibility still hinges on logical contradiction. If something is metaphysically impossible, it seems to me from your explanation, that means instantiating that into reality would entail a logical contradiction with the real ontology of the world, but if we don’t know what that ontology is, how can we assert anything is metaphysically impossible without fully laying out what we mean by the terms in a statement or the assumptions behind a statement.
If mereological essentialism is true, then the ice table is metaphysically impossible but also logically contradictory. If gold has the atomic number 79, gold with the atomic number 3 is metaphysically impossible but also logically contradictory. If prime minister refers to a human being and a human being is not a number, prime minister is a prime number is metaphysically impossible but also logically contradictory. Either way, it seems to me that all of these examples seem to not be logical contradictions because the terms are I’ll defined and the assumptions are not stated.
Either way, I’ll be reading more about metaphysics in hopes of understanding better why you disagree with me here.
@@lukas1826
Yes, something is only metaphysically impossible given a certain metaphysics. But this also holds for the other categories of impossibility: something is only physically impossible given a certain physics, and logically impossible given a certain logic.
Dr. Craig, have you ever had a psychedelic experience? As a philosopher yourself, I think it behooves you to do so, if you haven't already. Especially now that it's accessible and legal.
The psychedelic experience has serious implications for what constitutes "reality", and for our understanding of it.
I think you would realize just how little we actually understand about this reality in which we find ourselves...
And if anything, perhaps you will find philosophical inspiration in the experience. Cheers mate
Craig should reach out to these people and give the proper version of his argument instead of doing a whole correction of their misinformed response, if the person that presented it really did do a bad job.
Interesting. Each time a point was made, it was in direct response to either Craig's actual words or him speaking in a video. No one was misquoting Craig, he spoke for himself, no one was straw manning him. They responded directly to what HE said.
@@plasticvision6355 I haven't watched it so I wouldn't know, I just know that Craig could totally directly engage with these people, it's not like they would ignore him given how much time they spent discussing his work.
James Fodor predicted your response. Just when will you engage with "unreasonable faith"?
Why shouldnt he respond, doesnt take a genius or to be psychic to think he might respond. James is a smart guy, but a guy like WLC doesnt owe someone like James anything. James is a kid compared to WlC.
@@ceceroxy2227 Oh so Billy is still an infant in your analogy.
@@randomblueguy No, WLC is like 72 years old and James is probably in his late 20's I am guessing. Imagine when you are 70 years old and some brash kid comes and challenges after you have debated all the most prominent atheists around the world. WLC has other things he is working on, has no need for him to accept every young guy or person who wants to challenge him. James Fodor should go after someone like Trent Horn or other theist debaters.
@@ceceroxy2227 What does age have to do with any of this?
Billy is not a good philosopher, I have elaborated on why that is elsewhere, and I can do it here too. And spoiler alert: it has nothing to do with the fact that I disagree with his philosophical positions. Billy has debated prominent atheists, indeed, and utterly lost to every half-decent atheist he debated.
What are the things that Billy is working on exactly? He didn't know of the unsatisfied pair diagnosis on Cam's channel last week, which tells me he has not been keeping up with the literature AT ALL. Even people on reddit know about the unsatisfied pair diagnosis, guess Billy's just busy responding to TH-cam videos, don't you think?
Yes, Billy is not forced to agree to a debate with anybody who challenges him, but if Billy is indeed interested in responding to strong critiques of his views (which any good philosopher should be interested in, but again, Billy is not a good philosopher), he should engage with James' material.
@@randomblueguy I think Billy is working on a book about systematic theology or something like that, maybe he is playing video games and watching porn like most atheists who think they are brilliant philosophers like you. If you say he isnt a good philosopher, it must be so. He lost all the debates, I guess youre not bias at all. Well I am sure good ole Billy needs to combat the great brilliant work of James Fodor, he will have to go to his grave no debating the great James Fodor. Blue, I am not sure youre the one to tell Billy he isnt a good philosopher, Billy was probably smarter than you in grade school.
The fact that you cannot count from an infinite past to now is true but it is irrelevant to the question at hand. The question would rather be if you can count from one event, the big bang to another event, you watching this video at any given moment in time. Fact is you can. Regardless of time being finite or infinite time will always separate events from each other. For example even though there are infinitely many natural numbers you can count from 0 (the big bang) to 13.7 billion (roughly today). The fact that a set is finite or infinite has no effect whatsoever on the distance between two events in the set in time.
It seems that you are conflating cosmic time with actual time. They are not the same. This is one of the reasons that Craig promotes a tensed theory of time. Indeed, it is the only theory of time that permits the universe coming into being as demanded by the Kalam, as on the tenseless theory of time (on which theory of relativity is based), you do not and cannot have a beginning (which is why Craig objects to it!). You simply have events in the earlier than direction.
@@plasticvision6355 can you explain what gives you the impression that I conflate the two. Would be appreciated.
@@Carlos-fl6ch Apologies for not making my comment clear. Cosmological time is not like standard time it is formulated to take account of Einstein's relativity and field equations (Hubble expansion, etc) from earth. All this means is that, as we know with relativity, there is no absolute, single reference point for time (it is a tenseless theory of time and so cannot provide absolute time measures). Such models only calculate expansion from a boundary (which is everywhere). Before the boundary, is where cosmological models apply and at the juncture and beyond the boundary is where cosmological time (it can never be absolute) applies. Craig asserts this boundary is 'beginning to exist' because it represents the expansion of space time, when in fact the BB theory describes an expansion prior to this boundary, which is not the same thing at all. In short, there was something (hot dense material) prior to the expansion, which is what cosmological theories described. One thing is for sure, there was never a state of philosophical nothing. That is just Craig's assertions and wishful thinking.
@@plasticvision6355
Thanks for you elaboration.
I still cannot see where we disagree. I totally agree. I even dare to go as far as to state that Craig purposely misrepresent the science and makes appeals to intuition.
I guess what I am trying to say is that Craig uses the intuition we build on the finite to project it in the infinite which simply muddies the water pretending that things cannot be counterintuitive while time itself is as counterintuitive as possible.
The reason why I believe he does this on purpose is because he takes a complete opposite position when talking to layman as when he is talking with educated people.
In such he completely misused the BGV theorem pretending that it in fact is pointing towards an absolute beginning of time.
I think you agree with me that all his infinity paradoxes fail in the same manner because they only make an intuitive appeal and are presented to mislead.
For example let's take Hilbert's hotel. If we where relocate all guests one room up in order to destroy one room every hour ad infinitum, we would come to the same apparent paradox that no matter how many rooms we destroy, we can still occupy an infinite number of guest. Therefore an infinite future with his god as he propagate is equally nonsensical.
We agre
@@Carlos-fl6ch I understand now where I was wrong. You are right, I was wrong: we do not disagree at all. I think that you are right about how Craig misrepresents to laymen as opposed to his professional colleagues. In past conversations with Malpass, Oppy, et al, he demonstrably flip flops to suit wherever his argument is coming from to fend off prevalent objections, often unaware that in seeming to defend on position he refutes another. That is, he presents an opposing view if he sees that a contradiction may negate his preferred conclusion, but in the process negates another.
