WLC is one of the smartest people I have ever heard and yet very humble with an ability to communicate very sophisticated ideas relatively simply and clearly. I really admire WLC.
@@1john4six why is the 1769 King James Version the only reliable record of the Bible? It is a translation from the original texts in Greek and in other languages. It’s not a terrible translation but there are better translations and in the modern vernacular. When you start talking about the King James Bible as the only reliable translation of the Biblical writings you lose credibility.
@@1john4six my sources. i have just proven you wrong. Cambridge University | Biblical Versions The 5 Most Accurate Bible Translations | Faith Founded on Fact Site Kenboa Org | How Accurate is the Bible? One reason the KJV is not as reliable as current Bibles is because it was produced before the Textus Siniaticus was found, which brings clarity to the translations and words used. MODERN versions use this- such as the NASB and NIV. Additionally, here is a source proving that the King James Translation is unreliable in certain places because of King James' power thirst which he was willing to misconstrue Scripture for. "All the Ways The King James Version Really Messed up God's Word" | Ranker Hopefully you will realize how wrong you are. 😉
Still to date one of my favorite dialogues is between William Lane Craig and the Skeptic, Alex. Two individuals sharing ideas in a polite and respectful manner. I would love to see these two converse again in the near future.
Here you guys go: Actual Infinite vs. Potential Infinite: Think of "actual infinite" as something that truly exists in a never-ending way, like an infinite number of things. On the other hand, "potential infinite" refers to something that could keep going indefinitely, like dividing a ruler's space infinitely. Example with the Ruler: When you divide a ruler's space, you can keep dividing it into smaller and smaller parts forever. However, just because you can keep dividing doesn't mean there's actually an infinite number of parts. Modal Operator Shift Fallacy: Some argue that because you can potentially keep dividing the ruler infinitely, there must be an actual infinite number of points. But that's not necessarily true. Saying something is possible (potentially infinite divisions) doesn't mean it's actually happening (actual infinite points). The Nature of Lines: A line exists independently of any specific points you might choose on it. So, even if you can keep dividing a line into smaller parts, it doesn't mean there's an actual infinite number of points on it. In simpler terms, just because you can keep dividing something forever doesn't mean there's actually an infinite number of pieces or points.
it's a fallacy to put it simply imagine I have a toy car and I'm putting it on a road lets say you can imagine the road going on forever what he's saying is just because you can imagine it doesn't mean it's really existing. That's because it's in our imagination. Ie: thinking of something that's possible doesn't make it real
@@Jockito if you're still wondering, he's basically referring to foundational concepts in modal logic (in which i am no expert but i think i got the idea). basically, modal logic is like classical logic (in which you can use the words "not", "and", "or" and "implies"), but we introduce new things we can do to propositions: given a proposition P, one can say that there exists a universe in which P is true (i.e. P is possible), and that P is true for all universes (i.e. P is necessary). the words "is possible" and "is necessary" are the modal operators. now, when one talks about subdivisions of points, it is certainly possible to find the midpoint any number of times you like; in this sense, we are using the "is possible" modal operator. this essentially amounts to the existence of a potential infinity, which is uncontroversial. however, to introduce an actual infinity, we essentially need to construct every midpoint at once, making them all exist all at once in every universe. thus, we have changed the language from "is possible" to "is necessary", which is a modal operator shift.
Even more specific, God exists outside the confines of the "Law of Causality" (a.k.a. Einstein's theory of special and general relativity) because He exists in a dimension where infinity is possible (eternity). When people ask who created God, they are committing a logical fallacy by falsely assuming that the laws which govern this dimension also govern other dimensions. The Law of Causality only applies to things that have a beginning, and God does not. " “I am the Alpha and the Omega,” says the Lord God, “ *who is and who was and who is to come* , the Almighty.” " - Revelation 1:8 (emphasis mine)
There is nothing special about him that sets him apart from his peers. The fact that he is just a kid and is appearing so frequently with WLC actually cheapens Craig's stature as a formidable voice among philosophers. It's really not much different from if Sir Isaac Newton were to partner up with Bozo the Clown.
