Hey Carneades. Dr. Craig is aware of your infinity argument but then he makes the claim that just because something is logically possible or mathematically well defined, there's no reason to think it's metaphysically impossible or applicable in the real world. In other words it's only something that works on paper. What's your response?
That's funny because in the Lawrence Krauss book called "A Universe from Nothing", he says on page 71: "However, if we want to calculate the effect of virtual particles on empty space alone, we have nothing to subtract, and the answer we get is therefore infinite. Infinity is not a pleasant quantity, however, at least as far as physicists are concerned, and we try to avoid it whenever possible. Clearly, the energy of empty space (or anything else, for that matter) cannot be physically infinite, so we have to figure out a way to do the calculation and get a finite answer". So you can have a potential infinite, but never an actual infinite. It doesn't make sense for that to be the case. If the universe did have a beginning as science shows, then I don't see how you can avoid a creator.
+Christian Existentialist I have several levels of criticism here. First, science seems unjustified (ruclips.net/video/V-g7Glyxi98/видео.html), biased (ruclips.net/video/6AvYCTRx72Q/видео.html) and contradictory (ruclips.net/video/-9NuFeNoFeo/видео.html), so I see no reason to believe its claims. Second, even from the perspective of a scientific realist (ruclips.net/video/i3DlhNgeqZk/видео.html) it seems that cosmology is not science (ruclips.net/video/m5wqVMfjAvg/видео.html), and there seems to be debate as to whether Lawerence Krauss is a cosmologist. As for the question of beginnings and creators, I agree that it is possible that someone created the universe, as I skeptic, I'm not sure of anything, but it also seems possible to me that something created the universe, or that something existed before the universe, or that the universe is a giant circle. These all seem to be possibilities. I think the cosmological argument is one of the most thought provoking arguments for the existence of God, but it seems to me that cosmology is too flimsy to rule out many other possibilities.
I'm no expert, but my understanding of the BGV Big Bang is that it does not say that the universe had a beginning. It says that the expansion of the universe had a beginning. Victor Stenger asked Vilenkin (the "V" in BGV) about this and these were Vilenkin's own words. It's in Stenger's book "The Fallacy of Fine Tuning."
Interesting. If that is the case it might put some pressure on Craig's claim that the universe beginning to exist is something that is supported by science. From my limited understanding of the Big Bang, we really don't understand it very well and are really only making guesses as to what the universe looked like before it started to expand.
I take exception to C. The number of square numbers is both equal to and MORE than the number of natural numbers. If you square a number, you add a number to the total amount of numbers. You can have a number and not square it, but you can't have a squared number without having the root number.
A mathematician will tell you that they are equal since you can put them into one to one correspondence. For any square number that you give me, I can find a root. Here's a video on Cantor's paradox which explains the concept of denumerability and larger and smaller infinities in greater depth: ruclips.net/video/WIrdyu9WquQ/видео.html
Hey Carneades, thanks for all the videos, great stuff! Leaving the question of whether "actual infinities" exist or not aside for a moment, the idea of traversing an infinite temporal past does seem rather impossible. I find WLC's example of the library somewhat lacking in showing why infinite past time is seemingly impossible. I would think a better comparison to an actual infinite temporal past would be like the notion of "counting down from infinity" (or up from negative infinity). Can one actually ever get to 0 (or a million or a billion etc.)? The question wouldn't be whether there exist an actual infinite amount of numbers, but rather can you actually count all of them. If it's true that time has a forward flow (which gets into questions of what time is and could maybe answer my question, and I hope to check out your videos on time), it would seem nonsensical for an infinite past to ever arrive at the present (or to have ever arrived a million, billion, trillion, etc. years/moments/whatever denomination you want, ago). It's less a matter of there existing something which is infinite and rather a question of can one actually count an infinite amount of numbers and actually arrive at any number. How can one move forward from infinity? (In regards to numbers it's counting, and in regard to time, the question would be, can an infinite amount of time have actually passed to get to the present?) I'm not specifically addressing your circular time answer or Hawking's answer, I'm more just wondering if what I stated above is correct, in your opinion. Hope my question is clear, thanks!
