Seems to me that many of these scientists and philosophers are saying correct things that don't relate to Craig's argument and the documentary writers are framing their thoughts as if they were rebuttals to Craig.
@@vaskaventi6840 Nah; they're saying things that SEEM correct (at first), but, really aren't. And, their intentions are irrelevant to the fact that their thoughts are incorrect contradictions of Dr. Craig's assertions. 😏😉😜
@@vaskaventi6840 I agree with you DrCraig himself said the scientists are being asked questions that address a straw man and the producers are passing it off as rebuttals. I think Craig is spending most of his time clarifying his position unfortunately.
Is that really the way we ever want to frame a dialogue, as someone “owning” someone else? Idk, that just seems like the kind of framing that’s right next door to the ‘us-vs-them’ language that a certain subset of theists and atheists engage in.
@@mil401 Do you not think the sky dive phil video was not made with strawmanning Craig and discounting Craig because they dont like where the arguments lead.
What Malpass doesn't understand about Al-Ghazali's illustration of the planets is that each individual moment contributes to increasing the divergence between the series. The proof of this is exactly that, the more moments that occur, the more the divergence increases. However, when infinity is reached, the divergence drops to zero, when it should be infinitely large. This is true of both the eternal past and an infinitely distant future event. This is why it is a paradoxical situation, and it is not enough to say that "the divergence is always zero in the eternal past", as this does not change the fact that the eternal past is still a series of successive moments that exist one of each time, not a static block that at a certain point starts to grow. If the divergence is always zero, that just makes it even more paradoxical.
No, the divergence being always zero for infinity is not paradoxical. If that's supposed to be paradoxical, then that is at most counter-intuitive or a so called "falsidical paradox". Any non-finite function f: R->R can be projected into the finite box [-1;1]×[-1;1] with the following transformation: x -> x'=tanh(x) and y -> y'=tanh(y) => x=arctanh(x') => h: [-1;1]->[-1;1] with f'(x')=tanh(f(arctanh(x'))) Suppose planet 1 making two orbits for any made orbit of planet 2. Further suppose the following functions counting the orbits of those two planets from today: Planet 1: f(x)=2x with x being the number of orbits of planet 2 and f(x) caunting the number of orbits of planet 1 Planet 2: g(x)=x with x being the number of orbits of planet 2 and g(x) counting the number of orbits of planet 2. Further consider the above transformation into the finite box [-1;1]×[-1;1]: Planet 1: f'(x')=tanh(2arctanh(x')) Planet 2: g'(x')=tanh(arctanh(x'))=x' Both counts go to the point P'(1|1), which represents here the point P(infinite|infinite). So yeah in the infinite future both numbers of orbits will be infinite for both planets and indifferent to each other (basically the same goes for the infinite past). Yes, this is counter-intuitive. SO WHAT?!? It's also very counter-intuitive, that from all American people Donald Trump was ever elected to be the President of the USA. Yet that happened any way and to the contrary of any counter-intuitions. So yeah, that's how infinity appears to work. So then why should be such a thing of a planet 1 making two orbits for any orbit of planet 2 for all eternity being impossible? Because you falsely assume there to be a "first" orbit of those two planets? I don't think so.
@@zsoltnagy5654 I have no idea what the relevance of what you said would be. This only CONFIRMS the paradox: the divergence between the two planets would be equal to zero (since there is a one-to-one correspondence). I also have no idea what a "false paradox" would be. Every paradox is only a paradox because it is counter-intuitive. There is no reason to consider paradoxical only what is contradictory, as there are logical systems that admit contradictions (such as paraconsistent mathematics and Graham Priest's dialetheism). However, it is necessary to understand that "counter-intuitive" here has a very precise meaning, which I already implied in my comment. An intuition is something that gives the essence of something, so a "counter-intuition" is a strict contradiction to something that we know to be the essence of something else. For example, something completely green and completely red is counterintuitive because it is part of the essence of colors to have the property that they exclude others (although it is not in the MEANING of the word "color", so there is no strict contradiction. But the meaning of the words does not give the whole essence of things).
@@caiomateus4194 *"The Ways of Paradox"* _by W.V. Quine_ _"One man's antinomy is another man's falsidical paradox, give or take a couple of thousand years."_ by W.V. Quine
@@zsoltnagy5654 Excellent quote, but know that this leads us to absolute skepticism on this topic. Quine thought that we cannot say that anything is absurd or impossible. For him, modal logic itself and essentialism make no sense, so anything can exist as long as it is scientifically proven (although what he meant by "science" was broader than what we mean today). He even said that it was possible for us to discover in the future that the modus ponens is false!
@@caiomateus4194 Well, _modus ponens_ is not per se false. But there are some very unsound ones like from Wade Tisthammer alias Maverick Christian: _1. If it is raining, then my car is wet._ _2. It is raining._ _3. Therefore, my car is wet._ Yeah, if you, Maverick Christian, say so. But it might be the case, that your car is in the garage while it is raining. So it might be the case, that it is raining and you car being still not wet. Yeah, this modus ponens is valid, but it is not necessarily true and therefore, not really sound or true. I would even consider this particular and specific _modus ponens_ to be "false" in the general case. Scepticism is not always bad. But bad reasoning is always bad. And our intuitions are no good for that, since those intuitions have been proved quite a number of times to be false. So thanks, but no thanks for such arguments founded on our pretty limited and not necessarily correct intuitions.
Faith is by definition unreasonable. Faith is believing without evidence. That is unreasonable. The irony is that Bill doesn't have faith, or he wouldn't be making these videos! "Let me give you a whole bunch of evidence to support the notion of believing something without any evidence at all!"
@@kenandzafic3948 There are multiple definitions of faith. Religious faith is blind faith; faith without evidence. Ironically, the other main type of faith is trust based on prior evidence. However, if religious faith was based on evidence, a religious person would simply be able to show that evidence to someone who doesn't share their faith, but that never happens. For instance, I have faith that my car will start next time I try. You could come with me and see exactly the same evidence. That can't be done with religion.
@@kenandzafic3948 Please show me this evidence. I've been in this dance before. You'll either keep claiming there's evidence without producing any, or you'll produce something that doesn't point towards theism, Christianity, or faith.
I also thought this video was hilarious, but for a different reason. Bill Craig (Ph.D., D.Theol.) - i.e. not qualified in mathematics, physics, etc. - in his first response dismissed the arguments as "bizarre", and in this response dismissed the experts as agreeing with him when they were disagreeing with him! He's either being very disingenuous, or he truly doesn't understand what the objections are. The experts are saying how counterintuitive infinities are, and Bill says "Exactly! When you use your intuition it doesn't make sense!" ignoring the fact that you can't understand infinities if you use your intuition.
@@cjdennis149 Physicists are no more qualified to speak about these issues. When physics goes beyond empirical study, it has begun making inferences based upon the mathematical principles that it takes for granted. Once we step foot into this theoretical territory, the arguments of a well educated philosopher such as Craig (who has peer-reviewed, academic publications in this area) are equally as valid as the physicist. Also, assuming that Craig's training in theology/philosophy rather than mathematics means that his claims are invalid is a terrible argument. If his understanding of the mathematics at play are correct, how are his arguments for their interpretation any less possible than the mathematicians whose education is solely in mathematics? To claim that prima facie they should be rejected is just a poor approach to the progression of any science. It also shows a vast misunderstanding of the role that philosophers have played in the development of mathematics especially in the past 200 years (Godel, Frege, Russell, Cantor, Peirce, etc... were all navigating the boundary between philosophy and mathematics).
@@AnchovyRun What's more likely, Craig understands mathematics better than all professional mathematicians, or Craig is wrong? Sure his publications are peer reviewed, and those reviewers are pointing out all the issues! Physicists have the advantage of understanding which models are compatible with our universe so far and which are problematic. Craig wants to knock down all hypotheses except his own pet hypothesis on no evidence. These experts were explaining how we currently have so many completing ideas that it's foolish and premature to commit yourself to any of them at the moment. Craig is incredibly arrogant to do so. Craig's theology gives him a bias. He must find some way to prove his god which the Kalam can never do even if it's 100% right. "A cause" ≠ Yahweh. It's like saying "this bowling ball crushed this pillow, therefore the cause is Yahweh". That's a non sequitur. The conclusion doesn't follow from the premises. The universe (probably) has a high, but finite, improbability for its existence. God (as described by Craig and most Christians) has an infinite improbability for its existence. Why replace an unlikely cause with an impossible cause? Why do I say it's impossible? Because consciousness is an emergent property of physical brains. If God is conscious, it has a physical brain which is impossible because Craig describes God as timeless (time is required for thought) and spaceless (space is required to have a brain). Anything timeless and spaceless must be unthinking and brainless.
First, I’m not saying that you have to accept Craig’s conclusions but am simply saying that dismissing him because you don’t like those conclusions isn’t really entering the debate in good faith. “What's more likely, Craig understands mathematics better than all professional mathematicians, or Craig is wrong? Sure his publications are peer reviewed, and those reviewers are pointing out all the issues!” (Debates about whether something is true or false can’t be decided based on an appeal to popularity, they need to be decided based on the refutation of arguments. Also, the notion that ALL professional mathematicians are decidedly against Craig’s interpretations is not shown. That is a huge claim and burden of proof rests on you with that one. The point about peer-review is to suggest that his articles are recognized as being academically sufficient to a high standard. Further, simple disagreement by some experts doesn’t render a theory refuted, just up for debate. His articles are considered at least well-argued enough to not be dismissed out of hand) “Physicists have the advantage of understanding which models are compatible with our universe so far and which are problematic.” (The problem is they’re discussing things that are not empirically verifiable and are therefore relying upon what we can infer from the mathematics and logic that guide these sorts of discussions. The analysis of these things is not solely the purview of physicists but of numerous fields including philosophy. Even Einstein recognized this by debating the nature of time with Bergson) “Craig wants to knock down all hypotheses except his own pet hypothesis on no evidence.” (Yes, he's making an argument for his own preferred conclusion as do his opponents. As you say, there are a number of possible interpretations for the current theories and Craig is contributing yet another. To say that he has no evidence is simply not true. Just watch his videos to see the philosophical evidence behind his positions. If you reject this sort of evidence prima facie then there’s no point even entering this debate as you’re already committed to a crude scientism) "These experts were explaining how we currently have so many completing ideas that it's foolish and premature to commit yourself to any of them at the moment. Craig is incredibly arrogant to do so." (Theoretical disciplines only proceed on the basis that new arguments are suggested. Further, what is lost in committing yourself to any of the current options? This is how advances in science work: one research group champions one hypothesis, studies it, publishes about it. Then other research groups studying competing hypotheses confront the first group’s findings with their own. Whichever hypothesis has the better argumentative support [based on empirical and theoretical evidence] is usually the one that is adopted. Once new evidence comes to light, the positions may be revisited. See the various interpretations of evolution in the 19th & 20th century for an example of this) "Craig's theology gives him a bias." (It certainly does give him a bias but that doesn't mean his arguments should be dismissed out of hand) "He must find some way to prove his god which the Kalam can never do even if it's 100% right. "A cause" ≠ Yahweh. It's like saying "this bowling ball crushed this pillow, therefore the cause is Yahweh". That's a non sequitur." (This is a straw-man of Craig's argument and misses the distinction between a cause within vs. outside space-time. Keep in mind that the Kalam argument isn't designed to show that the “Christian” god exists, just that some cause like the Christian god exists. I can't think of a single theologian who believes that we can get to Jesus etc. without the text of the bible. Most theologians believe that proofs from reason get us only to the god of classical theism [not specifically Yahweh]) "The conclusion doesn't follow from the premises. The universe (probably) has a high, but finite, improbability for its existence. God (as described by Craig and most Christians) has an infinite improbability for its existence. Why replace an unlikely cause with an impossible cause? Why do I say it's impossible? Because consciousness is an emergent property of physical brains." (This is a metaphysical hypothesis that is an ongoing conversation. See the "hard-problem of consciousness". There are MANY theories explaining this, only one of which is materialism [whether reductive or emergent]) "If God is conscious, it has a physical brain which is impossible because Craig describes God as timeless (time is required for thought) and spaceless (space is required to have a brain). Anything timeless and spaceless must be unthinking and brainless." (Again, assuming that God is physical is entirely a misunderstanding of Craig concerning the nature of God. The issue of God’s mind has been a persistent interest throughout theological history and there ARE answers to that problem given throughout the tradition. In other words, the “Great Sky Daddy” is a terrible caricature of what theists like Craig actually believe in) Thanks for attending my TedTalk.
