@@TheBookgeek7 Yeah maybe, but that would have been a different format. There are debates between Craig and someone like Sean Carroll were Craig has the opportunity to respond. Highly recommendable.
@@LomuHabanait’s an outdated debate, Sean’s objections had been refuted for a long time and the refutations were refuted and the refutation of the refutations were refuted etc….
These Theists don't understand Science or Ancient history...the Kalam Cosmological Argument has nothing to do with God...the Universe needs no Cause ..divine or otherwise
10:10 The atheist debunks himself right there. He states that 1+2+3… to infinite is -1/12. LOL. He’s applying the analytic continuation of the Riemann Zeta function outside of where it’s defined. However, the actual series itself still is divergent and is meaningless. Real mathematicians immediately laugh.
I winced when he talked about “the” answer. Depending on your topology on the set, 1+2+3+… converges to every number on the complex plane (indiscrete topology). Some topologies are obviously more useful than others.
These Theists don't understand Science or Ancient history...the Kalam Cosmological Argument has nothing to do with God...the Universe needs no Cause ..divine or otherwise
Hi Joie. Physicist do this kind of thing all the time. If memory serves, the -1/12 thing came up as a ‘requirement’ for a QED calculation (I think by Feynman), well after it’s discovery by Ramanujan or Littlewood, or somebody. In this (very) restricted context, it appears to have mathematics as well as physics implications. Btw, extending the meanings and ideas of mathematics, beyond the current boundaries, is a typical hallmark of progress in mathematical physics, and mathematics itself. You could expend a lifetime studying examples. I think it was Hunt who finished off the proofs for basic Fourier series and integrals, in the 1960s or 1970s, using Walsh functions, a century after their invention and use as essential tools in science and engineering. Cheers.
@@SystemsMedicine Yes, the analytic continuation is a mark of progress and can have applications in certain highly specific fields. I’m against making the analytic continuation of using this to disprove God. Not all mathematics correspond to reality.
a small thing but krauss' comment that "if you sum the series, “1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + 5 + 6…” to infinity, what’s the answer? “-1/12.” You don’t like it? Too bad!" enrages me as a mathematician, the infinite sum of n starting from 1 going onwards is simply *not* -1/12. it is divergent and thus doesn't *have* a limit. although he did mention complex numbers, this only makes sense in the context of the analytic continuation of the euler zeta function, the riemann zeta function, and does not apply to the real summation of the natural numbers. granted, it's a lot to squeeze into a debate about a completely different topic but it annoys me (and isn't particularly relevant to the argument at hand /anyway/) so there we are
also i don't really understand why the atheist brings up so many of the mathematical intricacies, no philosopher needs to know about adding different types of infinities to each other, it simply isn't relevant to the argument and serves to muddy the waters by bringing into play a completely different discipline.
Muddying the waters is all atheists can do. When the entirety of a worldview is at its core a negation - and therefore cannot legitimately affirm anything - making a mess of that which *is* ends up being the only course of action at their disposal.
@@EddySteel your point, which I think is on point (no pun intended) brings me back to the idea I always have regarding theoretical math - how is it not obviously and absolutely useless endeavor? Playing with things that can never exist in reality, to what purpose? For what theological and useful goal or purpose? It would be like me choosing a career where all I do all day is make up hypothetical situations that could never ever exist and what might happen if they did. An absolute waste of every single talent God had ever given me.
Krauss made this exact statement in another debate with someone else. I emailed him and told him that while I am on his side in general, he's wrong on this particular claim. I told him absolutely no one in the math department will agree that the sum of the positive integers is equal to any real number. Then I told him that zeta(-1)=-1/12, where zeta denotes the Riemann-zeta function. He actually responded to me and said he'd watch the videos that I recommended.
🎯 Key Takeaways for quick navigation: 00:03 🎬 Introduction to rebuttal of a documentary critiquing the Kalam cosmological argument. 00:15 🧠 Explanation of the Kalam cosmological argument's structure. 00:42 📖 The Kalam argument isn't strictly for God; its cause analysis leads to divine properties. 01:24 🎥 Atheistic documentary critiquing Kalam argument lacks comprehensive response to objections. 02:10 🌋 Different origin myths vs. scientific and religious views on universe's beginning. 03:07 🧮 Infinity's abstract vs. concrete existence and mathematical coherence. 05:14 📚 Philosophers' interpretations of infinity's abstract nature. 06:24 🔀 Distinction between actual and potential infinity illustrated through examples. 08:54 🏠 Georg Cantor's work on infinite sets' correspondence properties. 09:33 🚫 Metaphysical possibility vs. strict logical possibility in relation to infinity's existence. 10:55 🤔 Craig's response to Lawrence Krauss's objection regarding infinite sums. 13:12 🧐 Acceptance of counterintuitive nature of infinity vs. rejection of counterintuitive divine attributes. 16:12 🏨 Hilbert's Infinite Hotel paradox as an illustration of problems with actual infinity. 19:56 🧠 Resolving paradoxes through changing the definition of "full" or rejecting actual infinity. 23:38 🚫 Contradictions in subtracting identical quantities from identical quantities in infinite sets. 24:46 🔄 Discrepancies between theoretical existence of actual infinite sets and their real-world implications. 25:01 🧮 Cantor's aleph infinities: There are different infinities (alephs), like aleph null and aleph seven, which behave differently from finite numbers when added or subtracted together. Infinities don't follow standard arithmetic rules. 26:22 ➖ Subtraction and infinite case: Subtraction of infinite numbers is not well-defined; there's no clear answer for what to subtract from an infinite number to get another infinite number. This highlights issues with dealing with actual infinities. 27:30 🏨 Hilbert's Hotel and subtraction: Subtracting infinite quantities isn't logically contradictory in mathematics but applying it to real-world scenarios, like the Hilbert's Hotel example, leads to contradictions and absurdities. 29:34 0 and actual infinites: Zero and actual infinities are problematic when instantiated in the real world, leading to contradictions. Zero is a description of absence, not a concrete thing with no value. 31:08 🌌 Metaphysical impossibility: Infinites in the real world lead to metaphysical impossibilities or contradictions, distinct from logical impossibilities. Philosophical discussions extend the argument's applicability. 32:29 ♾️ Mathematical vs. physical infinites: Craig affirms that actual infinites are accepted in mathematics, but they can't exist in the physical world. Disagreements arise regarding the definition and implications of "metaphysical possibility." 35:18 🕰️ Time and infinity paradoxes: Paradoxes arise when dealing with infinite causal chains or histories, indicating issues with the existence of an actual infinite past or set. The application of infinity in physics doesn't necessarily imply its existence in reality. 41:10 🧮 Mathematical use of infinity: Infinity is a valid concept in mathematics, but its use in equations and models doesn't guarantee its existence in the physical world. Mathematical models don't always correspond to reality. 43:26 🔍 Limitations of physics and models: Physics often uses mathematical concepts that might not correspond to reality, like imaginary numbers. The equations and models physicists use don't necessarily reflect how the world truly operates. 46:10 ⏰ Transition to infinity: Craig's argument is not about reaching infinity in a certain amount of time, but about the structure of time itself forming by successive addition. The infinite past is considered metaphysically impossible. 49:41 ➗ Rejecting premise 2: The documentary rejects the premise that the past is formed by successive addition, but it does so without providing a 49:54 🕒 The difference between potential infinite and actual infinite: An endless future is a potential infinite, while a beginningless past is an actual infinite collection of events. 51:18 🌌 Supporters of the Kalam argument emphasize the importance of an infinite future for cosmic and moral significance. 52:00 🔄 Meaningfulness of finite lives: The assertion that lives lose ultimate meaning without eternity is questioned, as human suffering still matters in the context of individual experiences. 53:23 🔀 An endless future vs. a beginningless past: Arguments about the possibility of infinity apply differently to future and past, with an endless future being potentially infinite and a beginningless past being actually infinite. 54:45 🏨 Infinite Hotel paradox: The comparison between infinite events in the future and guests in a hotel illustrates the compatibility of an infinite future with the Kalam argument. 56:25 🔃 Forming infinite collections: It's inconceivable to successively form an actually infinite collection, both in the case of future events and counting negative numbers. 57:05 🧮 Lok's version of the Kalam argument: An infinite past leads to paradoxes, implying its metaphysical impossibility. 58:29 🔄 Infinity in singularity vs. cosmic time: The concept of infinity in the context of a singularity and cosmic time is different, not refuting the Kalam argument. 01:09:02 ⏰ Relativity and the uniqueness of now: Craig's assumption of an absolute present moment contradicts relativity, but this doesn't directly challenge the Kalam argument. 01:13:00 📅 Different views of time: The Kalam argument isn't necessarily tied to an absolute present moment and can accommodate alternative views of time compatible with relativity. 01:14:07 ⏱️ Compatibility of presentism and special relativity: Presentism can be defended without fully accepting how special relativity is applied, as special relativity doesn't necessarily rule out a privileged reference frame. 01:14:47 🔄 Physics vs. reality: Equations and models in physics may not always reflect reality accurately, so the perceived incompatibility between the Kalam argument and special relativity equations might not translate to a conflict with reality. 01:15:17 🔄 Specific Kalam versions and objections: Some versions of the Kalam argument, such as Andrew Loke's and Alex Prus's, provide arguments against an infinite past that bypass the objections related to special relativity.
These Theists don't understand Science or Ancient history...the Kalam Cosmological Argument has nothing to do with God...the Universe needs no Cause ..divine or otherwise
Craig deceptively relies on Lorentzian space time to make his argument, which is incompatible with general relativity. The physics is really not addressed in this rebuttal. Plus the point of the infinite past is well accepted possibility in contemporary physics what exactly are you arguing
Trent, you explained Dr Craig's "metaphysically impossible" argument much better than I've heard him make it... After the Akin-Craig debate earlier this year, I thought Craig lost because he didn't provide a good explanation of why it is reasonable to conclude that a real infinity, but I think you made that case
These Theists don't understand Science or Ancient history...the Kalam Cosmological Argument has nothing to do with God...the Universe needs no Cause ..divine or otherwise
The only argument I saw for the metaphysical impossibility was essentially "I can't comprehend Hilbert's hotel so it's metaphysicaly impossible." He never even specifies what metaphysical principal actual infinities would violate. His use of the phrase metaphysicaly impossible is nothing more that a buzz word
Amazing video. I'll be watching again.. really interesting. God bless you T-HORN. You're like the Thorn in Atheists arguments that makes them uncomfortable.
The funny thing about the way humans conceptualize infinity in mathematics is that they always start with 1, at the beginning. But when applied to the universe, they want us to start from today and count backward into an infinite past. Even infinity in the abstract follows the Kalam Argument, as no matter how far you get counting upward into infinity, you can always turn around and go back to 1, which was set in place by some mathematician building an abstract Tower of Babel.
this is just false... the natural number set that starts with 1 is the easiest one. But you also have the whole number set that goes from minus infinity to plus infinity. If both the past and future are infinite then our universe wuld be much more similar to that whole number set, and we would be just in whatever arbitrary point, could be exactly 0 if you want or it could be +5 trillion
Seriously. I've started watching Craig Lane's debates in 2007 and after 15 years there are still people who don't understand what he's been explaining over and over again.
Or maybe they do understand it but they are intelligent enough to know they can’t argue against the actual arguments so have to make distortions of Craig’s arguments so they can hold on to their worldview.
@@shane9095 Dishonesty is not out of the question, but it's often easy too see they just don't get it. If one is completely shut (intellectually and, especially, emotionally) to a particular idea, their brains will just refuse to understand anything that could validate it. I used to be an atheist of the worst sort, it took a long time for me to give the other side a chance.
@@vaderetro264 That’s a very good point and without a doubt true but I was commenting mostly about these people in this video who are the so called “experts” who’s job it is to understand arguments for them to dishonesty strawman Craig’s argument shows intellectual fragility. I wouldn’t hold this standard to the average person on the street but experts should be held to a higher standard especially when the should know better… I find the constant obfuscation by political actors and atheists to be tiring. Especially when they present themselves as being wise and experts.
These Theists don't understand Science or Ancient history...the Kalam Cosmological Argument has nothing to do with God...the Universe needs no Cause ..divine or otherwise Craig is a Liar and Charleton
🎯 Key Takeaways for quick navigation: 00:03 📺 The video is a rebuttal of an atheistic documentary criticizing the Kalam cosmological argument. 00:15 🤔 The Kalam argument states that whatever begins to exist has a cause; since the universe began to exist, it has a cause, which some argue could have divine properties. 02:10 🌋 The video contrasts creation myths with the Kalam argument, questioning its reliance on outdated cosmology. 03:07 📚 The atheist's documentary features critiques from scientists and philosophers, but it omits responses from defenders like William Lane Craig. 05:14 🧮 Infinity is debated: mathematicians differentiatebetween abstract and concrete infinities; philosophers like Aristotle distinguish actual from potential infinity. 07:31 🏨 Hilbert's Infinite Hotel paradox highlights counterintuitive outcomes with actual infinite sets and their implications in reality. 13:12 💭 Accepting counterintuitive aspects of the infinite in math, while rejecting similar counterintuitive attributes for God, raises questions about consistency. 16:12 🔀 The distinction between abstract and concrete infinities is crucial: mathematical operations on paper don't necessarily translate into reality without contradictions. 18:05 🏨 Hilbert's Infinite Hotel paradox showcases challenges with adding and subtracting from infinite sets, illustrating how reality diverges from mathematical operations. 21:20 ➖ Subtracting from infinite sets in reality results in counterintuitive outcomes, emphasizing the limits of applying mathematical principles directly to the physical world. 25:01 🧮 Cantor's infinities: There are different sizes of infinities (aleph-null, aleph-one, etc.), and adding infinities follows unique rules. 26:36 🧙♂️ Subtraction and infinite: Subtraction in the context of actual infinites is not well-defined; trying to subtract infinity from infinity leads to contradictions. 28:13 🤯 Infinity paradoxes: Manipulating actual infinites can lead to paradoxes, revealing their metaphysical impossibility in the real world. 30:27 🌌 Zero and infinity: Zero and infinity have distinct roles in mathematics, but when instantiated in the real world, they lead to contradictions. 32:17 🔄 Infinity views consistency: Craig maintains that his stance on infinity is consistent across various debates, considering metaphysical impossibility. 33:11 📐 Infinity in mathematics: Craig's appeal to Hilbert's Hotel does not reject mathematical infinity; he affirms actual infinity in the realm of mathematics. 35:48 🕰️ Infinite past paradoxes: Infinite causal chains and histories lead to paradoxes, indicating the impossibility of an actual infinite past. 39:19 🏢 Paradox of room construction: A hypothetical scenario of infinite room construction leads to contradictions, highlighting the impossibility of an infinite past. 43:13 🛠️ Physics and infinity: Physicists use mathematical models involving infinity, but this doesn't prove the actual existence of infinite quantities in the physical world. 44:34 🔮 Mathematical models: Physics models are mathematical tools, not necessarily accurate reflections of reality; some physicists view their theories as abstract calculations. 46:38 ⏰ Successive addition and infinity: Craig's argument relies on the idea that time forms through successive addition, leading to the impossibility of an infinite past. 48:57 🔄 Sequence of counting numbers: The sequence of counting numbers is infinite and lacks an end, which is consistent with the absence of an infinite past. 49:54 🕰️ Craig argues that an endless future is a potential infinite, which is possible, while a beginningless past is an actual infinite and impossible due to contradictions like Hilbert's Hotel. 51:18 🌌 Supporters of the Kalam argue that an infinite future provides meaningful significance, unlike a naturalistic worldview where everything ends in cosmic insignificance. 52:13 🤔 Critics question the claim that meaning relies on eternity, arguing that events' significance to individuals doesn't require cosmic permanence. 53:23 🏨 Hilbert's Hotel paradoxically illustrates that an infinite past (collection of events) is problematic, whereas an infinite future (collection of events) isn't contradictory. 55:14 🏨 Infinite past (completed by successive addition) and infinite future (formed by successive addition) differ; one is metaphysically impossible, the other isn't. 56:53 🏨 The proposed paradox about infinite future events doesn't apply, as these events don't all exist simultaneously; the same isn't true for infinite past events. 58:15 🔄 Lok's argument exposes the contradiction in assuming an infinite past and demonstrates that an infinite past is metaphysically impossible. 01:03:30 🔀 The claim that an infinite past and an infinite future are contradictory is incorrect; they refer to different concepts of infinity. 01:06:05 🌀 The singularity at the Big Bang doesn't necessarily imply an infinite past and doesn't refute the Kalam argument. 01:09:16 🕒 The Kalam argument doesn't require an absolute universal time; the objection based on relativity doesn't disprove it. 01:13:54 📜 The objection about relativity and the present moment doesn't undermine the Kalam argument; different views of time can be compatible with it. 01:14:07 🔄 Some physicists endorse the block universe view of time, while others support presentism; both views have their philosophical implications. 01:14:22 🤔 Special relativity's rejection of a privileged reference frame doesn't necessarily contradict presentism; this objection can be based on philosophical assumptions. 01:14:47 📡 The objection based on special relativity might not apply to reality itself, as equations and models in physics don't always perfectly reflect reality. 01:15:02 💡 The objection doesn't work against versions of the Kalam argument that demonstrate an infinite past is metaphysically impossible or show issues with infinitely long causal chains. 01:15:44 ⏭️ The next part will delve into the documentary's discussion of the Kalam's first premise and the scientific evidence supporting it.