In regard to the example you credit to Hawkings....you seem to be arguing that it is theoretically possible for there to be at least an approach to an infinite number of units of time before the big bang as you get close to it....well ok....whatever you mean by that, how does that relate to a beginning-less series of temporal events not being an actual infinite?
There actually are quite a few mathematicians who don't like infinite set theory as there are many bizarre paradoxes produced by the theory and it has a history of being the source of contradictions when used in other theories. It's poorly understood at the very least. E.T. Jaynes made a point of explicitly avoiding infinite set theory when deriving his modern formulation of Bayesian inference for example. But if one accepts it, then P3 is just false in the theistic argument as you point out, the cardinalities of the red set and the total set are identical, even though it is intuitively obvious that the number of red books is half that of all books and that taking the limit of Red/All should be 0.5. One of the problems with the definition of cardinality in infinite set theory is that it doesn't map to intuitive ideas of sizes. For example, the cardinality of the number of points in square is equal to the number of points at the edge of the square. A bizarre result that, while apparently correct in terms of the axioms, makes us doubt that the set theory maps to our normal ideas of size in any useful way. Personally I have little confidence in the refutation, but it's also clear that the theistic argument is misusing infinite set theory when claiming that there are less red books than total books.
What are some paradoxes produced by infinite set theory? I have been trying to study up on set theory lately and I would love some articles or books if you have anything good. Thanks!
Not strong arguments for the universe being infinite and not a beginningless series of temporal events. The 'circle universe' basically represents an oscillating universe which pretty much has been rejected by cosmology as there's evidence and logical proof against it. The one from Hawkings doesn't explain why/how the universe ever started and only works how you did it; reasoning backwards. To me the only viable options which don't break causality and explain why this universe started is either a god or a meta/multi-verse (virtual particles already hint towards there being causes beyond our observable universe).
"Has been rejected by cosmology as there's evidence and logical proof against it" Can you list such a logical proof? Also Cosmology is the most apocryphal of all scientific disciplines as it all relies on the excessively spurious "cosmological principle" which has no justification beyond "we could do cosmology if we didn't assume it". Just like we couldn't do theology if we didn't assume that God exists. Therefore we should assume that God exists. It's a horrible argument. "The one from Hawkings doesn't explain why/how the universe ever started and only works how you did it; reasoning backwards." The point is that Hawkings is saying that the universe did not actually start that it simply got closer and closer to a beginning but never actually began. And the most important point here should be that simply lacking an explanation does not allow us to help ourselves to any of the above explanations or God. We must withhold judgment. We can put forward various explanations like my circular universe, Hawking's asymptote universe or your meta/multi-verse, or even God, but to claim that one of them is correct requires justification.
Carneades.org I also believe that the kalam is based on the A-theory of time, while the B-theory of time disputes how time behaves in the this argument.
Carneades.org Yes it does. The concept is found in Indian philosophy and in ancient Egypt and was subsequently taken up by the Pythagoreans and Stoics. Also, the Poincaré recurrence theorem in mathematics states that a system whose dynamics are volume-preserving and which is confined to a finite spatial volume will, after a sufficiently long time, return to an arbitrarily small neighborhood of its initial state. "A sufficiently long time" could be much longer than the predicted lifetime of the observable universe. Even the writer and philosopher Albert Camus explores the notion of "eternal return" in his essay on "The Myth of Sisyphus," in which the repetitive nature of existence comes to represent life's absurdity, something the hero seeks to withstand through manifesting what Paul Tillich called, "The Courage to Be." Though the task of rolling the stone repeatedly up the hill without end is inherently meaningless, the challenge faced by Sisyphus is to refrain from despair. Hence Camus famously concludes that, "one must imagine Sisyphus happy."
