Wonder will Braxton hunter of trinity radio address it? He most of all after Craig uses and defends the Kalam as a near slam dunk argument for proof of god’s existence.
wow, it would be an honour if you did. I dont know if you remember but we met in Oxford when you debated my good friend Justin Brierley. I think you are going to love this film. Finger crossed, let me know what you think when you see it and yes shares would be great. We dont have the reach of yourself and Alex but i think when you see this you will want it spread far and wide. Hope you are well and happy new year btw.
@@eenkjet Obviously you don't mean that in a good way as atheists have no reason to attend a church. This is merely educational, which is not the purpose of a church.
@@leeshackelford7517 I don't think it is fair or justified to refer to Dr Craig as a "moron". He is anything but. Perhaps you were just using hyperbole for effect, but I think charity is valuable in these discussions. That said, what phrasing of the Kalam do you think has NOT been debunked or has been debunked fewer that "many times"?
@@Nai61a just saw your reply, Since they were using that version, I used THAT version. Of course they've all been debunked. It is stupid, to keep repeating the same BS, once the idea has been debunked to the speaker personally. That's why I call Ham and Hovind stupid WLC, is obviously well educated. Since he is well educated, his level of stupidity, is much much deeper, so I raised him to the "moron" level. (His level of education...he should see the nonsense as nonsense. I COULD be generous ....just lying for Jesus....and raise him up a level in his ability to lie)
The people in this video are overthinking it, lol. A single moment actually does depend on the previous even if we could not witness it. The mathematical laws would still apply whether or not humans existed. We literally would NOT be having this conversation if the universe, theoretically, had an infinite past(which really just means it never even *began* to exist or never existed in the first place, lol). Maybe these people believe the universe is some sort of omniscient being😆
Here because of Rationality Rules, I enjoyed the thorough response and analysis of the argument. And great documentary quality 👌 Keep up the amazing work… Subscribed 👍
@@PhilHalper1, you are urged to become VEGAN, since carnism (the destructive ideology which supports the use and consumption of animal products, especially for “food”) is arguably the foremost existential crisis.🌱
Do you have any comment on Craig's refutation of this video? He put it up in his own video titled "WLC Responds to a Video Critiquing Him and the Kalam"
As a mathematician I hate to see mathematics being misused with such wild claims such as 'mathematicians agree that infinity leads to self controdiction'. that is just the lowest of the low and you can see that they are scraping the bottom of the barrel for arguments
Actual infinity is maybe inconsistent. If the universe is infinite, then it is boundless. The universe is not boundless. Further, a bounded infinity is self-contradictory. So, the universe is not an actual infinity.
How do you substantiate your claim the universe is not boundless? I think many cosmologists would say that the universe is either infinite or so large it is indistinguishable from infinite
Came here from Paulogia. Love this thorough dive into the Kalam argument! It's difficult to fully understand the flaws of this argument with only a layman background, so breaking it down like this was very helpful!
@@PhilHalper1 why did you lie about a "nothingness" when you know full well its a quantum fluctuation? This "nothings" is a vortex which has this quantum fluctuation inside it that requires space and yes time to exist. It is not a nothing just a very small and complex something yet you chose not to say that.
@@PhilHalper1 It doesnt change the fact of the matter. You lied about nothingness and used "philosophers" who all they said was "its not one sided in the philosophy community" like obv but nothing ever is.
Honestly, this is so much more interesting than simply "debunking religious people who use the Kalam cosmological argument". I love the idea of taking these big philosophical questions and looking at them through the lens of science as we know it.
The people in this video are overthinking it, lol. A single moment actually does depend on the previous even if we could not witness it. The mathematical laws would still apply whether or not humans existed. We literally would NOT be having this conversation if the universe, theoretically, had an infinite past(which really just means it never even *began* to exist or never existed in the first place, lol). Maybe these people believe the universe is some sort of omniscient being😆
@@PhilHalper1 Craig has MORE than refuted this video. Carlo Rovelli is straight out lying about Neo-Lorentzianism and Black Holes. A W Moore is lying about the work of John Barrow - even a casual reading of the web page in the video confirms this. The philosophers talk of the infinite singularity is contradicted by the physicists later in the video. A singularity in General relativity means the equations blow up and does not give an infinite cardinality. There are similar infinities in QCD as well and are resolved by renormalisation this might not be possible in classical GR but even than this does not imply an actual infinite as the Barrow article says. A Neo-Lorentzian does not imply or need faster than light travel, General Relativity does not rule out FTL travel both statements are lies.. The individual who interviewed Danial Isaacson lied - he told Dan that Craig was arguing against the consistency of higher set theory and not its metaphysical implausibility in the real world. TRY AGAIN.