For example, in discussing the second coming of Christ, Craig uses quantum fluctuation theorems to show that these are analogous to the second coming (he's on videotape saying this). On this theory he argues that a random quantum fluctuation could give rise to the instantaneous annihilation of this universe and it being replaced by another universe (math and theory shows this is possible), with different constants, initial conditions and so forth. But let us wind back a little. Let's assume we are in such a universe and we are trying to determine our origins. If so, our universe would not and could not have been created by a timeless, spaceless powerful anything. It would have necessarily been created by a quantum fluctuation in the previous universe. No god, no mid, no power, no freewill no anything needed. Hence, he refutes the Kalam in one fell swoop, rendering this entire debate useless. So even if he were to show the universe was finite in the past, the prior timeline would be shown to a previous universe and its quantum fluctuations on his own argument.
The *Kalam is circular.* It effectively starts with the conclusion. The universe is part of the “things” in premise 1. If it is not, then the argument is not valid - premise 2 is no longer solidly linked to premise 1.
Premise 1 is not proven. We don’t know that all things that begin to exist have a cause, because we don’t know that the universe had a cause (assuming it began to exist). Kalam is trying to prove something about the beginning of the universe by claiming that we already know that very thing.
1. All men are mortal
2. Socrates is a man
3. So, Socrates is mortal.
Is this argument "circular" because Socrates is part of "all men" in premise 1? Come now.
In any case, if you don't understand universal quantification, the argument can be re-formulated as follows.
1. If the universe began to exist, then the universe has a cause.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. So, the universe has a cause.
@@legron121 Keep going. You were just about to prove me right.
In the Socrates syllogism, part of our definition of man is that they are mortal, so P1 is true. The Socrates syllogism is *not* circular because it has not assumed something that we don’t know in order to prove that very assumption.
But in Kalam, we do not know that everything that begins to exist has a cause - for example, *the universe.* That is what the Kalam is supposed to prove. Instead, it assumes it is true.
In your correctly restated Kalam, you have shown the problem in P1. We don’t know that everything that begins to exist has a cause. That is Kalam’s assumption.
In fact, we may know that P1 is false. Every *particular* outcome of a quantum collapse had a beginning, but no discernible cause. (That there would be *some* outcome has a cause, but the “decision” as to which outcome would result has no cause.)
@@scienceexplains302 Oh yes, and Craig offers several arguments for that premise.
@@kenandzafic3948 I have never heard Craig address these issues:
All causes we know of are from within the same universe.
Things that begin to exist have multiple, complexly-interacting causes, not “a” cause.
Things begin to exist from other things. But his conclusion is that the universe began to exist from “nothing” being manipulated into a universe.
@@scienceexplains302 1. No, that's not his conclusion, that's your conclusion.
2. His arguments for the first premise are:
1) Strong intuition that supports her
2) Inductive argument
3) The fact that today things do not come out of nowhere.
Hmmmm there are the part 2, response to Craig. Very good!
th-cam.com/video/femxJFszbo8/w-d-xo.html
Honestly, there is nothing new in this section that has not already been disproved.
Does Willie Craig have a lot to say?
No, Bill. What you find is that the scientists think you are talking rubbish
This universe beginning to exist, and having a cause, does mean the Cosmos had a beginning, or say anything about the cause. As many people have pointed out, the Kalam at best gets you to this universe has a cause. This universe might not have a infinite number of things. that does not mean that the Cosmos did not always exist. And our understanding of our universe might not have always applied, or applied before the universe begun to expand. Again this universe might not be the Cosmos. You have not provided evidence that a infinitely number of thigs is impossible in the Cosmos. Even if it's impossible in this universe, that does not mean it is impossible in the Cosmos. And you are claiming you know more then physicist in general, who have degrees, and actually are in the field.
In the argument, "universe" means all of physical reality, not merely our local region. According to our best evidence, all of physical reality came into existence a finite time ago. Moreover, the philosophical arguments demonstrating the impossibility of actual infinities demonstrate that a past eternal universe is not possible. Essentially, what you're doing is appealing to mystery - a sort of "science-of-the-gaps" argument - by offering a promissory note that one day everything will be explained in scientific terms. But the more evidence comes to light, the more the Standard Model is confirmed and the stronger the conclusion is that all of physical reality had an absolute beginning. In other words, the scientific evidence itself is gradually destroying the hiding spots for proponents of a past-eternal universe. - RF Admin
@@ReasonableFaithOrg
No, we don't need have have any evidence that all of the physical reality came into existence, or came existence a finite time ago. We have evidence that this universe, or our local universe came into existence a finite time ago. So under your usage of the universe, we don't have evidence the universe begun to exist.
Nope, I never said, or implied that, one day everything will be explained in scientific terms. We might never have evidence in regards, anything before this universe begun to expand.
We have no scientific model that says the Cosmos begun, which you are calling the universe begun to exist. This is why the best the Kalam Cosmological argument gets you is, this universe had a cause. And this is the Point, or one of the Point Matt was making. The argument does get you to what the cause is.
If anything the evidence suggests suggest that Energy, which would be physical, always existed.
@@ReasonableFaithOrg
If a statement or concept match reality is a Scientific question. So even if philosophy influenced you to think of the question, the question of does it match reality is a scientific question. And the argument is, or is not support by evidence. Saying Philosophical argument, is not really accurate, and does not avoid if it is supported by evidence.
So, the statement, is there actual infinities, means is a scientific question. Again even if there is not actual infinities in this universe, that does not mean there is not actual infinities in the Cosmos.
So, the statement, is there something that is physical that is infinite is a scientific question. Again even if this universe did not always exist, that does not mean the Cosmos did not always exist.
When will Craig get his nobel prize for scientifically proving God? He is delving in physics and mathematics even though it's not his field.
@@ReasonableFaithOrg *physical reality AS WE KNOW IT.....
We have ZERO clue as to whether or not there is something beyond our local universe. You have no room to posit that all of physical existence came into being at a certain.
The evidence that we have points to our local instantiation of the universe (as we know it) having a beginning, without having evidence of something outside of that.
Our physical equations break down at that point and they all stop at infinity..... There is no logical impossibility of the total amount of energy that makes up the universe to have existed eternally.
26:24 Again, don't say contradiction to a lay audience. You have a lot of ethos with a lot of Christians. Please be clear with them and just say that you have a hunch that it is metaphysically impossible.
The lay audience is also unaware that 2+2=5 is not a logical contradiction, but only a metaphysical impossibility.
@@caiomateus4194 If we use formal system we can actually show that 2+2=5 entails a contradiction.
@@Oskar1000 Exactly! You need to assume the truth of a given axiomatic system, in this case Peano arithmetic. But according to this same arithmetic, infinite numbers (that is, numbers that do not increase when added) are also contradictions, due to the laws of commutativity, associativity, etc.
@@caiomateus4194 Or, I could just use set theory and not run into that problem
@@Oskar1000
Set theory is just an extremely ad hoc device that was invented precisely to deal with this problem. But if you can choose an arbitrary axiomatic system, then I can also choose an axiomatic system where 2+2=5 is not contradictory (say, an ultrafinitist).
Kevin's brilliant.