@@extract8058 Craig isn't as insane as Isaac Newton, and Alex isn't a clown. False comparison. This is also just a dialogue on Alex's podcast, and Craig wouldn't ever really debate him. Well, maybe in 15 years when Craig is old, and Alex is older.
@@josephsack4918 you call Newton the Father of Science "insane" ? OK thanks now I know nothing you say can be taken seriously. You're perhaps even more of a clown than Alex.
@@extract8058 Mb. When people say "You're insane" in sports or video games, it gets in my head as not an insult. So, I meant insane as in, he is one of the best scientists if not the best to ever live.
In principle, it is impossible to have an “infinite” number of parts in between two points for two independent reasons: (1) “Infinite” is not a quantity, just as “huge” is not a quantity. Terms like “infinite quantity” and “infinite number” should be understood to function like the terms “huge quantity” and “huge number”. “Infinite” in “infinite quantity/number” is a qualitative description of the quantity/number just as “huge” in “hinge quantity/number” is a qualitative description of the quantity/number. (2) No matter how small is the length of each tiny divided part, the length of each part has a non-zero value. When the length between two points (say, 1cm) is divided by any non-zero value, it necessarily results in a finite quantity, instead of an “infinite” quantity.
If someone gives you an answer to that question that isn’t : “it depends on the rules we make up” or “No”, Then they are lying. And if we take real numbers then you absolutely do have a point at every place. For example the number 5. But who knows if the real numbers resemble anything in nature
@@LaurenceBrown-rx7hx dude thinking about your reply I realized that I think I misinterpreted what WLC was saying. I think what he was actually saying was “sure you can dissect 5 inches infinitely but all you’ll ever have is a total of five inches” as opposed to infinite (i.e. you’re not actually adding points, but simply naming sections of something that is finite). I guess you could do the same with 5 pounds or other metrics but idk for sure. Does that make sense? I’m actually asking lol
@@wakeg40 that makes sense to me. It depends on the axioms you start with, some people don’t like the “Real Numbers” and i imagine WLC is one of those people. One of the problems is you would need an infinite amount of digits to write down some real numbers like pi and stuff. But i will say that they are taking their armchair philosophy too far, nature could have infinities… nature doesn’t care what we like
@@wakeg40 I think its a controversial view in math… but this guy is better at explaining than me (he has a lot on this topic): ruclips.net/video/ScLgc_98XxM/видео.html
Calling yourself a "skeptic" is how you can skip the necessary scholarship historically required for debate to be believed by thousands similarly uneducated in history, philosophy, logic, or rhetoric.
Thought Alex had a point until WLC pointed out that to assume a line is a composition of points is to assume an actually infinite number of points. Blew my mind, I didn't even notice that.
Not only that, but even the points on the line could never possibly be actually infinite. No matter how much time you spent dividing the line however many times you will only have ever divided the line into a finite number of points. There is no such thing as an amount of times you can divide a line where it will then have an actually infinite number of points.
A point has a length of zero in all directions. 0+0+0+...etc. still equals 0. So you cannot form a line using only points. You must connect the points together using lines.
@@arianagrandaremix8858 You were taught wrong. A line is defined by the equation y=mx+b. A fully defined line requires only two unique points to set the constants of the equation. For every unique value x you give the function, you are returned a unique value y. You cannot input an infinite number of values and therefore an infinite output of values is impossible.
@@greg77389 that is an abstract mathematical concept but in the real world things like a line are made up of atoms. The act of repeatedly dividing a real physical line would eventually result in the splitting of an atom in which case matter is destroyed and further division would be impossible. In order to actually accomplish infinite division of anything physical, it would require infinitely smaller particles. Of course any object with infinite amount of atoms would have infinite gravity, infinite size and a whole plethora of ridiculous paradoxes would also have to exist.