I am very pleased by the quality of the video, the caliber of speakers, the framing of the Kalam argument and the beauty of the refutations. This could easily be behind I pay wall so thank you for bringing this to us for free!!!!
Unfortunately, the Kalam is misrepresented here. Are we now in the age where whatever gets published online - because it fits a certain narrative or confirms our biases - that we take it to be true? You should look at Dr William Lane Craig's response videos on his channel, to this docu. Then come back and restate your above comment.
@@thecloudtherapist Lmao, "misrepresnted"; I love how everytime Craig's life, bullshit and sophistry are exposed; the sycophantic christ-cultists and jesus-fuckers come up with some "misrepresentation". Also, the calimnous video serious by craig has been responded to; and Craig has been, once again, in the eyes of all reasonable people, embrassed publicly. Craig is barely good enough to get a pass-by as a philosopher; his butchery and perversion of actual science however, is near unforgivable. So, tragically: you have openly misrepresented the state of the argument here; and I think you should edit your comment or reply with an apology to me and the commentor above.
@@thecloudtherapist does this video ever make a transition from talking about infinity to talking about the argument? Where are they saying the argument is false?
Regarding the philosophical arguments: There are many confusions in this video, even by experts. lets start with the first philosophical argument. Craig, never claimed that infinity is a contradictory concept in *mathematics* . This is a clear straw man on your part, and the video you cut was taken out of context. Craig's claim is that though infinity is mathematically consistent, it cannot exist in the physical world because it leads to impossible metaphysical cases and even contradictory (when the people check out of the hotel). It should be noted that what is mathematically possible is not always metaphysically possible. For example, the quadratic equation x2−4 = 0 can have two mathematically consistent results for ‘x’: 2 or −2, but if the question is ‘how many people carried the computer home’, the answer cannot be ‘−2’, for in the concrete world it is metaphysically impossible that ‘−2 people’ carried a computer home. Thus the conclusion of ‘2 people’ rather than ‘−2 people’ is not derived from mathematical equations alone, but also from metaphysical considerations: ‘−2 people’ lack the causal powers to carry a computer home. This shows that metaphysical considerations are more fundamental than mathematical considerations . Second philosophical argument- The woman in the video asks what if a person counts for an infinite amount of time, can he count to infinity? and then others say yes. However, the problem with this argument is that it confuses counting endlessly with having traversed an endless sequence, the former representing a potential infinite and the later representing an actual infinite. The difference is that the process of counting endlessly is never complete and there will always be numbers that have not yet been counted, whereas having traversed an endless sequence means that one has already gone through each member in the sequence one at a time and no more numbers need to be counted. Accordingly, even if a person never stops counting, there will always be an endless sequence of numbers the person has not yet counted (because, for any given finite number n, even if the person eventually counts n, he or she still has to count all the numbers after n, such as n C 1, n C 2, and so on ad infinitum). Therefore, it is false that, if a person never stops counting, he or she will eventually traverse an actually infinite sequence. Maplass tries avoid the difficulties associated with traversing infinite time by insisting that, if the past is beginningless, an actually infinite sequence of events has always been traversed. Thus, the objection is that, for any past event e, if the regress of events is beginning-less, then e can occur because all events prior to e have occurred. This objection is circular because it presupposes that an actually infinite sequence of events has been traversed to try to show that an actually infinite sequence of events can be traversed. Hence, the objection amounts to saying that an actually infinite past can be traversed if it has been traversed! But this response fails to refute the intuitive notion that an actually infinite sequence of congruent events can never be completed (or traversed). It is important to remember that we are dealing with a sequence of congruent events, whose members do not come into being or occur all at once, but occur one at a time with equal duration. In addition, because the set of events that must occur before the present event can occur is actually infinite, the process of events occurring before the present moment never ends. Therefore, the present moment can never be reached. With regards to the singular point of the big bang. No, most physicists take it to be a mathematical idealization. They would say this boundary point to spacetime is not a physical entity; it's a mathematical idealization, and that's why it's equivalent to nothing. It's not an actual physical thing that exists. How many events will there be in the future? potentially infinite. And by the way it is an ad hominem argument because it doesn't refute either of the premises.