The hotel problem is stupid. If every room is full, it doesn't matter if the number of rooms is infinite, they are still ALL OF THEM full. So it doesn't matter who you are going to move into another room, that room will be already occupied. The process will stop at the first room you try to move anybody in. Infinity changes nothing and is irrelevant. If it doesn't work with 20 rooms, it doesn't work with infinite rooms, because the procedure stops at room 1, not 20.
Wow, you're more brilliant than David Hilbert. You understand that this is a though experiment, right? You don't get redefine the hypothetical situation, otherwise it's not the same thought experiment, making your point irrelevant.
"Infinitely full" is a contradiction of terms. Being full implies completeness meaning finite. Might as well say Infinitely finite. But Hilbert's Hotel can be understood if you ignore the contradiction.
Re: Hilbert’s Hotel. If infinite rooms are filled with an infinite number of people, then every existing person has a room; there will be no new guests.
There is a joke that demonstrates this with negative numbers. A mathematician sees 2 people walk into a cave and then 3 people walk out and says: "if someone goes in there now, the Cave will be empty." In maths you can theoretically have a cave with negative 1 people in it, but in reality that is impossible. Theoretically you can have a universe with an infinite past, but in reality, it's impossible.
That is ridiculous analogy. No, you can’t have a negative amount of people in a cave. “Number of people” is always the natural numbers of course. But you can have two people less in a cave than you would on average expect. And there you go, negative numbers enter the discussion. But your example is completely unrelated to the question of a past eternal universe. There is nothing which prohibits it from being a physical reality, not from a conceptual point of view, not from a practical point of you. If you watched the original video, no mathematician or physicist claims the universe can’t have a infinite past. That is a real possibility.
@@Adiusa0874 Time might well be continuous, their als millisecond, nanoseconds and so forth. Time can be “negative” if you have clear reference point. As an econometrician, I regularly work with negative time subscripts. Past can be infinite, only apologists deny this, and they don’t do it because of illegitimate reasons.
@@Adiusa0874 You don’t understand the Planck scale I assume. The vast majority of scientists believe/work as if time is continuous. No, negative time (in reference to a specific point) is a reality, infinite past might very well be a reality. I know you don’t want it to be true, but facts don’t care about your feelings.
Ill point out also , even traveling to the past, you have changed something by merely occupying that space that was not occupied. Events and history arent just human actions but every physical interaction down to the quantum level.
The Kalam cosmological argument isn't my go-to argument (I prefer Thomistic cosmological arguments) but it's often not really given the time of day by atheists, instead claiming it's been "debunked" without saying why.
There are currently just a lot of unfalsifiable assumptions/speculations it relies upon. 1. Does the pre-big-bang universe/material have a beginning? 2. Does classical causality apply pre-inflation? 3. Does space-time have a finite beginning? 4. Many, many more. Dr. Craig assumes and argued for the “Yes” answer to these questions and more, when the majority of physicists who actually study it for their careers say well no we don’t actually know, we have several competing hypotheses with almost no ways to test them. So it’s not “debunked” in the sense that we know it is false. It is just “debunked” in the sense that there is no grounded evidential case for the claim being made, or another way to put it, the evidence supporting the Kalam is highly overstated.
I always question where the beginning of time was... atheists have always pointed to the big bang... from there I often ask where then did the matter come from and there is no answer.
@@nathanh2917 There are answers for “where did the pre-big bang energy/matter come from?” The problem with the answers, like with the Kalam, is that they are mostly speculative. Was it infinite? Was it a multiverse? Was it a branching space-time loop? Do black holes create new space-time dimensions and accumulate quantum energy until it reaches a critical mass? Did it originate from a spaceless timeless intentional cause? So long as we have no unified quantum theory of gravity that would help us model and answer some of the early universe questions, the best answer is “I have a possible explanation but I really don’t know.”
These Theists don't understand Science or Ancient history...the Kalam Cosmological Argument has nothing to do with God...the Universe needs no Cause ..divine or otherwise
You know, as a pretty firm thomist, I had hitherto believed the Kalam Cosmological argument was pretty weak, but looking at these objections, I see now how crap the arguments against it are.
any argument that starts with 'the universe began to exist' is pretty crap in itself because as per the law of conservation of mass/energy claims in effect that mass/energy cannot be created or destroyed.
@@pulsegamin4790 I mean, that depends on what is meant by "began to exist". Physicists have moved towards the view that there is zero net energy in the universe. If this is true, then that means that the matter (and anti-matter) that are parts of positive energy have a counterpart in the universe. To make an analogy, the universe isn't just the matter and energy we observe in our normal lives ( 1 ), there is a counterbalance to it ( -1 ), and the universe could have "began" to exist ( 0 -> 1 + -1 ). A change of state from "nothing" to both positive and negative energy existing in equal parts in the universe. This makes it so that there is a beginning to the universe, to matter, to energy, etc. without violating the Law of Conservation of Energy.
It is curious how many atheists on the Internet insult Craig, call his argument stupid and claim "that argument is already refuted" without having read the papers and books where Craig talks in depth about the subject and answers many of the typical objections
Lay atheist, those without the intellectual acumen to think for themselves, will naturally gravitate towards anyone who will validate their worldview, regardless the academic credibility of such a person. Interestingly, scientist rarely cross discipline meaning they are just as ignorant of other scientific disciplines as is the lay person. As Trent demonstrates it takes knowledge of several disciplines to effectively argue a broad position like the "cause" of the universe existing and that's where the philosophers shine. Peace.
Well many have to. If Craig is right, then they'll have to abandon the sexual free for all. People who want to spoil others' fun are hated. If they repeat he's been debunked enough times, it sticks and they can get on with the pr0n.
@@Tinesthia nun pr0n does not count as theistic areas... then again if some have a fetish for people who larp as clergy in secular fetish videos.... I suppose it could be a 'theistic area'. Just watch out for viruses when you do your applied research in those theistic areas, mate.
Great video T-Ho. Your genius lies in your ability to break down complex issues into understandable jargon. I've always recognized it, but here and in your debate with Dyer, it is most noticeable.
I saw part of it. I plan to engage Joe more in-depth in the future through some kind of exchange. I just recorded an exchange with Alex Malpass that will air in two weeks.
@@TheCounselofTrent cool Are you aware of Dr Alex Malpass's 3 hours long discussion on Thought adventure podcast RUclips channel? If yes please share your thoughts on that discussion And You and Joe Definitely should write a debate book please
@@TheCounselofTrent Hey Trent, will u be making a rebuttal video on Joe's rebuttal? To be fair it doesn't technically break your rules. Same goes to the review he made on your Ben Watkins debate.
Had a teacher at college who would get mad and correct anyone who said 'infinite' instead of 'approaching infinite' - he said it was an abuse of the mathematical language. He wore a shirt everyday that had the Ying yang symbol over the unit circle he was interesting.
Any new guest in Hilbert's Hotel is given a vacant room (Room 1, vacated by the previous guest who has been moved to the next room, Room 2) so I don't see see how, immediately prior to the new guest's occupancy of his room, the Hotel can say that all its rooms are full.
Infinity plus 1, infinity plus infinity, we all said that as a kid, but the wonderfulness of being a child never ponders it to disbelieve all the possibilities in life.
My problem with the notion of infinity is that it does not allow for change. If we understand change as either promoting growth/development or regression/reversion, then the universe, over the course of infinity (which has already occurred and continues) should already be either fully actualized or fully unactualized. The only way, as far as I can tell, to avoid this is if the probability of growth (per instance of change) is absolutely equal to the probability of regression (again, per instance of change). But in this scenario, there would only be perpetual stasis - a steady state with no change. All three of these scenarios (fully realized universe; totally unactualized universe; and steady state) are empirically untenable.
The problem lies with our perception of time. We experience time in a linear fashion. We arent capable of experiencing it in any other way as of now. Though I agree with you.
@turdferguson3400 Therefore, it's illogical to believe that neither is true or false. The answer is I don't know, which deems the argument for god to be logically incoherent.
These Theists don't understand Science or Ancient history...the Kalam Cosmological Argument has nothing to do with God...the Universe needs no Cause ..divine or otherwise
10:13 Lawrence Krauss is trying to refer to the fact that zeta(-1) = -1/12, but he does this in a way that is just *wrong* (the Riemann zeta function and the series of 1/n^s are not literally the same function). This is the dumbest meme in youtube math.
Any argument that convinces you that an eternal number of past events is not possible should also convince you that God has, so far, existed for a finite amount of time, has had a finite number of distinct thoughts. Therefore, at some point there is a first moment at which God began to exist. And if everything that begins to exist needs to have an explanation, then God also falls into the same bucket. Sorry I just find all this Kalam stuff really unconvincing.
Exactly. Theists don't know the implications of this argument. And it's still one of the old lazy arguments that have been debunked countless times. Anyone that studies philosophy or science should know that starting with an already made presumption and then using confirmational bias to justify said presumptions as a conclusion is baffingly stupid. Unless you can prove the uncaused cause, you're still playing mental gymnastics. Christians are just going around using and refuting objections to the Kalaam. Please, produce your evidence. It's funny how theologians and Theists believe that Ontological Arguments, Kalam Cosmological Arguments, Argument from Metaphysics, Argument from Fine Tuning is evidence. Argument≠Evidence Like seriously. At this point, this is obvious.
@@Steve-yn3cs I assume he is being sarcastic and referring to the constant special pleading of Christians/theists when it comes to god. “Universe must have a beginning, God doesn’t” (Kalam) “Universe is so complex that it must have been designed, God is of course infinitely more complex but isn’t designed” (fine tuning/teleological argument) “A maximally great Island is nonsense because “maximally great Island” is subjective, but maximally great being makes perfectly sense because everyone has the same idea of a “maximally great being” ” ( ontological argument) “ is just an opinion, unless god says it is true, then it is objective” (axiological argument)
For the Kalam to be valid requires something like "everything that begins to exist has a cause". The original video that Trent claims to be rebutting shows why this is false, and this on its own refutes the Kalam. It also shows how William Lane Craig misuses the BGV theory. But Trent spends almost all of this video discussing whether an actual infinity can exist. Why didn't he address the other points in the original video? Could it possibly be because he has no rebuttal for them?
There is a perfectly well-defined notion of removing elements from a set (infinite or not). It's called set difference. Cardinalities, in other words numbers, are a type of invariant for sets. You can do perfectly consistent things with infinite sets while the arithmetic of their cardinal numbers may not support a minus operation. That's because cardinality doesn't tell you all there possibly is to know about a set. For finite sets the arithmetic of their cardinalities has some nicer properties than if we allow infinite sets. But that's about it.
Trent, I love your videos and your arguments. Have you or any of your compatriots done a video on how the Roman church can allow for concepts from the eastern churches like katharthis/theosis or if this is incompatible?
A lot of it are disagreements based on definitions lost in translation. Or they just heard it wrong, like Taylor Swift’s song Blank Space, “..Starbucks lovers…” Im just appreciating now the Bible in the original Hebrew. We could have saved a lot of blood and guts if we stuck to the Hebrew. Try listening how messianic rabbi zev porat proclaims Jesus in Hebrew to the Israelis. Jesus is all over the Old Testament. The name of the messiah is revealed in the tanakh as Jesus all over the place, like literally Yeshua. Like a broken record. God has a sense of humor; he likes puns
Metaphysical possibility is a crucial distinction. My suspicion is that many forms of metaphysical possibility are related to causality. For example, Kripke's water=H2O shows that metaphysical necessity is grounded in instantiated causal relations. Metaphysical possibility and impossibility seem to relate to causal instantiation.
Thanks for your work. I've realized that the true geniuses of this world are not those in the upper echelons of academia. The most intelligent and knowledgeable are actually the independent researchers who aren't as bogged down with worrying about conforming to the expectations of mainstream academia. I believe this has always been true. The true geniuses have always been those who got no, or little, recognition. Anyone who did get recognition may be intelligent, but they won't be pushing truth fully. I consider you to be very intelligent particularly due to your ability to explain very complex topics in a way that is easy to understand for anyone.
Hey Trent, I’d love to hear your defense of evolution. I for most of my life believed in evolution, even if it may have been directed by God, however after i spent years teaching phd scientists at OSU, my mind was really changed. Im a linguist, not a biologist or paleontologist, so my job was to reduce the foreign phd students’ accents and teach them American pedagogical methods, so that they could teach undergraduate courses at OSU, which was part of keeping their research funding. So my classes consisted of 10 to 20 phd researchers from a wide variety of disciplines, from astrophysicists to molecular biologists and geneticists. My job was to listen to their practice lectures and I was to act as a student and test their ability to answer questions from a language standpoint. However, I was an intel analyst for the air force before getting into linguistics, so being essentially a former professional multidisciplinary researcher, I couldn’t help but test the disciplines against each other. I was shocked at how little the scientists knew about other disciplines. Even to the point where the physicists would contradict the biologists and so on. Even to point where I realized that the baseline evidence for things we take for granted, like evolution and the expansion of the universe fell utterly flat. I was seriously surprised to find that the empirical evidence for many theories is almost non existent. For example, there is no evidence from nature or a lab that genetic mutations exist in nature or in the lab. There is only evidence that genetic code can go missing, but there is no evidence that information can be added and passed on. This means there is evidence for devolution, or genetic entropy, but not evolution as I had been taught. So every genetic code on earth deteriorated over time, or has less information. This suggested to me that life is deteriorating not becoming more complex. Also, another example, the theory of red shift is the only empirical evidence for the expansion of the universe, however this has never been shown to be true in lab settings and that red shift is likely a misinterpretation of data. There is no other evidence that suggests an expanding universe, so this evidence has either been debunked or is incredibly weak depending on how you read it. The list could go on and on. I was also shocked to find out that radio carbon dating and the fossil record suggest that the top layers of the earth were laid at once, not over time, which would support a young earth and the flood. There isn’t any empirical evidence of an old universe without the expansion model, as radio carbon dating is incapable of dating beyond 10 thousand years or so. So, I’d love to know where you draw your support for evolution from? After years of teaching this course, I went from being an agnostic or atheist, to returning to the religion of my youth, thus after 30 years I reconverted to the Catholic Church.
Amazing story! An intellectual "awakening" so-to-speak is what enabled me to accept the faith and return to the Catholic Church after 8 years of absence and much sinning. I've heard many similar things which, you mention, but I don't know where to find concrete evidence/sources for the claims that you state and what I've read or heard from sources that I trust and what makes most sense based on my intuition (genetic entropy, for example. It always sounded so absurd that some atheist would positively claim that, given enough time, humans could develop any feature possible, like feathers and wings, for example.) Do you have any source that you can direct me to for the claims you mention? I'm not a disbeliever. I just want to be able to affirm what I've been told and, most importantly, forward this to my friends and family whom I often share "intellectual" conversations with and the topic of evolution, for example, is often brought up and it often simply ends it "well, if evolution is true then, it is most reasonable and logical to state that it cannot have been random and that theistic evolution is the answer." But if there's far more concrete evidence to what you bring up then, it cannot be exaggerated how important that it is brought to light and shared among all those we know.
@@csongorarpad4670 Search on youtube "Gunter Bekley" . He is a (former) atheist/agnostic paleontologist who became convinced that neo-darwinian macro-evolution is false!