Skydivephil has published a response to the response, just a few days ago.
This debate might continue infinitely...😉
'Debate' is a strong word for a bloke well out of his depth getting schooled on physics
This video is shared by skydeviphil and check the official video how i debunked the claims that claimed against WLC , as a rationalist muslim , check comments in official video.
And i debated with the owner of the channel in comment also i debunked and destroyed him scientifically, he just tried to show some pseudo-philosopher and pseudo-scientist to defend his claims ( with respect to sir alexander vilenkin and alan guth ).
th-cam.com/video/pGKe6YzHiME/w-d-xo.html
You may disagree with them but all of them are professional philosophers and scientists some of them are TOP LEVEL scientists and Philosophers
@@Hello-vz1md
No only Alan Guth and Alexander where those people who i think they are smart and real scientist , most of them in the video just biased and fallacious philosophers.
@@thearmy8945 As opposed to you, famous and celebrated TH-cam commenter 😂🤣😂
@@xactly100beers8
What do you mean?
@@thearmy8945 I mean, calling scientific luminaries like Carlo Rovelli and Sean Carroll 'biased and fallacious philosophers' because they don't share your belief in the Kalam Cosmological argument is hilarious. The fact you reckon you 'debunked and destroyed' someone is also pretty funny, you didn't, you applied your theistic biases to a discussion with an actual scientist. I haven't 'debunked' or 'destroyed' you here, I've just disagreed with you. Same as what you did with them. What exactly did you 'debunk' or 'destroy'?
The claim that there cannot be an infinite number of things is completely false. Craig apparently does not understand the simple reason for this.
You're not a physicist, nor a mathematician, Craig. When the real experts tell you what you've got wrong about their field, you listen. Don't be dismissive.
This highlights the confirmation bias nature of Christian apologetics.
Ad hominem and appeal to authority blended together. Impressive.
Sounds like emotional breakdown. Not an argument.
This may be a bit over my head but is the rebuttal just an attempt at dunking on Craig for possibly using the wrong terminology when it comes to assigning rules to abstract concepts that have no basis in reality?
Also with Malpas' response regarding that the issue is shuffling the visitors around and that time is fixed so the hotel is more like people being locked into their rooms, is he arguing for conceptual infinite or metaphysical infinite?
I guess that he means that the fact that this little thought experiment leads to contradictions doesn’t mean that actual infinities are impossible… it only means that this specific thought experiment can not exist in reality but doesn’t tell us anything about actual infinities existing in reality.
@@ramigilneas9274 The thought experiment being Hilbert's Hotel? It doesn't seem to just be a mathematician waxing poetic. It seems to me to more sophisticated than that.
The reason for the shifting of the guests is an analogy for the progression of time. It's exactly the reason that Malpass's idea that the past is fixed doesn't hold up at all.
The exact present would be 10 seconds in to the past after ten seconds. In another ten seconds that exact present from before is now 20 seconds past in the new present. That idea works with cadences of 10 seconds, years, 1/1000th of a second, millennia, what have you. That concept is metaphorically visualized by the continuous shifting of hotel guests.
Having Malpass say "well, sure but what if they were sealed in their rooms?" doesn't even seem relevant to the discussion. If he can imagine an infinite hotel where every guest is locked in their rooms, it would just suggest that in a universe where literally nothing whatsoever happens at all, there could be the possibility of infinite without contradiction. That has no bearing on our observable universe. Also, it kind of defeats the purpose to call that a hotel. There was a distinctive reason Hilbert used the hotel for the metaphor and Malpass didn't seem to get that.
Even given the Kalam's premises, it only proves a cause. It says nothing about that cause. Any statement about that cause is conjecture about a gap in out current knowledge. The Kalam does nothing to prove the god of the bible.
Theistically relevant properties emerge when one analyzes what it means to be a cause of the universe. It's not conjecture; it's logic. And Dr. Craig has been saying that the Kalam doesn't prove the God of the Bible from the very beginning. It's part of a cumulative case for Christian theism. - RF Admin
@@ReasonableFaithOrg the same emergent properties could be argued for a variety of causes. For example, the capricious nature of existence could point to an experiment by some master alien race. That cause is just as likely as WLC's. It sounds like you agree that the Kalam does not prove what the cause is. Is that a fair assessment?
@@johnelliott5859 This is the same move that Lewis Wolpert used in his debate with Dr. Craig. Wolpert (sarcastically) conceded all of the properties yielded by an analysis of the cause of the universe, but called it a "computer." As Dr. Craig notes, this is just calling God by another name. Calling the cause a "master alien race" doesn't change the properties of that cause: timeless, spaceless, immaterial, capable of creation ex nihilo, personal, etc. If you want to call such a cause an "alien," that's fine. It still transcends the physical universe and therefore significantly reduces the plausibility of atheism. - RF Admin
@@ReasonableFaithOrg that may be if you concede the premises of the Kalam, but that is not necessarily a given. For example, we don't know what the universe was made from, we can't assume it came from nothing. In our reality that wouldn't make sense. However our understanding of the physical processes involved break down before cosmic inflation. So to say a god did it is still a god of the gaps argument. History has not been kind to gods who were used to explain knowledge gaps. Appreciate the discussion.
@@johnelliott5859 First, when we say that the universe came from nothing, we mean that it didn't have a material, physical cause. Theists would obviously reject the claim that the universe came from nothing in the sense that it had no cause, since obviously we are committed to the claim that God created the universe. But of course, if there is a cause of the entire universe (ie all of physical reality), then the cause cannot be the universe itself or any part of it. In other words, the cause transcends the universe.
Second, the conclusion follows even without a complete physical description prior to inflation. There are no empirically valid models of a past-eternal universe which enjoy the same scientific support that past-finite models do. In other words, history has not been kind to science-of-the-gaps proponents. If one has to appeal to aliens, invalid scientific models, unverifiable infinite multiverses, etc. in order to avoid the conclusion that the universe had a transcendent cause, then the theist seems to be on solid ground, rationally speaking. - RF Admin
“My studied position”. You keep using that phrase without having studied physics. Your studied philosophy position depends on assertions that don’t hold true or haven’t been demonstrated. Please demonstrate your claims rather than simply asserting there must be a cause. That’s just an assertion.
Craig is so smart that he's schooling actually mathematicians and physicists on their respective fields as if he has a PhD in both. Smartest man in the world. Give this guy a nobel prize for scientifically proving God.
@@theophilussogoromo3000 You clearly don't see the flaws in Craig's reasoning. He's not showing anyone anything. He is responding to people who are responding to HIS claims. Claims he has made on video and in print. Non one is misrepresenting him. And yes, you ave to smart to detect the flaws in his reasoning. Lot's of ex Christians have, which begs the question why you cannot. Are you not smart enough or do just want to believe for your own reasons. The whole enterprise is so childishly anthropomorphic.
@@plasticvision6355your vision is indeed plastic. Completely missed the sarcasm.
@@theophilussogoromo3000 Apologies. Point noted. Mia culpa!