let's say it does exist , then the universe wouldn't exist if i passed the water back to my friend then he passed it back to his and his to his...infinitely no action is taken therefore the uniiverse would not exist .(i am talking about the atheist "who created the creator" refutation) and let me phrase the infinity problem better for you , you have infinity i took everything greater than 5 you are left with 5 , you have infinity i take all odd you still have infinity though i took infinity in both cases . 2 sameequ diff outcome paradox you're argument is weak for saying this is a circle i don't mind the circular stretch of events but where did the circle it's self come from you must provide SUFFICIENT reason for it's existence despite it's nature it's reason must be beyond its self, now stephen hawking's example is mere theory neither provides reason nor evidence , we take time to study our laws of physics saying that as we go back it slows is as saying as we go further it hastens , did it hasten ? no why hasn't it ? because if it has the laws of physics would change V=xt + v0 for example try throwing your pen from the eiffel tower a hundered years from now you would still get the same result because you can not know if time fastens or not we all undergo time we need an outside reference or observer to be able to identify differences
@@ftfarias15 The argument does not say that actual infinites cannot exist. It is only with respect to specific temporal misreadings that this is applied. To get the argument reading about the grim reaper paradox by dr.alexander pruss or grimessenger paradox would help. 👍👍👍
@@mathewromythoomkuzhy6406 I read and watched some very long discussions about actual infinities with WL Craig and Alex Malpass, and to be honest I don't have a final opinion about it. Both sides have very good arguments and I'm a software developer (but my college degree is a major in physics) , not a philosopher. Anyway, I'm fine with the original conclusion "the universe has a cause", since I believe there is much more than just the universe, but the arguments for a personal cause doesn't convince me. I would say it's more probable the cause of the universe is a natural cause than a "god" cause.
@@ftfarias15 Well, it's somewhat right. Dr. Graham Oppy notes that we mostly decide the conclusions even before we star thinking. Well Maybe it was arrogant of me to put my claim that it's full of fallacies. But there are notable strawmans. And it's right both sides have equally good arguments. But I guess it feels 'GOD' explanation seems slightly more logical atleast to me. But if you think that the universe does have a beginning then the rest is sorta fixed the academia is clear on that. The argument for personality of the first cause is very crystal. Maybe you would take look again.👍👍👍 Best of luck very dear friend.👍👍👍
@@mathewromythoomkuzhy6406 Thanks! The argument I saw for "personality of the first cause" is mostly related with the concept of the finite time of the universe. From Craig and Moreland, 2009: “Agent causation, volitional action, is the only ontological condition in which an effect can arise in the absence of prior determining conditions. Therefore, only personal, free agency can account for the origin of a first temporal effect from a changeless cause”. That sounds very abstract for me. First I believe randomness is a fundamental part of reality, so it’s perfectly fine some effects happening from random causes. Second, I learned in metaphysics that causal-effect relationship MUST be simultaneously. It’s a very strange, non trivial relation of “timeless” to “time-full” cause-effect. Usually the explanation is: “If the conditions to happen exists, it must happen immediately, so the universe should be infinite old”. That’s not apply at all in my view: First in a timeless condition, you can’t say “happened before, after, earlier, later, eternal etc” because there is not time, so all time relations are meaningless. Also, what happened before the beginning of the universe doesn’t affect the time inside the universe. It’s like when you start a chronometer, how long passed (or not passed since it’s timeless) doesn’t affect the time you measure in the chronometer. If you have reference that explains my questions I would love to see. Thanks!
interesting theory. though it adequately explain the possible way for beginningless universe OF ours, it doesn't sufficiently and completely explain the contingency of the universe as a whole. it doesn't answer philosophical question of cosmology rather more about perceived cosmology. its like chicken and egg analogy. moreover its still unproven theory
l know you might want to quote Russell's response of fallacy of composition. but it doesn't undermine the argument if the universe is taken as sum of all contingencies. ie a set of its parts.
Thanks Carneades. Despite being a Christian, I've found your videos are very helpful.
Warm regards from Indonesia
Hey Carneades. Dr. Craig is aware of your infinity argument but then he makes the claim that just because something is logically possible or mathematically well defined, there's no reason to think it's metaphysically impossible or applicable in the real world. In other words it's only something that works on paper. What's your response?
Loved it!!