@@csongorarpad4670 thank you for the reply, I will do a little digging and see if I can find some credible sources on this. However my own information was based on personal experience. It is not easy to find a scientist who will be willing to focus on the things that they don’t know, or the areas where their discipline conflicts with other disciplines. It was my experience that for the most part they did not know of these contradictions until I pointed them out and created a classroom debate. In many cases the scientists would admit the flaws in their theories when presented evidence from other disciplines. However they would obviously not be able to publish on these topics or they would lose their funding, or never receive funding to write the paper or do you research on this topic in the first place. After years of academia I realized that it is a knowledge gate. It is not part of their studies to look into these topics. Most of this came from personal experience where questions could not be answered by the scientists in front of me. If I didn’t have a room of multidisciplinary scientist, I don’t know how I could’ve ever come to these conclusions. The fact is there is no research among physicist to disprove current Physics models without replacing them with another physics model that does not include God. There’s no way that a genetic researcher could gain funding to prove that creatures in the past were in a more perfect state and are deteriorating. That is just a conclusion that I came to when I found out that there is no evidence for information being added to the genetic code, but there is ample evidence to show that information is being lost over the generations. I don’t think we can rely on someone from the inside, from the scientific discipline or academia to draw these conclusions. I think it will take people like Trent and other philosophically minded people to start pointing out this contradictions And start the conversation, so that the common person can start to lift the veil of this scientific propaganda that we have been fed for the last hundred years or so. The fact is that when Darwin propose the theories, it promised evidence in future discoveries, but someone needs to start talking about how the evidence actually went the other direction. The same with the big bang. They discovered red shift and thought that it would be proven true, and made all of their scientific theories based on it for the expanding universe, but people have forgotten that this redshifts theory has never been proven, nor has it even passed laboratory test. It’s simply as close to being debunked as possible, and it is the basis of the entire model of the universe that we are taught in schools today. Even astrophysicist often don’t realize how unproven the only empirical evidence that they have is. This is what shocked me so much about teaching in my classroom. People are simply blinded by impressive math and forget to ask for physical or empirical evidence these days.
Hey egggmann. I highly suggest looking into the work of Dr. Michael Behe (PhD biochemist from Lehigh who is a Catholic) who severely challenges the paradigm of evolution, and to date hasn't gotten great answers. You can check his debates on RUclips to see how the interlocutors don't ever really touch his objections. For something even more crazy, I highly recommend "The Principle", and "Journey to the Center of the Universe" . They both paint a fascinating picture of where science is on the concept of our position in the universe, and it's really quite engaging and well done. Glad to see you home in the Church, brother. God bless!
My question to someone who thinks Hilbert's Hotel is possible in reality is, how do an infinite number of people get into the infinitely large hotel? If there are a finite number of entrances to the hotel, then an infinite number of people could never finish entering. We'd have to assume an infinite number of entrances to potentially permit it, but then one would have to finish travelling an infinite distance to get to the entrance... Not to mention that the infinite amount of matter making up the hotel would indicate an infinite amount of energy (matter and energy are transmutable) which contradicts the 2nd law of thermodynamics and would falsify the inevitable heat death of the universe.
@@jperez7893 The past is infinite per the old axiom; If something exists now then something has always existed. See what I mean? When I first heard this it blew my mind and made me understand that an Infinite Being can exist.
@@MountainFisher the past technically doesn’t exist, nor does the future. Only the present exists. The past only exists because the information of the past exists because of the law of the conservation of information. The future does not exist yet because all the potential probabilities of events still exist and hasn’t collapsed yet
@@jperez7893 To a Being capable of creating space and time it is all Now to Him/Her/Them/It. We exist in one dimension of time, if there were two dimensions the past and future would exist all at the same time. At the quantum level the reason things SEEM to pop in and out of existence in our time is because there is at least another dimension, probably Time as it simplifies the problem. Think of a single line moving across an infinite plane and Us along with an electron we're examining are moving along and suddenly there are two of the same electron! Then the twin electron disappears and the single electron keeps going and then after a period of time goes by then it disappears and then reappears after being gone the exact amount of time it was in two places at the same time. If you find that hard to follow imagine you find a time machine and you come back in time to tell yourself to bet on the Braves to win the World Series last year on Opening day in Vegas with 1000 to one odds. You would literally be in two places at the same time. Electrons can be in two places at the same time or a quantum particle can move from point A to point B without any time passing, simplest explanation is time travel. But the dumbest explanation is to say quantum particles pop into existence from nothing or not anything. Although physicists who say things like that merely change the definition of nothing and treat it as something. In some real way the past exists as does the future, if we could access that second dimension of time we could see it. We cannot perceive it from where we are, but our minds are capable of conceiving it even if we cannot go there. But if you were the Creator you could look at the Andromeda Galaxy from here 2.5 million years in the past and you could also see it as it is now. All of the preceding isn't my idea, it is that of an astrophysicist.
but his latest video of why i am not a muslim is terrible quran is special/unique in the sense that it can only be made by a god and it therefore cannot be made by a human (no matter of unique or talented because god is built different), thats the quranic argument for islam he basically misunderstands by responding with "just because the quran is unique/special doesn't mean it cant be made by a human, being unique is a normal property of things that can exist with anything" lol
@@LeafSouls How do you know that the quran can only be made by a god? And why is a god even a candidate explanation since for all I know, gods don't have evidence for their existence.
I wonder if those philosophers and mathematicians interviewed actually read anything on Craig or watched any of his debates or understood the complexities of the Kalaam argument .. I think these so called critiques were mostly strawman arguments or at the very least incomplete understandings.. It seemed to me that they were stuck in explaining only the abstract view of the infinite.. rather than understanding the absurdity of how abstract or mathematical infinitude and the concrete infinitude cannot be reconciled..
100%. The Kalam argument is so easy to understand and see that it’s true. It seems like the only people who hypothesize an infinite past are those who will believe basically anything to get around having to accept God might actually exist. I haven’t seen the Akin-Craig debate, and obviously Jimmy Akin is Catholic, but I don’t think he believes in an infinite past either lol.
@@DanUtley //"It seems like the only people who hypothesize an infinite past are those who will believe basically anything to get around having to accept God might actually exist."// That's an absurdly dishonest projection of your attempt to "psychologize" people into a caricature that you can dismiss (ironically) as being dishonest. You should correct it.
Aren't we talking about infinite time, not infinite physical objects? I feel like the first 25 minutes is a type of strawman. Yes infinite physical objects seems off, but I don't see that it shows that you can't have infinite time
Whether mathematicians say it explicitly or not, "infinity" is not a number. It's a concept. All these statements about "the rules are different when dealing with infinities" support this notion. Adding or subtracting a number to/from infinity is akin to adding or subtracting heartburn to/from infinity. To do so in either case is absurd. Dr. Craig seeks to use mathematical reasoning about infinity to justify a particular mathematical/physics assumption -- that the universe must have had a beginning. Whether it did or not, to base an argument on such misplaced reasoning is equally absurd.
I still need to hear a valid reason for atheists looking for arguments against the existence of God. They certainly don't believe in God and believers in God will not be put off by any theoretical argument. God is constantly inviting all people to acknowledge Him by working miracles, sometimes even scientifically investigated ones. God also reveals Himself in the silence of the heart, for whom wants to listen.
So it is true until proven false? that is not making an hypothesis works. You are the one claiming that God exists, then the burden of proof is on you. Most atheists don't have a claim on whether god exists or not, they don't know, they just disagree with the arguments presented for the existence of God, they think they are clearly unsuficcient to establish its existence.
The answer to "How many future events will there be?" is not "Infinite". It is "There will never be a final number at all." That's the very nature of the distinction between actual and potential infinites to begin with. So Craig's argument against past infinity is fine as is, because he recognizes that to say the past is infinite = to say there have already been an infinite number of past events.
Maybe in philosophy this works... but not in physics or mathematics. There is no distinction between past and future, you can run the clock forward or backwards and run all the physics and mathematics and it should work. If you are asserting that the universe will be eternal in some way, like people will live eternally in heaven. Then you have to accept that you are saying that there will be an infinite number of future events. That no matter how far forward you run the clock, there will be something happening and something that will happen next. That is really how you define an infinite countable set. You make a one to one correlation with the natural number set. If this is the year 2023, then, will there be a year 3023 in some way? what about a year 4023, let say you die and you keep counting the years based on the seconds you live on heaven or whatever. would there be a year 5023? If you can continue and assign a year to each individual natural number, then the set is infinite, and it is just as infinite as the past set and you will define it exactly the same, by making a one to one correlation with the natural number set.
@@diegog1853 "Maybe in philosophy this works... but not in physics or mathematics." Philosophy will always be applied as soon as you start interpreting physics or mathematics. As soon as you take an observation and ask "What does it imply or mean?" you're doing philosophy, however well or poorly. "There is no distinction between past and future, you can run the clock forward or backwards and run all the physics and mathematics and it should work." If you were to try to map it all out, you would fail, in either direction. But if anything, this confirms that actual infinites aren't possible; it doesn't undermine a *potential* infinite, because if a person never died they could literally be adding a mark to the paper every day without end. "If you are asserting that the universe will be eternal in some way, like people will live eternally in heaven. Then you have to accept that you are saying that there will be an infinite number of future events." Not at all. The number would never reach this "infinite" number. No matter how long it lasts, you would have some sort of finite collection of events. This is how potential infinity works in general, BTW. If you have precise enough tools you can divide a table forever, yet you will always have a finite number of pieces. "and it is just as infinite as the past set and you will define it exactly the same, by making a one to one correlation with the natural number set" It's not the same, because we're not talking about starting today and counting backwards for forever. The claim is we've already seen an infinite number of past events, but I think Craig's arguments against that idea hold up.
@@Vic2point0 Let me ask you a question... when you say that the future will be eternal, how do you define this eternity in mathematical terms? When you say the past is eternal, how do you define this in mathematical terms? Note that you cannot just say that in one we have infinity already. you have to define it in some way mathematically. When you say that the future is eternal what do you mean if by your own admitance you can always only have a finite amount of events in the future... then it is not eternal? If you just say that for each event there will be a subsequent event, for each number that exists we can guarantee there will be that number of years then... that is how we define a past infinity. We don't just say infinity exists, that is not a definition, that is just an assertion, we define it based on how we count the number of events, we would say that if we start counting events backwards there will be always a further back event, if we assign numbers to the seconds that pass, for any natural number we will always find a past corresponding second to that number. So what is the distinction? what do you even mean by eternal? Is it not true that for every number of year we can think of, it is guaranteed that it will exist? Like year five billion or whatever.
@@diegog1853 "Let me ask you a question... when you say that the future will be eternal, how do you define this eternity in mathematical terms?" I don't know if there is a way to describe it in mathematical terms (probably a philosopher of mathematics would be the one to ask). Just, the concept of an eternal future is that you will never get to an end. But that doesn't mean you will somehow get to an infinite number of past events. In a way, mathematically, that would be an end! "When you say the past is eternal, how do you define this in mathematical terms? Note that you cannot just say that in one we have infinity already." Why not? The whole notion of the past is that we've already collected those events. There *would* be this "infinite" amount of past events, if the past were eternal. But the same is not true of the future. If you hold to a B-theory of time, you can believe that the two are equal. But I see no reason to think the passage of time is an illusion. All that being said, I don't think there's a coherent way to define *either* in mathematical terms, because if you try to do any actual math using infinity you get the contradictions Craig so often highlights using Hilbert's Hotel and the like. "When you say that the future is eternal what do you mean if by your own admitance you can always only have a finite amount of events in the future... then it is not eternal?" Sure it is. It just means you'll continue to count upwards (or not bother counting at all). What I meant was just that there will never be a point in the future where you add the past events up and say "Wow, I've reached infinity!" It's... just not a real number, in that sense. "If you just say that for each event there will be a subsequent event, for each number that exists we can guarantee there will be that number of years then... that is how we define a past infinity." But if you believe in a past infinity, you believe we've already had an infinite number of past events. And we had the same number of events 10,000 and 100,000 and 1,000,000 years ago. Somehow... "we define it based on how we count the number of events," Okay, so count from a googolplex to infinity. Is it the very next number, or...? "we would say that if we start counting events backwards there will be always a further back event," So there is no concrete amount back there? Sounds more like a *potential* infinite on a B-theory of time, maybe. "Is it not true that for every number of year we can think of, it is guaranteed that it will exist? Like year five billion or whatever." So long as we have an understanding in our minds about exactly where that year is, sure, we can say that. But we can't say where the year "Infinity" resides. We can *pretend* to understand that number, but we all know it's gibberish.
@@Vic2point0 "(probably a philosopher of mathematics would be the one to ask)" well I am a theoretical physicist so maybe I can help you with it. ""When you say the past is eternal, how do you define this in mathematical terms? Note that you cannot just say that in one we have infinity already." Why not? " Because you haven't define what an infinite past means... That is what I am asking, if you say that having an infinite past means that infinity has happened, you are not giving a definition, you are just restating the same sentence. Having an infinite past means that if you start counting past seconds one by one you will never end. That is literally it... and that is literally your definition of an eternal future. Of course you will never reach infinity as you claim, you will just never stop counting, you will never reach a begining point, just like in your eternal definition if you start counting you will never reach and end point. The definition are exactly the same almost word for word... The same with the whole number set {...-3, -2, -1, 0, 1, 2, 3...} If we start counting at 0, that doesn't mean that we have already counted an infinite number of negative numbers, obviously no one has counted them, but the negative numbers are infinite and this means that if we start counting them you will never end. "f you try to do any actual math using infinity you get the contradictions" only if you assume that infinite sets have the same properties of finite sets, which is fallacious. If you recognize the properties of infinite sets, then no contradictions are made. "But if you believe in a past infinity, you believe we've already had an infinite number of past events." I don't know if there is an infinite past, but if I were to believe it, it would mean that if I start counting past events backwards I will never end counting. that is what infinite past means. Saying that if the past is infinite that would mean that we are in the infinieth year is like saying that 0 is the infinieth negative number... no. Infinites amounts of things are all about counting. It doesn't matter where you start counting, either in this year or the year 100 million BC or whatever. You start counting from there, and if you cannot reach the end, that means it is infinite, whether on the future or in the past. They are defined identically. That is the point. If you disagree with this definitions which are identical, then can you provide a definition for what does it mean to have an infinite number of past events without resorting to the word infinite?
I always wonder if the people interviewed are just as deceptive as the people producing it. Craig shows an actual infinite hotel can't exist. Most mathematicians probably concur that no "hotel" could exist in the real world.
I think the internet is going to end up the other book end (metaphorically speaking) to Guttenberg's press. Not only are there ideas being proposed, but also real time frame explanations and responses.
I’ve watched quite a few of her quantum physics videos where she ostensibly “debunks” things like the observer effect and the Copenhagen interpretation and argues that _actually_ quantum physics is purely normal, naturalistic, deterministic, and not weird at all, and that this is obvious to everyone that actually knows quantum physics. This is obviously a misrepresentation, and her assurance that quantum physics completely confirms materialistic-naturalism is based only on her presupposition that materialism must be true. She never feels the need to present an actual argument, she just goes “no, that’s wrong, here is the correct interpretation.”
@@HoneybunMegapack about 60 years ago they showed that hidden variables theory would not result in what QM predicts. And even if you really want to die on that hill, it is by far not the consensus view, and you have presented it as accepted fact.
Does anyone have a reference for the philosopher Robert Kuhnz (or Kuhns or ...) to whom Trent refers at about 40:35? This is the source of the paper with the room number on it objection to an infinite past. If you know what writing of his was the inspiration for this story, that would be even better. I'd like to read the original source.
Your arguments blow me away! Brilliant! My favourite has to be "Whenever we do math on a finite set of actual things, Euclid's principle holds true. Therefore Cantor's principle can't work on actual things and actual infinities can't exist." If you put it in simple words like this, anyone can understand why the atheist viewpoint is self-contradictory and wrong! "Infinities are strange and we accept those, why can't we then just accept God, who is also counterintuitive?" Exactly! Atheists hold such a double standard!
The clip with Lawrence Krauss (around timestamp 10:00) contains a very weird example: "You can sum things that look ridiculous. For example, if you sum the series 1 plus 2 plus 3 plus 4 plus 5 plus 6 to infinity, what's the answer? -1/12." Quite apart from the fact that a convergent series is an example of a mathematical tool that can be used to do away with spurious physical infinities (such as show up in Zeno's paradoxes), which shows that classical mathematical infinity (as pioneered by Eudoxus in the IVth century BC and rigorously defined by Weierstrass in the XIXth century AD) is totally consonant with a finitary approach to reality, Krauss seems to be saying that the infinite sum of all natural numbers equals -1/12. This can't be what he meant, but then I'm at a loss what convergent series he had in mind. UPD: Looking at some of the comments below, I have found out that Riemann's zeta function can be defined as a convergent infinite series zeta(s) = \sum_{n=1}^\infty\frac{1}{n^s} when its argument is a real number strictly greater than 1. On the other hand, zeta(-1) = -1/12; and, if we carelessly expanded zeta(-1) as the above infinite series we would indeed obtain 1+2+3+..., whose limit is infinity rather than -1/12. In short, this "unappetizing" occurrence of infinity is just a big blunder.
Hot take: We need to leave Cantor behind and embrace Conway. The surreal numbers are much more useful for weird abstract concepts. You can use numbers like ON and ω to be very specific about how your infinity behaves.
You don't get a John Conway without Georg Cantor. It's not the case that Conway would see something like that as leaving Cantor behind. Any expert would want to know how some novel idea for a set theory fits or doesn't fit into ZFC and things like that.