OK, so you're saying that infinity doesn't fit into Craig's metaphysical concept. Except, of course, when he needs it. In other words, he uses infinity to fit whatever his metaphysical concept requires. Metaphysics is more fundamental FOR CRAIG. We noticed. Nothing new. That's what the scientists criticized.
@@stefanheinzmann7319 No I didn't say that. you put words in my mouth instead of answering the arguments provided. Craig never uses infinity to fit his metaphysical concepts. Craig gives arguments against infinity, which this video has failed to refute, as I explain in my comment.
@@elihaitov1849 You were saying that metaphysics are more fundamental for Craig, which I agree with. He uses the concept of infinity as he sees fit for his metaphysical concept, and this means that he rejects it when it doesn't fit his metaphysics, and he embraces it when he needs it for his metaphysical concept. This is essentially what the scientists pointed out. You just follow and embrace his maneuvering.
@@stefanheinzmann7319 No I didn't say it was *for Craig* I gave an argument why metaphysics is more fundamental (the argument with the equation and of people). you again misread and put words in my keyboard.
I'm glad I spent the two hours to watch this. Two hours you ask: yes - I needed time to look things up, or just think. This programme was worthy of that. I am pleased that this has confirmed much of what I thought (I am a Physicist by training, Biophysicist by research), and introduced me to concepts with which I was not previously familiar. I'd have liked a bit more on causality, in particular simultaneous causation. If two events are simultaneous which causes the other? Does the depression of the pillow cause the sinking of the ball, or vice versa? What causes photon pair production, as everywhere is simultaneous for the photon? There is the necessity of the nearby nucleus, but there is no sufficiency. To one of your contributors, Alastair Wilson: if you are ever in Staff House bar when I am I'd like to discuss this with you.
thanks so much for your comment , and two hours of watch time. Alas we decided to try and keep it to less than one hour so inevitably there will be sections that could go further. Still Criags video on the topic are just 5 mins.
Yes, but if you subtract those two hours from infinity, it's the same as subtracting zero from infinity. So we can say that in an infinite universe, you spent no time watching this video! 😂
As I understood it, gravity acting on the ball caused the depression in the pillow. But if you deny that event, and just observe the ball nestled in the depression, the simultaneous cause and effect, then that state can only be understood in terms of an infinitely past event. That is, an uncaused cause or simultaneous causation.
As I'm sure you're aware, despite the rapid growth of Atheism, at an institutional level Chriatian Apologetics enjoys a wide variety of support in terms of funding, influence, and organizational advantage. Simply look at the size of some of the biggest Christian YT channels as well as the quality of videos produced by organizations such as Reasonable Faith, Word on Fire, and others. With that in mind, it is finally so amazing to see a high-quality and well produced film that brings the best of Atheism in Philosophy and Science to take on the Kalam Cosmological Argument. Because of the argument's popularity, the majority of responses on both sides (from Atheists and Theists) have been relatively poor and uninformed. But with your video, where you highlight what relevant epistemic experts have to say on the matter, I'm hoping it can raise the level of discourse around the Kalam. Truly this is a remarkable achievement and this is something that as Rationality Rules said, I will be sharing multiple times over and over again. Thank you so much for putting this together as you have done a tremendous service to everyone who is engaged in the debate on the Kalam. Well done.
Thanks so much , really appreciate what you just said. Rationality Rules did say he would share multiple times, but wed behapy for one tweet. So far he hasnt tweeted about it or given any reactions. Im curious to know what he thought maybe if you know him you could ask him ?