@@AnchovyRun "I’m not saying that you have to accept Craig’s conclusions but am simply saying that dismissing him because you don’t like those conclusions isn’t really entering the debate in good faith." I've already heard the Kalam argument and I'm not convinced by it. I've found lots of holes in it, and the experts have found many more. I'm not engaging in the Genetic Fallacy. I'm just pointing out he has a poor track record, therefore the prediction is that his future pronouncements are more likely to be false than true. They still need to be examined when they're different from what's been claimed before unless it gets to the point of time wasting. "The problem is they’re discussing things that are not empirically verifiable and are therefore relying upon what we can infer from the mathematics and logic that guide these sorts of discussions." Ditto for Craig. He's in no position to say it's likely, much less true. However, he doesn't acknowledge that any positions other than his own _could_ be true. Compare the humility of the experts with Craig's arrogance. "[it] misses the distinction between a cause within vs. outside space-time." We have no evidence for anything "outside space-time". We don't know if "outside space-time" exists, much less if it's even possible. To speculate about the properties of "outside space-time" is foolishness until we can come up with an experiment to verify it. P1: Whatever begins to exist has a cause. P2: The universe began to exist. C: The universe has a cause. I don't accept either of the premises (they're not sound), so even though the form of the argument is valid, I am not convinced of the conclusion. P1: Whatever begins to exist *_ex materia_* has a cause. P2: The universe began to exist *_ex nihilo_** or **_ex dei._* C: The universe has a cause. The argument uses (a hidden) equivocation between creation _ex materia_ and creation _ex nihilo_ or _ex dei._ We only have evidence of existing matter or energy forming "new" things. All the energy and matter in my body existed 100 years before I was born. We don't have a single example of anything being created out of literally nothing, nor by a god. The argument uses the fallacy of division and composition. "If each thing inside the universe has a cause, the universe as a whole has a cause." We don't know that the energy that composes the universe is not infinite. It could have always existed. The conclusion is a non sequitur.
I'm disappointed by how WLC seems to miss, on purpose, every argument. I'll give two examples : - When WLC says « Thank you that’s just my point» at 2 :55, it seems to me that he misses the point made which was « if the planets always were orbiting, then there is no sense to say one did twice as many orbits than the other ». That is not the same as « there is no sens to say one did twice as many orbits than the other » without the hypothesis of infinity. So what Daniel Isaacson is completly ignored by WLC. - After the intervention of Alex Malpass at 3 :43, again, WLC ignores completly what was said. In the clip to which Malpass is responding was a graph that illustrates the number of orbits as time passes. This graph shows a time where the two planets have the same number. Malpass says that this graph can’t be used when you want to see what’s happening if these planets were always orbiting. Second miss from WLC…
Craig has based his career on that. His debate with Sean Caroll had him repeating the same song and dance about "the universe popping into existence out of nothing", disregarding the corrections Caroll makes. This video is that taken to the absurd, smh
@@reality1958 it points to a cause that is beyond space, time and matter, i.e. spaceless, timeless, immaterial which at one point "decides" to create space time and matter. Sounds a lot like God.
@@VeNeRaGe doesn't mean its a god. What about pure energy, or a multiverse? Anyone can speculate...its verifiable evidence that will tell the tale. In the meantime it isn't logical to make up answers.
@@reality1958 since when is energy, or worse, a multiverse, spaceless, timeless and immaterial? Is a multiverse immaterial? Really? Only two things fit this description, abstract objects (like numbers) and minds, and since abstract objects don't have causal powers (number 5 for example can't cause anything to happen), we're left with minds.
@@reality1958 "Pure energy" doesn't cause matter. "Pure energy" radiations and dissipates and asymptotically approaches 0 deg K, Barb. A multiverse is a baseless speculation.
Much love Dr. Craig and dear fellow brothers and sisters in Christ. I look forward to bearing my testimony and shaking the very foundation of the earth which is the kingdom of the devil. Imagine what kingdom for those with true faith will be given. I can know this because it is written. The Holy Bible is the word of God and comes from the Logos which was the purpose, plan from even before the very foundations of this earthly home were created. My Holy Father who art thou in heaven created all things unseen and seen from nothing and yet it has been so from the eternal beginning. Man still is trying to figure out exactly what nothing is, so it's true we know not even that. No not even nothing, My Father in Heaven made everything from that!! That's who I serve and He is God Almighty and greater than all. Either He is on your throne or it's the evil one and that is all. I can know this because it is written and it all started from blind faith, as small as a grain of mustard seed so it must be true simply because it's written and that's all we need. Please don't cherry-pick the Holy Bible but live and walk in faith to the fullest, abide in him and he abides in you I can know this because it is written. It says where there are two or more there ‘I am’, seek the Father and honor His Son Christ Lord Jesus and accept him as your personal Lord and savior and you Will come to know the great ‘I am’
"The infinite past is impossible because one can't reach infinity by successive addition, which is true if you only have a finite amount of time. But what if you have an infinitive amount of time? Could you count so the numbers then?" My answer: alright then, you count to infinity, and once you are done, come back to me and show me that you are right and I am wrong. And I will become atheist 😂
Your ridiculous challenge, doesn’t render the point null. While you cannot finish counting infinite numbers, you will definitely count an infinite amount of number given an infinite amount of time. There’s no point in which you will say “I’m done” but you will definitely count an infinite amount of numbers.
That's not even a rebuttal. It's like saying "God is eternal, outside of time and has no beginning". Okay, then come back when you get something which is outside of time, eternal and doesn't begin to exist. Then I will believe such a proposition even exists.
Tbh It was a response film that's why he didn't invite WLC just like WLC don't invite others in his response videos Unbelievable radio did request Dr WLC for a formal debate on animal suffering with phil because Phil published a peer reviewed paper on this topic where he response Craig but WLC rejected the offer unfortunately
@@ReasonableFaithOrg both sides seem to have enough problems for the other side to then conclude that it can't be that way and neither party is willing to change their opinion so I concluded that both are wrong in the since that the 1 premise that they both DO agree on just so happens to also the the one thing that never came into question IE time. Therefore I conclude that time is false
Infinity is an artificially manufactured problem. It occurs when a real value is divided by zero. In reality a real value is compared with another real value to obtain a ratio. Eg a road in a town is 800 yards long while its lanes are all 100 yards. The ratio of their lengths is 6 : 1 or 6 , a finite number. There are expressions such as finite and indefinite which are used on reality. There are a finite number of elementary particles existing and constituting the universe , not an infinite number. Time passed using orbits is also finite , a finite number of years , not infinite.
Oh, no. No no no. Infinity is an object which arise when you want to count how many elements the ensemble N has. Since this is not a number (which would be finite), we arrive at infinity (written ℵ_0 : Aleph 0). Dividing by zero is non sense : you are maybe thinking about what we do in Calculus when we examin the limit of a function like f(x)=1/x. If x approaches 0, then f(x) approaches infinity (+ ∞ ou - ∞, it depends if x>0 or x
Why do you suppose Craig believes he needs to put so much time and effort into defending himself on the Kalam argument? What does he think would happen if he didn't do this?
@@Jasonmoofang So, it is a larger ongoing conversation between people that is spurred by his defense of what he says about the Kalam argument that is most important, rather than simply because he makes the defense?
@@brettguy18 I guess so? Not sure what you're getting at, but yea continuing the academic conversation is useful, and clarifying existing work is also useful. If a defense does neither of these things then it probably won't be a very good nor useful defense.
@@Jasonmoofang I'd agree with what you said here - and well said! On the other hand, some of the other folks who are commenting here may not be so inclined to agree with us. Judging from some of the commentators remarks, with their "Praise the Lord" and "Thank You Dr. Craig for putting those skeptics in their places" refrains seem to believe all conversation has ended here and now with Craig's responses. That is to say, there is nothing else that needs to be said (i.e., case closed). What's your take on this? Do you think this might have some merit or am I way off base here?
@@brettguy18 I think there are people of this sort in most arguments. I'm sure Craig himself would disagree that the case is closed. I think it would make sense for a Christian to praise the Lord for Dr Craig, precisely because he is advancing the conversation on these things, but yea I think that usually feelings of "putting people in their place" are uncharitable and misguided.
An off topic comment on Hilbert's Hotel, but isn't Hilbert making just too much money, an infinite amount, from his hotel? I'll bet the taxes are....you guessed it....infinite.
A smaller infinite. Or as my high school math teacher would say, a slower infinite. He would be paid infinite revenue at a faster rate then he would pay his taxes.
I think Craig is not being consistent when he says actual infinites can’t exist. If we live on for eternity and god is all knowing, does he then have infinite knowledge of what happens in the future since the future never ends? Wouldn’t this count as an actual infinite as well?
@@Stuffingsalad No, God would have all knowledge, not infinite knowlegde, you would never reach eternity no matter how far you have gone, they are right, its a potential infinite
@@ceceroxy2227 But there is no ‘all knowledge’. There is no cap to it if the future extends for eternity. How much knowledge does god possess about the future? The answer has to be infinite if it extends infinitely into the future. Like WLC, you’re playing word games to avoid admitting you also believe in an actual infinite. How much knowledge does god possess now? Don’t just say ‘all’, because that completely ignores what knowledge actually is. Is god’s knowledge just then potential and not actual? Wouldn’t that make god’s knowledge not real? Does god know everything that is going to happen in the infinite future, forever? If yes, I’m sorry but that’s an actual infinite since there’s no cap to that.
@@Stuffingsalad If I have a jar, and I add marbles to it, and I add a marble to it every second forever, will there ever be a point when i have an actual infinite number of marbles in the jar adding them one by one. I think you are mixing up the difference between actual and potential. Something can go on forever and never end, but at no point will there ever be a point where you have reached forever or an actual infinite.
"the number of orbits is exactly the same, it's infinity" 1st If it's infinity then it can't be "exactly the same". You don't know the exactly number. So "infinity" acts more like a place-holder than an actual number. 2nd As we know there is great evidence for the big bang, it follows that there are no celestial objects that have orbited any other celestial objects infinitely in the past.
The mistake is in thinking that the two lines drawn by the number of orbits over time intersects, and intersects at the very specific value of zero. They do neither. Infinities are counterintuitive which is why all of Bill's intuitive arguments fail! Over any finite section of time, Jupiter will have twice as many orbits as Saturn. But over any infinite section of time, Jupiter will have the same number orbits as Saturn - infinity.