In relativity yes it does demonstrate that you cannot measure the simultaneity of two events. Not that they arent simultaneous. But then you are proposing invisible things. But the idea of a universal clock doesnt seem to be forbade by it, just us identifying and syncing with it.
I think jimmy akin is right when he says that everything logically possible is metaphysically possible, so I don't think the philosophical arguments for the kalaam work.
'It's possible if we just redefine what "full" means.' I suppose then that there is nothing that's impossible. Whatever it is, just redefine it til you get your way. We're seeing that everywhere these days, especially in women's sports and women's restrooms. This is part of what Fr. John Neuhaus meant when he said "What are intellectuals for but to complexify the obvious?"
Craig is clearly the most intelligent man ever to have lived. He is an authority on Maths, cosmology, astrophysics... He knows more about each of these subjects than those specialists that have dedicated their lives to understanding them. His brilliance is such that his researches always confirm his original belief. He has literally proved god exists. Not only god, but the particular god that he was raised to believe in. I feel honoured to be able to bath in his brilliance.
You forgot history. And textual criticism. And moral philosophy. Honestly that's why nobody should take apologists seriously unless they actually have domain expertise and can rebut experts via publication. Watching Trent talk to Malpas recently really exposed how they were just on completely different levels in terms of understanding of philosophy.
Any dissenters want to debunk the paper - “Torsion driving cosmic expansion” Or any other leading cosmological model which describes infinite cosmologies
When the Church asserts that "God is not composed of parts" is this in an Euclidian sense, but not Cantorian - or is this a metaphysical and absolute assertion?
I am not acquainted with that heavy Mathematics (Euclides and Cantor), but divine simplicity relates to ontology (the metaphysical part that studies what a thing is in its essence, in its being). I guess it is not impossible to formulate formal and mental propositions that relates to distinctions, like Blessed Duns Scotus or Gregory Palamas’ models of divine simplicity, but they are not ontologically considered. Ontologically, we can’t affirm composition.
It's not a positive claim at all, it's a negative claim. For a really, really good explanation of this, id highly recommend "Classical Theism Podcast", specifically "Ep. #146 - A Thomistic Introduction to the Divine Attributes w/ Ryan Hurd" He describes the catholic understanding very well.
@@masterchief8179 note, we cannot affirm complexity is the key point. Simplicity is a negative term, against what God is not, not positively stating what God is.
@@VACatholic I understand. But ontology is the “philosophy of being”, which can be dealt with by a more aprophatic theology or a more cataphatic theology. What you are saying is that we define God by what He is not. So ok.
@@masterchief8179 not exactly, I'm making a more subtle point. We define God is love, God is good, and those are positive attributes of God that we are saying God is that. These are apophatic qualities. However when we say God is simple, we are not saying he is simple, we are instead saying he's not composed. That is, simplicity is a cataphatic quality, and it's important to remember that.
Am I hearing right that mathematicians was describing infinity as having "bounds"? Infinity means it has no bounds, no limits, no beginning or end. How is redefining infinity to make a "bounded" infinity, okay? That's creating a contradiction
my argument against infinity goes something like this: in order for something to be a rational idea, the concept of it must at least in principal be conceivable to a sufficiently powerful mind. in order to really say "a mind has truly conceived of this thing", it must be possible for that mind to actually think of the *whole* of the thing. If you haven't thought of the whole of the thing, then you're thinking of a part of a thing, and a part is just a part - it isn't actually the thing. Only the whole of a thing, can really actually be that thing. Now, to think of the whole of something, you must think of it from beginning, all the way through to its end. An infinite object by definition is endless, it lacks an end, and so in principal, it is there is no possible way that you can fulfill the condition of thinking of it from beginning to end. Note how this is true even if the thinker is using an "infinite" mind, and that the greatness of your power does not do anything to change how the condition of "conceiving to end" is always remaining unfulfilled; no matter how infinitely big your brain is, you could never think of something from beginning to end something that lacks an end to think to - and so this leaves us with a situation where it is actually even in principal impossible that infinity could be conceived of by any mind, even by "infinite" minds. I say impossible, in the very literal sense of there not being a single possible way of actually doing it in principal. If there was one way it could be rational, but there is not one way, and so it is impossible. And of course, if there is any situation where there is not even a single possible way to conceive of something, its not a rational concept, and there's no way it could possibly actually exist. And so nothing is infinite, everything in this entire world is entirely limited. A thing that cannot be conceived of even in principal is also something that cannot actually be whole-ly mentioned or talked about at all - which if you think about it makes sense why we say such things are impossible. How are you supposed to make claims about an unmentionable thing? Whatever you mention is not actually talking about it, so its just kind of silly. Definitions require definite boundaries, limited beginnings and ends.
I think at least some (but definitely not all) of the problem arises from the various alephs being cardinalities of infinity, not specific 'numbers' of infinity. I'm not pointing out the obvious, ie that no number is infinite. What I'm saying is that there are various specifig infinities that are all grouped together by general 'size' (cardinality). For example, Aleph 0 is the cardinality of countable infinity, and is the cardinality of sets like the integers, the positive integers, the negative integers, the non-negative integers, etc. Aleph 0 minus Aleph 0 is undefined. But if you took two sets of cardinality Aleph 0, you can get a specific answer by subtracting the sets themselves, then taking the cardinality of the result. So [integers] - [negative integers] = [non-negative integers], whose cardinality is Aleph 0. But [non-negative integers] - [positive integers] = {0}, a set with one element. So in one case, Aleph 0 - Aleph 0 = Aleph 0, and in the other, it is 1. Again, this is because the various cardinalities of infinity are classes of number, not numbers themselves. As a way of relating it to regular numbers, imagine I said, 'if you take a 3 digit number and subtract a 3 digit number, what is the result?' The answer is undefined. It could be another 3 digit number (999-111=888), a 2 digit number (200-150=50), a 1 digit number (500-495=5), a 0 digit number (100-100=0), or a negative number of 1-3 digits. There isn't a defined answer because the categories are too broad to allow for one. Craig says in the speech at 29:00 that you take identical quantities, subtract identical quantities, and you don't know the result. But that's a misunderstanding - they aren't identical quantities, they are just in the same class of infinity. Don't you think that God could create an infinite Universe for us? It seems to me there's no inherent contradiction in general to there being no limit to the Universe. On the other hand, I think some applications of infinity are impossible. I'm not really sure, I guess, but I'm not convinced that infinity can't exist in the real world. Of course, a hotel couldn't be infinite, because nobody could build something infinite. And there could never be infinite humans, because there are a finite number now, and they can only grow without bound, not ever be infinite-nothing finite can ever grow to infinity. But let's say instead of people, we're describing asteroids. In an infinite universe, with a real, nonzero density of asteroids, you could always find a 'next' asteroid, no matter how far you went. Doesn't that seem possible? Time, however, is another story, due to causal requirements. There cannot be an infinite past.
Treating different mathematical constructions of infinity that are useful in solving mathematical problems like real infinities is just clowning mental gymnastics. These theories of real infinities, like string theory, are largely untestable/non-disprovable and lack any predictive power, the things needed to be scientific
It seems in their obsessive desire to “kill God“ they’ve created an infinitely intricate web of mathematical absurdities to wrap themselves in a blanket of skepticism an intellectual egotism. Just listening to those people, their voice is dripping with arrogance, is gross. Reminds me of people who try to argue molecules to man evolution, especially the so-called “theistic evolutionists.” The level of certainty and metaphysical impossibility they must tangle themselves up and in order to appear smart to the antichrist intellectuals is unbelievable.
If the universe began to exist, it may need a cause, oh that makes perfect sense. Its like saying I was born, but I had no mother or father and there was nothing that existed before I exist, but here I am from literally nothing for no reason
@@HoneybunMegapack youre correct, only there is very strong evidence it didnt always exist. The philosophical and scientific evidence suggest it began. I guess you would have to say that to people say God needed a cause also
If the infinite past cannot exist in the real world outside of mathematics, then God cannot exist infinitely in the past outside of mathematics. So God's existence had a beginning. And as the kalam states, everything that begins to exist has a cause. So what I'd the cause of god. No doubt the answer will be either some kind of special pleading, or some kind of re-defining of terms to get out of a logical hole. I'd be interested to see if there is an answer to this conundrum that is neither special pleading or a redefining of terms.
Yeah. We should forget all the mental gymnastics already, and the unnecessary complexities about infinities that have nothing to do with reality. Leave the chatter and provide evidence. This is what Kalaam advocates cannot do.
Dr. Craig, its not subtracting the same quantities, they're different subsets of infinity. So it isn't surprising that there are different quantities left over.
WLC needs the concept of infinity to be only potential so that the Kalam works. But he relies on intuition which have been proven a realy bad tool to undersatnd reality. Many things that our intuition lets us believe are wrong.
@@Turtletanks here are a few examples : 1) does heavier objects fall faster than lighter one? 2) is there more counting numbers than prime numbers? 3) is light a wave or particle? 4) do we have to put 182 people in the same room to assure that there is 1/2 probability that at least 2 of those people celebrate their birthday on the same day ? And I can go on and on. Intuition is not a good argument 😉
Although it doesn’t affect the argument, an actual infinity can exist in the real world if space is continuous. Trent calls this a potential infinity, but it is an actual infinity (just not from discrete objects)
Is it correct to call past events "things"? It seems like you might get around a lot of these objections by drawing an ontological distinction between an infinite set of past events and an infinite set of physical objects, particularly because operations like subtraction and division don't really make sense when you try to apply them to an infinite set of past events anyway. I could take away a baseball card from an infinite set of baseball cards easily enough, and that would create contradictions, but I have no idea how I'd go about subtracting a portion of time from the infinite past.
I address this later in the video. Craig talks about how past events are instantiated in reality at least at one point so the argument holds. In the video I use Andrew Loke's argument to show a past infinity could allow an actual infinite to exist in the present and that's where the problem lies.
@@TheCounselofTrent please send this refutation to Rationality rules because he is making a Series on KALAM with joe he will use that kalam documentary so please send your refutation to him and also Skydivephi
Regarding the quote *infinity only exists to those who can imagine it* , that means infinity doesn't exist as nobody can imagine it. Well, at least that means infinity doesn't exist in the physical realm. God may be infinite but that's it. And that would explain why we can not truly comprehend everything about God. We can know God, but not fully comprehend God.
I would have to agree with St. Thomas, in that the eternity of the world cannot be positively disproved by reason. Although it can be proved by reason that the world is necessarily eternal, hence we can only know by revelation which is true. Hence, the Kalam argument fails. Aristotle's first cause argument, however, works perfectly.
I think you’re missing some points here. First off, Thomas Aquinas didn’t necessarily know everything. Just because he thought you couldn’t disprove the infinitude of the past doesn’t mean you can’t. Craig talks about answering that specific objection, because an infinite past means an infinite number of CONCRETE THINGS. That’s where it falls about. So some mathematician can talk about unhelpful infinite number set theories that don’t have anything to do with reality. Like Trent said, between you and the door there is a POTENTIAL infinite number of points, because you can always divide a distance in half. But if you had an infinite number of equally sized tiles between you and the door you could never reach it, because it would be infinitely far away. Similarly, you can’t have an infinite number of past 24 hour days, because you could never reach today.
I tend to agree, except that modern physics, which is empirical, not rational, heavily suggests a non-eternal universe, and anyone accepting the most popular modern comsological theories are faced with the Kalam. That being said, the Kalam also works even if one assumes an infinite past and a single solution to any physical process. A cause still has to be given.
@@DanUtley But St Thomas Aquinas doesn’t necessarily say we can’t prove the universe has a limited series of past causal event: he says we can’t prove it through metaphysical reasoning. Isn’t it the case?
If the universe is expanding then it is not infinite in size. It had a definable beginning according to the big bang theory. The only way infinite time is possible is if creation occurred. Which means a being that exists outside linear time created the universe. Have to change what we consider of time and space for time to be infinite.
The universe expanding and having a beginning do not entail it is finite in size, that does not follow. In fact, the most common metric used to describe the expansion of the universe, the FLRW metric with an increasing scale factor, describes a spatially infinite universe that expands and has a beginning (with a(0)=0)
I wonder, how does one respond to the idea that God experiences all points of time? It seems then that God represents an actual infinity, even if the infinite future is only potential for an observer, it becomes an actual infinity for God. Does it have something to do with Craig's "presentism" vs the b theory of time?
@@ninodjuras I understand, but God interacts with time, correct? God actively creates all things at all points in time, which implies that God, in some way, interacts with an actual infinity. I'd like to know how one answers that objection.
In B theory all points of time are equally actual at all times, God isn't subject to time but time is subject to God, implying God is also present actually in every moment of time not only the present and that these are also all _real_
Maybe they should have interviewed Dr. Craig for this documentary? Lol
They used plenty of material of him.
@@LomuHabanayeah, but they could've given him a chance to reply to their counter arguments!
@@TheBookgeek7 Yeah maybe, but that would have been a different format. There are debates between Craig and someone like Sean Carroll were Craig has the opportunity to respond. Highly recommendable.
There wouldn't be a documentary
@@LomuHabanait’s an outdated debate, Sean’s objections had been refuted for a long time and the refutations were refuted and the refutation of the refutations were refuted etc….
As someone who studied math in college, this reminded me why I love it so much. This one has me geeking out
These Theists don't understand Science or Ancient history...the Kalam Cosmological Argument has nothing to do with God...the Universe needs no Cause ..divine or otherwise
10:10 The atheist debunks himself right there. He states that 1+2+3… to infinite is -1/12. LOL. He’s applying the analytic continuation of the Riemann Zeta function outside of where it’s defined. However, the actual series itself still is divergent and is meaningless. Real mathematicians immediately laugh.
I winced when he talked about “the” answer. Depending on your topology on the set, 1+2+3+… converges to every number on the complex plane (indiscrete topology). Some topologies are obviously more useful than others.
These Theists don't understand Science or Ancient history...the Kalam Cosmological Argument has nothing to do with God...the Universe needs no Cause ..divine or otherwise
You don’t like it? Too bad
Why he angry
Hi Joie. Physicist do this kind of thing all the time. If memory serves, the -1/12 thing came up as a ‘requirement’ for a QED calculation (I think by Feynman), well after it’s discovery by Ramanujan or Littlewood, or somebody. In this (very) restricted context, it appears to have mathematics as well as physics implications. Btw, extending the meanings and ideas of mathematics, beyond the current boundaries, is a typical hallmark of progress in mathematical physics, and mathematics itself. You could expend a lifetime studying examples. I think it was Hunt who finished off the proofs for basic Fourier series and integrals, in the 1960s or 1970s, using Walsh functions, a century after their invention and use as essential tools in science and engineering. Cheers.
@@SystemsMedicine Yes, the analytic continuation is a mark of progress and can have applications in certain highly specific fields. I’m against making the analytic continuation of using this to disprove God. Not all mathematics correspond to reality.
a small thing but krauss' comment that "if you sum the series, “1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + 5 + 6…” to infinity, what’s the answer? “-1/12.” You don’t like it? Too bad!" enrages me as a mathematician, the infinite sum of n starting from 1 going onwards is simply *not* -1/12. it is divergent and thus doesn't *have* a limit. although he did mention complex numbers, this only makes sense in the context of the analytic continuation of the euler zeta function, the riemann zeta function, and does not apply to the real summation of the natural numbers. granted, it's a lot to squeeze into a debate about a completely different topic but it annoys me (and isn't particularly relevant to the argument at hand /anyway/) so there we are
also i don't really understand why the atheist brings up so many of the mathematical intricacies, no philosopher needs to know about adding different types of infinities to each other, it simply isn't relevant to the argument and serves to muddy the waters by bringing into play a completely different discipline.
Muddying the waters is all atheists can do. When the entirety of a worldview is at its core a negation - and therefore cannot legitimately affirm anything - making a mess of that which *is* ends up being the only course of action at their disposal.
@@EddySteel your point, which I think is on point (no pun intended) brings me back to the idea I always have regarding theoretical math - how is it not obviously and absolutely useless endeavor?
Playing with things that can never exist in reality, to what purpose? For what theological and useful goal or purpose?
It would be like me choosing a career where all I do all day is make up hypothetical situations that could never ever exist and what might happen if they did. An absolute waste of every single talent God had ever given me.
@@EddySteel ah man you’re truee, cant believe we have to meet these sort of arguments haha
Krauss made this exact statement in another debate with someone else. I emailed him and told him that while I am on his side in general, he's wrong on this particular claim. I told him absolutely no one in the math department will agree that the sum of the positive integers is equal to any real number. Then I told him that zeta(-1)=-1/12, where zeta denotes the Riemann-zeta function. He actually responded to me and said he'd watch the videos that I recommended.