That's funny because in the Lawrence Krauss book called "A Universe from Nothing", he says on page 71:
"However, if we want to calculate the effect of virtual particles on empty space alone, we have nothing to subtract, and the answer we get is therefore infinite. Infinity is not a pleasant quantity, however, at least as far as physicists are concerned, and we try to avoid it whenever possible. Clearly, the energy of empty space (or anything else, for that matter) cannot be physically infinite, so we have to figure out a way to do the calculation and get a finite answer".
So you can have a potential infinite, but never an actual infinite. It doesn't make sense for that to be the case. If the universe did have a beginning as science shows, then I don't see how you can avoid a creator.
+Christian Existentialist I have several levels of criticism here. First, science seems unjustified (ruclips.net/video/V-g7Glyxi98/видео.html), biased (ruclips.net/video/6AvYCTRx72Q/видео.html) and contradictory (ruclips.net/video/-9NuFeNoFeo/видео.html), so I see no reason to believe its claims. Second, even from the perspective of a scientific realist (ruclips.net/video/i3DlhNgeqZk/видео.html) it seems that cosmology is not science (ruclips.net/video/m5wqVMfjAvg/видео.html), and there seems to be debate as to whether Lawerence Krauss is a cosmologist.
As for the question of beginnings and creators, I agree that it is possible that someone created the universe, as I skeptic, I'm not sure of anything, but it also seems possible to me that something created the universe, or that something existed before the universe, or that the universe is a giant circle. These all seem to be possibilities. I think the cosmological argument is one of the most thought provoking arguments for the existence of God, but it seems to me that cosmology is too flimsy to rule out many other possibilities.
I'm no expert, but my understanding of the BGV Big Bang is that it does not say that the universe had a beginning. It says that the expansion of the universe had a beginning. Victor Stenger asked Vilenkin (the "V" in BGV) about this and these were Vilenkin's own words. It's in Stenger's book "The Fallacy of Fine Tuning."
Interesting. If that is the case it might put some pressure on Craig's claim that the universe beginning to exist is something that is supported by science. From my limited understanding of the Big Bang, we really don't understand it very well and are really only making guesses as to what the universe looked like before it started to expand.
+Carneades.org I confirm. it's really written in Stenger's book 'god and the folly of faith'
Beautiful
I take exception to C. The number of square numbers is both equal to and MORE than the number of natural numbers. If you square a number, you add a number to the total amount of numbers. You can have a number and not square it, but you can't have a squared number without having the root number.
A mathematician will tell you that they are equal since you can put them into one to one correspondence. For any square number that you give me, I can find a root. Here's a video on Cantor's paradox which explains the concept of denumerability and larger and smaller infinities in greater depth: ruclips.net/video/WIrdyu9WquQ/видео.html
If a series repeats forever, it actually does go on forever. How could you miss that?
Hey Carneades, thanks for all the videos, great stuff!
Leaving the question of whether "actual infinities" exist or not aside for a moment, the idea of traversing an infinite temporal past does seem rather impossible.
I find WLC's example of the library somewhat lacking in showing why infinite past time is seemingly impossible. I would think a better comparison to an actual infinite temporal past would be like the notion of "counting down from infinity" (or up from negative infinity). Can one actually ever get to 0 (or a million or a billion etc.)?
The question wouldn't be whether there exist an actual infinite amount of numbers, but rather can you actually count all of them.
If it's true that time has a forward flow (which gets into questions of what time is and could maybe answer my question, and I hope to check out your videos on time), it would seem nonsensical for an infinite past to ever arrive at the present (or to have ever arrived a million, billion, trillion, etc. years/moments/whatever denomination you want, ago).
It's less a matter of there existing something which is infinite and rather a question of can one actually count an infinite amount of numbers and actually arrive at any number. How can one move forward from infinity? (In regards to numbers it's counting, and in regard to time, the question would be, can an infinite amount of time have actually passed to get to the present?)
I'm not specifically addressing your circular time answer or Hawking's answer, I'm more just wondering if what I stated above is correct, in your opinion.
Hope my question is clear, thanks!
In regard to the example you credit to Hawkings....you seem to be arguing that it is theoretically possible for there to be at least an approach to an infinite number of units of time before the big bang as you get close to it....well ok....whatever you mean by that, how does that relate to a beginning-less series of temporal events not being an actual infinite?