@@cjdennis149 I'm pretty sure WLC made a distinction between potential infinity and actual infinity. Just because the thought experiment makes it possible as an idea, does not mean its possible in reality.
@@cjdennis149 Actual infinites inside the created universe. Not outside. A being that exists outside of time, space, matter, is not bound by such things. But since the universe is bound to time, space and matter, you gotta ask yourself, can the universe exist infinitely and has it existed infinitely? Especially in light of the expansion of the universe.
It is so incredibly funny when you completely contradict yourself here, like Craig does. Given the number of views it also seems like to many, Bill has completely lost his relevance. The contradiction. To build Hilbert's hotel you will need to do this stone by stone. That is simply nonsensical a WLC just explained himself. You cannot go from.a finite set to an infinite set. Infinity is not a number. It's absolutely nonsensical to see this dude pretending to be in the same League as Nobel prize winning scientist about their own subject by doing some armchair philosophy. I am more and more getting convinced that WLC who cowardly refuses to debate dillahunty is becoming the Donald trump of apologetics. Me me me me me me me.
The key to this argument is physics/thermodynamics, not philosophy. It doesn't matter whether you could ever count an infinite number or anything else abstract. What matters is that the matter/energy around us can NOT be infinitely old because it would now be in heat death. I wish Craig would focus on that easily-grasped point.
8:37 "A-ha ! Can you count down all the negative numbers finishing today by never beginning but ending now, that seems absurd, if you could then I ask why didn't you finish yesterday, or the day before that, or the day before that, since by then an infinite amount of time had already elapsed, at any point in the past you should have already finished your countdown, but that contradicts the hypothesis that you have been counting down from eternity past." Let's say that one can count down all the negative numbers finishing today by never beginning but ending now. If today I arrive at 0, then yesterday I counted -1, and the day before that I counted -2, etc ad infinitum. Why didn't I finish yesterday ? Because if I finished today, then yesterday I counted -1, so I didn't finish yesterday. Why didn't I finish the day before that ? Because if I finished today, then two days ago I counted -2, so I didn't finish two days ago. *-"since by then an infinite amount of time had already elapsed, at any point in the past you should have already finished your countdown, but that contradicts the hypothesis that you have been counting down from eternity past."* That's incorrect, if I finish counting down the infinity past today, it means that today I have reached 0, and today I would have counted ω days, at any point in the past, let's say n days ago, I wouldn't have finished my countdown, because I would have counted ω-n days. Since ω-n is a different number than ω in the surreal numbers formalism, there is no contradiction. If n = ω , then we are in the case in which I had an infinite number of days to count an infinite number of days, still no contradiction there.
🥱 *YAWN* No; that tactic would work (or, rather SEEM to work) only if you STARTED your count at '0', and worked your way BACKWARD through time. Simply "starting" at '0', and assigning a negative designation to each "successive" day "before" 0 [-1, then -2, then -3.....] CONCEPTUALLY endlessly *ISN'T* the same as counting WITHOUT beginning in the past, and ending at '0'. "Contradiction" isn't the problem; the problem is that, although it's a somewhat useful MATHEMATICAL concept (like the infinity of conceptual mathematical points in an inch of linear space, or a period of linear time), an actual infinite past for a physical reality is absurd, ill-conceived, and quite impossible (just as an actual [rather than conceptual mathematical] infinity in an inch of linear space or a period of linear time is absurd, ill-conceived, and quite impossible). No; like *MANY* before you, you've *UTTERLY FAILED* to hang-with Dr. Craig. 😏😉😜
@@johnharrison6745 *-"an actual infinite past for a physical reality is absurd, ill-conceived, and quite impossible"* Which exactly what needs to be demonstrated , and exactly what WLC himself failed to achieve, as he admitted himself by saying that there is no logical contradiction (therefore not absurd) but only "counter intuitive consequences" ... Infinite past is neither absurd nor impossible, which is why it is not rejected in philosophy, and why it is present in some cosmological models in physics.
@@MrGustavier "failed to achieve... by saying there is no logical contradiction": There's "no logical contradiction" in the proposition of infinite conceptual mathematical points in an inch of linear measurement either; the impossibility, absurdity, and flaws in conception come when you propose the "conclusion" that that "fact" means that there's infinite linear space in that inch. Yes; infinite past is both absurd and impossible. It's "accepted" (or, rather, USED) by philosophers who want to solve insoluble problems (OR problems to which they DON'T LIKE the REAL answer), and physicists who are 🤪, want there to be no god, and/or NEED an infinite past to MAKE their cosmological models 'work'. No, the only failures here are YOURS (and the ones you've "referenced"), NOT MacGyver. 😏😉😜
@@johnharrison6745 *-"Yes; infinite past is both absurd and impossible."* Please substantiate that claim. Let's see if you can succeed where WLC has failed !
6:05 “… in view of its counter intuitive consequences, is that really possible?” I don’t know if this is deliberate but if you strongly believe it is impossible why formulate it as a question instead of just saying so straight up. My guess is that actually defending that claim is really difficult so a suggestive question is an easy way out. Btw I’m not saying that defending the contrary position is easy either but if we’re allowed to just answer with questions: Does something being counter intuitive *really* mean it is impossible? There you go.
To be fair, this is a response to a response to him. He has already stated clearly in his original position that he thinks it is impossible. The question is more a rhetorical device directed at his critics in this case.
@@Jasonmoofang His critics just answer “Yes!” straight up to that question, so I don’t see the point of repeating it. Lots of people just defended the Yes position and didn’t think his arguments has much sway within their fields of expertise. I don’t think that’s the time for rhetorical questions if he wants to engage seriously with them. To his own intended audience though, it might play fine.
@@HyperFocusMarshmallow I'm not sure how made up your mind is about this, but fwiw, it seems to me clear that the whole point of this series is he is saying his critics didn't answer "yes" to the right questions. For eg, saying "yes" to "we can coherently talk about and indeed use infinity in our theories and mathematics" is not a "yes" to "there is an actually infinite number of actual things in the world at any particular moment in time". It seems to me that he does try to address the real points of divergence. Where the "yes"-s do not conflict with his view, he goes to length to say "yeah I agree with this too! My problem is with this *other* thing" - and I think this is the context of the rhetorical question you highlighted as well. It would be analogous to something like: Person A: "It is impossible for this nurse to have stabbed the patient because she was seen in another room at the exact time of the stabbing" Person B: "It is perfectly possible for a nurse to stab a patient" Person A: "Yes, but if that nurse was known to be in another room at the exact time of the stabbing, is it possible for that nurse to stab the patient?" (valid rhetorical question, imo) He also partially conceded the point when some of the content actually does say yes to a relevant question - that's the part about the tensedness of time. He concedes that if time was not tensed, then it is possible for an infinite past to simply exist and that you won't have the problem of it not being possible to have counted up to the present moment - because if time was not tensed the counting won't be necessary for the existence of now. But then he says he has argued further in book-length works that time is tensed rather than tenseless, and so the conversation would have to continue in that arena.
@@Jasonmoofang There were multiple people in the video. I can’t speak for all of them but I know some of them do think the past might be infinite and that Craig’s arguments don’t rule that out. I think there are many different way to cache that out and depending on how it’s done some of Craig’s points may be applicable and others won’t. The people in the video addressed multiple different questions and some of them may have been tangential. But some of them addressed important points of contention. There may have been points not addressed, at that point I guess we go beyond a short ~ 1h TH-cam video and try to asses the prominent positions within the relevant fields instead.
@@HyperFocusMarshmallow Yeah, its a big topic, and Craig does seem to be right that none of this is new. I've followed this argument for some time and all of this seems to have pretty much been discussed. The summary seems to be that there is no coherence problems with infinity as a concept. It has counter intuitive properties, but that is okay in most uses of it - it only becomes a potential issue if we think we might have an actual infinite number of real things - then things like Hilbert's hotel, being an example of infinity instantiated with real objects, suggest that it might not be possible. One can nonetheless just bite the bullet and say yes, Hilbert's Hotel really is possible, and some people do grant that, including some other Christian philosophers. The possibility of counting up from infinite past is a separate argument, and Craig does seem to be right that people who think the past is infinite have to be committed to a tenseless theory of time to avoid the problem of the impossibility of reaching the present counting up from an infinite past. That conversation will then have to continue on theory of time, which it seems isn't touched on in the video.
"What if you have an infinite amount of time? Could you count all the numbers then?" NO and quite clearly so cause you'd always have more time to count "x+1", always, never reaching a boundary. That does not "seem" absurd, that IS absurd. "You never get to the end of this process" (A.Moore) THANKS!
I find it really ridiculous that smart people assume actual infinites must be possible just because they can imagine them. And it's obvious why they do this: because of the Kalam cosmological argument and the overwhelming evidence of the big bang.
Honestly, most smart don't care for the Kalam and probably still think actual infinities are possible. Maybe they have a point...? And the big bang is no reason why the past cannot be infinite. So...no?
Because, when it comes to belief in the existence of God, people know He exists, they either accept that fact or they don't, WITH THEIR HEARTS. The fool pride's himself an intellectual, but the anger in his heart makes his mind go afoul.
Ah, I see…. So in your view, are all of them arguing dishonestly against what they know to be true or are at least some of them arguing in good faith without recognizing the truth in their heart?
@@gmlr dishonestly yes, but don't underestimate the power of lies that people tell to THEMSELVES, because from those lies most people cannot tell the difference from when they are being honest or not. Often people pride themselves in being an honest rationalist, never being willing to face the lies they've told themselves and have been living out for years. What's one of the biggest lies people tell themselves and won't admit? "I don't LIKE this idea of God and religion, and I'll prove it with my own mind and intelligence." Where the heart is, the mind will follow. And where the heart is wrong, the mind will make up lie after lie to preserve the justification and protect the ego. We reject the Creator, and become our own god. You know how common and far back that error goes? All the way back to our beginning when we became different than all the other animals.
@@Gruuvin1 that all atheists are dishonestly suppressing the truth in themselves is an assumption that I don‘t think ist true. In addition I think it is not helpful for any constructive discussion.
What Craig expresses here, is what is known as Confirmation Bia. He tries to interpret what the experts says, so it would look like they’re not against his position. The experts are showing that Craig’s intuition and approach towards infinity is what leads to the presumed absurdities he outlines. They’re showing that using the right reasoning, there’s nothing absurd or contradictory about the concept of actual infinity. At best, they can look weird or counter intuitive if and only if, you’re not familiar with the concept. But, Craig still clings to his intuition and reasoning, in other to twist what the experts are saying and claim, there’re not addressing his fallacious points. He doesn’t want to change, neither does he wants to take correction. In Endless and Infinity by Alex Malpass and Moriston, they addressed Craig’s false assertion that “There cannot be infinite set through successive addition”. Again, Craig overlooks these objections and refutations and still baselessly assert that it’s impossible. Craig is not a truth seeker, he’s just an evangelist who wants to defend his god in every possible way, even if that requires telling a lie, ignoring corrections and twisting objections.
"It's weird and counterintuitive if and only if you're not familiar with the concept" Anyone can say that about anything, even dialetheists about round squares. "Malpass and Morriston have already refuted it, but Craig keeps saying it's impossible" The reason is extremely simple: Morriston and Malpass only pretend to know what they're talking about. Both deliberately ignore Craig's work on the philosophy of time and think they can go around presuming anything on the topic. The fact is that the mere fact that it is theoretically possible to obtain a Hilbert hotel from the construction of a room per hour in an eternal past already clearly shows the relevant asymmetry with the eternal future. Malpass is childlike about this answer by Loke (which Craig subscribes to), playing with modality, just because he thinks that no rational epistemology of modality is reliable. Someone like that discussing metaphysics is like an eliminative materialist discussing phenomenology. It's no wonder that it will only result in nonsense.