If God used his divine foreknowledge to gaze into the eternal future, what would he see - an actual infinite number of events or a potentially infinite (and thus finite) number of events? If it is only finite, then God himself cannot see eternally into the future.
@@xtb3215 what I'm getting at is that "every event" in an eternal future is an actual infinite number, not a merely potential infinite. This violates Craig's idea that an actual set of anything isn't metaphysically possible. God would have to foreknow an actual infinite number of events if the future is eternal. But that is problematic on Craig's view, because he only accepts potential infinities.
@@Jockito God is an infinite, eternal, all-powerful being though. He technically could do that, as you can count towards infinity, but you can't start from infinity and get to a number such as 0.
The part you tripped up on is eternal future. There is no such thing. When we say God is eternal we believe that it is the eternal now that is the present. God is outside of time, past and future have no significance or Him. That is why He is called I Am, not I will be, or I was. As CS Lewis theorized, God is looking at us today the same he’s looking at yesterday and even on our death beds. All of time is now for Him at least that’s what I think. God and science both state that time will end and there cannot be an eternal future
@@xtb3215 "You can count towards infinity" But you cannot reach an actual infinite by successive addition; meaning that the actually infinite number of events that God foreknows can *never* actually transpire. This means God would both foreknow that an actually infinite number of events will occur, but that they can never occur. This is a conflict, and appealing to God's omnipotence and nature does nothing to resolve this conflict.
You need Pi to find the circumference of a circle. Isn't pi an infinite number? How does an infinite number get to a single number that is not infinite. Just a mind game someone threw at me.
Pi is not infinite, it has infinite digits, but doesn’t necessarily mean its infinite, just like euler number. If you subtract 1 from pi, it will 2.14159... and so on. But if you subtract 1 from infinite, it will remain infinite. Thats it
I don’t agree with this logic. The number line is not a thing but a representation of a thing, or many things or even an infinite number of things. Numbers are use to quantify things and lines are used to measure things. The whole entire number line with all its types of numbers is a good representation of all that is in the reality of existence. And just as there is an infinite number of sets on the number line there is also an infinite of spaces in existence with each space having its own infinite infinity. What is interesting is the set of all real numbers between (1,2) are equally as infinite as all real numbers on the entire number line. Grapple with that…
But the universe might actually be infinite, so there is no problem with actual infintes. The fact that you dont like them is "your" problem, not "a" problem.
Exactly. There is no distinction made between an absolute infinity of stuff and an actual infinite of the temporal. I see no problem with the latter whatsoever. I do have a problem with an absolute beginning.
@@farissaleh7526 it's not just the kalam that made him famous, he's written over 40 books on various subjects and is probably the best philosopher on planet earth right now... If not top 5
Hegel : “bad infinity” the one in which the operation to overcome finiteness always remains the same, repeated (“n+1”) and never comes to its destination (its end - reaching infinity). 'Bad' because it is both bizarre and tedious. A bit like William Lane Craig.
My problems: 1. Actual infinite is unobservable as ot will take infinite time to understand 2. Infinite energy/matter would make light-speed travel possible, as infinite energy could be used as a fuel source.
Not to mention the paradoxes you can make! Hilbert’s Hotel, Ben Ardette’s Book (I think that’s how it’s spelled), Grim Reaper paradoxes, infinite fair lotteries, it never ends.
@@Jockito I was entertaining your hypothetical. I pointed out that since God has a infinite mind there is no problem for him to observe infinite events. Could you clear up your question if I am missing something?
If the universe were an actual infinite then theoretically it could be possible for it to be eternal with an infinite past. But because actual infinites are impossible in physical space, we know that can't be the case. Therefore at some point there must have been a beginning to the universe. This would imply the need for God and preserve the Kalaam Cosmological argument.
I think the main point is that while abstract objects can have infinities, physical objects can't. So the number line is infinite, as are the number of digits of Pi, but physical objects can only move or change in finite steps - no finite number of finite steps on finite objects can produce an infinite result. Ordinals can make this even more interesting.