William Lane Craig at 13:11: _"... and I don't challenge the internal consistency of cantorian or infinite set theory given its axioms and definitions. My question is rather is whether these actually infinite sets really can be instantiated in reality."_
William Lane Craig at 16:04: _"Well again at the risk of repeating myself the claim is not, that infinite set theory is self-contradictory or inconsistent. The question is rather is whether the couter-intuitive consequences of the real existence of an actually infinite number of things justifies skepticism about the metaphysical possibility of real actual infinities"_
Yes, you, William Lane Craig, are "assuming" cantorian infinite set theory in your arguments (15:18), but simultaneously you are assuming incompatible propositions to cantorian infinite set theory in your arguments. So no wonder you are getting counter-intuitive results.
It's like someone asking, whether or not soup can actually exist and instantiated, assumes such a soup to actually exist and then that person wants and tries to eat that soup with a fork and wonders about getting "counter-intuitive" consequences like never being capable of enjoying that assumed to be existing soup with a fork.
But that supposed to be possible. So the argument goes, that since that is "counter-intuitive" and hence actually not possible but supposed to be possible, therefore the existence of the soup is a lie or to say, that the existence of the soup is not metaphysically possible.
And your argument for the metaphysical impossibility of an infinite, William Lane Craig, is basically that argument for the metaphysical impossibility of soup.
Which rational person thinks like that and which other person is buying this irrational stuff?
If you are "assuming" cantorian infinite set theory, then assume it properly.
Otherwise you, William Lane Craig, are not better of a skeptic than a flat earther justifying his skepticism about the thesis of earth being spherical with his results of "counter-intuitive" consequences from the assumption of such a spherical earth.
And yes, I also want to say with this, that subjective “counter-intuitive” consequences from a thesis or falsidical paradoxes, which have been already resolved a long, long time ago concerning that thesis, are no rational justification for skepticism about that particular thesis or subjective “counter-intuitive” consequences are no rational justification for anything, really.
I hope, sincerely, that you pose this question to him on his website where he might actually reply. Make sure to keep all of your unwarranted snark and ignorance in there. WLC would have a field day correcting your mathematical ignorance.
@@vinchinzo594 I'm not the mathematical ignorant person here. WLC and you are the mathematical ignorant ones here:
*"Hilbert's paradox of the Grand Hotel"* ( en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hilbert%27s_paradox_of_the_Grand_Hotel )
Regarding these presented paradoxes with infinity these all have been already resolved. But you and WLC are ignorant to see that.
Yes, this comment of mine is addressing and concerning the statements of WLC. But I'm not really expecting him to give an actual and proper response to my concerns, given how much of a smug he is while responding to valid objections:
*"William Lane Craig: Hypocrite by Design"* by Venaloid ( th-cam.com/video/aDExcp2mS6s/w-d-xo.html )
So I'm just displaying my concerns about those statements of WLC to the public with my comment of mine here.
I dont understand why you need all these thought experiments with infinity, it seems to me that you cant have a quantifiable infinite just because there is no number that precedes infinity, so it would be impossible to reach an infinite.
Hello again lol. you kinda need these thought experiments to draw out a contradiction from an infinite past. Otherwise you are not showing that an infinite past is logicaly impossible (Contradictory). You are saying it is impossbile to reach an infinite since there is no number that precedes it, But nobody disagrees with this. Yes clearly you can never reach the infinite Number .But the infinite past scenario is a little bit different than your analogy. In the infinite past we are not trying to reach an infinite, we were always comming down from an infinite to reach 0. so if you look forward at anypoint in the infite past, there is always a finite number of days to reach today.
@@gogo-su6hr If the past were infinite wouldnt that mean there are an infinite number of seconds that needed to be completed to get to now. How do you come down from infinity to 0. If you cant reach infinity from 0 , how can you reach 0 from infinity. Please explain. Here's the problem with what you said at the end, if you look forward at any point in the infinite past, there is always a infinite past there will always a finite number of days to reach today, yes but in an infinite past, there is no beginning, so there is no number to start from, you can start from any number, because there is no beginning or start to a beginningless series of events which is what an infinite past is. There is your contradiction right there, you want to begin at a number for a beginningless series of events, that makes no sense.
@@ceceroxy2227 the whole point of an infinite past is that there is no beginning, so of course am not trying to put a beginning in an infinite past. Yes if the past is infinite, then an infinite number of seconds needed to be completed, but ask yourself why cant we count to infinity ? the only reason is because there is no number that precedes infinity. Now if we are counting down from infinity we can ask : do we have the same issue? The answer is no because there exists a number that we are trying to reach, which is 0.
@@gogo-su6hr whats the first number you count down from infinity from?
@@gogo-su6hr So you are saying we cant count from 0 to infinity, but we can count from infinity to 0. How does that work, seems like the exact same distance.
Can't believe WLC still uses the so called paradoxes when they are not paradoxes at all. If you set up a scenario that is impossible you don't proof anything. The Grim Reaper wants you to provide a first member of a set that has no first member. That is nonsensical. Its Like telling someone to take the train from a to b if and only if you don't take the train from a to b. Equally that doesn't proof that you cannot go from a to b by train.
The whole point is that the reason it’s “set up” to be “impossible” is because it includes the actual infinite within the set up. That’s the point. There’s something contradictory about paper passers (which can be subbed out if you don’t want to accept grim reapers).
@@christianpaleocon6580
Sorry I responded to a similar argument so allow me to copy paste my answer. Wonder what your views are. And, I don't know paper passers.
Well an infinite set in itself has no first nor last member hence the infinite character of the set. The scenario is constructed such that only the first member of the set can act. But you purposely choose a set without a first member. This makes it a mutually unsatisfiable pair to begin with because the Grim reapers can only act in a finite amount of time. The contradiction doesn't occur as a result. The setup itself is contradictory.
I shoot an arrow at you the arrow will travel q finite amount of distance. The fact that I can devide this finite amount of distance in an infinite amount of parts doesn't mean that the arrow will not reach you.
In an infinite amount of time it is no problem to have different events that are separate by a finite amount of time.
Also consider this. If I told you to take the next train from a to b if and only if you don't take the next train from a to b than we have an condition and a rule that are mutually unsatisfiable. Can I than conclude that there are no trains from a to b? Of course not. The scenario is impossible to satisfy and whatever conclusion we can come up with it just applies to the scenario itself. Further to that it's simply nonsensical. This goes for all Benedetti pradoxes.
Craig claims that tbe Kalam is being misrepresented. You would immediately expect him to demonstrate that this is actually true. He has yet to substantiate this claim.
srry, i jumped into the wrong section here...haahaha
Yeah, I mean what could professional mathematicians teach a doctor of theology about mathematics? Amateurs!
Trent Horn also chims in and response to that video in defense of WLC
th-cam.com/video/8V7BU3gvKdQ/w-d-xo.html
28:48 you don't get to respond to a clip of someone making a claim that youre wrong before you play the reasons why he made that claim
HELL-Oh! or Greetings. " I love Jesus/God because in HIS infinite LOVE HE is WEIRD, CRAZY, and DANGEROUS!!! We should/must all strive to be LOVING, WEIRD, CRAZY, and DANGEROUS, just like Jesus/God. Prove me wrong!"- The Bible
"Iron sharpens iron, so one friend sharpens another"- The Bible
WLC’s legacy of work continues to provide us with rigorous arguments that the brightest of minds struggle to defeat! Thank you! May many brave men and women follow in your footsteps to defend the Christian faith!