"Craig is not a true seeker" It's not just Craig who advocates rational positions. There is a whole philosophical tradition of common sense, even among detractors of kalam (like Mike Huemer). Cantor himself agreed with medieval kalam because of the argument against infinite succession, not to mention Hilbert himself. Would you dare to say that they don't understand infinity? If you need to give up the resources of reason to avoid theism, then that is just motive to be suspicious of your religious worldview, not reason.
@@caiomateus4194 Morriston and Malpass only pretends to know huh ? Have you engaged their literature and show how false it is ? Even scholars here, agrees with what they wrote. “They ignored Craig’s book…..” Who’s taking about Craig’s books about Time ? Dude ! They addressed Craig’s mere assertion which is “You cannot have infinity by successive addition”. Go and read the article and stop arguing blindly like your counterpart. Well, it’s obvious you’re in line with your counterpart who plays blind amidst the overwhelming evidence against his absurd points.
@@caiomateus4194 Yet, all counter-intuitions have been resolved a long time ago concerning infinities. So again, how is the concept of infinity absurd exactly?
@@zsoltnagy5654 its unachievable in any quantitative sense. Its impossible to have an actually infinite number of things because you can never reach infinity, you will always be infinitely far from reaching a quantitative infinite.
5:50 "right ! It's just what happens *if* you have an infinity that's a big if" Sure, and since WLC is incapable of demonstrating it's logical impossibility, then that if is acceptable, and indeed accepted in philosophy and in physics. 6:14 "But, in view of its counter intuitive consequences, is that really possible?" The counter intuitive nature of the Hilbert's hotel vanishes if one uses the proper mathematical formalism, there is no counter intuitive consequences of the Hilbert's hotel in the surreal numbers formalism.For the same reason that there is no counter intuitive consequences for AL Ghazali's example of Jupiter and Saturn : if Jupiter does two revolutions when Saturn does one, and if they have been orbiting forever, then Jupiter did ω revolutions, and Saturn did ω/2 revolutions. What is counter intuitive about that ?
🥱 Dr. Craig's demonstrated the logical impossibility of an actual infinity MANY times. [GOOGLE it] And, no, an actual infinity (NOT just a "ONE-WAY" infinity), though it may be "accepted" by INDIVIDUAL physicists/philosophers, is PRECISELY the OPPOSITE of NONCONTROVERSIAL in the COMMUNITY of physicists/philosophers. [and, the ones who do accept them are 🤪] No; the problems to actual infinities that are presented by Hilbert's Paradox of the Grand Hotel (and the 'Jupiter: 2; Saturn: 1' example) are, like the 'Working FORWARD TO Zero' proposition above, given only the APPEARANCE of resolution by mathematical formulae and numerical assignment. In reality, those formulae and assignments would illustrate resolution to FINITE "problems" with comparable principles, but, NOT to INIFINITE ones. THAT'S what's "counter intuitive" here, "Genius". 😏😉😜
He gave an example as to why an actual infinite can lead to logical impossibility i.e. the Grim reaper paradox. WLC said, there's nothing incoherent Cantorian infinity. The counter intuitive examples arise when you try to instantiate this infinity in reality like a Hilbert's hotel. Is the hotel fully occupied or not? It's both! If such a hotel exists. And about Jupiter and Saturn, you rightly observe that Saturn will always have half as many revolutions as Jupiter: ω/2. Yet if you want to say that an actual infinite exists (in terms of the number of revolutions), then strictly both of them should have an INFINITY number of revolutions - which means both of them have the same number of revolutions. Which is counter-intuitive.
@@johnharrison6745 *-"Dr. Craig's demonstrated the logical impossibility of an actual infinity MANY times."* No he hasn't, if he had, he wouldn't say that actual infinities have "counter intuitive consequences". If he had, he wouldn't just ask whether it is possible or not, he would assert its impossibility. WLC never asserts the impossibility of actual infinites, because he knows very well that he would not be able to justify such a strong claim. *-"In reality, those formulae and assignments would illustrate resolution to FINITE "problems" with comparable principles, but, NOT to INIFINITE ones."* That is incorrect, the surreal numbers formalism indeed works with infinite numbers (and infinitesimals).
@@sedmercado24 *-"He gave an example as to why an actual infinite can lead to logical impossibility i.e. the Grim reaper paradox."* The impossibility of actual infinite doesn't follow from the grim reaper paradox. I recommend you check the unsatisfiable pair diagnosis. *-"The counter intuitive examples arise when you try to instantiate this infinity in reality like a Hilbert's hotel."* I hope you're not suggesting that we can assert the impossibility of something just because it is *"counter intuitive"* ... ? *-" then strictly both of them should have an INFINITY number of revolutions - which means both of them have the same number of revolutions. Which is counter-intuitive."* Here you are working on the assumption that all infinities have the same "size", the same "cardinal", are represented by the same number. This just means that your formalism is not strong enough to accurately depict the situation. It's like if I told you that the three angles of my triangle sum up to 300 degrees, and you tell me "that's impossible". Then I teach you about topology and curvature, and then you understand what I meant. In that example, your failure to accept the possibility of the 300 degrees only came from the weakness of your formalism that couldn't account for it, where a more precise, more accurate, stronger formalism can account for the 300 degrees. It's the same thing for infinity, your formalism seems to paint all infinities with the same label, and then you point at Saturn and Jupiter and say "look, it's counter intuitive" ... Sure, because your formalism is too weak, learn about the surreal numbers and you will see that your failure to accept the possibility of actual infinites only comes from the weakness of your formalism.
@@MrGustavier I don't think, that the sum of the internal angles of a triangle is 300°. I would rather say, that the sum of those angles is 180°, since a full angle is defined to be 360° and that sum is supposed to be half of a full angle or to say, that sum is supposed to be a straight angle, what ever that might be in degrees. If we can't settle this question/definition of a full angle in degrees, then why not just simply measure it in *radiants.* That appears to be a universal definition of an angle. Then the sum of the internal angles of a triangle is π rad. Besides this insignificant nit pick, I get, what you are trying to convey. It's like listening to a person wondering about, whether or not soup exists, then that person proposes and suggests such a soup to exist and then considering and only proposing and suggesting that soup to be eaten with a fork and then wondering about counterintuitive result and conclusions of never be capable of enjoying that supposedly existing soup with a fork. Did that person ever considered eating that soup with a spoon? No, since that person already demonstrated that "absurdity" about a supposedly existing soup and that is already sufficient to conclude the existence of such a soup to be metaphysically impossible. Yeah, I would rather assume such a proposition and suggestion to be absurd and irrational in itself and similarly I think, that the propositions or suggestions of infinity being "absurd" based upon such similar reasoning is also just absurd. Those persons might consider this to be "beating a dead horse". Well, then I'm going to beat that dead horse, till that horse resurrects like Jesus Christ supposedly did and till that horse is getting some real sense and intuition about eating soup with a spoon instead with a fork and handling infinities with the correct and compatible methods instead with incompatible methods and assumptions.
Alex malpass defending always doing an infinite amount of orbits, how can something always do an infinite number of things if it never started and if it never had a first orbit, how can it reach an infinitely many, its just illogical. Never had a first orbit, second orbit, third orbit, but yet its always done infinitely many. Just nonsense
No, the divergence being always zero for infinity is not paradoxical. If that's supposed to be paradoxical, then that is at most counter-intuitive or a so called "falsidical paradox". Any non-finite function f: R->R can be projected into the finite box [-1;1]×[-1;1] with the following transformation: x -> x'=tanh(x) and y -> y'=tanh(y) => x=arctanh(x') => h: [-1;1]->[-1;1] with f'(x')=tanh(f(arctanh(x'))) Suppose planet 1 making two orbits for any made orbit of planet 2. Further suppose the following functions counting the orbits of those two planets from today: Planet 1: f(x)=2x with x being the number of orbits of planet 2 and f(x) caunting the number of orbits of planet 1 Planet 2: g(x)=x with x being the number of orbits of planet 2 and g(x) counting the number of orbits of planet 2. Further consider the above transformation into the finite box [-1;1]×[-1;1]: Planet 1: f'(x')=tanh(2arctanh(x')) Planet 2: g'(x')=tanh(arctanh(x'))=x' Both counts go to the point P'(1|1), which represents here the point P(infinite|infinite). So yeah in the infinite future both numbers of orbits will be infinite for both planets and indifferent to each other (basically the same goes for the infinite past). Yes, this is counter-intuitive. SO WHAT?!? It's also very counter-intuitive, that from all American people Donald Trump was ever elected to be the President of the USA. Yet that happened any way and to the contrary of any counter-intuitions. So yeah, that's how infinity appears to work. So then why should be such a thing of a planet 1 making two orbits for any orbit of planet 2 for all eternity being impossible? Because you falsely assume there to be a "first" orbit of those two planets? I don't think so.
@@zsoltnagy5654 Nothing can be infinitely old and always infinitely old that makes no sense. Imagine if I was infinitely old, but yet I never had a first birthday, I never was conceived, I was never born, no event actually ever happened and yet I have always been infinitely old. Its like saying I ran a race forever but I never took a step, I finished an infinite race without starting it. Its just a contradiction to always be infinitely old, shows that everything that exists in time must have a beginning.
@@ceceroxy2227 Besides that did you know, that God never had a birthday and before his supposed "creation" God was never conceived? So you can imagine God being all of that, but not yourself being all of that?!? How so? This appears to be a special pleading and also to be a double standard. Your proposition is really not convincing in any given way.
Love and respect this brother.
Craig is owning literally every scientist and philosopher in this video.
Seems to me that many of these scientists and philosophers are saying correct things that don't relate to Craig's argument and the documentary writers are framing their thoughts as if they were rebuttals to Craig.
@@vaskaventi6840 Nah; they're saying things that SEEM correct (at first), but, really aren't. And, their intentions are irrelevant to the fact that their thoughts are incorrect contradictions of Dr. Craig's assertions. 😏😉😜
@@vaskaventi6840 I agree with you DrCraig himself said the scientists are being asked questions that address a straw man and the producers are passing it off as rebuttals. I think Craig is spending most of his time clarifying his position unfortunately.
Is that really the way we ever want to frame a dialogue, as someone “owning” someone else? Idk, that just seems like the kind of framing that’s right next door to the ‘us-vs-them’ language that a certain subset of theists and atheists engage in.
@@mil401 Do you not think the sky dive phil video was not made with strawmanning Craig and discounting Craig because they dont like where the arguments lead.
This is a Great refutation video
What Malpass doesn't understand about Al-Ghazali's illustration of the planets is that each individual moment contributes to increasing the divergence between the series. The proof of this is exactly that, the more moments that occur, the more the divergence increases. However, when infinity is reached, the divergence drops to zero, when it should be infinitely large. This is true of both the eternal past and an infinitely distant future event. This is why it is a paradoxical situation, and it is not enough to say that "the divergence is always zero in the eternal past", as this does not change the fact that the eternal past is still a series of successive moments that exist one of each time, not a static block that at a certain point starts to grow. If the divergence is always zero, that just makes it even more paradoxical.
No, the divergence being always zero for infinity is not paradoxical. If that's supposed to be paradoxical, then that is at most counter-intuitive or a so called "falsidical paradox".