@@PhilHalper1 I think Rationality Rules has now shared things from his end. For what it's worth, we've also been promoting this video where we can. One further suggestion, for any other projects dealing with the Kalam (or any other argument for Theism), I'd highly recommend inviting Graham Oppy, Wes Morriston, C.M. Lorkowski, Paul Draper, Evan Fales, Stephen Puryear, Stephen Maitzen, J.L. Schellenberg, Robin Le Poidevin, Felipe Leon, Gregory Dawes, etc for a production as all these people have published scholarly literature/boooks and are relevant epistemic experts in this area.
@@RealAtheology thanks, yes I see Stephen shared it now so thats great. I think we may do fine tuning next, who do you think we should have for that? Im based n Uk so Eurpean names preferred but may travel further afield for it.
I've thought of a lot of these objections to the Kalam myself, but not being a mathematician or physicist, I lacked the confidence that I was correct. It's nice to see them confirmed by the people who have the goods. Craig founds his arguments on a cherry-picked list of hypotheses and interpretations that are not favored by the larger scientific community. The end result is a kind of theoretical Rube Goldberg machine that is constructed to bolster a predetermined conclusion. Interestingly, Craig has stated that even if his logical rationale for God was proved wrong, he would believe anyway. He bases this outlook on an incorrigible inner experience of God. Well that is fine for him, but to go on from there to create an ad hoc byzantine construction full of suppositions rejected or disfavored by most experts in the relevant fields, taking positive stands on propositions that no one can know, is pure dishonest sophistry. It has become clear that Craig's actual project is not to create a valid rationale for God's existence, but to put his argument on a level of sophistication where the average person cannot follow, but where they can be bamboozled by the technical esoterica that he can deploy. This can be seen when he lectures to general audiences. In those settings he makes outrageous absolute statements. He should hope that the God and Hell he believes in are not actually true, if he believes that God has a serious criterion for honesty.
@@donnievance1942 I couldn't agree more. I remember once hearing him speak to some non-technical Christian audience and make reference to de Sitter space. And I remember thinking, how nice that his audience probably understands that he's referring to a maximally symmetric Lorentzian manifold with constant positive scalar curvature which is the Lorentzian analogue of an n-sphere (with its canonical Riemannian metric). Nice solution to Einstein's GR field equations too!
As a philospher, I am left with an unchanged conclusion that Kalam is sound. While the scholars cited here are extraordinary they are not responding to the Kalam in its academic form but a sophomoric caricature presented to them by the publisher. This sort of populism needs to stop. One of many problems is that the argument Dr. Craig gives has never been that an actually infinite is contradictory rather that the instantiation of an actual infinite as a pertains to the sequence of physically relevant or a multiplicity of real objects is simply impossible from a metaphysical perspective. This and many other crucial distinctions get ignored when you try to take something which is complex and philosophically well researched and move it into a popular level for rhetorical effect. Especially when done on the basis of someone who is not seeking truth, but seeking to perpetuate some sort of fundamental an underlying predisposition towards a worldview rather than the seeking of philosophical truth and scholarly criticism. This popularization of philosophical debate is akin to toddlers throwing sand at each other while the rest of us philosophers are storming the beaches of Normandy. I apologize for the strong claims but this video lacks sufficient academic muster and merely confuses non-academics, we need to have more developed discussions on this. I will commend the publisher for speaking to so many experts. I will also note that it is entirely possible the publisher is unaware of the academic language and literature of the argument. May I ask if you have read Dr. Pruss's Infinity, Causation, and Paradox, Dr. Aron Wall's work on Quantum Gravity and Quantum Gravity Models? IF YOU DISAGREE FIRE AWAY. I am more than happy to engage in a debate. I should mention that while the cosmological side of defending premise 2 is simply less determinate than the philosophical one there are still considerable reasons to believe that a finite universe is more scientifically plausible. (See Dr. Aron Wall's work as one of many examples.) Also I’ve gone back and forth with the soundness of the Kalam. But these arguments are not what brought me to question it.
The very notion of _metaphysical possibility_ is dubious in the first place. There is logical and physical possibility. Metaphysical possibility is just something people made up and it means nothing.