🎯 Key Takeaways for quick navigation:
00:03 🎬 Introduction to rebuttal of a documentary critiquing the Kalam cosmological argument.
00:15 🧠 Explanation of the Kalam cosmological argument's structure.
00:42 📖 The Kalam argument isn't strictly for God; its cause analysis leads to divine properties.
01:24 🎥 Atheistic documentary critiquing Kalam argument lacks comprehensive response to objections.
02:10 🌋 Different origin myths vs. scientific and religious views on universe's beginning.
03:07 🧮 Infinity's abstract vs. concrete existence and mathematical coherence.
05:14 📚 Philosophers' interpretations of infinity's abstract nature.
06:24 🔀 Distinction between actual and potential infinity illustrated through examples.
08:54 🏠 Georg Cantor's work on infinite sets' correspondence properties.
09:33 🚫 Metaphysical possibility vs. strict logical possibility in relation to infinity's existence.
10:55 🤔 Craig's response to Lawrence Krauss's objection regarding infinite sums.
13:12 🧐 Acceptance of counterintuitive nature of infinity vs. rejection of counterintuitive divine attributes.
16:12 🏨 Hilbert's Infinite Hotel paradox as an illustration of problems with actual infinity.
19:56 🧠 Resolving paradoxes through changing the definition of "full" or rejecting actual infinity.
23:38 🚫 Contradictions in subtracting identical quantities from identical quantities in infinite sets.
24:46 🔄 Discrepancies between theoretical existence of actual infinite sets and their real-world implications.
25:01 🧮 Cantor's aleph infinities: There are different infinities (alephs), like aleph null and aleph seven, which behave differently from finite numbers when added or subtracted together. Infinities don't follow standard arithmetic rules.
26:22 ➖ Subtraction and infinite case: Subtraction of infinite numbers is not well-defined; there's no clear answer for what to subtract from an infinite number to get another infinite number. This highlights issues with dealing with actual infinities.
27:30 🏨 Hilbert's Hotel and subtraction: Subtracting infinite quantities isn't logically contradictory in mathematics but applying it to real-world scenarios, like the Hilbert's Hotel example, leads to contradictions and absurdities.
29:34 0 and actual infinites: Zero and actual infinities are problematic when instantiated in the real world, leading to contradictions. Zero is a description of absence, not a concrete thing with no value.
31:08 🌌 Metaphysical impossibility: Infinites in the real world lead to metaphysical impossibilities or contradictions, distinct from logical impossibilities. Philosophical discussions extend the argument's applicability.
32:29 ♾️ Mathematical vs. physical infinites: Craig affirms that actual infinites are accepted in mathematics, but they can't exist in the physical world. Disagreements arise regarding the definition and implications of "metaphysical possibility."
35:18 🕰️ Time and infinity paradoxes: Paradoxes arise when dealing with infinite causal chains or histories, indicating issues with the existence of an actual infinite past or set. The application of infinity in physics doesn't necessarily imply its existence in reality.
41:10 🧮 Mathematical use of infinity: Infinity is a valid concept in mathematics, but its use in equations and models doesn't guarantee its existence in the physical world. Mathematical models don't always correspond to reality.
43:26 🔍 Limitations of physics and models: Physics often uses mathematical concepts that might not correspond to reality, like imaginary numbers. The equations and models physicists use don't necessarily reflect how the world truly operates.
46:10 ⏰ Transition to infinity: Craig's argument is not about reaching infinity in a certain amount of time, but about the structure of time itself forming by successive addition. The infinite past is considered metaphysically impossible.
49:41 ➗ Rejecting premise 2: The documentary rejects the premise that the past is formed by successive addition, but it does so without providing a
49:54 🕒 The difference between potential infinite and actual infinite: An endless future is a potential infinite, while a beginningless past is an actual infinite collection of events.
51:18 🌌 Supporters of the Kalam argument emphasize the importance of an infinite future for cosmic and moral significance.
52:00 🔄 Meaningfulness of finite lives: The assertion that lives lose ultimate meaning without eternity is questioned, as human suffering still matters in the context of individual experiences.
53:23 🔀 An endless future vs. a beginningless past: Arguments about the possibility of infinity apply differently to future and past, with an endless future being potentially infinite and a beginningless past being actually infinite.
54:45 🏨 Infinite Hotel paradox: The comparison between infinite events in the future and guests in a hotel illustrates the compatibility of an infinite future with the Kalam argument.
56:25 🔃 Forming infinite collections: It's inconceivable to successively form an actually infinite collection, both in the case of future events and counting negative numbers.
57:05 🧮 Lok's version of the Kalam argument: An infinite past leads to paradoxes, implying its metaphysical impossibility.
58:29 🔄 Infinity in singularity vs. cosmic time: The concept of infinity in the context of a singularity and cosmic time is different, not refuting the Kalam argument.
01:09:02 ⏰ Relativity and the uniqueness of now: Craig's assumption of an absolute present moment contradicts relativity, but this doesn't directly challenge the Kalam argument.
01:13:00 📅 Different views of time: The Kalam argument isn't necessarily tied to an absolute present moment and can accommodate alternative views of time compatible with relativity.
01:14:07 ⏱️ Compatibility of presentism and special relativity: Presentism can be defended without fully accepting how special relativity is applied, as special relativity doesn't necessarily rule out a privileged reference frame.
01:14:47 🔄 Physics vs. reality: Equations and models in physics may not always reflect reality accurately, so the perceived incompatibility between the Kalam argument and special relativity equations might not translate to a conflict with reality.
01:15:17 🔄 Specific Kalam versions and objections: Some versions of the Kalam argument, such as Andrew Loke's and Alex Prus's, provide arguments against an infinite past that bypass the objections related to special relativity.
God bless
Fantastic. Extremely well thought out rebuttals to nearly every point they made. God bless you for your work!
No, he only attempts to rebut the claim in the other video that an infinite universe is possible. None of the other points are addressed.
These Theists don't understand Science or Ancient history...the Kalam Cosmological Argument has nothing to do with God...the Universe needs no Cause ..divine or otherwise
Craig deceptively relies on Lorentzian space time to make his argument, which is incompatible with general relativity. The physics is really not addressed in this rebuttal.
Plus the point of the infinite past is well accepted possibility in contemporary physics what exactly are you arguing
Trent, you explained Dr Craig's "metaphysically impossible" argument much better than I've heard him make it... After the Akin-Craig debate earlier this year, I thought Craig lost because he didn't provide a good explanation of why it is reasonable to conclude that a real infinity, but I think you made that case
Apparently only God can have real infinities, lmao
These Theists don't understand Science or Ancient history...the Kalam Cosmological Argument has nothing to do with God...the Universe needs no Cause ..divine or otherwise
@@JohnM-cd4ouanother objection Dr Craig responded to
He talked with Alex O'Connor on the argument as a whole
Check it out
The only argument I saw for the metaphysical impossibility was essentially "I can't comprehend Hilbert's hotel so it's metaphysicaly impossible."
He never even specifies what metaphysical principal actual infinities would violate.
His use of the phrase metaphysicaly impossible is nothing more that a buzz word
"Science" has become like those who argued how many angels could fit on the head of a pin. They've lost their common sense.
Can you define what science is?
Amazing video. I'll be watching again.. really interesting. God bless you T-HORN.
You're like the Thorn in Atheists arguments that makes them uncomfortable.
The funny thing about the way humans conceptualize infinity in mathematics is that they always start with 1, at the beginning. But when applied to the universe, they want us to start from today and count backward into an infinite past.
Even infinity in the abstract follows the Kalam Argument, as no matter how far you get counting upward into infinity, you can always turn around and go back to 1, which was set in place by some mathematician building an abstract Tower of Babel.
this is just false... the natural number set that starts with 1 is the easiest one. But you also have the whole number set that goes from minus infinity to plus infinity. If both the past and future are infinite then our universe wuld be much more similar to that whole number set, and we would be just in whatever arbitrary point, could be exactly 0 if you want or it could be +5 trillion
Seriously. I've started watching Craig Lane's debates in 2007 and after 15 years there are still people who don't understand what he's been explaining over and over again.
Or maybe they do understand it but they are intelligent enough to know they can’t argue against the actual arguments so have to make distortions of Craig’s arguments so they can hold on to their worldview.
I guess my view is slightly more cynical than yours lol
@@shane9095 Dishonesty is not out of the question, but it's often easy too see they just don't get it. If one is completely shut (intellectually and, especially, emotionally) to a particular idea, their brains will just refuse to understand anything that could validate it. I used to be an atheist of the worst sort, it took a long time for me to give the other side a chance.
@@vaderetro264 That’s a very good point and without a doubt true but I was commenting mostly about these people in this video who are the so called “experts” who’s job it is to understand arguments for them to dishonesty strawman Craig’s argument shows intellectual fragility. I wouldn’t hold this standard to the average person on the street but experts should be held to a higher standard especially when the should know better…
I find the constant obfuscation by political actors and atheists to be tiring. Especially when they present themselves as being wise and experts.
These Theists don't understand Science or Ancient history...the Kalam Cosmological Argument has nothing to do with God...the Universe needs no Cause ..divine or otherwise
Craig is a Liar and Charleton
🎯 Key Takeaways for quick navigation:
00:03 📺 The video is a rebuttal of an atheistic documentary criticizing the Kalam cosmological argument.
00:15 🤔 The Kalam argument states that whatever begins to exist has a cause; since the universe began to exist, it has a cause, which some argue could have divine properties.
02:10 🌋 The video contrasts creation myths with the Kalam argument, questioning its reliance on outdated cosmology.
03:07 📚 The atheist's documentary features critiques from scientists and philosophers, but it omits responses from defenders like William Lane Craig.
05:14 🧮 Infinity is debated: mathematicians differentiatebetween abstract and concrete infinities; philosophers like Aristotle distinguish actual from potential infinity.
07:31 🏨 Hilbert's Infinite Hotel paradox highlights counterintuitive outcomes with actual infinite sets and their implications in reality.
13:12 💭 Accepting counterintuitive aspects of the infinite in math, while rejecting similar counterintuitive attributes for God, raises questions about consistency.
16:12 🔀 The distinction between abstract and concrete infinities is crucial: mathematical operations on paper don't necessarily translate into reality without contradictions.
18:05 🏨 Hilbert's Infinite Hotel paradox showcases challenges with adding and subtracting from infinite sets, illustrating how reality diverges from mathematical operations.
21:20 ➖ Subtracting from infinite sets in reality results in counterintuitive outcomes, emphasizing the limits of applying mathematical principles directly to the physical world.
25:01 🧮 Cantor's infinities: There are different sizes of infinities (aleph-null, aleph-one, etc.), and adding infinities follows unique rules.
26:36 🧙♂️ Subtraction and infinite: Subtraction in the context of actual infinites is not well-defined; trying to subtract infinity from infinity leads to contradictions.
28:13 🤯 Infinity paradoxes: Manipulating actual infinites can lead to paradoxes, revealing their metaphysical impossibility in the real world.
30:27 🌌 Zero and infinity: Zero and infinity have distinct roles in mathematics, but when instantiated in the real world, they lead to contradictions.
32:17 🔄 Infinity views consistency: Craig maintains that his stance on infinity is consistent across various debates, considering metaphysical impossibility.
33:11 📐 Infinity in mathematics: Craig's appeal to Hilbert's Hotel does not reject mathematical infinity; he affirms actual infinity in the realm of mathematics.
35:48 🕰️ Infinite past paradoxes: Infinite causal chains and histories lead to paradoxes, indicating the impossibility of an actual infinite past.
39:19 🏢 Paradox of room construction: A hypothetical scenario of infinite room construction leads to contradictions, highlighting the impossibility of an infinite past.
43:13 🛠️ Physics and infinity: Physicists use mathematical models involving infinity, but this doesn't prove the actual existence of infinite quantities in the physical world.
44:34 🔮 Mathematical models: Physics models are mathematical tools, not necessarily accurate reflections of reality; some physicists view their theories as abstract calculations.
46:38 ⏰ Successive addition and infinity: Craig's argument relies on the idea that time forms through successive addition, leading to the impossibility of an infinite past.
48:57 🔄 Sequence of counting numbers: The sequence of counting numbers is infinite and lacks an end, which is consistent with the absence of an infinite past.
49:54 🕰️ Craig argues that an endless future is a potential infinite, which is possible, while a beginningless past is an actual infinite and impossible due to contradictions like Hilbert's Hotel.
51:18 🌌 Supporters of the Kalam argue that an infinite future provides meaningful significance, unlike a naturalistic worldview where everything ends in cosmic insignificance.
52:13 🤔 Critics question the claim that meaning relies on eternity, arguing that events' significance to individuals doesn't require cosmic permanence.
53:23 🏨 Hilbert's Hotel paradoxically illustrates that an infinite past (collection of events) is problematic, whereas an infinite future (collection of events) isn't contradictory.
55:14 🏨 Infinite past (completed by successive addition) and infinite future (formed by successive addition) differ; one is metaphysically impossible, the other isn't.
56:53 🏨 The proposed paradox about infinite future events doesn't apply, as these events don't all exist simultaneously; the same isn't true for infinite past events.
58:15 🔄 Lok's argument exposes the contradiction in assuming an infinite past and demonstrates that an infinite past is metaphysically impossible.
01:03:30 🔀 The claim that an infinite past and an infinite future are contradictory is incorrect; they refer to different concepts of infinity.
01:06:05 🌀 The singularity at the Big Bang doesn't necessarily imply an infinite past and doesn't refute the Kalam argument.
01:09:16 🕒 The Kalam argument doesn't require an absolute universal time; the objection based on relativity doesn't disprove it.
01:13:54 📜 The objection about relativity and the present moment doesn't undermine the Kalam argument; different views of time can be compatible with it.
01:14:07 🔄 Some physicists endorse the block universe view of time, while others support presentism; both views have their philosophical implications.
01:14:22 🤔 Special relativity's rejection of a privileged reference frame doesn't necessarily contradict presentism; this objection can be based on philosophical assumptions.
01:14:47 📡 The objection based on special relativity might not apply to reality itself, as equations and models in physics don't always perfectly reflect reality.
01:15:02 💡 The objection doesn't work against versions of the Kalam argument that demonstrate an infinite past is metaphysically impossible or show issues with infinitely long causal chains.
01:15:44 ⏭️ The next part will delve into the documentary's discussion of the Kalam's first premise and the scientific evidence supporting it.
The hotel problem is stupid. If every room is full, it doesn't matter if the number of rooms is infinite, they are still ALL OF THEM full. So it doesn't matter who you are going to move into another room, that room will be already occupied. The process will stop at the first room you try to move anybody in. Infinity changes nothing and is irrelevant. If it doesn't work with 20 rooms, it doesn't work with infinite rooms, because the procedure stops at room 1, not 20.
Wow, you're more brilliant than David Hilbert. You understand that this is a though experiment, right? You don't get redefine the hypothetical situation, otherwise it's not the same thought experiment, making your point irrelevant.
"Infinitely full" is a contradiction of terms. Being full implies completeness meaning finite. Might as well say Infinitely finite. But Hilbert's Hotel can be understood if you ignore the contradiction.
Re: Hilbert’s Hotel. If infinite rooms are filled with an infinite number of people, then every existing person has a room; there will be no new guests.
If there is no new guest isn't the hotel full at this point ?
There is a joke that demonstrates this with negative numbers.
A mathematician sees 2 people walk into a cave and then 3 people walk out and says: "if someone goes in there now, the Cave will be empty." In maths you can theoretically have a cave with negative 1 people in it, but in reality that is impossible. Theoretically you can have a universe with an infinite past, but in reality, it's impossible.
That is ridiculous analogy. No, you can’t have a negative amount of people in a cave. “Number of people” is always the natural numbers of course. But you can have two people less in a cave than you would on average expect. And there you go, negative numbers enter the discussion.
But your example is completely unrelated to the question of a past eternal universe. There is nothing which prohibits it from being a physical reality, not from a conceptual point of view, not from a practical point of you. If you watched the original video, no mathematician or physicist claims the universe can’t have a infinite past. That is a real possibility.
@@LomuHabana seconds are also discreet. So they are also "natural"😁 Can't have negative seconds, or an infinite past.
@@Adiusa0874 Time might well be continuous, their als millisecond, nanoseconds and so forth.
Time can be “negative” if you have clear reference point. As an econometrician, I regularly work with negative time subscripts.
Past can be infinite, only apologists deny this, and they don’t do it because of illegitimate reasons.
@@LomuHabana time and space are discreet - Plank.
The point was that on paper, negative seconds and infinity are possible, but not in reality.
@@Adiusa0874 You don’t understand the Planck scale I assume. The vast majority of scientists believe/work as if time is continuous.