Any non-finite function f: R->R can be projected into the finite box [-1;1]×[-1;1] with the following transformation:
x -> x'=tanh(x) and
y -> y'=tanh(y)
=> x=arctanh(x')
=> h: [-1;1]->[-1;1] with f'(x')=tanh(f(arctanh(x')))
Suppose planet 1 making two orbits for any made orbit of planet 2.
Further suppose the following functions counting the orbits of those two planets from today:
Planet 1: f(x)=2x with x being the number of orbits of planet 2 and f(x) caunting the number of orbits of planet 1
Planet 2: g(x)=x with x being the number of orbits of planet 2 and g(x) counting the number of orbits of planet 2.
Further consider the above transformation into the finite box [-1;1]×[-1;1]:
Planet 1: f'(x')=tanh(2arctanh(x'))
Planet 2: g'(x')=tanh(arctanh(x'))=x'
Both counts go to the point P'(1|1), which represents here the point P(infinite|infinite). So yeah in the infinite future both numbers of orbits will be infinite for both planets and indifferent to each other (basically the same goes for the infinite past).
Yes, this is counter-intuitive.
SO WHAT?!?
It's also very counter-intuitive, that from all American people Donald Trump was ever elected to be the President of the USA. Yet that happened any way and to the contrary of any counter-intuitions.
So yeah, that's how infinity appears to work. So then why should be such a thing of a planet 1 making two orbits for any orbit of planet 2 for all eternity being impossible? Because you falsely assume there to be a "first" orbit of those two planets?
I don't think so.
@@zsoltnagy5654
I have no idea what the relevance of what you said would be. This only CONFIRMS the paradox: the divergence between the two planets would be equal to zero (since there is a one-to-one correspondence).
I also have no idea what a "false paradox" would be. Every paradox is only a paradox because it is counter-intuitive. There is no reason to consider paradoxical only what is contradictory, as there are logical systems that admit contradictions (such as paraconsistent mathematics and Graham Priest's dialetheism).
However, it is necessary to understand that "counter-intuitive" here has a very precise meaning, which I already implied in my comment. An intuition is something that gives the essence of something, so a "counter-intuition" is a strict contradiction to something that we know to be the essence of something else. For example, something completely green and completely red is counterintuitive because it is part of the essence of colors to have the property that they exclude others (although it is not in the MEANING of the word "color", so there is no strict contradiction. But the meaning of the words does not give the whole essence of things).
@@caiomateus4194 *"The Ways of Paradox"* _by W.V. Quine_
_"One man's antinomy is another man's falsidical paradox, give or take a couple of thousand years."_
by W.V. Quine
@@zsoltnagy5654
Excellent quote, but know that this leads us to absolute skepticism on this topic. Quine thought that we cannot say that anything is absurd or impossible. For him, modal logic itself and essentialism make no sense, so anything can exist as long as it is scientifically proven (although what he meant by "science" was broader than what we mean today). He even said that it was possible for us to discover in the future that the modus ponens is false!
@@caiomateus4194 Well, _modus ponens_ is not per se false. But there are some very unsound ones like from Wade Tisthammer alias Maverick Christian:
_1. If it is raining, then my car is wet._
_2. It is raining._
_3. Therefore, my car is wet._
Yeah, if you, Maverick Christian, say so. But it might be the case, that your car is in the garage while it is raining. So it might be the case, that it is raining and you car being still not wet.
Yeah, this modus ponens is valid, but it is not necessarily true and therefore, not really sound or true. I would even consider this particular and specific _modus ponens_ to be "false" in the general case.
Scepticism is not always bad. But bad reasoning is always bad. And our intuitions are no good for that, since those intuitions have been proved quite a number of times to be false.
So thanks, but no thanks for such arguments founded on our pretty limited and not necessarily correct intuitions.
Awesome work Dr Craig
I’ve been waiting to see this!
Great! I was wondering what he was gonna say. Am gonna enjoy this
Dr Craig demonstrates and embodies what it means to hold a reasonable faith.
Faith is by definition unreasonable. Faith is believing without evidence. That is unreasonable. The irony is that Bill doesn't have faith, or he wouldn't be making these videos! "Let me give you a whole bunch of evidence to support the notion of believing something without any evidence at all!"
@@cjdennis149 1. No, that is not the definition of faith, faith is trust.
@@kenandzafic3948 There are multiple definitions of faith. Religious faith is blind faith; faith without evidence. Ironically, the other main type of faith is trust based on prior evidence. However, if religious faith was based on evidence, a religious person would simply be able to show that evidence to someone who doesn't share their faith, but that never happens. For instance, I have faith that my car will start next time I try. You could come with me and see exactly the same evidence. That can't be done with religion.
@@cjdennis149 That there is evidence for faith and evidence for theism and for Christianity and so on.
@@kenandzafic3948 Please show me this evidence. I've been in this dance before. You'll either keep claiming there's evidence without producing any, or you'll produce something that doesn't point towards theism, Christianity, or faith.
Also great video Dr. Craig, you obliterated every single one of those who challenged you here. Thanks for the laughs Bill 🙏 🤗
I also thought this video was hilarious, but for a different reason. Bill Craig (Ph.D., D.Theol.) - i.e. not qualified in mathematics, physics, etc. - in his first response dismissed the arguments as "bizarre", and in this response dismissed the experts as agreeing with him when they were disagreeing with him! He's either being very disingenuous, or he truly doesn't understand what the objections are. The experts are saying how counterintuitive infinities are, and Bill says "Exactly! When you use your intuition it doesn't make sense!" ignoring the fact that you can't understand infinities if you use your intuition.
@@cjdennis149 Physicists are no more qualified to speak about these issues. When physics goes beyond empirical study, it has begun making inferences based upon the mathematical principles that it takes for granted. Once we step foot into this theoretical territory, the arguments of a well educated philosopher such as Craig (who has peer-reviewed, academic publications in this area) are equally as valid as the physicist. Also, assuming that Craig's training in theology/philosophy rather than mathematics means that his claims are invalid is a terrible argument. If his understanding of the mathematics at play are correct, how are his arguments for their interpretation any less possible than the mathematicians whose education is solely in mathematics? To claim that prima facie they should be rejected is just a poor approach to the progression of any science.
It also shows a vast misunderstanding of the role that philosophers have played in the development of mathematics especially in the past 200 years (Godel, Frege, Russell, Cantor, Peirce, etc... were all navigating the boundary between philosophy and mathematics).
@@AnchovyRun What's more likely, Craig understands mathematics better than all professional mathematicians, or Craig is wrong? Sure his publications are peer reviewed, and those reviewers are pointing out all the issues! Physicists have the advantage of understanding which models are compatible with our universe so far and which are problematic. Craig wants to knock down all hypotheses except his own pet hypothesis on no evidence. These experts were explaining how we currently have so many completing ideas that it's foolish and premature to commit yourself to any of them at the moment. Craig is incredibly arrogant to do so. Craig's theology gives him a bias. He must find some way to prove his god which the Kalam can never do even if it's 100% right. "A cause" ≠ Yahweh. It's like saying "this bowling ball crushed this pillow, therefore the cause is Yahweh". That's a non sequitur. The conclusion doesn't follow from the premises. The universe (probably) has a high, but finite, improbability for its existence. God (as described by Craig and most Christians) has an infinite improbability for its existence. Why replace an unlikely cause with an impossible cause? Why do I say it's impossible? Because consciousness is an emergent property of physical brains. If God is conscious, it has a physical brain which is impossible because Craig describes God as timeless (time is required for thought) and spaceless (space is required to have a brain). Anything timeless and spaceless must be unthinking and brainless.
First, I’m not saying that you have to accept Craig’s conclusions but am simply saying that dismissing him because you don’t like those conclusions isn’t really entering the debate in good faith.
“What's more likely, Craig understands mathematics better than all professional mathematicians, or Craig is wrong? Sure his publications are peer reviewed, and those reviewers are pointing out all the issues!”
(Debates about whether something is true or false can’t be decided based on an appeal to popularity, they need to be decided based on the refutation of arguments. Also, the notion that ALL professional mathematicians are decidedly against Craig’s interpretations is not shown. That is a huge claim and burden of proof rests on you with that one. The point about peer-review is to suggest that his articles are recognized as being academically sufficient to a high standard. Further, simple disagreement by some experts doesn’t render a theory refuted, just up for debate. His articles are considered at least well-argued enough to not be dismissed out of hand)
“Physicists have the advantage of understanding which models are compatible with our universe so far and which are problematic.”
(The problem is they’re discussing things that are not empirically verifiable and are therefore relying upon what we can infer from the mathematics and logic that guide these sorts of discussions. The analysis of these things is not solely the purview of physicists but of numerous fields including philosophy. Even Einstein recognized this by debating the nature of time with Bergson)
“Craig wants to knock down all hypotheses except his own pet hypothesis on no evidence.”
(Yes, he's making an argument for his own preferred conclusion as do his opponents. As you say, there are a number of possible interpretations for the current theories and Craig is contributing yet another. To say that he has no evidence is simply not true. Just watch his videos to see the philosophical evidence behind his positions. If you reject this sort of evidence prima facie then there’s no point even entering this debate as you’re already committed to a crude scientism)
"These experts were explaining how we currently have so many completing ideas that it's foolish and premature to commit yourself to any of them at the moment. Craig is incredibly arrogant to do so."
(Theoretical disciplines only proceed on the basis that new arguments are suggested. Further, what is lost in committing yourself to any of the current options? This is how advances in science work: one research group champions one hypothesis, studies it, publishes about it. Then other research groups studying competing hypotheses confront the first group’s findings with their own. Whichever hypothesis has the better argumentative support [based on empirical and theoretical evidence] is usually the one that is adopted. Once new evidence comes to light, the positions may be revisited. See the various interpretations of evolution in the 19th & 20th century for an example of this)
"Craig's theology gives him a bias."
(It certainly does give him a bias but that doesn't mean his arguments should be dismissed out of hand)
"He must find some way to prove his god which the Kalam can never do even if it's 100% right. "A cause" ≠ Yahweh. It's like saying "this bowling ball crushed this pillow, therefore the cause is Yahweh". That's a non sequitur."
(This is a straw-man of Craig's argument and misses the distinction between a cause within vs. outside space-time. Keep in mind that the Kalam argument isn't designed to show that the “Christian” god exists, just that some cause like the Christian god exists. I can't think of a single theologian who believes that we can get to Jesus etc. without the text of the bible. Most theologians believe that proofs from reason get us only to the god of classical theism [not specifically Yahweh])
"The conclusion doesn't follow from the premises. The universe (probably) has a high, but finite, improbability for its existence. God (as described by Craig and most Christians) has an infinite improbability for its existence. Why replace an unlikely cause with an impossible cause? Why do I say it's impossible? Because consciousness is an emergent property of physical brains."
(This is a metaphysical hypothesis that is an ongoing conversation. See the "hard-problem of consciousness". There are MANY theories explaining this, only one of which is materialism [whether reductive or emergent])
"If God is conscious, it has a physical brain which is impossible because Craig describes God as timeless (time is required for thought) and spaceless (space is required to have a brain). Anything timeless and spaceless must be unthinking and brainless."
(Again, assuming that God is physical is entirely a misunderstanding of Craig concerning the nature of God. The issue of God’s mind has been a persistent interest throughout theological history and there ARE answers to that problem given throughout the tradition. In other words, the “Great Sky Daddy” is a terrible caricature of what theists like Craig actually believe in)
Thanks for attending my TedTalk.