It was quite entertaining and informative. It is a work of art, one of the many things I am grateful for, is now I have a topic I can pour my time into. The big bounce theory
Want to see William Lane Craig's response? Here is his full point-by-point response: Part 1: www.reasonablefaith.org/writings/question-answer/physicists-philosophers-reply-to-the-kalam-cosmological-argument-pt-i Part 2: www.reasonablefaith.org/writings/question-answer/physicists-philosophers-reply-to-the-kalam-cosmological-argument-pt-ii Part 3: www.reasonablefaith.org/writings/question-answer/physicists-philosophers-reply-to-the-kalam-cosmological-argument-pt-iii Part 4: www.reasonablefaith.org/writings/question-answer/physicists-philosophers-reply-to-the-kalam-cosmological-argument-pt-iv
This is perfect! Every time I hear that ridiculous "we couldn't get to now from infinite past"' thing I start to cry and bang my head against the desk, and I'm sure I'm not the only one. Nice to see that the big minds have heard the banging.
This argument is indeed flawed. But I think it is the best argument they have (in comparison to Hilbert's Hotel and the Grim Reaper paradox and others). When I first heard of it, I was puzzled. Of course, after reading I realized it is fallacious.
@@CosmoPhiloPharmaco The Hilbert Hotel example was ridiculous with the statement an infinite hotel being full. That shows a complete misunderstanding of the notion of infinite anything.
This response was absolutely fascinating. I'm not overly familiar with WLC's argument, but the one thing that has always stuck out to me is when pushed on A vs B theory of time, he never really provides an answer to B other than to ignore it. Illuminating video. Thanks to all involved.
Craigs philosophical arguments are obviously correct when dealing with the infinite past, anyone who thinks the past can be infinite, just boggles your mind, whether your a physicist or a philosopher.
@@PhilHalper1 hey! It's just true. I'm in many debate groups on Facebook and I'm so tired of the argument. This gives me some new information to use I didn't have previously. I hate how science is constantly misrepresented by believers, but I'm not a scientist so it's hard for me to put in words these concepts sometimes. These people being paragons of intellect make it understandable to a lay person such as myself.
It's really funny how much blabbering is done in this hour long video and yet nowhere did they directly address or refute the actual claims of the KCA. This is embarrassing.
This video only proves that infinity can exist in theory but not in a physical realm. Here's why : let us imagine we believed that the universe was infinite. Because this universe is so large, (given a quantum probablistic universe) the chance of some configuration of atoms existing somewhere in this universe (providing it does not break the laws of physics) becomes certain. This means anything that could exist somehow within the rules of physics MUST exist somewhere in the universe. Often this property of infinity is posed using the Infinite monkey theorem. This infinite universe includes all number of absurd things. An infinite universe means there exists somewhere in space an exact clone of earth but where everyone has three legs. It means there exists a clone of earth where everything is identical but that I have one fewer atoms in my right hand. Ultimately, there needs to be a necessary existence, making the Kalam still valid and sound.
If the universe is infinite, yes these things exists, but you cannot simultaneously label them as "absurd" and physically possible. And I cannot the the relevancy with the Kalam
It’s incredibly to hear a theist say that without an eternal life with god, life is meaningless, and then accuse all atheists of being nihilists 😂 Tell me again how everything else has more value the more rare it is, except life it self.
Even funnier: So, when there is a meaning to life that ONLY God can prescribe and that can ONLY be revealed via the Bible, then what is it? Can God change the meaning of life as he fancies? Is the meaning of Life individual or the same for all people everywhere anytime and anytime in their life? When you ask such questions to a normal believer, you get crickets. And I daresay even when you ask a professional apologist, you will get vague commonplaces and nothing concrete (beyond everyone has to find the meaning of life for yourself, and for that I do not need God) I think the whole is simply created to give the people security/certainty; that you have to ultimately make up your own morals (consistent for living together in a society) and your own meaning, and that you are NOT special, but just a "random" product of many in a giant universe in which nothing is stable and lasting forever (except the principle of constant change) is disturbing for many. Would we admit that and teach how to COPE with that, how to find ways to handle this and fill the voids and to accept that this will be a constant process would be far better. I just have to look at how WE change throughout our lifetime, and it is clear that there are no absolutes.
I like the contrast between Craig's rather aggressive, asertionist approach soaked with an ever-present vibe of mockery and the scientists' calm, educational tone.