It is funny how WLC claims that the Kalam is misrepresented while he constantly misrepresent science and scientist constantly. That is humorous.
Can you give an example?
@@KudaIzka according to him the BGV theorem proofs that the universe has a beginning.
This is purposely misleading since the theorem focusses on the expansion of the universe that is inflation and not on the beginning of the universe.
Also a scientific theory is not to be called proof especially when it deals with things that cannot be tested. Calling it proof is purposely misleading.
But look at this video itself. Craig said quite firmly that an infinity is a contradiction. He now offers the excuse that it is difficult to understand and explain on an easy way to a lay audience. What does that mean? That he is allowed to lie if it gets him closer to his goal.
I can go into the Benedetti paradoxes if You so wish but I think this is enough. Consider this. WLC say that the makers of this documentary are misrepresenting the Kalam. It has already been repeated by believers, can you tell me how he demonstrated that this claim is true?
Indubitable
Alright, now demonstrate your God isn't just an imaginary character.
Alright, now demonstrate that you are serious with that demand.
No wonder you watch SkyDivePhil , go play with your life m8 , your life is running out of time , don't waste it
@@thecloudtherapist no demonstration yet
@@aqilshamil9633 what meds are you on?
@@scooby3133 go waste your life of chance m8 .
trent horn already have a defense to Dr.craig.
The *accurate version* of the standard KCA would be
1) Things that begin to exist (and everything within the universe apparently began to exist) always or almost always have
* *multiple,* complexly-interacting natural causes
* That are physical and exist in space-time
* from adjacent matter and/or fields *within their universe.*
* Development thru gradient stages
Not -Whatever begins to exist has a cause.-
2) our current instantiation of our local universe (not assuming that there have been other instantiations or that other universes exist) apparently had something like a beginning phase, but we have only one universe to examine and only indirect evidence about it’s beginning or lack thereof.
3) Therefore.... no specific conclusion results from 1 and 2.
It would be consistent with #1 if our instantiation of the local universe had multiple, complexly interactive natural causes from things and/or processes in space-time, but to say “what is true of the parts is also true of the whole,” is an informal *fallacy of composition.*
So the Kalamists are saying a powerful conscious being is able to exist without a preceding cause, but simple matter and energy cannot.
'That's just handwaving, an appeal to the unknown'
That is certainly an odd criticism coming from someone trying to convince me of the existence of an omniscient and omnipotent being that created the universe. How are WLC's assertions of the existence of God not 'just handwaving, an appeal to the unknown'?
WLC loves to act as if he has all the knowledge of a cosmologist and other areas of science . He is not a scientist and continues to misuse scientific statements made by the experts. This man is arrogant and a fake.
So Yet again, like for last 20 Years WLC states 'to me it's metaphysically impossible'. Well note taken but the question remains - so what? Problem is is that there are other philosophers and especially mathematicians that disagree with Craig view and to them it's perfectly possible (this was discussed probably hundreds of times) point is, there is no contemporary scientific consensus on points Craig is making. Especially what is fundamentally different between past infinity and future infinity. And yest this this is used as proof of something so fundamental as God? It doesn't even makes sense to repeat all those points, source material brilliantly shows some of them. It seems to me, yet again, that Craig is actually not interested in honest, scientific discussion as he shown multiple times in the past reiterating the same arguments; even after the very authors of theorems behind those arguments refuted Craig assertions and pointed out that Craig simply does not understand what their work proves and what not. Very good example is Borde, Guth, Vilenkin theorem - all of them a) stated that Craig basically is misinterpreting their theorem b) all three of them much say that Universe may be past-infinite. It would be fun to watch second part of this 'critique' where probably Craig would say something like Guth, Vilenkin and Bored does not understand their own theorems and are wrong about past-infinite universe. Indeed that would be fun.
I think that when Dr. Craig says that actual infinites are impossible in reality he means PHYSICAL reality. Otherwise it would be contradictory to theism(or would be a claim against God existing) since part of God's nature is reality itself or actuality.
Are you assuming that the impossibility of an actual infinity in any sense would preclude God's existence because God is infinite? If so, then it should be noted that Dr. Craig is always careful to differentiate between a quantitative infinity and a qualitative infinity. God qualitatively infinite, not quantitatively infinite. The arguments are against a quantitative infinity and so do not preclude God's being infinite in the qualitative sense. - RF Admin
@@ReasonableFaithOrg Well, there isn't any evidence that suggests that God could possibly not exist on any kind of actual infinite scenarios(physical, spiritual or any other possible scenario)
But anyway, there is no evidence that shows even the possibility of God not existing.
@@ReasonableFaithOrg Sounds like 'hand waving, an appeal to the unknown' to me. Very unconvincing.
This girl always ends up making fun of herself, someone tell her to quit.
I would take Craig over all the other guys combined. Craig is seeking the truth, the others are seeking their own agenda.
Dr. Craig is not _seeking_ truth, he's simply trying to persuade others, and keep those who have doubts,
in the faith. As well as earn a living doing it.
Dr. Craig by the inner testimony of the Holy spirit _knows_ the truth.
@@dane947 Sure he is, he is looking for what the most rational arguments are for things such as the beginning of the universe and what is the best explanation for everything.
@@ceceroxy2227 Wrong, he presupposes at his core that God exists, and then finds philosophical reasonings
to confirm this. And he has said that if every argument he makes if proven wrong, doesn't change a thing.
That's not searching for truth. You really need to pay attention when he speaks.
@@dane947 Well I guess he just wasted the last 50 years of his life writing those books and papers. and earning those PHD's. I dont think he presupposes God exists, I know he had an experience in High School which shouldnt count for anyone else as evidence but is evidence for him. He is about as honest and decent person as I have said, I would say you are probably not seeking the truth, but yes I think Craig is.
@@ceceroxy2227 All I have left is... Happy Friday, hope it's been a good one for you. Peace
EDIT: oops. I lost track of my days!
The attempt to distinguish between strictly logically impossible things and metaphysically impossible things leaves me baffled. How could someone take such trite analysis seriously? "Gold has the atomic number 3" DOES involve a strict logical contradiction because "gold" is a proxy for "an element with and only with atomic number 79." That's what the word "gold" means. This is a pointless and in fact vacuous distinction used to try to make the hucksterish claim that actual infinites are metaphysically impossible. It's just grade-school level fallacy and non-sequitur, one after the other. A Hilbert hotel is not logically or metaphysically impossible - Craig just refuses to acknowledge it because he _wants_ it to be impossible. The Grim Reaper "paradox" is another example of bad reasoning. If, in fact, you had an infinite number of "grim reapers" and each of them said to themselves "I'm going to cut you down at time T_n" (where T_n meets the criteria Craig describes here) we *know* which Grim Reaper would end up killing you - it is the reaper who's time T_n is greater than but closest to the Planck time length after midnight - there exists only one reaper who could, in fact, end up killing you, and we know which one because we understand that time is quantized, not continuous. The paradox is not resolved by saying "actual infinites are impossible" - which is simply not a true claim (what's the proof of it?) - the paradox is resolved by _empirical_ observation of the way the physical world works. There's nothing impossible about an infinite number of grim reapers - it's just not physically possible to have an infinite number of grim reapers who move faster than the Planck time would allow. Throwing out "all actual infinites" with these kinds of examples to resolve these paradoxes just isn't necessary and I find it troubling a professional philosopher would make these kinds of arguments when they are so clearly vacuous. It's clear axe-grinding of the most nieve kind.