There actually are quite a few mathematicians who don't like infinite set theory as there are many bizarre paradoxes produced by the theory and it has a history of being the source of contradictions when used in other theories. It's poorly understood at the very least. E.T. Jaynes made a point of explicitly avoiding infinite set theory when deriving his modern formulation of Bayesian inference for example.
But if one accepts it, then P3 is just false in the theistic argument as you point out, the cardinalities of the red set and the total set are identical, even though it is intuitively obvious that the number of red books is half that of all books and that taking the limit of Red/All should be 0.5. One of the problems with the definition of cardinality in infinite set theory is that it doesn't map to intuitive ideas of sizes. For example, the cardinality of the number of points in square is equal to the number of points at the edge of the square. A bizarre result that, while apparently correct in terms of the axioms, makes us doubt that the set theory maps to our normal ideas of size in any useful way.
Personally I have little confidence in the refutation, but it's also clear that the theistic argument is misusing infinite set theory when claiming that there are less red books than total books.
What are some paradoxes produced by infinite set theory? I have been trying to study up on set theory lately and I would love some articles or books if you have anything good. Thanks!
Not strong arguments for the universe being infinite and not a beginningless series of temporal events.
The 'circle universe' basically represents an oscillating universe which pretty much has been rejected by cosmology as there's evidence and logical proof against it.
The one from Hawkings doesn't explain why/how the universe ever started and only works how you did it; reasoning backwards.
To me the only viable options which don't break causality and explain why this universe started is either a god or a meta/multi-verse (virtual particles already hint towards there being causes beyond our observable universe).
"Has been rejected by cosmology as there's evidence and logical proof against it"
Can you list such a logical proof? Also Cosmology is the most apocryphal of all scientific disciplines as it all relies on the excessively spurious "cosmological principle" which has no justification beyond "we could do cosmology if we didn't assume it". Just like we couldn't do theology if we didn't assume that God exists. Therefore we should assume that God exists. It's a horrible argument.
"The one from Hawkings doesn't explain why/how the universe ever started and only works how you did it; reasoning backwards."
The point is that Hawkings is saying that the universe did not actually start that it simply got closer and closer to a beginning but never actually began.
And the most important point here should be that simply lacking an explanation does not allow us to help ourselves to any of the above explanations or God. We must withhold judgment. We can put forward various explanations like my circular universe, Hawking's asymptote universe or your meta/multi-verse, or even God, but to claim that one of them is correct requires justification.
Carneades.org I also believe that the kalam is based on the A-theory of time, while the B-theory of time disputes how time behaves in the this argument.
I realize this thread is old but...what does "closer to a beginning" even mean if there is no beginning?
@@CarneadesOfCyrene I'd say a circular universe would be close to impossible due to entropy.
The time as a flat circle reminds me so much of Friedrich Nietzsche's "Eternal Recurrence" found in his book "The Gay Science".
Certainly, from my understanding the idea even predates Nietzsche going back to antiquity.
Carneades.org Yes it does. The concept is found in Indian philosophy and in ancient Egypt and was subsequently taken up by the Pythagoreans and Stoics. Also, the Poincaré recurrence theorem in mathematics states that a system whose dynamics are volume-preserving and which is confined to a finite spatial volume will, after a sufficiently long time, return to an arbitrarily small neighborhood of its initial state. "A sufficiently long time" could be much longer than the predicted lifetime of the observable universe. Even the writer and philosopher Albert Camus explores the notion of "eternal return" in his essay on "The Myth of Sisyphus," in which the repetitive nature of existence comes to represent life's absurdity, something the hero seeks to withstand through manifesting what Paul Tillich called, "The Courage to Be." Though the task of rolling the stone repeatedly up the hill without end is inherently meaningless, the challenge faced by Sisyphus is to refrain from despair. Hence Camus famously concludes that, "one must imagine Sisyphus happy."