No, negative time (in reference to a specific point) is a reality, infinite past might very well be a reality. I know you don’t want it to be true, but facts don’t care about your feelings.
Ill point out also , even traveling to the past, you have changed something by merely occupying that space that was not occupied. Events and history arent just human actions but every physical interaction down to the quantum level.
The Kalam cosmological argument isn't my go-to argument (I prefer Thomistic cosmological arguments) but it's often not really given the time of day by atheists, instead claiming it's been "debunked" without saying why.
Isnt the kalam argument just like a couple of the thomistic arguments combined?
@@mike-cc3dd No, st. Thomas rejected the Kalam argument
There are currently just a lot of unfalsifiable assumptions/speculations it relies upon.
1. Does the pre-big-bang universe/material have a beginning?
2. Does classical causality apply pre-inflation?
3. Does space-time have a finite beginning?
4. Many, many more.
Dr. Craig assumes and argued for the “Yes” answer to these questions and more, when the majority of physicists who actually study it for their careers say well no we don’t actually know, we have several competing hypotheses with almost no ways to test them.
So it’s not “debunked” in the sense that we know it is false. It is just “debunked” in the sense that there is no grounded evidential case for the claim being made, or another way to put it, the evidence supporting the Kalam is highly overstated.
I always question where the beginning of time was... atheists have always pointed to the big bang... from there I often ask where then did the matter come from and there is no answer.
@@nathanh2917
There are answers for “where did the pre-big bang energy/matter come from?” The problem with the answers, like with the Kalam, is that they are mostly speculative. Was it infinite? Was it a multiverse? Was it a branching space-time loop? Do black holes create new space-time dimensions and accumulate quantum energy until it reaches a critical mass? Did it originate from a spaceless timeless intentional cause?
So long as we have no unified quantum theory of gravity that would help us model and answer some of the early universe questions, the best answer is “I have a possible explanation but I really don’t know.”
Hello, I know that this is very late but wouldn't finitud of mater limit the creation of Hilberts Hotel in Andrew Loke's argument? God bless.
The frequency with which "It's just different" is offered by people nowadays to avoid explaining their theories and propositions is amusing.
I think in the past few years Trent has really intellectually upped his game
These Theists don't understand Science or Ancient history...the Kalam Cosmological Argument has nothing to do with God...the Universe needs no Cause ..divine or otherwise
You know, as a pretty firm thomist, I had hitherto believed the Kalam Cosmological argument was pretty weak, but looking at these objections, I see now how crap the arguments against it are.
any argument that starts with 'the universe began to exist' is pretty crap in itself because as per the law of conservation of mass/energy claims in effect that mass/energy cannot be created or destroyed.
@@pulsegamin4790 yeah but introduce quantum physics and things begin to no be so cut and dry.
@@pulsegamin4790
I mean, that depends on what is meant by "began to exist". Physicists have moved towards the view that there is zero net energy in the universe. If this is true, then that means that the matter (and anti-matter) that are parts of positive energy have a counterpart in the universe. To make an analogy, the universe isn't just the matter and energy we observe in our normal lives ( 1 ), there is a counterbalance to it ( -1 ), and the universe could have "began" to exist ( 0 -> 1 + -1 ).
A change of state from "nothing" to both positive and negative energy existing in equal parts in the universe. This makes it so that there is a beginning to the universe, to matter, to energy, etc. without violating the Law of Conservation of Energy.
@@nathanh2917 how so? I'm not trying to argue I just want to learn on differing views :)
@@philosophicaljay3449 Until we can prove that the universe had a 'beginning', it is just an assumption for the argument, is it not?
It is curious how many atheists on the Internet insult Craig, call his argument stupid and claim "that argument is already refuted" without having read the papers and books where Craig talks in depth about the subject and answers many of the typical objections
Lay atheist, those without the intellectual acumen to think for themselves, will naturally gravitate towards anyone who will validate their worldview, regardless the academic credibility of such a person.
Interestingly, scientist rarely cross discipline meaning they are just as ignorant of other scientific disciplines as is the lay person.
As Trent demonstrates it takes knowledge of several disciplines to effectively argue a broad position like the "cause" of the universe existing and that's where the philosophers shine.
Peace.
Well many have to. If Craig is right, then they'll have to abandon the sexual free for all. People who want to spoil others' fun are hated. If they repeat he's been debunked enough times, it sticks and they can get on with the pr0n.
@@peterc.1419
Last I looked, Pr0n is statistically used more in heavily Theistic areas.
@@Tinesthia
False.
@@Tinesthia nun pr0n does not count as theistic areas... then again if some have a fetish for people who larp as clergy in secular fetish videos.... I suppose it could be a 'theistic area'. Just watch out for viruses when you do your applied research in those theistic areas, mate.
Great video T-Ho. Your genius lies in your ability to break down complex issues into understandable jargon. I've always recognized it, but here and in your debate with Dyer, it is most noticeable.
A year old and Trent and co. getting into the source code of the universe still hurts my head.
Joe Schmid just did a rebuttal to your rebuttal. Haven't watched it yet but a potential debate would be dope
Hey. Also, read the comments on MoR's rebuttal(interesting stuff)
I saw part of it. I plan to engage Joe more in-depth in the future through some kind of exchange. I just recorded an exchange with Alex Malpass that will air in two weeks.
@@TheCounselofTrent cool
Are you aware of Dr Alex Malpass's 3 hours long discussion on Thought adventure podcast RUclips channel? If yes please share your thoughts on that discussion
And You and Joe Definitely should write a debate book please
@@TheCounselofTrent Hey Trent, will u be making a rebuttal video on Joe's rebuttal? To be fair it doesn't technically break your rules. Same goes to the review he made on your Ben Watkins debate.
@@TheCounselofTrent you and Joe should do a FORMAL DEBATE + write a book
Can't wait for part 2
Had a teacher at college who would get mad and correct anyone who said 'infinite' instead of 'approaching infinite' - he said it was an abuse of the mathematical language. He wore a shirt everyday that had the Ying yang symbol over the unit circle he was interesting.
Any new guest in Hilbert's Hotel is given a vacant room (Room 1, vacated by the previous guest who has been moved to the next room, Room 2) so I don't see see how, immediately prior to the new guest's occupancy of his room, the Hotel can say that all its rooms are full.
Infinity plus 1, infinity plus infinity, we all said that as a kid, but the wonderfulness of being a child never ponders it to disbelieve all the possibilities in life.
My problem with the notion of infinity is that it does not allow for change. If we understand change as either promoting growth/development or regression/reversion, then the universe, over the course of infinity (which has already occurred and continues) should already be either fully actualized or fully unactualized. The only way, as far as I can tell, to avoid this is if the probability of growth (per instance of change) is absolutely equal to the probability of regression (again, per instance of change). But in this scenario, there would only be perpetual stasis - a steady state with no change.
All three of these scenarios (fully realized universe; totally unactualized universe; and steady state) are empirically untenable.
The problem lies with our perception of time. We experience time in a linear fashion. We arent capable of experiencing it in any other way as of now. Though I agree with you.
i have heard this video, three times now and it really makes me think, great stuff
one could assume it would take an infinite amount of time and energy to manipulate an infinity of things .
One could assume that or not assume it. Both are equally coherent assumptions
@turdferguson3400 Therefore, it's illogical to believe that neither is true or false. The answer is I don't know, which deems the argument for god to be logically incoherent.
One of the best minds Christianity has to offer today🙏🏻 thank you for making this video
These Theists don't understand Science or Ancient history...the Kalam Cosmological Argument has nothing to do with God...the Universe needs no Cause ..divine or otherwise
10:13 Lawrence Krauss is trying to refer to the fact that zeta(-1) = -1/12, but he does this in a way that is just *wrong* (the Riemann zeta function and the series of 1/n^s are not literally the same function). This is the dumbest meme in youtube math.
But he's a professional physicist, isn't he? How can he make such a mistake?
@@peterc.1419 theoretical physicist aren't rigorous
@@peterc.1419 Confirmation bias. The strength of his dogmas trumps whatever mathematical intuition he may have.
Any argument that convinces you that an eternal number of past events is not possible should also convince you that God has, so far, existed for a finite amount of time, has had a finite number of distinct thoughts. Therefore, at some point there is a first moment at which God began to exist. And if everything that begins to exist needs to have an explanation, then God also falls into the same bucket. Sorry I just find all this Kalam stuff really unconvincing.
Exactly. Theists don't know the implications of this argument.
And it's still one of the old lazy arguments that have been debunked countless times.
Anyone that studies philosophy or science should know that starting with an already made presumption and then using confirmational bias to justify said presumptions as a conclusion is baffingly stupid.
Unless you can prove the uncaused cause, you're still playing mental gymnastics.
Christians are just going around using and refuting objections to the Kalaam. Please, produce your evidence.
It's funny how theologians and Theists believe that Ontological Arguments, Kalam Cosmological Arguments, Argument from Metaphysics, Argument from Fine Tuning is evidence.
Argument≠Evidence
Like seriously. At this point, this is obvious.
No, you guys don't understand! God is 🙌🙌🙌special!🫶🫶🫶
@@rodrigoma1350 Who is that?
@@Steve-yn3cs I assume he is being sarcastic and referring to the constant special pleading of Christians/theists when it comes to god.
“Universe must have a beginning, God doesn’t” (Kalam)
“Universe is so complex that it must have been designed, God is of course infinitely more complex but isn’t designed” (fine tuning/teleological argument)
“A maximally great Island is nonsense because “maximally great Island” is subjective, but maximally great being makes perfectly sense because everyone has the same idea of a “maximally great being” ” ( ontological argument)
“ is just an opinion, unless god says it is true, then it is objective” (axiological argument)
@@LomuHabana All these arguments are mostly non-sequiturs or begging the question fallacies.
I can see why theistic arguments are so bad.
For the Kalam to be valid requires something like "everything that begins to exist has a cause". The original video that Trent claims to be rebutting shows why this is false, and this on its own refutes the Kalam. It also shows how William Lane Craig misuses the BGV theory. But Trent spends almost all of this video discussing whether an actual infinity can exist. Why didn't he address the other points in the original video? Could it possibly be because he has no rebuttal for them?
nice explanation of Zenos paradox solution.
There is a perfectly well-defined notion of removing elements from a set (infinite or not). It's called set difference. Cardinalities, in other words numbers, are a type of invariant for sets. You can do perfectly consistent things with infinite sets while the arithmetic of their cardinal numbers may not support a minus operation. That's because cardinality doesn't tell you all there possibly is to know about a set. For finite sets the arithmetic of their cardinalities has some nicer properties than if we allow infinite sets. But that's about it.
Trent, I love your videos and your arguments. Have you or any of your compatriots done a video on how the Roman church can allow for concepts from the eastern churches like katharthis/theosis or if this is incompatible?
A lot of it are disagreements based on definitions lost in translation. Or they just heard it wrong, like Taylor Swift’s song Blank Space, “..Starbucks lovers…”
Im just appreciating now the Bible in the original Hebrew. We could have saved a lot of blood and guts if we stuck to the Hebrew. Try listening how messianic rabbi zev porat proclaims Jesus in Hebrew to the Israelis. Jesus is all over the Old Testament. The name of the messiah is revealed in the tanakh as Jesus all over the place, like literally Yeshua. Like a broken record. God has a sense of humor; he likes puns
Your depth of knowledge is impressive. Thank you for the time you put into issues like this.
Not as impressive as the physicists interviewed in the original video.
Puh-lease, I flush something every day with deeper knowledge than Trent or Lying Billy.
Só por que os caras são PhD em Oxford?? @@johnelliott5859
What’s with the constant shots of the interior of a church
Metaphysical possibility is a crucial distinction. My suspicion is that many forms of metaphysical possibility are related to causality. For example, Kripke's water=H2O shows that metaphysical necessity is grounded in instantiated causal relations. Metaphysical possibility and impossibility seem to relate to causal instantiation.
Can you explain? 🤔
Thanks for your work. I've realized that the true geniuses of this world are not those in the upper echelons of academia. The most intelligent and knowledgeable are actually the independent researchers who aren't as bogged down with worrying about conforming to the expectations of mainstream academia.
I believe this has always been true. The true geniuses have always been those who got no, or little, recognition. Anyone who did get recognition may be intelligent, but they won't be pushing truth fully.
I consider you to be very intelligent particularly due to your ability to explain very complex topics in a way that is easy to understand for anyone.
This is an underrated video. Very cool stuff going on in it
Hey Trent, I’d love to hear your defense of evolution. I for most of my life believed in evolution, even if it may have been directed by God, however after i spent years teaching phd scientists at OSU, my mind was really changed. Im a linguist, not a biologist or paleontologist, so my job was to reduce the foreign phd students’ accents and teach them American pedagogical methods, so that they could teach undergraduate courses at OSU, which was part of keeping their research funding. So my classes consisted of 10 to 20 phd researchers from a wide variety of disciplines, from astrophysicists to molecular biologists and geneticists. My job was to listen to their practice lectures and I was to act as a student and test their ability to answer questions from a language standpoint. However, I was an intel analyst for the air force before getting into linguistics, so being essentially a former professional multidisciplinary researcher, I couldn’t help but test the disciplines against each other. I was shocked at how little the scientists knew about other disciplines. Even to the point where the physicists would contradict the biologists and so on. Even to point where I realized that the baseline evidence for things we take for granted, like evolution and the expansion of the universe fell utterly flat. I was seriously surprised to find that the empirical evidence for many theories is almost non existent. For example, there is no evidence from nature or a lab that genetic mutations exist in nature or in the lab. There is only evidence that genetic code can go missing, but there is no evidence that information can be added and passed on. This means there is evidence for devolution, or genetic entropy, but not evolution as I had been taught. So every genetic code on earth deteriorated over time, or has less information. This suggested to me that life is deteriorating not becoming more complex. Also, another example, the theory of red shift is the only empirical evidence for the expansion of the universe, however this has never been shown to be true in lab settings and that red shift is likely a misinterpretation of data. There is no other evidence that suggests an expanding universe, so this evidence has either been debunked or is incredibly weak depending on how you read it. The list could go on and on. I was also shocked to find out that radio carbon dating and the fossil record suggest that the top layers of the earth were laid at once, not over time, which would support a young earth and the flood. There isn’t any empirical evidence of an old universe without the expansion model, as radio carbon dating is incapable of dating beyond 10 thousand years or so. So, I’d love to know where you draw your support for evolution from? After years of teaching this course, I went from being an agnostic or atheist, to returning to the religion of my youth, thus after 30 years I reconverted to the Catholic Church.
Amazing story! An intellectual "awakening" so-to-speak is what enabled me to accept the faith and return to the Catholic Church after 8 years of absence and much sinning.
I've heard many similar things which, you mention, but I don't know where to find concrete evidence/sources for the claims that you state and what I've read or heard from sources that I trust and what makes most sense based on my intuition (genetic entropy, for example. It always sounded so absurd that some atheist would positively claim that, given enough time, humans could develop any feature possible, like feathers and wings, for example.)
Do you have any source that you can direct me to for the claims you mention? I'm not a disbeliever. I just want to be able to affirm what I've been told and, most importantly, forward this to my friends and family whom I often share "intellectual" conversations with and the topic of evolution, for example, is often brought up and it often simply ends it "well, if evolution is true then, it is most reasonable and logical to state that it cannot have been random and that theistic evolution is the answer." But if there's far more concrete evidence to what you bring up then, it cannot be exaggerated how important that it is brought to light and shared among all those we know.
@@csongorarpad4670
Search on youtube "Gunter Bekley" .
He is a (former) atheist/agnostic paleontologist who became convinced that neo-darwinian macro-evolution is false!
@@hhstark8663 I think a friend, a recent convert to Catholicism, of mine has mentioned that name before. Thank you! I'll definitely look him up.