@@paulmitchell6602 What I said. Numbers are representations. There is no set of units in nature that corresponds to the set of real numbers, even if you used all the atoms in the universe. There's nothing wrong with the set of real numbers as a mathematical concept, but it doesn't exist beyond that.
The concept of "Nothing" represented by the number "0" (zero) did not exist in the beginning. The number "0" (zero) is a relatively recent human innovation in mathematics. But, there has always been "1" (one). The fact that one (1) exists and can generate the position/concept of "nothing" (0) shows that there first exists one (1). Thus, nothing (0) does not truly exist alone: One (1) must first exist that can generate the position/concept of nothing (0). Mathematically, Absolute nothing "could be" expressed as 0 to the power of 0, which can equal 1. "Nothing" IS "Something"; because, it comes from "Something". Moreover, since Nothing (perceived) is not Nothing (actual), then it is possible for Something to come from Nothing (actual). Because, Something (1) is inherently pre-existing within Nothing (actual), hence, 0 to the power of 0 can equal 1. Simply put, Something (1) exists before Nothing (0) can exist. In the beginning, there was singularity (1).
So, what's the problem with an actual infinite ? I didn't hear any clear objection there. I encourage everybody to read the articles of the philosopher Dr. Alex Malpass. He debunked WLC's sophistry against actual infinites in every possible way.
@@anpleidhceeireannach9498 LOL you have the burden of proof to show that there is a contradiction entailed if you claim that it is logically impossible. My burden of proof is met for saying that an actual infinite is possible : I see no contradiction entailed. + I have many examples of logically consistent widely accepted concepts using the notion of an actual infinite : the natural numbers, the relative numbers, all the numbers etc... And by the way, I am not an atheist so your claim is wrong 🤣🤣
WLC is one of the smartest people I have ever heard and yet very humble with an ability to communicate very sophisticated ideas relatively simply and clearly. I really admire WLC.
@@1john4six why is the 1769 King James Version the only reliable record of the Bible? It is a translation from the original texts in Greek and in other languages. It’s not a terrible translation but there are better translations and in the modern vernacular. When you start talking about the King James Bible as the only reliable translation of the Biblical writings you lose credibility.
@@1john4six you are extremely wrong. newer translations are actually far more accurate as older manuscripts are found.
@@1john4six source?
@@1john4six also, all scholars acknowledge that the NASB is currently the most accurate translation of the Bible. cope about it
@@1john4six my sources. i have just proven you wrong.
Cambridge University | Biblical Versions
The 5 Most Accurate Bible Translations | Faith Founded on Fact Site
Kenboa Org | How Accurate is the Bible?
One reason the KJV is not as reliable as current Bibles is because it was produced before the Textus Siniaticus was found, which brings clarity to the translations and words used. MODERN versions use this- such as the NASB and NIV.
Additionally, here is a source proving that the King James Translation is unreliable in certain places because of King James' power thirst which he was willing to misconstrue Scripture for.
"All the Ways The King James Version Really Messed up God's Word" | Ranker
Hopefully you will realize how wrong you are. 😉
Still to date one of my favorite dialogues is between William Lane Craig and the Skeptic, Alex. Two individuals sharing ideas in a polite and respectful manner. I would love to see these two converse again in the near future.
I love these short videos that are easy to share and easy and easy to understand. Thank you Dr. Craig (and your team) for putting them together!
My God. This man helped my brain accept God long ago and my heart followed shortly after. Who will pick up the torch when he's gone? Genius.
Here you guys go:
Actual Infinite vs. Potential Infinite: Think of "actual infinite" as something that truly exists in a never-ending way, like an infinite number of things. On the other hand, "potential infinite" refers to something that could keep going indefinitely, like dividing a ruler's space infinitely.
Example with the Ruler: When you divide a ruler's space, you can keep dividing it into smaller and smaller parts forever. However, just because you can keep dividing doesn't mean there's actually an infinite number of parts.
