Thank you kindly! Alex actually suggested I reach out to you and see if you'd like to come on the channel - I think that would be great fun, so do let me know. Cheers!
The thing i genuinely love about Dr Malpass is his ability to quickly engage with and steel man the positions of his interlocutor. Probably because when he asses the arguments of himself and others he does what every good philosopher should do, which is to anticipate, consider and answer the objections others will raise. I'm merely a layman, having never had any formal training or education in philosophy however. I'm assuming your channel is in it's early days but i lookn forward to seeing what you bring to the table in the future... Subscribed.
Malpass's audio quality was so bad it was difficult to listen to. Really unfortunate. Koons's side was clear, though, and he makes a pretty interesting case. Koons and D-bone have been doing a lot of work on the 5 Ways recently, and you get a taste of that in Koons's presentation.
Miles sarcastically says: "There it is, I've completely shown that this cannot be refuted, it must be true!" (Which was indeed funny!) Then Alex says: "Yeah I guess you're right. I think you've just converted me to Hinduism on the basis of your argument." I almost died laughing at this point. Alex somehow found the quickest way possible to say, "even if your argument were true, it doesn't follow that your particular God is the true God."
There are two hypotheses being compared: one according to which the universe has a start and the other according to which the universe has no start. On the hypothesis that the universe has a start, someone could begin a count down at that start and perhaps reach 0 today. On the alternative hypothesis - where the universe has no start - if someone has been counting down, then, since the universe didn’t have a start, their counting down didn’t have a start. I’m not sure why this is supposed to be mysterious.
The KCA is special pleading. If the universe began to exist, so did the principles therein. You can't exempt causality from beginning to exist just for the sake of your argument.
The proponent of the kalam could respond here that the principle that whatever begins to exist has a cause is not a principle that only holds within the universe. The proposal is that such a principle is metaphysical in nature and therefore applies to whatever happens to exist and come into being: universes, souls, or abstract objects (if some of them do in fact come into being, as some philosophers hold). This isn't a crazy proposal; the laws of logic, or the principle that everything with a shape has a size, are also metaphysically necessary and apply to everything that exists. They do not come into being with the universe. Now, you might claim that the proponent of the kalam hasn't given sufficient reason for thinking that the first premise is metaphysically necessary; but then, that's a different objection than the mere assumption that the causal principle is only applicable within the universe.
@@mileskdonahue75 I would then ask for an example of cause and effect that is not constrained to the universe. Otherwise that's just ad hoc rationalization. Metaphysical doesn't mean outside of or prior to the universe, by the way, not even close.
@@ScienceFoundation Perhaps a better way of going would be modal. Take the numerical identities and mathematical truths, or the truths of logic. Almost nobody is skeptical about these, and even less people will say they are contingent (nobody I know of, anyway). So, it looks like your option if you want to maintain the necessity of some causal principle that is not more fundamental than physical existence would be to declare the universe is necessary (at least its fundamental state and invariants like the physical constants together with your causal principle). Oppy goes for something like this. But the opposing view, i.e., that there are necessary truths and the universe is contingent, is not special pleading, it seems to me.
![Chris Langan - The Interview THEY Didn't Want You To See - CTMU [Full Version; Timestamps]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/9miVG2xT5jY/mqdefault.jpg)
![F.HERO Ft. JSPKK x ลำไย ไหทองคำ x M-PEE - ไม่สนิทบิดหมด (Thai Riders Anthem) [Official MV]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/kPJZ0UihBfk/mqdefault.jpg)
I see Malpass, I watch, like, comment and share
This is a fantastic interview. Miles did a good job.
Thank you kindly! Alex actually suggested I reach out to you and see if you'd like to come on the channel - I think that would be great fun, so do let me know. Cheers!
The thing i genuinely love about Dr Malpass is his ability to quickly engage with and steel man the positions of his interlocutor. Probably because when he asses the arguments of himself and others he does what every good philosopher should do, which is to anticipate, consider and answer the objections others will raise. I'm merely a layman, having never had any formal training or education in philosophy however. I'm assuming your channel is in it's early days but i lookn forward to seeing what you bring to the table in the future... Subscribed.
Thank you kindly! I think you're absolutely right about Dr. Malpass - he is an excellent philosopher.
Great interview. Good luck with your channel 👍
Thank you! Keep coming back, as they say.
Good stuff. Can’t find the debate between Malpass & Koons so I’m guessing it hasn’t been released yet. Sounds exciting tho
Malpass's audio quality was so bad it was difficult to listen to. Really unfortunate. Koons's side was clear, though, and he makes a pretty interesting case. Koons and D-bone have been doing a lot of work on the 5 Ways recently, and you get a taste of that in Koons's presentation.
Miles sarcastically says: "There it is, I've completely shown that this cannot be refuted, it must be true!" (Which was indeed funny!)
Then Alex says: "Yeah I guess you're right. I think you've just converted me to Hinduism on the basis of your argument."
I almost died laughing at this point. Alex somehow found the quickest way possible to say, "even if your argument were true, it doesn't follow that your particular God is the true God."
Haha I'm glad you enjoyed our wit and wisdom!
I don’t see how anyone can count down from infinity. What number did they start with?
There was no start. That's the point.
There are two hypotheses being compared: one according to which the universe has a start and the other according to which the universe has no start.
On the hypothesis that the universe has a start, someone could begin a count down at that start and perhaps reach 0 today.
On the alternative hypothesis - where the universe has no start - if someone has been counting down, then, since the universe didn’t have a start, their counting down didn’t have a start.
I’m not sure why this is supposed to be mysterious.
The KCA is special pleading. If the universe began to exist, so did the principles therein. You can't exempt causality from beginning to exist just for the sake of your argument.
The proponent of the kalam could respond here that the principle that whatever begins to exist has a cause is not a principle that only holds within the universe. The proposal is that such a principle is metaphysical in nature and therefore applies to whatever happens to exist and come into being: universes, souls, or abstract objects (if some of them do in fact come into being, as some philosophers hold). This isn't a crazy proposal; the laws of logic, or the principle that everything with a shape has a size, are also metaphysically necessary and apply to everything that exists. They do not come into being with the universe. Now, you might claim that the proponent of the kalam hasn't given sufficient reason for thinking that the first premise is metaphysically necessary; but then, that's a different objection than the mere assumption that the causal principle is only applicable within the universe.
@@mileskdonahue75 I would then ask for an example of cause and effect that is not constrained to the universe. Otherwise that's just ad hoc rationalization.
Metaphysical doesn't mean outside of or prior to the universe, by the way, not even close.
@@ScienceFoundation Perhaps a better way of going would be modal. Take the numerical identities and mathematical truths, or the truths of logic. Almost nobody is skeptical about these, and even less people will say they are contingent (nobody I know of, anyway). So, it looks like your option if you want to maintain the necessity of some causal principle that is not more fundamental than physical existence would be to declare the universe is necessary (at least its fundamental state and invariants like the physical constants together with your causal principle). Oppy goes for something like this. But the opposing view, i.e., that there are necessary truths and the universe is contingent, is not special pleading, it seems to me.
In the debate Malpass references Koons absolutely destroyed him. Clear case of an A-tier philosopher debating a C-tier one.
Koons uses an updated modified kalam argument doesn't he?