Yes. And you can't prove two headed fairies or disprove two headed fairies but science has zero need for two headed fairies in its explanations of the universe.
@@canwelook yes you can prove someting false , like a can prove that it rain water and not milk .......... so its false that nothing that it doesnt exist can be prove ....... just science cant prove that GOD isnt exist 😉😉😉😉😉😉😉😉😉
A superb focused exposition that is expressed in la language for the non-specialist. No easy task. We are all in the debt of the producers of this - it is a model of clarity, rationality and intellectual rigour.
“Many of us are dubious that just simply pointing that something seems absurd is enough to forbid it from existing in reality philosophers have to be a lot bolder than that.” What irony 🤣
I don't understand how theists cite anything from thermodynamics the first law states that matter/energy/mass cannot be created. This is probably why when they appeal to thermodynamics they never mention the first law. They don't even try and argue how it doesn't apply or supports their cause. Its just 2nd law all the time
(english isn't my first language) The first law of thermodynamics does not deny the metaphysical possibility of divine creation, but it denies the physical possibility of spontaneous generation. This means that matter cannot create itself (nothing comes from nothing, and something can't be the cause and the effect itself). The fact that matter exists implies that it had to begin to exist. That beginning necessarily leads to the conclusion that it was created by something earlier. But even if the universe and matter were eternal (it is not, there are many implications that prevent this possibility, I can say them in another comment if necessary), its reason for being and its configuration would have to be explained.
@@user-lg8uj4ib9p okay no worries with English not being first language. The first law-so matter came be created via supernatural means…but can’t be created by natural means? The first law doesn’t say that something can’t be the coarse of itself. Couldn’t there be a possibility that matter/energy has always existed? _the fact that matter exists implies that it had to begin to exist_ Why? If a creator doesn’t need a cause or begin to exist why can’t matter/energy also just have always existed in some form? We don’t think that this universe is eternal I agree. But that doesn’t preclude the possibility that matter/energy couldn’t be eternal.
@@therick363 what I put in parentheses in the first law of thermodynamics are philosophical principles related to said law, not the postulates of it. And before answering the impossibility of the eternity of matter, I need to ask you: how do you think it is possible for matter to be eternal without the universe also being eternal, since matter is part of the universe?
@@user-lg8uj4ib9p well are you making the assumptions that matter/energy can only exist in this universe? Because who says they can’t exists and keep going though changes from one universe after another? And I get that those are philosophical principles-but there are parts of philosophical principles where no outside cause is needed, where an event can be it’s own cause in a closed loop.
This was such a great video. It really exposes how Infinities can be abused by trying to apply arithmetic functions against them that are themselves, not logically defendable.
Holy moly thank you so very much!! I've been asking to several religious people what exactly do they mean by an infinite regress and this does wonders to understand what I already suspected, that it's an invalid question or at least distinct questions not compatable with finite time.
@@somebodysomewhere5571 defending faith is not hard doing so without logical fallacies, misrepresenting science, assumptions after assumptions and overestimating the bible... That is the Challenger.
@@somebodysomewhere5571 Assumptions. Hmm. Consider this. defending anything is not hard doing so without logical fallacies, misrepresenting science, assumptions after assumptions and overestimating your position... That is the Challenger. But better yet. Proof me wrong and I'll admit
This channel is a sheer treasure. I do wish it had closed captions though. All these minds are brilliant but a bit hard to understand their accents sometimes.
Excellent work, I felt that Craig's arguments had some holes in them but I lacked the clarity to see exactly where. This video helped tremendously. Thanks very much.
Such a wonderful episode, I would definitely watch a deep dive on the concept of infinity. There was a really great special done in England on Infinity I think by Horizons but if you made one I would be the first person to watch.
Now ladies and gentlement and non-binaries, this is what you call a DEBUNKING video! No strawmaning, show the actuality of the person words, and asking experts to answer all of those!