@@AnchovyRun "I’m not saying that you have to accept Craig’s conclusions but am simply saying that dismissing him because you don’t like those conclusions isn’t really entering the debate in good faith."
I've already heard the Kalam argument and I'm not convinced by it. I've found lots of holes in it, and the experts have found many more. I'm not engaging in the Genetic Fallacy. I'm just pointing out he has a poor track record, therefore the prediction is that his future pronouncements are more likely to be false than true. They still need to be examined when they're different from what's been claimed before unless it gets to the point of time wasting.
"The problem is they’re discussing things that are not empirically verifiable and are therefore relying upon what we can infer from the mathematics and logic that guide these sorts of discussions."
Ditto for Craig. He's in no position to say it's likely, much less true. However, he doesn't acknowledge that any positions other than his own _could_ be true. Compare the humility of the experts with Craig's arrogance.
"[it] misses the distinction between a cause within vs. outside space-time."
We have no evidence for anything "outside space-time". We don't know if "outside space-time" exists, much less if it's even possible. To speculate about the properties of "outside space-time" is foolishness until we can come up with an experiment to verify it.
P1: Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
P2: The universe began to exist.
C: The universe has a cause.
I don't accept either of the premises (they're not sound), so even though the form of the argument is valid, I am not convinced of the conclusion.
P1: Whatever begins to exist *_ex materia_* has a cause.
P2: The universe began to exist *_ex nihilo_** or **_ex dei._*
C: The universe has a cause.
The argument uses (a hidden) equivocation between creation _ex materia_ and creation _ex nihilo_ or _ex dei._
We only have evidence of existing matter or energy forming "new" things. All the energy and matter in my body existed 100 years before I was born. We don't have a single example of anything being created out of literally nothing, nor by a god.
The argument uses the fallacy of division and composition. "If each thing inside the universe has a cause, the universe as a whole has a cause."
We don't know that the energy that composes the universe is not infinite. It could have always existed.
The conclusion is a non sequitur.
I'm disappointed by how WLC seems to miss, on purpose, every argument. I'll give two examples :
- When WLC says « Thank you that’s just my point» at 2 :55, it seems to me that he misses the point made which was « if the planets always were orbiting, then there is no sense to say one did twice as many orbits than the other ». That is not the same as « there is no sens to say one did twice as many orbits than the other » without the hypothesis of infinity. So what Daniel Isaacson is completly ignored by WLC.
- After the intervention of Alex Malpass at 3 :43, again, WLC ignores completly what was said. In the clip to which Malpass is responding was a graph that illustrates the number of orbits as time passes. This graph shows a time where the two planets have the same number. Malpass says that this graph can’t be used when you want to see what’s happening if these planets were always orbiting. Second miss from WLC…
Yes he does
Craig has based his career on that. His debate with Sean Caroll had him repeating the same song and dance about "the universe popping into existence out of nothing", disregarding the corrections Caroll makes. This video is that taken to the absurd, smh
There are many arguments for God. Kalam is just one of them
Except that it points to a cause and isn't a solid argument for a god
@@reality1958 it points to a cause that is beyond space, time and matter, i.e. spaceless, timeless, immaterial which at one point "decides" to create space time and matter. Sounds a lot like God.
@@VeNeRaGe doesn't mean its a god. What about pure energy, or a multiverse? Anyone can speculate...its verifiable evidence that will tell the tale.
In the meantime it isn't logical to make up answers.
@@reality1958 since when is energy, or worse, a multiverse, spaceless, timeless and immaterial? Is a multiverse immaterial? Really?
Only two things fit this description, abstract objects (like numbers) and minds, and since abstract objects don't have causal powers (number 5 for example can't cause anything to happen), we're left with minds.
@@reality1958 "Pure energy" doesn't cause matter. "Pure energy" radiations and dissipates and asymptotically approaches 0 deg K, Barb.
A multiverse is a baseless speculation.
Much love Dr. Craig and dear fellow brothers and sisters in Christ. I look forward to bearing my testimony and shaking the very foundation of the earth which is the kingdom of the devil. Imagine what kingdom for those with true faith will be given. I can know this because it is written.
The Holy Bible is the word of God and comes from the Logos which was the purpose, plan from even before the very foundations of this earthly home were created. My Holy Father who art thou in heaven created all things unseen and seen from nothing and yet it has been so from the eternal beginning. Man still is trying to figure out exactly what nothing is, so it's true we know not even that. No not even nothing, My Father in Heaven made everything from that!!
That's who I serve and He is God Almighty and greater than all. Either He is on your throne or it's the evil one and that is all. I can know this because it is written and it all started from blind faith, as small as a grain of mustard seed so it must be true simply because it's written and that's all we need.
Please don't cherry-pick the Holy Bible but live and walk in faith to the fullest, abide in him and he abides in you I can know this because it is written. It says where there are two or more there ‘I am’, seek the Father and honor His Son Christ Lord Jesus and accept him as your personal Lord and savior and you Will come to know the great ‘I am’
If you had an actual infinite number of atoms, would the entire Universe be a black hole?
"The infinite past is impossible because one can't reach infinity by successive addition, which is true if you only have a finite amount of time. But what if you have an infinitive amount of time? Could you count so the numbers then?"
My answer: alright then, you count to infinity, and once you are done, come back to me and show me that you are right and I am wrong. And I will become atheist 😂
Atheists will say they counted to infinity
@@ceceroxy2227
It’s funny how’re playing both the role of a theist and that of an atheist 😆
Your ridiculous challenge, doesn’t render the point null.
While you cannot finish counting infinite numbers, you will definitely count an infinite amount of number given an infinite amount of time. There’s no point in which you will say “I’m done” but you will definitely count an infinite amount of numbers.
That's not even a rebuttal. It's like saying "God is eternal, outside of time and has no beginning".
Okay, then come back when you get something which is outside of time, eternal and doesn't begin to exist. Then I will believe such a proposition even exists.
@@arpitsarkar5718 That which ever was "before" the big bang.
The Big bang is the beginning of time, space and matter.
maybe skydive phil should have interviewed Dr. Craig, oh he forgot about that.
Tbh It was a response film that's why he didn't invite WLC just like WLC don't invite others in his response videos
Unbelievable radio did request Dr WLC for a formal debate on animal suffering with phil because Phil published a peer reviewed paper on this topic where he response Craig but WLC rejected the offer unfortunately
@@Hello-vz1md Do you still need an I phone
@@ceceroxy2227 actually I need a phone I'm using my neighbour's phone and his account and he isn't aware of this
@@Hello-vz1md YOU should get a job earn some money and go buy one, they arent that expensive.
@@ceceroxy2227 but I'm 8 years old
Brilliant.
Great video
Oh my god. The books again. Lol. Any intelligent person would read about science from a scientist instead of from an armchair philosopher. Nonsense.
Morale of the story is that time doesn't exist
That definitely should not be a takeaway from this video. - RF Admin
@@ReasonableFaithOrg both sides seem to have enough problems for the other side to then conclude that it can't be that way and neither party is willing to change their opinion so I concluded that both are wrong in the since that the 1 premise that they both DO agree on just so happens to also the the one thing that never came into question IE time.
Therefore I conclude that time is false
@@ReasonableFaithOrg ......
Infinity is an artificially manufactured problem. It occurs when a real value is divided by zero. In reality a real value is compared with another real value to obtain a ratio. Eg a road in a town is 800 yards long while its lanes are all 100 yards. The ratio of their lengths is 6 : 1 or 6 , a finite number. There are expressions such as finite and indefinite which are used on reality. There are a finite number of elementary particles existing and constituting the universe , not an infinite number. Time passed using orbits is also finite , a finite number of years , not infinite.
I think mathematicians would disagree with your second statement.
Oh, no. No no no. Infinity is an object which arise when you want to count how many elements the ensemble N has. Since this is not a number (which would be finite), we arrive at infinity (written ℵ_0 : Aleph 0).
Dividing by zero is non sense : you are maybe thinking about what we do in Calculus when we examin the limit of a function like f(x)=1/x. If x approaches 0, then f(x) approaches infinity (+ ∞ ou - ∞, it depends if x>0 or x
You're out of your depth craig
Why do you suppose Craig believes he needs to put so much time and effort into defending himself on the Kalam argument? What does he think would happen if he didn't do this?
Well academics normally defend their own work - that's how the work develops, and the conversation progresses.
@@Jasonmoofang So, it is a larger ongoing conversation between people that is spurred by his defense of what he says about the Kalam argument that is most important, rather than simply because he makes the defense?
@@brettguy18 I guess so? Not sure what you're getting at, but yea continuing the academic conversation is useful, and clarifying existing work is also useful. If a defense does neither of these things then it probably won't be a very good nor useful defense.
@@Jasonmoofang I'd agree with what you said here - and well said!
On the other hand, some of the other folks who are commenting here may not be so inclined to agree with us. Judging from some of the commentators remarks, with their "Praise the Lord" and "Thank You Dr. Craig for putting those skeptics in their places" refrains seem to believe all conversation has ended here and now with Craig's responses. That is to say, there is nothing else that needs to be said (i.e., case closed).
What's your take on this? Do you think this might have some merit or am I way off base here?
@@brettguy18 I think there are people of this sort in most arguments. I'm sure Craig himself would disagree that the case is closed. I think it would make sense for a Christian to praise the Lord for Dr Craig, precisely because he is advancing the conversation on these things, but yea I think that usually feelings of "putting people in their place" are uncharitable and misguided.
An off topic comment on Hilbert's Hotel, but isn't Hilbert making just too much money, an infinite amount, from his hotel? I'll bet the taxes are....you guessed it....infinite.
A smaller infinite. Or as my high school math teacher would say, a slower infinite. He would be paid infinite revenue at a faster rate then he would pay his taxes.
@@bman5257 I like that---> "..a smaller infinite". Unfortunately I can't use it because infinite is one size fits all. 😀
XD
@@SpaceCadet4Jesus Then use slower infinite.
I think Craig is not being consistent when he says actual infinites can’t exist.
If we live on for eternity and god is all knowing, does he then have infinite knowledge of what happens in the future since the future never ends? Wouldn’t this count as an actual infinite as well?
No, that would be potential infinite.
@@Kristian-ql8zw How is that a potential infinite if you believe it to literally manifest itself? Is gods knowledge actual or potential?
@@Stuffingsalad No, God would have all knowledge, not infinite knowlegde, you would never reach eternity no matter how far you have gone, they are right, its a potential infinite
@@ceceroxy2227 But there is no ‘all knowledge’. There is no cap to it if the future extends for eternity. How much knowledge does god possess about the future? The answer has to be infinite if it extends infinitely into the future. Like WLC, you’re playing word games to avoid admitting you also believe in an actual infinite.
How much knowledge does god possess now? Don’t just say ‘all’, because that completely ignores what knowledge actually is. Is god’s knowledge just then potential and not actual? Wouldn’t that make god’s knowledge not real?
Does god know everything that is going to happen in the infinite future, forever? If yes, I’m sorry but that’s an actual infinite since there’s no cap to that.
@@Stuffingsalad If I have a jar, and I add marbles to it, and I add a marble to it every second forever, will there ever be a point when i have an actual infinite number of marbles in the jar adding them one by one. I think you are mixing up the difference between actual and potential. Something can go on forever and never end, but at no point will there ever be a point where you have reached forever or an actual infinite.
Criticism of Kalam (and WLC) is big mess.