Modal Operator Shift Fallacy: Some argue that because you can potentially keep dividing the ruler infinitely, there must be an actual infinite number of points. But that's not necessarily true. Saying something is possible (potentially infinite divisions) doesn't mean it's actually happening (actual infinite points).
The Nature of Lines: A line exists independently of any specific points you might choose on it. So, even if you can keep dividing a line into smaller parts, it doesn't mean there's an actual infinite number of points on it.
In simpler terms, just because you can keep dividing something forever doesn't mean there's actually an infinite number of pieces or points.
@JScholastic Thank you! Brilliant! May I have your permission to share?
"modal operator shift", yeah, that's what I was thinking too
I still don't even know what that means
I thought that too straight away lol
🤣
it's a fallacy to put it simply imagine I have a toy car and I'm putting it on a road lets say you can imagine the road going on forever what he's saying is just because you can imagine it doesn't mean it's really existing. That's because it's in our imagination.
Ie: thinking of something that's possible doesn't make it real
@@Jockito if you're still wondering, he's basically referring to foundational concepts in modal logic (in which i am no expert but i think i got the idea). basically, modal logic is like classical logic (in which you can use the words "not", "and", "or" and "implies"), but we introduce new things we can do to propositions: given a proposition P, one can say that there exists a universe in which P is true (i.e. P is possible), and that P is true for all universes (i.e. P is necessary). the words "is possible" and "is necessary" are the modal operators. now, when one talks about subdivisions of points, it is certainly possible to find the midpoint any number of times you like; in this sense, we are using the "is possible" modal operator. this essentially amounts to the existence of a potential infinity, which is uncontroversial. however, to introduce an actual infinity, we essentially need to construct every midpoint at once, making them all exist all at once in every universe. thus, we have changed the language from "is possible" to "is necessary", which is a modal operator shift.
Trying to imagine infinity can make you go nuts... 🙃🙃
Oh no it's so interesting!
Actually it is an impossibility to imagine it because it has no end.
What's even harder than that is to try to imagine nothingness. As far as I know, it cannot be done.
@@karozans Let's start by defining it. What is nothingness?
@@OlatundeAdegbola The best definition I have found so far would be "not anything".
There is only One infinite which is God, all other infinites are contingent upon and flow from Him ...
Even more specific, God exists outside the confines of the "Law of Causality" (a.k.a. Einstein's theory of special and general relativity) because He exists in a dimension where infinity is possible (eternity). When people ask who created God, they are committing a logical fallacy by falsely assuming that the laws which govern this dimension also govern other dimensions. The Law of Causality only applies to things that have a beginning, and God does not.
" “I am the Alpha and the Omega,” says the Lord God, “ *who is and who was and who is to come* , the Almighty.” " - Revelation 1:8 (emphasis mine)
I just wish more atheists were like Alex
There is nothing special about him that sets him apart from his peers. The fact that he is just a kid and is appearing so frequently with WLC actually cheapens Craig's stature as a formidable voice among philosophers. It's really not much different from if Sir Isaac Newton were to partner up with Bozo the Clown.
@@extract8058 Craig isn't as insane as Isaac Newton, and Alex isn't a clown. False comparison. This is also just a dialogue on Alex's podcast, and Craig wouldn't ever really debate him. Well, maybe in 15 years when Craig is old, and Alex is older.
He'll probably change once he gets passed puberty.
@@josephsack4918 you call Newton the Father of Science "insane" ? OK thanks now I know nothing you say can be taken seriously. You're perhaps even more of a clown than Alex.
@@extract8058 Mb. When people say "You're insane" in sports or video games, it gets in my head as not an insult. So, I meant insane as in, he is one of the best scientists if not the best to ever live.
In principle, it is impossible to have an “infinite” number of parts in between two points for two independent reasons:
(1) “Infinite” is not a quantity, just as “huge” is not a quantity. Terms like “infinite quantity” and “infinite number” should be understood to function like the terms “huge quantity” and “huge number”. “Infinite” in “infinite quantity/number” is a qualitative description of the quantity/number just as “huge” in “hinge quantity/number” is a qualitative description of the quantity/number.