The word "gold" does not mean "element of atomic number 79", as people already knew what gold is before they knew atoms exist.
The Planck time is not the shortest possible, but only the shortest in which we can physically describe the events. According to relativistic mechanics, time is continuous and not discrete.
Furthermore, the reason philosophers pay attention to such paradoxes is that they are not only physically impossible, but LOGICALLY impossible. Just conceive of a world with different physical laws.
In fact, Robert Koons has shown how to extend the paradox to a version involving an eternal past rather than a continuous time.
@@caiomateus4194 Though I appreciate your response the fact is none of the points you brought up matter. They're just grasping at straws trying to save irredeemable objections from their obviously fatal flaws.
People "knew" what "gold" was before atoms existed only in the sense that they could look at a substance and see if it met their criteria for gold or not. "Fool's gold" exists *exactly because* people did not, in fact, "always know" what gold was. Gold has forever and always been the element of atomic number 79 - people just didn't define it that way in the past because they didn't have the method to verify it. Over time, categorization became more rigorous, particularly with the advent of chemistry, then physical chemistry. If you gave someone from ten thousand years ago a hunk of gold, and a hunk of a different metal that wasn't gold, but they couldn't distinguish the two, to them, they would think they "knew both were gold," but in fact, they would simply be wrong, precisely because one of those was element 79, and one wasn't. If your whole point is _really_ that "gold does not _mean_ element 79" then that's fine - the term "gold" has indeed been _more precisely defined_ over time. But the _referent ontological object_ "gold" has *never* changed once. This is precisely why it is *is* in fact a _logical_ contradiction to say that the ontological object "gold" is "element 3," - it never could have been "element 3" _logically_ because an intrinsic property of gold has always and forever been that it is element 79, and lithium is element 3, even if someone in the past would not have _known_ gold had 79 protons. That which has 79 protons *is* gold, so to say it has 3 protons is a logical contradiction, just like saying a square (which *is* a four sided geometric figure of 90 degree angles) has three sides *is* a logical contradiction.
The distinction you are trying to establish between discrete and continuous time is irrelevant also. Our best physics has vindicated Aristotle's assertion that physical reality _must_ come in discrete units. (Aristotle suspected that physical matter could not be divided infinitely, so he effectively argued that physical reality was discretely quantized, and he was right. He didn't know that _time_ itself was part of the same 4-d manifold "spacetime" so he couldn't infer that time itself was quantized, but the *same* logic applies. Furthermore, if you want to take Zeno's Paradox seriously, that, too, implies a *discrete* and not a continous fabric of time. This idea of discrete time is in fact not a new idea). Time is, in fact, according to our best current physical theories, discrete, and NOT continuous, _exactly_ because of the reason I mentioned: the Planck time is the shortest possible _definable_ unit of time. The Planck time is close to 10^(-43) seconds. The fact that someone can take the symbol "seconds" and place it next to numbers smaller than this is irrelevant to the _properties_ of the ontological object "time" as defined in physics and science. You can say the words "10^(-100) seconds" but you aren't _actually_ saying anything, any more than thinking that by holding fool's gold you are holding real gold. The inability to see something's properties doesn't mean its properties aren't there. They are there, if you're a realist that is.
To elaborate on this point for clarity, one must understand how physical definitions work. What IS, in fact, a "second" ? Just go look it up. You will find the definition: """[T]he second is equal to the duration of 9192631770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the hyperfine levels of the unperturbed ground state of the 133Cs atom. [2]""" (Wiki on "second")... The problem with _asserting_ that "time is continuous," is therefore obvious upon reflection: "second" is _defined_ in terms of _physical phenomena_ and therefore to _talk_ about "time" outside of the _phenomenological constraints of physical objects_ is *scientifically meaningless* AND just _wrong_ . Time is _literally_ contingent upon the properties of space and matter. Therefore, to say that "the Planck time is 'just' the shortest time we can measure," is fundamentally misguided. Yes, it is logically _possible_ there is a "shorter" time than the Planck time, but there's no _evidence_ for that, and like I said, even the ancients argued and _recognized_ that discreteness, not continuity, is the better model for understanding physical reality. It's not like we are just "limited" by our technology when talking about "time" and one day we will make better technology that can measure shorter than the Planck time. It's that _time itself_ has no _physical_ coherence _below_ the level of the Planck time. The problem is deeper than, I think, you thought it was.
Another important point is that your point about relativistic physics is also irrelevant. It is _known_ by physicists that Relativity is simply wrong, just like Newton's physics is simply wrong. It's thus "not even wrong" to say "but Relativity says time is continuous" because it's irrelevant - there is no unified theory and Newton and Relativity break down at quantum levels, so you can't argue that reality is, in fact, discrete in this way when the theory you are invoking _simply_ does not apply at quantum levels. And it doesn't. It is _completely_ true that in Newtonian physics or Relativistic physics you can model the movement of bodies of _any_ arbitrarily defined size - even smaller than the Planck length. But it doesn't matter because those _objects_ are not physically possible and the theories that would "treat" them as continuous would be _wrong_ . So again, it's simply not correct to try to argue that because Relativity and Newtonian mechanics treat the universe as if it flows continuously, we should "think" of reality or time as being continuous. It's just not the case, and yet again, like I said before, even the ancients recognized the problems with arguing for continuous nature of time and matter. And so far, the more we learn about reality, the more it seems that it is, in fact, discrete and quantized, not continuous.
I would like to see your reference to the Koons extension as well as the point you asserted about logical vs. physical impossibilities. I'd be very interested and hope you'll provide it.
I want to just say one last thing about the physical vs. logical impossibility. The whole point I was making in my original comment was that Craig just makes facile arguments about this distinction and he doesn't really face the music. He's _trying_ to defend the primitive human intuition that time is continuous and that actual infinites are impossible etc. because he has a bunch of preconceived notions he wants to defend. What he should be doing is exploring these models and seeing which one most closely fits the data, instead of just making assertions. Paradoxes cannot, in fact, exist, but that does not mean that the paradox _actually_ describes a _real_ physical ontological object. The Grim Reaper paradox does not prove that actual infinites can't exist; it just proves that an infinite number of Grim Reapers that "will, in fact" kill you cannot exist. And _just_ like I said before, the resolution of the "paradox" is NOT the declaration that "actual infinites are impossible" - this is FAR too broad and hasty of a generalization, a move not parsimonious with the need to provide the _simplest_ explanation to resolve the paradox - the resolution of the paradox is that those ontological _objects_ as described could not, in fact, _physically_ exist for _physical_ reasons. The Grim Reaper paradox is just the same thing as Zeno's Paradox all over again anyway, but it's obvious that Zeno's Paradox suggests not that "actual infinites" can't exist, but again, rather, that time *is physically quantized* - which is _precisely_ why _both_ of those paradoxes do not support the notion that "actual infinites can't exist."