"the number of orbits is exactly the same, it's infinity"
1st
If it's infinity then it can't be "exactly the same". You don't know the exactly number.
So "infinity" acts more like a place-holder than an actual number.
2nd
As we know there is great evidence for the big bang, it follows that there are no celestial objects that have orbited any other celestial objects infinitely in the past.
The mistake is in thinking that the two lines drawn by the number of orbits over time intersects, and intersects at the very specific value of zero. They do neither. Infinities are counterintuitive which is why all of Bill's intuitive arguments fail! Over any finite section of time, Jupiter will have twice as many orbits as Saturn. But over any infinite section of time, Jupiter will have the same number orbits as Saturn - infinity.
@@cjdennis149 I'm pretty sure WLC made a distinction between potential infinity and actual infinity.
Just because the thought experiment makes it possible as an idea, does not mean its possible in reality.
@@christislord4608 Sure he does! Actual infinities can't exist according to Bill, so God can't exist.
@@cjdennis149 Actual infinites inside the created universe. Not outside.
A being that exists outside of time, space, matter, is not bound by such things.
But since the universe is bound to time, space and matter, you gotta ask yourself, can the universe exist infinitely and has it existed infinitely?
Especially in light of the expansion of the universe.
@@christislord4608 That's either special pleading, or ignores that a sufficient non-god cause outside the universe could have caused the universe.
It is so incredibly funny when you completely contradict yourself here, like Craig does. Given the number of views it also seems like to many, Bill has completely lost his relevance.
The contradiction. To build Hilbert's hotel you will need to do this stone by stone. That is simply nonsensical a WLC just explained himself. You cannot go from.a finite set to an infinite set. Infinity is not a number. It's absolutely nonsensical to see this dude pretending to be in the same League as Nobel prize winning scientist about their own subject by doing some armchair philosophy. I am more and more getting convinced that WLC who cowardly refuses to debate dillahunty is becoming the Donald trump of apologetics. Me me me me me me me.
The key to this argument is physics/thermodynamics, not philosophy.
It doesn't matter whether you could ever count an infinite number or anything else abstract.
What matters is that the matter/energy around us can NOT be infinitely old because it would now be in heat death.
I wish Craig would focus on that easily-grasped point.
It depends on if the matter/energy around us came into existence at the Big Bang, or if it existed prior to that and simply underwent a change.
I couldn't agree with you any more!The whole video is beside the point.
The funny thing is that all these geniuses respond to Dr. Craig with fantasy, and not reality. Apparently, they cannot tell the difference.
Two videos of Craig conflating actual infinites and potential infinites.
Where exactly does he conflate the two? - RF Admin
8:37 "A-ha ! Can you count down all the negative numbers finishing today by never beginning but ending now, that seems absurd, if you could then I ask why didn't you finish yesterday, or the day before that, or the day before that, since by then an infinite amount of time had already elapsed, at any point in the past you should have already finished your countdown, but that contradicts the hypothesis that you have been counting down from eternity past."
Let's say that one can count down all the negative numbers finishing today by never beginning but ending now.
If today I arrive at 0, then yesterday I counted -1, and the day before that I counted -2, etc ad infinitum.
Why didn't I finish yesterday ? Because if I finished today, then yesterday I counted -1, so I didn't finish yesterday.
Why didn't I finish the day before that ? Because if I finished today, then two days ago I counted -2, so I didn't finish two days ago.
*-"since by then an infinite amount of time had already elapsed, at any point in the past you should have already finished your countdown, but that contradicts the hypothesis that you have been counting down from eternity past."*
That's incorrect, if I finish counting down the infinity past today, it means that today I have reached 0, and today I would have counted ω days, at any point in the past, let's say n days ago, I wouldn't have finished my countdown, because I would have counted ω-n days.
Since ω-n is a different number than ω in the surreal numbers formalism, there is no contradiction.
If n = ω , then we are in the case in which I had an infinite number of days to count an infinite number of days, still no contradiction there.
12:06 "but growing in an earlier than direction, which is absurd"
Why ? Why is it absurd ?
🥱 *YAWN* No; that tactic would work (or, rather SEEM to work) only if you STARTED your count at '0', and worked your way BACKWARD through time. Simply "starting" at '0', and assigning a negative designation to each "successive" day "before" 0 [-1, then -2, then -3.....] CONCEPTUALLY endlessly *ISN'T* the same as counting WITHOUT beginning in the past, and ending at '0'. "Contradiction" isn't the problem; the problem is that, although it's a somewhat useful MATHEMATICAL concept (like the infinity of conceptual mathematical points in an inch of linear space, or a period of linear time), an actual infinite past for a physical reality is absurd, ill-conceived, and quite impossible (just as an actual [rather than conceptual mathematical] infinity in an inch of linear space or a period of linear time is absurd, ill-conceived, and quite impossible).
No; like *MANY* before you, you've *UTTERLY FAILED* to hang-with Dr. Craig. 😏😉😜
@@johnharrison6745 *-"an actual infinite past for a physical reality is absurd, ill-conceived, and quite impossible"*
Which exactly what needs to be demonstrated , and exactly what WLC himself failed to achieve, as he admitted himself by saying that there is no logical contradiction (therefore not absurd) but only "counter intuitive consequences" ...
Infinite past is neither absurd nor impossible, which is why it is not rejected in philosophy, and why it is present in some cosmological models in physics.
@@MrGustavier "failed to achieve... by saying there is no logical contradiction": There's "no logical contradiction" in the proposition of infinite conceptual mathematical points in an inch of linear measurement either; the impossibility, absurdity, and flaws in conception come when you propose the "conclusion" that that "fact" means that there's infinite linear space in that inch.
Yes; infinite past is both absurd and impossible. It's "accepted" (or, rather, USED) by philosophers who want to solve insoluble problems (OR problems to which they DON'T LIKE the REAL answer), and physicists who are 🤪, want there to be no god, and/or NEED an infinite past to MAKE their cosmological models 'work'.
No, the only failures here are YOURS (and the ones you've "referenced"), NOT MacGyver. 😏😉😜
@@johnharrison6745 *-"Yes; infinite past is both absurd and impossible."*
Please substantiate that claim.
Let's see if you can succeed where WLC has failed !
6:05 “… in view of its counter intuitive consequences, is that really possible?”
I don’t know if this is deliberate but if you strongly believe it is impossible why formulate it as a question instead of just saying so straight up. My guess is that actually defending that claim is really difficult so a suggestive question is an easy way out.
Btw I’m not saying that defending the contrary position is easy either but if we’re allowed to just answer with questions: Does something being counter intuitive *really* mean it is impossible? There you go.
To be fair, this is a response to a response to him. He has already stated clearly in his original position that he thinks it is impossible. The question is more a rhetorical device directed at his critics in this case.
@@Jasonmoofang His critics just answer “Yes!” straight up to that question, so I don’t see the point of repeating it. Lots of people just defended the Yes position and didn’t think his arguments has much sway within their fields of expertise. I don’t think that’s the time for rhetorical questions if he wants to engage seriously with them. To his own intended audience though, it might play fine.
@@HyperFocusMarshmallow I'm not sure how made up your mind is about this, but fwiw, it seems to me clear that the whole point of this series is he is saying his critics didn't answer "yes" to the right questions. For eg, saying "yes" to "we can coherently talk about and indeed use infinity in our theories and mathematics" is not a "yes" to "there is an actually infinite number of actual things in the world at any particular moment in time". It seems to me that he does try to address the real points of divergence. Where the "yes"-s do not conflict with his view, he goes to length to say "yeah I agree with this too! My problem is with this *other* thing" - and I think this is the context of the rhetorical question you highlighted as well. It would be analogous to something like:
Person A: "It is impossible for this nurse to have stabbed the patient because she was seen in another room at the exact time of the stabbing"
Person B: "It is perfectly possible for a nurse to stab a patient"
Person A: "Yes, but if that nurse was known to be in another room at the exact time of the stabbing, is it possible for that nurse to stab the patient?" (valid rhetorical question, imo)
He also partially conceded the point when some of the content actually does say yes to a relevant question - that's the part about the tensedness of time. He concedes that if time was not tensed, then it is possible for an infinite past to simply exist and that you won't have the problem of it not being possible to have counted up to the present moment - because if time was not tensed the counting won't be necessary for the existence of now. But then he says he has argued further in book-length works that time is tensed rather than tenseless, and so the conversation would have to continue in that arena.
@@Jasonmoofang There were multiple people in the video. I can’t speak for all of them but I know some of them do think the past might be infinite and that Craig’s arguments don’t rule that out. I think there are many different way to cache that out and depending on how it’s done some of Craig’s points may be applicable and others won’t. The people in the video addressed multiple different questions and some of them may have been tangential. But some of them addressed important points of contention.
There may have been points not addressed, at that point I guess we go beyond a short ~ 1h TH-cam video and try to asses the prominent positions within the relevant fields instead.
@@HyperFocusMarshmallow Yeah, its a big topic, and Craig does seem to be right that none of this is new. I've followed this argument for some time and all of this seems to have pretty much been discussed. The summary seems to be that there is no coherence problems with infinity as a concept. It has counter intuitive properties, but that is okay in most uses of it - it only becomes a potential issue if we think we might have an actual infinite number of real things - then things like Hilbert's hotel, being an example of infinity instantiated with real objects, suggest that it might not be possible. One can nonetheless just bite the bullet and say yes, Hilbert's Hotel really is possible, and some people do grant that, including some other Christian philosophers. The possibility of counting up from infinite past is a separate argument, and Craig does seem to be right that people who think the past is infinite have to be committed to a tenseless theory of time to avoid the problem of the impossibility of reaching the present counting up from an infinite past. That conversation will then have to continue on theory of time, which it seems isn't touched on in the video.
"What if you have an infinite amount of time? Could you count all the numbers then?" NO and quite clearly so cause you'd always have more time to count "x+1", always, never reaching a boundary. That does not "seem" absurd, that IS absurd.
"You never get to the end of this process" (A.Moore) THANKS!
I find it really ridiculous that smart people assume actual infinites must be possible just because they can imagine them. And it's obvious why they do this: because of the Kalam cosmological argument and the overwhelming evidence of the big bang.
Honestly, most smart don't care for the Kalam and probably still think actual infinities are possible. Maybe they have a point...? And the big bang is no reason why the past cannot be infinite. So...no?
Because, when it comes to belief in the existence of God, people know He exists, they either accept that fact or they don't, WITH THEIR HEARTS. The fool pride's himself an intellectual, but the anger in his heart makes his mind go afoul.
Ah, I see….
So in your view, are all of them arguing dishonestly against what they know to be true or are at least some of them arguing in good faith without recognizing the truth in their heart?
@@gmlr dishonestly yes, but don't underestimate the power of lies that people tell to THEMSELVES, because from those lies most people cannot tell the difference from when they are being honest or not. Often people pride themselves in being an honest rationalist, never being willing to face the lies they've told themselves and have been living out for years. What's one of the biggest lies people tell themselves and won't admit? "I don't LIKE this idea of God and religion, and I'll prove it with my own mind and intelligence." Where the heart is, the mind will follow. And where the heart is wrong, the mind will make up lie after lie to preserve the justification and protect the ego. We reject the Creator, and become our own god. You know how common and far back that error goes? All the way back to our beginning when we became different than all the other animals.
@@Gruuvin1 that all atheists are dishonestly suppressing the truth in themselves is an assumption that I don‘t think ist true. In addition I think it is not helpful for any constructive discussion.