(2) No matter how small is the length of each tiny divided part, the length of each part has a non-zero value. When the length between two points (say, 1cm) is divided by any non-zero value, it necessarily results in a finite quantity, instead of an “infinite” quantity.
Hey! Gayarg Contour is my favorite German mathematician!
Could anyone explain to me why if a line can be divided at infinitum (or whatever he said) why there can’t be a place at every division point? Thanks!
If someone gives you an answer to that question that isn’t : “it depends on the rules we make up” or “No”, Then they are lying. And if we take real numbers then you absolutely do have a point at every place. For example the number 5. But who knows if the real numbers resemble anything in nature
@@LaurenceBrown-rx7hx dude thinking about your reply I realized that I think I misinterpreted what WLC was saying. I think what he was actually saying was “sure you can dissect 5 inches infinitely but all you’ll ever have is a total of five inches” as opposed to infinite (i.e. you’re not actually adding points, but simply naming sections of something that is finite). I guess you could do the same with 5 pounds or other metrics but idk for sure. Does that make sense? I’m actually asking lol
@@wakeg40 that makes sense to me. It depends on the axioms you start with, some people don’t like the “Real Numbers” and i imagine WLC is one of those people. One of the problems is you would need an infinite amount of digits to write down some real numbers like pi and stuff. But i will say that they are taking their armchair philosophy too far, nature could have infinities… nature doesn’t care what we like
@@LaurenceBrown-rx7hx gotcha and why would someone not like a “real number”
@@wakeg40 I think its a controversial view in math… but this guy is better at explaining than me (he has a lot on this topic): ruclips.net/video/ScLgc_98XxM/видео.html
Calling yourself a "skeptic" is how you can skip the necessary scholarship historically required for debate to be believed by thousands similarly uneducated in history, philosophy, logic, or rhetoric.
Well he is actually educated in theology and philosophy and plz do mind that religion doesn't have a monopoly over philosophy
Degree n post grad in skepticism. Actual skeptic vs potential skeptic
Which is why no one should take Climate Change "skeptics" seriously right?
@@arianagrandaremix8858 is he skeptical about Darwinism, the so-called Big Bang, or his own value as a person?
If not then he isn't actually a skeptic
@@extract8058 ur basically comparing well established facts based on physical eviance to fairytales and stories
lol
Thought Alex had a point until WLC pointed out that to assume a line is a composition of points is to assume an actually infinite number of points. Blew my mind, I didn't even notice that.
Not only that, but even the points on the line could never possibly be actually infinite. No matter how much time you spent dividing the line however many times you will only have ever divided the line into a finite number of points. There is no such thing as an amount of times you can divide a line where it will then have an actually infinite number of points.
I don't get how line is not points ?
A point has a length of zero in all directions. 0+0+0+...etc. still equals 0. So you cannot form a line using only points. You must connect the points together using lines.
@@Jockito ok but i was taught otherwise
@@arianagrandaremix8858
You were taught wrong.
A line is defined by the equation y=mx+b.
A fully defined line requires only two unique points to set the constants of the equation.
For every unique value x you give the function, you are returned a unique value y. You cannot input an infinite number of values and therefore an infinite output of values is impossible.
@@greg77389 that is an abstract mathematical concept but in the real world things like a line are made up of atoms. The act of repeatedly dividing a real physical line would eventually result in the splitting of an atom in which case matter is destroyed and further division would be impossible. In order to actually accomplish infinite division of anything physical, it would require infinitely smaller particles. Of course any object with infinite amount of atoms would have infinite gravity, infinite size and a whole plethora of ridiculous paradoxes would also have to exist.
You can define a line as a collection of points thats fine. He doesn’t like that type of math though
Is it normal I feel dizzy?
If God used his divine foreknowledge to gaze into the eternal future, what would he see - an actual infinite number of events or a potentially infinite (and thus finite) number of events? If it is only finite, then God himself cannot see eternally into the future.