@@csongorarpad4670 thank you for the reply, I will do a little digging and see if I can find some credible sources on this. However my own information was based on personal experience. It is not easy to find a scientist who will be willing to focus on the things that they don’t know, or the areas where their discipline conflicts with other disciplines. It was my experience that for the most part they did not know of these contradictions until I pointed them out and created a classroom debate. In many cases the scientists would admit the flaws in their theories when presented evidence from other disciplines. However they would obviously not be able to publish on these topics or they would lose their funding, or never receive funding to write the paper or do you research on this topic in the first place. After years of academia I realized that it is a knowledge gate. It is not part of their studies to look into these topics. Most of this came from personal experience where questions could not be answered by the scientists in front of me. If I didn’t have a room of multidisciplinary scientist, I don’t know how I could’ve ever come to these conclusions. The fact is there is no research among physicist to disprove current Physics models without replacing them with another physics model that does not include God. There’s no way that a genetic researcher could gain funding to prove that creatures in the past were in a more perfect state and are deteriorating. That is just a conclusion that I came to when I found out that there is no evidence for information being added to the genetic code, but there is ample evidence to show that information is being lost over the generations. I don’t think we can rely on someone from the inside, from the scientific discipline or academia to draw these conclusions. I think it will take people like Trent and other philosophically minded people to start pointing out this contradictions And start the conversation, so that the common person can start to lift the veil of this scientific propaganda that we have been fed for the last hundred years or so. The fact is that when Darwin propose the theories, it promised evidence in future discoveries, but someone needs to start talking about how the evidence actually went the other direction. The same with the big bang. They discovered red shift and thought that it would be proven true, and made all of their scientific theories based on it for the expanding universe, but people have forgotten that this redshifts theory has never been proven, nor has it even passed laboratory test. It’s simply as close to being debunked as possible, and it is the basis of the entire model of the universe that we are taught in schools today. Even astrophysicist often don’t realize how unproven the only empirical evidence that they have is. This is what shocked me so much about teaching in my classroom. People are simply blinded by impressive math and forget to ask for physical or empirical evidence these days.
Hey egggmann. I highly suggest looking into the work of Dr. Michael Behe (PhD biochemist from Lehigh who is a Catholic) who severely challenges the paradigm of evolution, and to date hasn't gotten great answers. You can check his debates on RUclips to see how the interlocutors don't ever really touch his objections.
For something even more crazy, I highly recommend "The Principle", and "Journey to the Center of the Universe" . They both paint a fascinating picture of where science is on the concept of our position in the universe, and it's really quite engaging and well done.
Glad to see you home in the Church, brother. God bless!
My question to someone who thinks Hilbert's Hotel is possible in reality is, how do an infinite number of people get into the infinitely large hotel? If there are a finite number of entrances to the hotel, then an infinite number of people could never finish entering. We'd have to assume an infinite number of entrances to potentially permit it, but then one would have to finish travelling an infinite distance to get to the entrance... Not to mention that the infinite amount of matter making up the hotel would indicate an infinite amount of energy (matter and energy are transmutable) which contradicts the 2nd law of thermodynamics and would falsify the inevitable heat death of the universe.
The Laws of Science never stop atheism.
There are no infinite things or infinitely small things in the physical universe. Infinite things only exist in math and the imagination.
@@jperez7893 The past is infinite per the old axiom; If something exists now then something has always existed.
See what I mean?
When I first heard this it blew my mind and made me understand that an Infinite Being can exist.
@@MountainFisher the past technically doesn’t exist, nor does the future. Only the present exists. The past only exists because the information of the past exists because of the law of the conservation of information. The future does not exist yet because all the potential probabilities of events still exist and hasn’t collapsed yet
@@jperez7893 To a Being capable of creating space and time it is all Now to Him/Her/Them/It. We exist in one dimension of time, if there were two dimensions the past and future would exist all at the same time.
At the quantum level the reason things SEEM to pop in and out of existence in our time is because there is at least another dimension, probably Time as it simplifies the problem. Think of a single line moving across an infinite plane and Us along with an electron we're examining are moving along and suddenly there are two of the same electron! Then the twin electron disappears and the single electron keeps going and then after a period of time goes by then it disappears and then reappears after being gone the exact amount of time it was in two places at the same time.
If you find that hard to follow imagine you find a time machine and you come back in time to tell yourself to bet on the Braves to win the World Series last year on Opening day in Vegas with 1000 to one odds. You would literally be in two places at the same time. Electrons can be in two places at the same time or a quantum particle can move from point A to point B without any time passing, simplest explanation is time travel. But the dumbest explanation is to say quantum particles pop into existence from nothing or not anything. Although physicists who say things like that merely change the definition of nothing and treat it as something.
In some real way the past exists as does the future, if we could access that second dimension of time we could see it. We cannot perceive it from where we are, but our minds are capable of conceiving it even if we cannot go there. But if you were the Creator you could look at the Andromeda Galaxy from here 2.5 million years in the past and you could also see it as it is now.
All of the preceding isn't my idea, it is that of an astrophysicist.
God doesn't have properties; he has attributes.
As a muslim I love your video's
but his latest video of why i am not a muslim is terrible
quran is special/unique in the sense that it can only be made by a god and it therefore cannot be made by a human (no matter of unique or talented because god is built different), thats the quranic argument for islam
he basically misunderstands by responding with "just because the quran is unique/special doesn't mean it cant be made by a human, being unique is a normal property of things that can exist with anything"
lol
@@LeafSouls How do you know that the quran can only be made by a god? And why is a god even a candidate explanation since for all I know, gods don't have evidence for their existence.
@@joerdim the argument of imitation
@@LeafSouls Which is...?
@@joerdim making a book like the quran
Cant u look it up yourself?
I wonder if those philosophers and mathematicians interviewed actually read anything on Craig or watched any of his debates or understood the complexities of the Kalaam argument .. I think these so called critiques were mostly strawman arguments or at the very least incomplete understandings.. It seemed to me that they were stuck in explaining only the abstract view of the infinite.. rather than understanding the absurdity of how abstract or mathematical infinitude and the concrete infinitude cannot be reconciled..
100%. The Kalam argument is so easy to understand and see that it’s true. It seems like the only people who hypothesize an infinite past are those who will believe basically anything to get around having to accept God might actually exist.
I haven’t seen the Akin-Craig debate, and obviously Jimmy Akin is Catholic, but I don’t think he believes in an infinite past either lol.
@@DanUtley //"It seems like the only people who hypothesize an infinite past are those who will believe basically anything to get around having to accept God might actually exist."//
That's an absurdly dishonest projection of your attempt to "psychologize" people into a caricature that you can dismiss (ironically) as being dishonest.
You should correct it.
Aren't we talking about infinite time, not infinite physical objects? I feel like the first 25 minutes is a type of strawman. Yes infinite physical objects seems off, but I don't see that it shows that you can't have infinite time
Whether mathematicians say it explicitly or not, "infinity" is not a number. It's a concept. All these statements about "the rules are different when dealing with infinities" support this notion. Adding or subtracting a number to/from infinity is akin to adding or subtracting heartburn to/from infinity. To do so in either case is absurd. Dr. Craig seeks to use mathematical reasoning about infinity to justify a particular mathematical/physics assumption -- that the universe must have had a beginning. Whether it did or not, to base an argument on such misplaced reasoning is equally absurd.
😍🙏💐🤗🙏 what beautifully intelligent and knowledgeable Gentlemen defending the Holy 💜🤎💚💞🙏😍🤗🙏💐 Blessed Catholic Faith!! Olé olé olé 😍🤗🤗🙏😍🙏💐💚🕊️🙏....
Sorry, he’s already married
@@crenshaw2186 lol
I still need to hear a valid reason for atheists looking for arguments against the existence of God. They certainly don't believe in God and believers in God will not be put off by any theoretical argument. God is constantly inviting all people to acknowledge Him by working miracles, sometimes even scientifically investigated ones. God also reveals Himself in the silence of the heart, for whom wants to listen.
So it is true until proven false? that is not making an hypothesis works. You are the one claiming that God exists, then the burden of proof is on you.
Most atheists don't have a claim on whether god exists or not, they don't know, they just disagree with the arguments presented for the existence of God, they think they are clearly unsuficcient to establish its existence.
The answer to "How many future events will there be?" is not "Infinite". It is "There will never be a final number at all." That's the very nature of the distinction between actual and potential infinites to begin with. So Craig's argument against past infinity is fine as is, because he recognizes that to say the past is infinite = to say there have already been an infinite number of past events.
Maybe in philosophy this works... but not in physics or mathematics. There is no distinction between past and future, you can run the clock forward or backwards and run all the physics and mathematics and it should work.
If you are asserting that the universe will be eternal in some way, like people will live eternally in heaven. Then you have to accept that you are saying that there will be an infinite number of future events. That no matter how far forward you run the clock, there will be something happening and something that will happen next. That is really how you define an infinite countable set. You make a one to one correlation with the natural number set. If this is the year 2023, then, will there be a year 3023 in some way? what about a year 4023, let say you die and you keep counting the years based on the seconds you live on heaven or whatever. would there be a year 5023?
If you can continue and assign a year to each individual natural number, then the set is infinite, and it is just as infinite as the past set and you will define it exactly the same, by making a one to one correlation with the natural number set.
@@diegog1853 "Maybe in philosophy this works... but not in physics or mathematics."
Philosophy will always be applied as soon as you start interpreting physics or mathematics. As soon as you take an observation and ask "What does it imply or mean?" you're doing philosophy, however well or poorly.
"There is no distinction between past and future, you can run the clock forward or backwards and run all the physics and mathematics and it should work."
If you were to try to map it all out, you would fail, in either direction. But if anything, this confirms that actual infinites aren't possible; it doesn't undermine a *potential* infinite, because if a person never died they could literally be adding a mark to the paper every day without end.
"If you are asserting that the universe will be eternal in some way, like people will live eternally in heaven. Then you have to accept that you are saying that there will be an infinite number of future events."
Not at all. The number would never reach this "infinite" number. No matter how long it lasts, you would have some sort of finite collection of events. This is how potential infinity works in general, BTW. If you have precise enough tools you can divide a table forever, yet you will always have a finite number of pieces.
"and it is just as infinite as the past set and you will define it exactly the same, by making a one to one correlation with the natural number set"
It's not the same, because we're not talking about starting today and counting backwards for forever. The claim is we've already seen an infinite number of past events, but I think Craig's arguments against that idea hold up.
@@Vic2point0 Let me ask you a question... when you say that the future will be eternal, how do you define this eternity in mathematical terms?
When you say the past is eternal, how do you define this in mathematical terms?
Note that you cannot just say that in one we have infinity already. you have to define it in some way mathematically.
When you say that the future is eternal what do you mean if by your own admitance you can always only have a finite amount of events in the future... then it is not eternal?
If you just say that for each event there will be a subsequent event, for each number that exists we can guarantee there will be that number of years then... that is how we define a past infinity. We don't just say infinity exists, that is not a definition, that is just an assertion, we define it based on how we count the number of events, we would say that if we start counting events backwards there will be always a further back event, if we assign numbers to the seconds that pass, for any natural number we will always find a past corresponding second to that number.
So what is the distinction? what do you even mean by eternal? Is it not true that for every number of year we can think of, it is guaranteed that it will exist? Like year five billion or whatever.
@@diegog1853 "Let me ask you a question... when you say that the future will be eternal, how do you define this eternity in mathematical terms?"
I don't know if there is a way to describe it in mathematical terms (probably a philosopher of mathematics would be the one to ask). Just, the concept of an eternal future is that you will never get to an end. But that doesn't mean you will somehow get to an infinite number of past events. In a way, mathematically, that would be an end!
"When you say the past is eternal, how do you define this in mathematical terms? Note that you cannot just say that in one we have infinity already."
Why not? The whole notion of the past is that we've already collected those events. There *would* be this "infinite" amount of past events, if the past were eternal. But the same is not true of the future. If you hold to a B-theory of time, you can believe that the two are equal. But I see no reason to think the passage of time is an illusion.
All that being said, I don't think there's a coherent way to define *either* in mathematical terms, because if you try to do any actual math using infinity you get the contradictions Craig so often highlights using Hilbert's Hotel and the like.
"When you say that the future is eternal what do you mean if by your own admitance you can always only have a finite amount of events in the future... then it is not eternal?"
Sure it is. It just means you'll continue to count upwards (or not bother counting at all). What I meant was just that there will never be a point in the future where you add the past events up and say "Wow, I've reached infinity!" It's... just not a real number, in that sense.
"If you just say that for each event there will be a subsequent event, for each number that exists we can guarantee there will be that number of years then... that is how we define a past infinity."
But if you believe in a past infinity, you believe we've already had an infinite number of past events. And we had the same number of events 10,000 and 100,000 and 1,000,000 years ago. Somehow...
"we define it based on how we count the number of events,"
Okay, so count from a googolplex to infinity. Is it the very next number, or...?
"we would say that if we start counting events backwards there will be always a further back event,"
So there is no concrete amount back there? Sounds more like a *potential* infinite on a B-theory of time, maybe.
"Is it not true that for every number of year we can think of, it is guaranteed that it will exist? Like year five billion or whatever."
So long as we have an understanding in our minds about exactly where that year is, sure, we can say that. But we can't say where the year "Infinity" resides. We can *pretend* to understand that number, but we all know it's gibberish.
@@Vic2point0
"(probably a philosopher of mathematics would be the one to ask)" well I am a theoretical physicist so maybe I can help you with it.
""When you say the past is eternal, how do you define this in mathematical terms? Note that you cannot just say that in one we have infinity already."
Why not? "
Because you haven't define what an infinite past means... That is what I am asking, if you say that having an infinite past means that infinity has happened, you are not giving a definition, you are just restating the same sentence.
Having an infinite past means that if you start counting past seconds one by one you will never end. That is literally it... and that is literally your definition of an eternal future. Of course you will never reach infinity as you claim, you will just never stop counting, you will never reach a begining point, just like in your eternal definition if you start counting you will never reach and end point. The definition are exactly the same almost word for word...
The same with the whole number set
{...-3, -2, -1, 0, 1, 2, 3...}
If we start counting at 0, that doesn't mean that we have already counted an infinite number of negative numbers, obviously no one has counted them, but the negative numbers are infinite and this means that if we start counting them you will never end.
"f you try to do any actual math using infinity you get the contradictions" only if you assume that infinite sets have the same properties of finite sets, which is fallacious. If you recognize the properties of infinite sets, then no contradictions are made.
"But if you believe in a past infinity, you believe we've already had an infinite number of past events."
I don't know if there is an infinite past, but if I were to believe it, it would mean that if I start counting past events backwards I will never end counting. that is what infinite past means.
Saying that if the past is infinite that would mean that we are in the infinieth year is like saying that 0 is the infinieth negative number... no. Infinites amounts of things are all about counting. It doesn't matter where you start counting, either in this year or the year 100 million BC or whatever. You start counting from there, and if you cannot reach the end, that means it is infinite, whether on the future or in the past.
They are defined identically. That is the point. If you disagree with this definitions which are identical, then can you provide a definition for what does it mean to have an infinite number of past events without resorting to the word infinite?
I always wonder if the people interviewed are just as deceptive as the people producing it. Craig shows an actual infinite hotel can't exist. Most mathematicians probably concur that no "hotel" could exist in the real world.
Agreed. Not even related to the Kalam Cosmological Argument. All this just to avoid a definite beginning of the universe.
Why is the documentary "atheistic"? Atheism has nothing to do with the possible origins of the universe. It's simply a disbelief in a god or gods.
Exactly, it just debunks Craig’s flawed understanding of physics and math. It doesn’t make the philosophical case for atheism.
Appreciate this lovely information!
How does a logical argument answer a question that is empirical?
Trent vs Malpass would be a good discussion
I think the internet is going to end up the other book end (metaphorically speaking) to Guttenberg's press. Not only are there ideas being proposed, but also real time frame explanations and responses.
I’ve watched quite a few of her quantum physics videos where she ostensibly “debunks” things like the observer effect and the Copenhagen interpretation and argues that _actually_ quantum physics is purely normal, naturalistic, deterministic, and not weird at all, and that this is obvious to everyone that actually knows quantum physics.
This is obviously a misrepresentation, and her assurance that quantum physics completely confirms materialistic-naturalism is based only on her presupposition that materialism must be true. She never feels the need to present an actual argument, she just goes “no, that’s wrong, here is the correct interpretation.”
"Anyone who claims to understand quantum theory is either lying or crazy," Richard Feynman
@@HoneybunMegapack there is no scientific consensus whatsoever on your belief which you are presenting as fact.
@@HoneybunMegapack quantum mechanics is probablistic, not deterministic. Thats its most quintessential characteristic.
@@HoneybunMegapack about 60 years ago they showed that hidden variables theory would not result in what QM predicts. And even if you really want to die on that hill, it is by far not the consensus view, and you have presented it as accepted fact.
Does anyone have a reference for the philosopher Robert Kuhnz (or Kuhns or ...) to whom Trent refers at about 40:35? This is the source of the paper with the room number on it objection to an infinite past. If you know what writing of his was the inspiration for this story, that would be even better. I'd like to read the original source.
Ah, I think it may be Robert C. Koons, who is at U.T. Austin. So which of his many books is it?
Your arguments blow me away! Brilliant!
My favourite has to be "Whenever we do math on a finite set of actual things, Euclid's principle holds true. Therefore Cantor's principle can't work on actual things and actual infinities can't exist." If you put it in simple words like this, anyone can understand why the atheist viewpoint is self-contradictory and wrong!
"Infinities are strange and we accept those, why can't we then just accept God, who is also counterintuitive?" Exactly! Atheists hold such a double standard!