✝️❤️🔥🙏🏽
What Craig expresses here, is what is known as Confirmation Bia. He tries to interpret what the experts says, so it would look like they’re not against his position.
The experts are showing that Craig’s intuition and approach towards infinity is what leads to the presumed absurdities he outlines. They’re showing that using the right reasoning, there’s nothing absurd or contradictory about the concept of actual infinity. At best, they can look weird or counter intuitive if and only if, you’re not familiar with the concept. But, Craig still clings to his intuition and reasoning, in other to twist what the experts are saying and claim, there’re not addressing his fallacious points.
He doesn’t want to change, neither does he wants to take correction. In Endless and Infinity by Alex Malpass and Moriston, they addressed Craig’s false assertion that “There cannot be infinite set through successive addition”. Again, Craig overlooks these objections and refutations and still baselessly assert that it’s impossible.
Craig is not a truth seeker, he’s just an evangelist who wants to defend his god in every possible way, even if that requires telling a lie, ignoring corrections and twisting objections.
"It's weird and counterintuitive if and only if you're not familiar with the concept"
Anyone can say that about anything, even dialetheists about round squares.
"Malpass and Morriston have already refuted it, but Craig keeps saying it's impossible"
The reason is extremely simple: Morriston and Malpass only pretend to know what they're talking about. Both deliberately ignore Craig's work on the philosophy of time and think they can go around presuming anything on the topic.
The fact is that the mere fact that it is theoretically possible to obtain a Hilbert hotel from the construction of a room per hour in an eternal past already clearly shows the relevant asymmetry with the eternal future. Malpass is childlike about this answer by Loke (which Craig subscribes to), playing with modality, just because he thinks that no rational epistemology of modality is reliable. Someone like that discussing metaphysics is like an eliminative materialist discussing phenomenology. It's no wonder that it will only result in nonsense.
"Craig is not a true seeker"
It's not just Craig who advocates rational positions. There is a whole philosophical tradition of common sense, even among detractors of kalam (like Mike Huemer). Cantor himself agreed with medieval kalam because of the argument against infinite succession, not to mention Hilbert himself. Would you dare to say that they don't understand infinity?
If you need to give up the resources of reason to avoid theism, then that is just motive to be suspicious of your religious worldview, not reason.
@@caiomateus4194
Morriston and Malpass only pretends to know huh ? Have you engaged their literature and show how false it is ?
Even scholars here, agrees with what they wrote.
“They ignored Craig’s book…..”
Who’s taking about Craig’s books about Time ? Dude ! They addressed Craig’s mere assertion which is “You cannot have infinity by successive addition”.
Go and read the article and stop arguing blindly like your counterpart.
Well, it’s obvious you’re in line with your counterpart who plays blind amidst the overwhelming evidence against his absurd points.
@@caiomateus4194 Yet, all counter-intuitions have been resolved a long time ago concerning infinities. So again, how is the concept of infinity absurd exactly?
@@zsoltnagy5654 its unachievable in any quantitative sense. Its impossible to have an actually infinite number of things because you can never reach infinity, you will always be infinitely far from reaching a quantitative infinite.
5:50 "right ! It's just what happens *if* you have an infinity that's a big if"
Sure, and since WLC is incapable of demonstrating it's logical impossibility, then that if is acceptable, and indeed accepted in philosophy and in physics.
6:14 "But, in view of its counter intuitive consequences, is that really possible?"
The counter intuitive nature of the Hilbert's hotel vanishes if one uses the proper mathematical formalism, there is no counter intuitive consequences of the Hilbert's hotel in the surreal numbers formalism.For the same reason that there is no counter intuitive consequences for AL Ghazali's example of Jupiter and Saturn : if Jupiter does two revolutions when Saturn does one, and if they have been orbiting forever, then Jupiter did ω revolutions, and Saturn did ω/2 revolutions.
What is counter intuitive about that ?
🥱 Dr. Craig's demonstrated the logical impossibility of an actual infinity MANY times. [GOOGLE it] And, no, an actual infinity (NOT just a "ONE-WAY" infinity), though it may be "accepted" by INDIVIDUAL physicists/philosophers, is PRECISELY the OPPOSITE of NONCONTROVERSIAL in the COMMUNITY of physicists/philosophers. [and, the ones who do accept them are 🤪]
No; the problems to actual infinities that are presented by Hilbert's Paradox of the Grand Hotel (and the 'Jupiter: 2; Saturn: 1' example) are, like the 'Working FORWARD TO Zero' proposition above, given only the APPEARANCE of resolution by mathematical formulae and numerical assignment. In reality, those formulae and assignments would illustrate resolution to FINITE "problems" with comparable principles, but, NOT to INIFINITE ones. THAT'S what's "counter intuitive" here, "Genius". 😏😉😜
He gave an example as to why an actual infinite can lead to logical impossibility i.e. the Grim reaper paradox.
WLC said, there's nothing incoherent Cantorian infinity. The counter intuitive examples arise when you try to instantiate this infinity in reality like a Hilbert's hotel. Is the hotel fully occupied or not? It's both! If such a hotel exists.
And about Jupiter and Saturn, you rightly observe that Saturn will always have half as many revolutions as Jupiter: ω/2. Yet if you want to say that an actual infinite exists (in terms of the number of revolutions), then strictly both of them should have an INFINITY number of revolutions - which means both of them have the same number of revolutions. Which is counter-intuitive.
@@johnharrison6745 *-"Dr. Craig's demonstrated the logical impossibility of an actual infinity MANY times."*
No he hasn't, if he had, he wouldn't say that actual infinities have "counter intuitive consequences".
If he had, he wouldn't just ask whether it is possible or not, he would assert its impossibility.
WLC never asserts the impossibility of actual infinites, because he knows very well that he would not be able to justify such a strong claim.
*-"In reality, those formulae and assignments would illustrate resolution to FINITE "problems" with comparable principles, but, NOT to INIFINITE ones."*
That is incorrect, the surreal numbers formalism indeed works with infinite numbers (and infinitesimals).
@@sedmercado24 *-"He gave an example as to why an actual infinite can lead to logical impossibility i.e. the Grim reaper paradox."*
The impossibility of actual infinite doesn't follow from the grim reaper paradox.
I recommend you check the unsatisfiable pair diagnosis.
*-"The counter intuitive examples arise when you try to instantiate this infinity in reality like a Hilbert's hotel."*
I hope you're not suggesting that we can assert the impossibility of something just because it is *"counter intuitive"* ... ?
*-" then strictly both of them should have an INFINITY number of revolutions - which means both of them have the same number of revolutions. Which is counter-intuitive."*
Here you are working on the assumption that all infinities have the same "size", the same "cardinal", are represented by the same number. This just means that your formalism is not strong enough to accurately depict the situation.
It's like if I told you that the three angles of my triangle sum up to 300 degrees, and you tell me "that's impossible". Then I teach you about topology and curvature, and then you understand what I meant.
In that example, your failure to accept the possibility of the 300 degrees only came from the weakness of your formalism that couldn't account for it, where a more precise, more accurate, stronger formalism can account for the 300 degrees.
It's the same thing for infinity, your formalism seems to paint all infinities with the same label, and then you point at Saturn and Jupiter and say "look, it's counter intuitive" ... Sure, because your formalism is too weak, learn about the surreal numbers and you will see that your failure to accept the possibility of actual infinites only comes from the weakness of your formalism.
@@MrGustavier I don't think, that the sum of the internal angles of a triangle is 300°. I would rather say, that the sum of those angles is 180°, since a full angle is defined to be 360° and that sum is supposed to be half of a full angle or to say, that sum is supposed to be a straight angle, what ever that might be in degrees.
If we can't settle this question/definition of a full angle in degrees, then why not just simply measure it in *radiants.* That appears to be a universal definition of an angle.
Then the sum of the internal angles of a triangle is π rad.
Besides this insignificant nit pick, I get, what you are trying to convey.
It's like listening to a person wondering about, whether or not soup exists, then that person proposes and suggests such a soup to exist and then considering and only proposing and suggesting that soup to be eaten with a fork and then wondering about counterintuitive result and conclusions of never be capable of enjoying that supposedly existing soup with a fork.
Did that person ever considered eating that soup with a spoon?
No, since that person already demonstrated that "absurdity" about a supposedly existing soup and that is already sufficient to conclude the existence of such a soup to be metaphysically impossible.
Yeah, I would rather assume such a proposition and suggestion to be absurd and irrational in itself and similarly I think, that the propositions or suggestions of infinity being "absurd" based upon such similar reasoning is also just absurd.
Those persons might consider this to be "beating a dead horse". Well, then I'm going to beat that dead horse, till that horse resurrects like Jesus Christ supposedly did and till that horse is getting some real sense and intuition about eating soup with a spoon instead with a fork and handling infinities with the correct and compatible methods instead with incompatible methods and assumptions.
Alex malpass defending always doing an infinite amount of orbits, how can something always do an infinite number of things if it never started and if it never had a first orbit, how can it reach an infinitely many, its just illogical. Never had a first orbit, second orbit, third orbit, but yet its always done infinitely many. Just nonsense
No, the divergence being always zero for infinity is not paradoxical. If that's supposed to be paradoxical, then that is at most counter-intuitive or a so called "falsidical paradox".
Any non-finite function f: R->R can be projected into the finite box [-1;1]×[-1;1] with the following transformation:
x -> x'=tanh(x) and
y -> y'=tanh(y)
=> x=arctanh(x')
=> h: [-1;1]->[-1;1] with f'(x')=tanh(f(arctanh(x')))
Suppose planet 1 making two orbits for any made orbit of planet 2.
Further suppose the following functions counting the orbits of those two planets from today:
Planet 1: f(x)=2x with x being the number of orbits of planet 2 and f(x) caunting the number of orbits of planet 1
Planet 2: g(x)=x with x being the number of orbits of planet 2 and g(x) counting the number of orbits of planet 2.
Further consider the above transformation into the finite box [-1;1]×[-1;1]:
Planet 1: f'(x')=tanh(2arctanh(x'))
Planet 2: g'(x')=tanh(arctanh(x'))=x'
Both counts go to the point P'(1|1), which represents here the point P(infinite|infinite). So yeah in the infinite future both numbers of orbits will be infinite for both planets and indifferent to each other (basically the same goes for the infinite past).
Yes, this is counter-intuitive.
SO WHAT?!?
It's also very counter-intuitive, that from all American people Donald Trump was ever elected to be the President of the USA. Yet that happened any way and to the contrary of any counter-intuitions.
So yeah, that's how infinity appears to work. So then why should be such a thing of a planet 1 making two orbits for any orbit of planet 2 for all eternity being impossible? Because you falsely assume there to be a "first" orbit of those two planets?
I don't think so.
@@zsoltnagy5654 Nothing can be infinitely old and always infinitely old that makes no sense. Imagine if I was infinitely old, but yet I never had a first birthday, I never was conceived, I was never born, no event actually ever happened and yet I have always been infinitely old. Its like saying I ran a race forever but I never took a step, I finished an infinite race without starting it. Its just a contradiction to always be infinitely old, shows that everything that exists in time must have a beginning.
@@ceceroxy2227 I'm capable of picturing you being infinitely old perfectly.
So where is the contradiction here?
@@ceceroxy2227 Besides that did you know, that God never had a birthday and before his supposed "creation" God was never conceived?
So you can imagine God being all of that, but not yourself being all of that?!?
How so? This appears to be a special pleading and also to be a double standard. Your proposition is really not convincing in any given way.
@@zsoltnagy5654 was I ever conceived or born