Every event that happens. I don't see what you're trying to get at
@@xtb3215 what I'm getting at is that "every event" in an eternal future is an actual infinite number, not a merely potential infinite. This violates Craig's idea that an actual set of anything isn't metaphysically possible. God would have to foreknow an actual infinite number of events if the future is eternal. But that is problematic on Craig's view, because he only accepts potential infinities.
@@Jockito God is an infinite, eternal, all-powerful being though. He technically could do that, as you can count towards infinity, but you can't start from infinity and get to a number such as 0.
The part you tripped up on is eternal future. There is no such thing. When we say God is eternal we believe that it is the eternal now that is the present. God is outside of time, past and future have no significance or Him. That is why He is called I Am, not I will be, or I was. As CS Lewis theorized, God is looking at us today the same he’s looking at yesterday and even on our death beds. All of time is now for Him at least that’s what I think. God and science both state that time will end and there cannot be an eternal future
@@xtb3215 "You can count towards infinity" But you cannot reach an actual infinite by successive addition; meaning that the actually infinite number of events that God foreknows can *never* actually transpire. This means God would both foreknow that an actually infinite number of events will occur, but that they can never occur. This is a conflict, and appealing to God's omnipotence and nature does nothing to resolve this conflict.
You can't infinitely divide the space between two points.
yes you can. or at least we dont know of any reason why we could not.
It seems we're missing the second objection Alex mentioned
You need Pi to find the circumference of a circle. Isn't pi an infinite number? How does an infinite number get to a single number that is not infinite. Just a mind game someone threw at me.
Short answer: numbers are not real physical things.
Pi is not infinite, it has infinite digits, but doesn’t necessarily mean its infinite, just like euler number. If you subtract 1 from pi, it will 2.14159... and so on. But if you subtract 1 from infinite, it will remain infinite. Thats it
Pi being infinite? Pi isn't even even as much as 4, and 4 surely isn't an infinite quantity.
He got Actual infinity and Potential mixed up
I don’t agree with this logic. The number line is not a thing but a representation of a thing, or many things or even an infinite number of things. Numbers are use to quantify things and lines are used to measure things. The whole entire number line with all its types of numbers is a good representation of all that is in the reality of existence. And just as there is an infinite number of sets on the number line there is also an infinite of spaces in existence with each space having its own infinite infinity.
What is interesting is the set of all real numbers between (1,2) are equally as infinite as all real numbers on the entire number line. Grapple with that…
But the universe might actually be infinite, so there is no problem with actual infintes. The fact that you dont like them is "your" problem, not "a" problem.
Exactly. There is no distinction made between an absolute infinity of stuff and an actual infinite of the temporal. I see no problem with the latter whatsoever. I do have a problem with an absolute beginning.
If WLC did not know islamic Kalam he would not be where he is right know .
You mean he wouldn't be a Christian?
@@Pharaoh126 sure. If that what you want .
@@farissaleh7526 it's not just the kalam that made him famous, he's written over 40 books on various subjects and is probably the best philosopher on planet earth right now... If not top 5
@@Pharaoh126 great 👍🏻.
Hegel : “bad infinity” the one in which the operation to overcome finiteness always remains the same, repeated (“n+1”) and never comes to its destination (its end - reaching infinity). 'Bad' because it is both bizarre and tedious. A bit like William Lane Craig.
Or like you are.
My problems:
1. Actual infinite is unobservable as ot will take infinite time to understand
2. Infinite energy/matter would make light-speed travel possible, as infinite energy could be used as a fuel source.
Not to mention the paradoxes you can make! Hilbert’s Hotel, Ben Ardette’s Book (I think that’s how it’s spelled), Grim Reaper paradoxes, infinite fair lotteries, it never ends.
If actual infinites cannot be observed, how could a God foreknow an eternal future of events?
@@Jockito They cant be observed by finute minds. God has a infinite mind, no problem for him.
@@brown_cow_123 So you disagree with Craig then that actual infinities are impossible? Since they can be observed by a God.