The very last point is that conceiving of a world of different physical laws is irrelevant as well, because the _whole point_ of the paradoxes is *precisely* _that_ such worlds CANNOT exist in which those paradoxes hold true! There would _always_ be a fundamental unit to "time" because "time" is _always_ defined in terms of _other_ physical units, and there has to be an analogous relationship between the concept of what you and I are calling "time" and what these modified but alternative realities you refer to to make a point. If there was no such relationship, it wouldn't be "time" in any meaningful sense, any more than you could talk about "velocity" without "time" and "distance."
@@superdog797
"Fool's gold" is a definition given AFTER the discovery that gold does indeed have the molecular characteristics it has. It took place in the 40's.
Furthermore, pyrite (which you call "fool's gold") does contain small amounts of gold when found in nature, although these cannot be extracted easily.
It is absolutely false, therefore, that what defines gold is modern chemistry. What defines gold is its perceptible characteristics categorized by the ancients, so that "gold" could denote what we now call "metals" in general, if the ancients had so desired. However, what the ancients called gold always had the atomic characteristics that we now find it to have, and that is exactly what metaphysical necessity is all about: something is metaphysically necessary if its opposite is a contradiction to the ESSENCE of something, but not with its linguistic meaning (even because the word "gold" has no meaning, just a direct reference, as you say). Metaphysical necessity is a derivation of truths from what we know about the correct ontology of things.
Of course, to discover the essence of gold, empirical data were needed. But that doesn't change the fact that it's just metaphysically impossible for gold to have an atomic number other than 79, not logically impossible.
So the most you could question is the a priori method of discovering metaphysical needs. But it doesn't sound like you're skeptical about this, as you seem to be saying that it's metaphysically impossible for time to be continuous, since that's the conclusion of Zenao's paradox. Know, however, that the ancient Greeks also came to the conclusion that actual infinity is metaphysically impossible a priori.
This reminds me, by the way, to correct you about another false historical data you are using. Aristotle did NOT think that time was discrete, as this too falls into one of Zenao's paradoxes. What Aristotle thought was that time was continuous, but not in the sense of a Cantorian or a mathematical continuum. Rather, a potential continuum, in the sense of being explanatory prior to its parts, and therefore indefinitely divisible. This still makes the Grim Reaper paradox possible (and see Robert Koons' version in his "a new kalam argument: revenge of the grim reaper").
In fact, your analysis of why the paradox is not instantiable in reality is totally wrong. There is nothing to be saved from it. You didn't realize that the paradox is formulable in terms of ANY infinite causal structure in a finite time span, just think of rocks, dragons, stars or anything in place of reapers. That's why the best explanation is causal finitism: it explains all the paradoxes, so it has full scope.
Furthermore, even if the reason why the paradox is impossible to occur were not causal finitism, it would still be true that the falsity of causal finitism would imply the possibility of such a paradox occurring. There would be nothing to stop the infinite reapers from realizing the paradox if they existed (there is no mysterious force called "logic" to stop anything).
Of course, if time is necessarily discrete, then the paradox cannot occur. But it is obvious that time is not necessarily discrete. At best, this would be a physical contingency as much as gravity.
I say "at best" because time is not really discrete. The general theory of relativity treats it as a continuum, and I doubt you'll find any respectable physicist in the world categorically claiming it to be false. If the general theory of relativity is an approximation, then the quantum theory is also a mere approximation, so we have fallen into an absolute scientific anti-realism where we cannot assert anything based on any theory.
But that doesn't really matter, because the truth is that time is not discrete even in quantum theory. Instead, time emerges from an imaginary coordinate related to space, which itself is continuous. Elementary particles are treated as geometric points in the wave function, to give you an idea. The only quantum theories that treat time and space as discrete are those based on loop quantum gravity, which has never been confirmed. In fact, no matter what the final theory that awaits us, all physicists expect it to describe events at intervals smaller than Planck's, and that is precisely what motivates the research. I'm not used to using authoritative arguments, but I have to say that your opinion on this topic doesn't make any sense.
And I go further: it is metaphysically impossible for time to be discrete, due to two of Zeno's four paradoxes.
@@caiomateus4194
So for sanity's sake I will narrow the scope, at least for now. And I do appreciate all your comments and have them on the table. But for now, talk about the Reaper paradox.
Ruling out the existence of _all_ actualized infinities is simply a non-sequitur of the paradox. The word _actualized_ *means* that you are talking about _physical objects_ that obey the laws of _physics_ as we understand them, not some other hypothetical metaphysical world. On this particular point, I'm not interested in the metaphysical possibilities of the worlds that don't exist - I'm interested in the question of whether or not, in this world, the world we live in, based on our observational knowledge, if it is, in fact, impossible for an infinite quantity to exist. And the simple fact is it is not - there is *no* contradiction in the existence of such a set, and I challenge you to _point out explicitly_ the existence of such a contradiction.
Take, for example, the following scenario. The observable universe is (essentially) a finite sphere with the Earth at the center. There is a known volume that exists beyond that sphere that we can scientifically infer exists, though it is beyond our "direct" observation (whatever constitutes a "direct" observation). Then, there is what _may_ or _may not_ be "the rest of the universe," - and there is *no* contradiction in this volume being infinite. It is simply _unknown_ what this volume, if any, is, because the Big Bang theory is nothing more than the inferred evolution of a particular volume of the universe which we know has been expanding over the last 14 billionish years. There is no reason to think that it is _impossible_ the big bang sphere was part of an infinitely large volume that was itself in a state of expansion at any given point within it 14 billionish years ago. Moreover, there is no reason to think it is _impossible_ the big bang was just some localized expansion of some other infinitely large manifold that exists. The fact that there is no empirical evidence for this does not mean it contains any _contradiction_ because it does _not_ in fact contain any such contradiction. Can you just point one out? What is the _logical contradiction_ in the ontological object of an "infinite volume of space"? (If you do in fact hold that it is impossible, you must be able to point to such a contradiction...but what would you maintain it is?). The fact that a single mind or observer of finite attributes could never instantiate an _observation_ of all that manifold at a given moment does _not_ imply that the manifold itself is an absolute, logical impossibility - it would just be impossible to _verify_ (at least in that way). So what is the contradiction?
On the GR paradox, the person who sets the paradox up does so (perhaps unwittingly though) _purposefully_ so as to include _impossible_ attributes that _cannot_ actually exist, and _thereby_ argue that infinite quantities can't exist. This won't work though because the GR paradox does not include member _objects_ that could physically exist in our world, _based_ on our observational knowledge of the world. Hence, the paradox is resolved more _parsimoniously_ by _realizing_ that _this simply isn't how the world works_ and that, therefore, the paradox is _irrelevant_ to the question of whether or not you "really could have an infinite number of grim reapers." The answer is that you can, in fact, have an infinite number of such grim reapers, as _long_ as each member reaper does not contain attributes that would be impossible in our world.