let's say it does exist , then the universe wouldn't exist if i passed the water back to my friend then he passed it back to his and his to his...infinitely no action is taken therefore the uniiverse would not exist .(i am talking about the atheist "who created the creator" refutation) and let me phrase the infinity problem better for you , you have infinity i took everything greater than 5 you are left with 5 , you have infinity i take all odd you still have infinity though i took infinity in both cases . 2 sameequ diff outcome paradox you're argument is weak for saying this is a circle i don't mind the circular stretch of events but where did the circle it's self come from you must provide SUFFICIENT reason for it's existence despite it's nature it's reason must be beyond its self, now stephen hawking's example is mere theory neither provides reason nor evidence , we take time to study our laws of physics saying that as we go back it slows is as saying as we go further it hastens , did it hasten ? no why hasn't it ? because if it has the laws of physics would change V=xt + v0 for example try throwing your pen from the eiffel tower a hundered years from now you would still get the same result because you can not know if time fastens or not we all undergo time we need an outside reference or observer to be able to identify differences
There are a lot of fallacies in here that I lost count. Reply if you have objections
Please give us some, I watched twice and didn’t find any fallacy.
@@ftfarias15 The argument does not say that actual infinites cannot exist. It is only with respect to specific temporal misreadings that this is applied. To get the argument reading about the grim reaper paradox by dr.alexander pruss or grimessenger paradox would help. 👍👍👍
@@mathewromythoomkuzhy6406 I read and watched some very long discussions about actual infinities with WL Craig and Alex Malpass, and to be honest I don't have a final opinion about it. Both sides have very good arguments and I'm a software developer (but my college degree is a major in physics) , not a philosopher. Anyway, I'm fine with the original conclusion "the universe has a cause", since I believe there is much more than just the universe, but the arguments for a personal cause doesn't convince me. I would say it's more probable the cause of the universe is a natural cause than a "god" cause.
@@ftfarias15 Well, it's somewhat right. Dr. Graham Oppy notes that we mostly decide the conclusions even before we star thinking. Well Maybe it was arrogant of me to put my claim that it's full of fallacies. But there are notable strawmans. And it's right both sides have equally good arguments. But I guess it feels 'GOD' explanation seems slightly more logical atleast to me.
But if you think that the universe does have a beginning then the rest is sorta fixed the academia is clear on that. The argument for personality of the first cause is very crystal. Maybe you would take look again.👍👍👍 Best of luck very dear friend.👍👍👍
@@mathewromythoomkuzhy6406 Thanks! The argument I saw for "personality of the first cause" is mostly related with the concept of the finite time of the universe. From Craig and Moreland, 2009: “Agent causation, volitional action, is the only ontological condition in which an effect can arise in the absence of prior determining conditions. Therefore, only personal, free agency can account for the origin of a first temporal effect from a changeless cause”. That sounds very abstract for me. First I believe randomness is a fundamental part of reality, so it’s perfectly fine some effects happening from random causes. Second, I learned in metaphysics that causal-effect relationship MUST be simultaneously. It’s a very strange, non trivial relation of “timeless” to “time-full” cause-effect.
Usually the explanation is: “If the conditions to happen exists, it must happen immediately, so the universe should be infinite old”. That’s not apply at all in my view: First in a timeless condition, you can’t say “happened before, after, earlier, later, eternal etc” because there is not time, so all time relations are meaningless. Also, what happened before the beginning of the universe doesn’t affect the time inside the universe. It’s like when you start a chronometer, how long passed (or not passed since it’s timeless) doesn’t affect the time you measure in the chronometer.
If you have reference that explains my questions I would love to see. Thanks!
Mmmm yeah even though you could have an infinite amount of square numbers there still is more natural numbers
For the love of God, please say "FEWER" books and "FEWER" Natural numbers etc.
interesting theory. though it adequately explain the possible way for beginningless universe OF ours, it doesn't sufficiently and completely explain the contingency of the universe as a whole. it doesn't answer philosophical question of cosmology rather more about perceived cosmology. its like chicken and egg analogy. moreover its still unproven theory
l know you might want to quote Russell's response of fallacy of composition. but it doesn't undermine the argument if the universe is taken as sum of all contingencies. ie a set of its parts.