@@Jockito I was entertaining your hypothetical. I pointed out that since God has a infinite mind there is no problem for him to observe infinite events. Could you clear up your question if I am missing something?
Was that about God in some way? I know God is the top of all knowledge somehow but I didn't get it at all.
Watch the full discussion for the context.
If the universe were an actual infinite then theoretically it could be possible for it to be eternal with an infinite past. But because actual infinites are impossible in physical space, we know that can't be the case. Therefore at some point there must have been a beginning to the universe. This would imply the need for God and preserve the Kalaam Cosmological argument.
@@OniLeafNin but space time expanded at big bang
Wouldn't that mean that infinite can exist bez there is no physical space ?
@@arianagrandaremix8858 its not a completed infinite set.
@@OniLeafNin can u explain what u mean by that
So the set of Real numbers doesn't exist? How bout the integers as a set, they don't exist either? Seems a stingy notion of existence for a theist.
I think the main point is that while abstract objects can have infinities, physical objects can't. So the number line is infinite, as are the number of digits of Pi, but physical objects can only move or change in finite steps - no finite number of finite steps on finite objects can produce an infinite result. Ordinals can make this even more interesting.
The entire set of real numbers doesn’t exist in nature. You can’t produce any representation of it, either with symbols or with objects.
@@AbsentMinded619 what's wrong with "The entire set of real numbers"... ?
@@paulmitchell6602 What I said. Numbers are representations. There is no set of units in nature that corresponds to the set of real numbers, even if you used all the atoms in the universe. There's nothing wrong with the set of real numbers as a mathematical concept, but it doesn't exist beyond that.
I'll make it simpler. The set of real numbers goes on infinitely. Give me an example of an infinity of something that exists in nature.
The concept of "Nothing" represented by the number "0" (zero) did not exist in the beginning. The number "0" (zero) is a relatively recent human innovation in mathematics. But, there has always been "1" (one). The fact that one (1) exists and can generate the position/concept of "nothing" (0) shows that there first exists one (1). Thus, nothing (0) does not truly exist alone: One (1) must first exist that can generate the position/concept of nothing (0). Mathematically, Absolute nothing "could be" expressed as 0 to the power of 0, which can equal 1. "Nothing" IS "Something"; because, it comes from "Something". Moreover, since Nothing (perceived) is not Nothing (actual), then it is possible for Something to come from Nothing (actual). Because, Something (1) is inherently pre-existing within Nothing (actual), hence, 0 to the power of 0 can equal 1. Simply put, Something (1) exists before Nothing (0) can exist. In the beginning, there was singularity (1).
Though I like most of his/your videos.
So, what's the problem with an actual infinite ? I didn't hear any clear objection there. I encourage everybody to read the articles of the philosopher Dr. Alex Malpass. He debunked WLC's sophistry against actual infinites in every possible way.
Looks like you need to spend a few nights at Hilbert's hotel LOL
@@anpleidhceeireannach9498 Yep, Malpass also addresses this cringy objection lol
@@anpleidhceeireannach9498 And if you think that an actual infinite is logically impossible, feel free to provide a contradiction.
@@cultofscriabin9547 shifting the burden of proof
Typical atheist 😂
@@anpleidhceeireannach9498 LOL you have the burden of proof to show that there is a contradiction entailed if you claim that it is logically impossible.
My burden of proof is met for saying that an actual infinite is possible : I see no contradiction entailed. + I have many examples of logically consistent widely accepted concepts using the notion of an actual infinite : the natural numbers, the relative numbers, all the numbers etc...
And by the way, I am not an atheist so your claim is wrong 🤣🤣
Cosmic Skeptic is scary smart.
he is smart, but not scary smart. Definitely a smart young man, but not quite as smart as he or you thinks.
Planck limit.
It is the smallest useful limit. Not an actual limit.
A convincing extrapolation to beyond 10 orders of magnitude of what can currently be verified in tip top measurement
Actual infinite is not possible universe must be finite .it began from nothing ,no god created it.