To illustrate, consider it further. If there are an infinite number of reapers, each individually labeled T_n, where n is an integer, and each reaper says to himself "I'll cut you down at 1/n seconds from twelve o'clock" then you could, in fact, _have_ such a set. There is no _contradiction_ in the existence of such a set. This does not _mean_ that, in fact, the reapers are all _capable_ of carrying out their plan, because again, they are _material_ objects that must be constrained by the laws of physical possibility, and there is, in fact, only _one_ reaper who will be able to act in time and ultimately cut you down. There are not, in fact, therefore, an "infinite number of reapers" who will contain the contradictory properties of having cut you down, and yet there being only _one_ reaper who cuts you down. There simply is no paradox - it is resolved not because infinites are impossible, but because time and space are, in fact, discrete.
Now I'm going to add some caveats here. I have been a little overzealous (though somewhat purposefully) in my assertion or notion that the universe is discrete, because as you correctly pointed out, we have no unified physical theory, and so it remains an _open question_ . I also _recognize_ that IF actual infinites _cannot_ or do not exist, then the paradox is ALSO resolved - I do not _deny_ that at all. But the WHOLE point I'm making is that it is NOT, in fact, the case that we _know_ infinites can't exist _because_ of the reaper paradox - the paradox does not _deal_ with aspects of the universe as we _know_ it, and because of this, it is simply an irrelevant artifact that _cannot_ do the work people want it to do. I even _admit_ that IF time and space are, in fact, continuous, then the GR paradox is _very_ powerful. But that is an IF, and the whole point I was making before is that physics _strongly_ suggests, or points to, quantization of the fundamental elements of reality. There are many ways to illustrate this, but the _most fundamental way_ to _realize_ that this is implied by _physics_ is the fact that *all basic units in physics must be defined in terms of other units which are, in fact* quantized. Units are not _abstract objects_ and are always defined in terms of _physical_ phenomenological _objects_ which *are observably quantized* - at least in the sense that (1) wave functions "collapse" when observed, and (2) (apparently) fundamental particles are now known to exist.
This whole idea that reality is continuous is actually highly problematic, _precisely because_ it gets you into situations LIKE the GR paradox! It is so much _simpler_ to just say that reality is discrete and quantized instead of rejecting ideas that contain no obvious contradictions - like an infinite set. Why do you think the ancients conceptualized an atom? It's because they _realized_ or _felt_ that on some level the continuous nature of a physical reality would lead to absurdities, hence the hypothesis, now confirmed, of the _discrete_ atom.
One quick attempt at explicitly showing the impossibility of continuous reality is to imagine a finite physical object. Can the object, in fact, _be_ made of continuous physical elements? It doesn't seem to make conceptual sense, in the following way. The "object" of finite size represents a set of constituent elements. That set is either infinite or finite, but in any case, you have a complete set. If the object is made of a finite number of discrete objects that exist as _fundamentally discrete objects_ then there is no problem - you have n elements, each of a unit volume of 1, which add up to the total volume of the object, nx1. It's simple, and clear. The only unexplained thing is "Why is there a fundamental unit?" but that is an _entirely_ different question. On the other hand, if you argue that reality is _fundamentally_ continuous, including the material the object is made of, then one has the paradoxical problem of saying that this finite object is made up of an infinite number of particles, _each of which is infinitely small_ - but how can an object that is _infinitely small_ exist? One's intuition might suggest it _cannot_ ; ergo, reality must, in some sense, _be_ discrete. This is not a wholesale proof but it is _suggestive_ of a discrete aspect to reality, along with many other things. And of course now I've already said quite a lot so I need to stop here.
The problem with infinities is that there's just too many of them.
WLC has balls. I’ll give him that. To argue mathematics with actual mathematicians. Just no balls to debate Matt?
It is not a matter of having balls. It is just that Craig is not interested in having public debates with mere popularizers without relevant academic credentials.
@@spectre8533 you mean qualified debaters?
Matt isn't worth his time.
Love it when apologists pretend to know multiple fields of science better than the experts in them explicitly saying it's wrong. Then again, this particular apologist has already admitted he believes because of feelings and evidence will not change his mind, and Kent Hovind does it better anyway...
Besides what they don't say, why do you think they didn't ask Vilenkin if the eternal universe models were viable, also all they read in the video was that they were making up sci-fi models out of nothing to save the eternal universe.
The subject and context is obviously gone over the female presenters head 😂
Oh dear….you don’t know who she is do you?
Oh jeez not the redhead again...
God is claimed to be the first cause, an uncaused cause, an unmoved mover
and the creator of _everything_ . So let's quit with all the philosophical smoke
screens and show the Kalam in the way christian's _actually_ *believe* shall we:
1. Whatever begins to exist has a God(cause).
2. The universe began to exist.
3. Therefore, the universe has a God( cause).
There you have it, reasonable(?) faith!
Red heads are sus...the red headed cutie who slaughters the chess greats...pppsaki.....etc...
There is nothing new in this video. For the past thirty years Craig has the same arguments. The most stupid thing he says is that the popularizers, as if he is not a popularizer, misrepresent the Kalam. First as so often he doesn't provide any argument to substantiate this claim and he pretends like none of those people in this video understand the Kalam. What arrogance. Lol
1.Except they literally misrepresented the argument in the video, or are you going to bury your head in the sand like an ostrich and pretend it's not true?
@@kenandzafic3948 don't try mockery or insults. Those my friend are no arguments. If you want to prove me wrong state your argument. All the other stuff don't have any effect with me at all. You want to make a joke out of me. Bring your argument. Tell me where I am wrong.
@@Carlos-fl6ch Here it is:
1. If the universe had a beginning, the universe has a cause.
2. The universe had a beginning.
Conclusion: The universe has a cause.
@@kenandzafic3948
I expected a bit more from you. What it seems is that you pretend to know what you're talking about without actually knowing what you're talking about. Let me explain.
What you presented is the Original argument formulated by Al ghazali. Al ghazali is probably the worst thing to ever happen to Islam. This is his argument. In 79 wlc presented his own version of the Kalam. I doubt if you even understand why he changed it and what effect he intended to reach with it. It seems you're just being a parrot. If you had the understanding you would have simply said the video says ..... But wlc premises are ..... And the difference between the two is .... Which has implications because......
You don't do this which I hope you still will. If anything wlc is constantly misrepresenting scientists as is also exposed in many videos. Especially Sean Carroll, who fillet him in his debate, demonstrated how he doesn't understand the science he tried to discuss and he he misrepresents it.
Please look up the correct wlc argument.
I don't even think you understand the difference between existence ex materia and existence ex nihilo. Therefore it will be impossible for you to see the internal inconsistenties in the argument itself.
@@Carlos-fl6ch 1. This is just an ad hominem attack and nothing more.
2. You have not disproved any premise of the argument, and therefore neither the conclusion.
3. Honestly, Carroll in that debate, if you followed a little better, he did not do what scientists do, Carroll himself said that bad models never disappear, they are just replaced by better models, but still the same Carroll is in the debate with Craig, we only ask that models of the eternal universe be coherent regardless of whether they are probable or not. Also in that debate Carroll never once refuted what Craig always says that it is possible to construct an eternal model of the universe but all those models suffer from serious problems.
4.th-cam.com/video/Gye1XE0kVJY/w-d-xo.html