The clip with Lawrence Krauss (around timestamp 10:00) contains a very weird example: "You can sum things that look ridiculous. For example, if you sum the series 1 plus 2 plus 3 plus 4 plus 5 plus 6 to infinity, what's the answer? -1/12." Quite apart from the fact that a convergent series is an example of a mathematical tool that can be used to do away with spurious physical infinities (such as show up in Zeno's paradoxes), which shows that classical mathematical infinity (as pioneered by Eudoxus in the IVth century BC and rigorously defined by Weierstrass in the XIXth century AD) is totally consonant with a finitary approach to reality, Krauss seems to be saying that the infinite sum of all natural numbers equals -1/12. This can't be what he meant, but then I'm at a loss what convergent series he had in mind.
UPD: Looking at some of the comments below, I have found out that Riemann's zeta function can be defined as a convergent infinite series
zeta(s) = \sum_{n=1}^\infty\frac{1}{n^s}
when its argument is a real number strictly greater than 1.
On the other hand, zeta(-1) = -1/12; and, if we carelessly expanded zeta(-1) as the above infinite series we would indeed obtain 1+2+3+..., whose limit is infinity rather than -1/12.
In short, this "unappetizing" occurrence of infinity is just a big blunder.
Hot take: We need to leave Cantor behind and embrace Conway. The surreal numbers are much more useful for weird abstract concepts. You can use numbers like ON and ω to be very specific about how your infinity behaves.
You don't get a John Conway without Georg Cantor. It's not the case that Conway would see something like that as leaving Cantor behind. Any expert would want to know how some novel idea for a set theory fits or doesn't fit into ZFC and things like that.
In relativity yes it does demonstrate that you cannot measure the simultaneity of two events. Not that they arent simultaneous. But then you are proposing invisible things. But the idea of a universal clock doesnt seem to be forbade by it, just us identifying and syncing with it.
I think jimmy akin is right when he says that everything logically possible is metaphysically possible, so I don't think the philosophical arguments for the kalaam work.
How come you dont cite the original video in the description
There is a link to it in the description
'It's possible if we just redefine what "full" means.'
I suppose then that there is nothing that's impossible. Whatever it is, just redefine it til you get your way. We're seeing that everywhere these days, especially in women's sports and women's restrooms.
This is part of what Fr. John Neuhaus meant when he said "What are intellectuals for but to complexify the obvious?"
Craig is clearly the most intelligent man ever to have lived. He is an authority on Maths, cosmology, astrophysics... He knows more about each of these subjects than those specialists that have dedicated their lives to understanding them. His brilliance is such that his researches always confirm his original belief. He has literally proved god exists. Not only god, but the particular god that he was raised to believe in. I feel honoured to be able to bath in his brilliance.
You forgot history. And textual criticism. And moral philosophy. Honestly that's why nobody should take apologists seriously unless they actually have domain expertise and can rebut experts via publication. Watching Trent talk to Malpas recently really exposed how they were just on completely different levels in terms of understanding of philosophy.
@@user-pn8ke3kf5fApologético não são sério?? Por favor meu amigo.
Any dissenters want to debunk the paper - “Torsion driving cosmic expansion”
Or any other leading cosmological model which describes infinite cosmologies
James Lindsay! Not a name I was expecting to hear. His work on the theology of Marxism was really interesting.
How is it rational to ask for a calculation from something that by definition cannot be calculated? Aka infinity. Its a contradiction of definitions.
Hello, this may sound dumb, but what is both actual and potential infinities? Moreover, what are their differences?
If I have -1 (negative one) car and I sell it to an atheist mathematician, do they give me money and a car?
They could give you negative money, and it would be a fair deal!
When the Church asserts that "God is not composed of parts" is this in an Euclidian sense, but not Cantorian - or is this a metaphysical and absolute assertion?
I am not acquainted with that heavy Mathematics (Euclides and Cantor), but divine simplicity relates to ontology (the metaphysical part that studies what a thing is in its essence, in its being). I guess it is not impossible to formulate formal and mental propositions that relates to distinctions, like Blessed Duns Scotus or Gregory Palamas’ models of divine simplicity, but they are not ontologically considered. Ontologically, we can’t affirm composition.
It's not a positive claim at all, it's a negative claim. For a really, really good explanation of this, id highly recommend "Classical Theism Podcast", specifically
"Ep. #146 - A Thomistic Introduction to the Divine Attributes w/ Ryan Hurd"
He describes the catholic understanding very well.
@@masterchief8179 note, we cannot affirm complexity is the key point. Simplicity is a negative term, against what God is not, not positively stating what God is.
@@VACatholic I understand. But ontology is the “philosophy of being”, which can be dealt with by a more aprophatic theology or a more cataphatic theology. What you are saying is that we define God by what He is not. So ok.
@@masterchief8179 not exactly, I'm making a more subtle point. We define God is love, God is good, and those are positive attributes of God that we are saying God is that. These are apophatic qualities.
However when we say God is simple, we are not saying he is simple, we are instead saying he's not composed. That is, simplicity is a cataphatic quality, and it's important to remember that.
I feel like MoR is going to review and respond to this video.
Edit: He did one. He very much did a response to Trent.
I hope so
Somebody please send this to joe for review
Am I hearing right that mathematicians was describing infinity as having "bounds"? Infinity means it has no bounds, no limits, no beginning or end. How is redefining infinity to make a "bounded" infinity, okay? That's creating a contradiction
my argument against infinity goes something like this: in order for something to be a rational idea, the concept of it must at least in principal be conceivable to a sufficiently powerful mind. in order to really say "a mind has truly conceived of this thing", it must be possible for that mind to actually think of the *whole* of the thing. If you haven't thought of the whole of the thing, then you're thinking of a part of a thing, and a part is just a part - it isn't actually the thing. Only the whole of a thing, can really actually be that thing.
Now, to think of the whole of something, you must think of it from beginning, all the way through to its end. An infinite object by definition is endless, it lacks an end, and so in principal, it is there is no possible way that you can fulfill the condition of thinking of it from beginning to end. Note how this is true even if the thinker is using an "infinite" mind, and that the greatness of your power does not do anything to change how the condition of "conceiving to end" is always remaining unfulfilled; no matter how infinitely big your brain is, you could never think of something from beginning to end something that lacks an end to think to - and so this leaves us with a situation where it is actually even in principal impossible that infinity could be conceived of by any mind, even by "infinite" minds. I say impossible, in the very literal sense of there not being a single possible way of actually doing it in principal. If there was one way it could be rational, but there is not one way, and so it is impossible. And of course, if there is any situation where there is not even a single possible way to conceive of something, its not a rational concept, and there's no way it could possibly actually exist. And so nothing is infinite, everything in this entire world is entirely limited.
A thing that cannot be conceived of even in principal is also something that cannot actually be whole-ly mentioned or talked about at all - which if you think about it makes sense why we say such things are impossible. How are you supposed to make claims about an unmentionable thing? Whatever you mention is not actually talking about it, so its just kind of silly. Definitions require definite boundaries, limited beginnings and ends.
I think at least some (but definitely not all) of the problem arises from the various alephs being cardinalities of infinity, not specific 'numbers' of infinity. I'm not pointing out the obvious, ie that no number is infinite. What I'm saying is that there are various specifig infinities that are all grouped together by general 'size' (cardinality).
For example, Aleph 0 is the cardinality of countable infinity, and is the cardinality of sets like the integers, the positive integers, the negative integers, the non-negative integers, etc. Aleph 0 minus Aleph 0 is undefined. But if you took two sets of cardinality Aleph 0, you can get a specific answer by subtracting the sets themselves, then taking the cardinality of the result. So [integers] - [negative integers] = [non-negative integers], whose cardinality is Aleph 0. But [non-negative integers] - [positive integers] = {0}, a set with one element. So in one case, Aleph 0 - Aleph 0 = Aleph 0, and in the other, it is 1. Again, this is because the various cardinalities of infinity are classes of number, not numbers themselves.
As a way of relating it to regular numbers, imagine I said, 'if you take a 3 digit number and subtract a 3 digit number, what is the result?' The answer is undefined. It could be another 3 digit number (999-111=888), a 2 digit number (200-150=50), a 1 digit number (500-495=5), a 0 digit number (100-100=0), or a negative number of 1-3 digits. There isn't a defined answer because the categories are too broad to allow for one.
Craig says in the speech at 29:00 that you take identical quantities, subtract identical quantities, and you don't know the result. But that's a misunderstanding - they aren't identical quantities, they are just in the same class of infinity.
Don't you think that God could create an infinite Universe for us? It seems to me there's no inherent contradiction in general to there being no limit to the Universe. On the other hand, I think some applications of infinity are impossible. I'm not really sure, I guess, but I'm not convinced that infinity can't exist in the real world. Of course, a hotel couldn't be infinite, because nobody could build something infinite. And there could never be infinite humans, because there are a finite number now, and they can only grow without bound, not ever be infinite-nothing finite can ever grow to infinity.
But let's say instead of people, we're describing asteroids. In an infinite universe, with a real, nonzero density of asteroids, you could always find a 'next' asteroid, no matter how far you went. Doesn't that seem possible?
Time, however, is another story, due to causal requirements. There cannot be an infinite past.
@25:27 So if aleph numbers get absorbed by their larger counterparts, then the largest aleph number is the God number.
I love this channel.
Treating different mathematical constructions of infinity that are useful in solving mathematical problems like real infinities is just clowning mental gymnastics. These theories of real infinities, like string theory, are largely untestable/non-disprovable and lack any predictive power, the things needed to be scientific
It shows how far skeptics have been pushed.
It seems in their obsessive desire to “kill God“ they’ve created an infinitely intricate web of mathematical absurdities to wrap themselves in a blanket of skepticism an intellectual egotism. Just listening to those people, their voice is dripping with arrogance, is gross.
Reminds me of people who try to argue molecules to man evolution, especially the so-called “theistic evolutionists.” The level of certainty and metaphysical impossibility they must tangle themselves up and in order to appear smart to the antichrist intellectuals is unbelievable.
If the universe began to exist, it may need a cause, oh that makes perfect sense. Its like saying I was born, but I had no mother or father and there was nothing that existed before I exist, but here I am from literally nothing for no reason
Yup. This is exactly what atheists argue. A very charitable account of their position. Yup yup 👍🏻👍🏻 good on you
(sarcasm)
You were caused by the genetic material passed on to you by your parents...
@@HoneybunMegapack youre correct, only there is very strong evidence it didnt always exist. The philosophical and scientific evidence suggest it began. I guess you would have to say that to people say God needed a cause also
@@HoneybunMegapack nope, infinite past is logically impossible, simple philosophy. Cant cross an infinite amount of time.
@@HoneybunMegapack if the past is infinite, you do.
I’m interested in knowing the academic background of the presenter?
If the infinite past cannot exist in the real world outside of mathematics, then God cannot exist infinitely in the past outside of mathematics. So God's existence had a beginning. And as the kalam states, everything that begins to exist has a cause.
So what I'd the cause of god.
No doubt the answer will be either some kind of special pleading, or some kind of re-defining of terms to get out of a logical hole. I'd be interested to see if there is an answer to this conundrum that is neither special pleading or a redefining of terms.
Yeah. We should forget all the mental gymnastics already, and the unnecessary complexities about infinities that have nothing to do with reality.
Leave the chatter and provide evidence. This is what Kalaam advocates cannot do.
@Steve-yn3cs and neither can opponents
The sum of infinite numbers is NOT -1/12. This sum is arrived at by incorrectly adding infinite sums.
Dr. Craig, its not subtracting the same quantities, they're different subsets of infinity. So it isn't surprising that there are different quantities left over.
WLC needs the concept of infinity to be only potential so that the Kalam works. But he relies on intuition which have been proven a realy bad tool to undersatnd reality. Many things that our intuition lets us believe are wrong.
How is intuition “proven” to be wrong?
@@Turtletanks here are a few examples :
1) does heavier objects fall faster than lighter one?
2) is there more counting numbers than prime numbers?
3) is light a wave or particle?
4) do we have to put 182 people in the same room to assure that there is 1/2 probability that at least 2 of those people celebrate their birthday on the same day ?
And I can go on and on. Intuition is not a good argument 😉
Although it doesn’t affect the argument, an actual infinity can exist in the real world if space is continuous. Trent calls this a potential infinity, but it is an actual infinity (just not from discrete objects)
That whole documentary just sounds like misrepresentation of Craig's proposition of infinity in the (meta)physical sense.
Is it correct to call past events "things"? It seems like you might get around a lot of these objections by drawing an ontological distinction between an infinite set of past events and an infinite set of physical objects, particularly because operations like subtraction and division don't really make sense when you try to apply them to an infinite set of past events anyway. I could take away a baseball card from an infinite set of baseball cards easily enough, and that would create contradictions, but I have no idea how I'd go about subtracting a portion of time from the infinite past.
I address this later in the video. Craig talks about how past events are instantiated in reality at least at one point so the argument holds. In the video I use Andrew Loke's argument to show a past infinity could allow an actual infinite to exist in the present and that's where the problem lies.
@@TheCounselofTrent Ah shucks, that's what I get for commenting before watching the whole thing. Thanks.
@@Chicken_of_Bristol No worries and you're welcome!
@@TheCounselofTrent please send this refutation to Rationality rules because he is making a Series on KALAM with joe he will use that kalam documentary so please send your refutation to him and also Skydivephi
@@TheCounselofTrent Andrew Loke? LMAO
well presented. good job!
Regarding the quote *infinity only exists to those who can imagine it* , that means infinity doesn't exist as nobody can imagine it. Well, at least that means infinity doesn't exist in the physical realm. God may be infinite but that's it. And that would explain why we can not truly comprehend everything about God. We can know God, but not fully comprehend God.
I would have to agree with St. Thomas, in that the eternity of the world cannot be positively disproved by reason. Although it can be proved by reason that the world is necessarily eternal, hence we can only know by revelation which is true. Hence, the Kalam argument fails. Aristotle's first cause argument, however, works perfectly.
I think you’re missing some points here. First off, Thomas Aquinas didn’t necessarily know everything. Just because he thought you couldn’t disprove the infinitude of the past doesn’t mean you can’t.
Craig talks about answering that specific objection, because an infinite past means an infinite number of CONCRETE THINGS. That’s where it falls about. So some mathematician can talk about unhelpful infinite number set theories that don’t have anything to do with reality.
Like Trent said, between you and the door there is a POTENTIAL infinite number of points, because you can always divide a distance in half. But if you had an infinite number of equally sized tiles between you and the door you could never reach it, because it would be infinitely far away.
Similarly, you can’t have an infinite number of past 24 hour days, because you could never reach today.
I tend to agree, except that modern physics, which is empirical, not rational, heavily suggests a non-eternal universe, and anyone accepting the most popular modern comsological theories are faced with the Kalam.
That being said, the Kalam also works even if one assumes an infinite past and a single solution to any physical process. A cause still has to be given.
@@DanUtley But St Thomas Aquinas doesn’t necessarily say we can’t prove the universe has a limited series of past causal event: he says we can’t prove it through metaphysical reasoning. Isn’t it the case?
If the universe is expanding then it is not infinite in size. It had a definable beginning according to the big bang theory. The only way infinite time is possible is if creation occurred. Which means a being that exists outside linear time created the universe. Have to change what we consider of time and space for time to be infinite.
The universe expanding and having a beginning do not entail it is finite in size, that does not follow. In fact, the most common metric used to describe the expansion of the universe, the FLRW metric with an increasing scale factor, describes a spatially infinite universe that expands and has a beginning (with a(0)=0)
You should do a video on Dr. Mike Heiser! I’d love to hear what you think of his work.
I salute you Trent, it must take a lot of patience to continually respond to people who deliberately misunderstand others.
Willful ignorance.
Here I am, an equipment mechanic, sagely nodding my head, acting like I can understand any of this 😂
I wonder, how does one respond to the idea that God experiences all points of time? It seems then that God represents an actual infinity, even if the infinite future is only potential for an observer, it becomes an actual infinity for God. Does it have something to do with Craig's "presentism" vs the b theory of time?
God is actual, there is no potential in Him, He's pure actuality. He's not in time/space rather outside of it.
@@ninodjuras I understand, but God interacts with time, correct? God actively creates all things at all points in time, which implies that God, in some way, interacts with an actual infinity. I'd like to know how one answers that objection.
@@lyterman Rob Koons had a discussion with Joe Schmid and he said that he thinks you can get around that problem with divine impassibility.
@@notnpc7965 I'll have to check it out! I love Dr. Koons. Thanks for alerting me to this.
In B theory all points of time are equally actual at all times, God isn't subject to time but time is subject to God, implying God is also present actually in every moment of time not only the present and that these are also all _real_