7:25 There is a misunderstanding or rather premeditated miscomprehension In the phrase: "and yet, EXACTLY THE SAME NUMBER of people left the hotel this time when the odd-numbered guests checked out." It is simply not true. Just because the number of people leaving we call: "infinity" doesn't mean it is a number. The infinity does not equal any number. The notion of infinity cannot be misapprehended as any number. Simply infinity is not a number. Kantor showed that there are some different kinds of infinities - some are bigger than others. After you realized such a thing, there is no paradox in both situations compared. Somebody has just used the same word for different things. It often happens, when arguing negligently. Using one word (infinity) for different things doesn't make those different things the same. This is a very similar problem to dividing by zero.
I like your phrase 'premeditated miscomprehension'. Given that WLC has at least a basic understanding of Hilbert's argument, I don't think there is any misunderstanding but a willful attempt to misrepresent it.
ive seen Craig explain the difference between infinities on The Cosmic Skeptic. so he understands the concept, i think he is just disingenuous about it.
The holy boy (Craig?) is a flim flam artist who likes to use big words and drop big names to serve his quest to "prove" the existence of his little god of the old testament. His arguments go along the lines of mis-quoting some science using as many big words and dropping as many names as possible, followed by "therefore" leading to his little old testament god. And his arguments always fail at that little word "therefore". And even if you granted his flim flam and admitted a prime mover in the universe he is still an infinity of miles from proving the truth of the particular little god he is pushing.
WLC says infinities are impossible with one breath then says god in infinite with the next -- he's not someone to take seriously but his influence on others should be. Which is why this video is important.
Wow, the kalam just got destroyed so thoroughly that everyone who uses it from this point onwards either hasn't seen this video, is an idiot, or is dishonest.
Cantor was a true genius. I don't know if it's accurate, but Wikipedia says of Cantor //"...To Cantor, his mathematical views were intrinsically linked to their philosophical and theological implications - he identified the Absolute Infinite with God,[73] and he considered his work on transfinite numbers to have been directly communicated to him by God, who had chosen Cantor to reveal them to the world.[5] He was a devout Lutheran whose explicit Christian beliefs shaped his philosophy of science.[74] Joseph Dauben has traced the effect Cantor's Christian convictions had on the development of transfinite set theory.[75][76]..."//
What a lot of non-philosophers don't seem to understand is that infinity is NOT "a really really big number" it is an INFINITE number and useful, just like the square root of -1 (negative one) is "not real" and is "imaginary" but still useful in conceptual calculations such as are required to understand and work particulars in topics involving alternating current.
Complex numbers or the imaginary element of mathematics, are also valid formulas or laws deduced by the human being, as well as laws of physics, to obtain reliable results from theoretical questions with relevance and correspondence in the real world. Just this. They are useful, applicable and coherent deductions for the real world. Now no infinite set of mathematics has any correspondence and coherence in the concrete world. Infinities already traveled are impossible in the real world and even in the mathematician. I think it lacks competent philosophers to correctly interpret what infinite set theories really mean. Craig, who is not even from this area, had to correct current mathematicians and philosophers about their misconceptions.
I dislike how u start with a conclusion and then just argue for that for the whole hour. At least give the dude u are trying to argue against a chance to respond or something. This came off as extremely bias to me, even tho I probably agree with your position.
@@PhilHalper1 thx for responding. I am interested in and watch a lot of philosophy/physics type content and I guess that is why youtube reccommended your video to me. I never heard of the Kalam or the dude u are arguing against before your video. Hence my reaction to your video.
The general problem is that we assume that reality must conform to our perceived and named categories of perception The fact is that “the beginning of the universe” is a logical concept that only appears to make sense…. When in reality we have no reason to think we know anything at all about how or why those events transpired
Hey Phil - thanks for doing this. I'm excited to FINALLY watch it, especially given my book on the subject: "Did God Create the Universe from Nothing? Countering William Lane Craig's Kalam Cosmological Argument"
this video lacks proper proof of most of its claims, which is obviously hard to do being 1 hour long as it currently is. However, this leads to most of the video especially the physics part being "the experts don't believe this is true", which doesn't prove anything to the skeptic. i get that the actual ideas are really complicated and take years to understand, but high level explanations of stuff with enough information/pointers to look up the ideas would be really helpful. It would be much better if you could say why the expert believe what they believe. this isn't a problem for the whole video, a few the bits were like this theorem assumes this and so that etc which is good, and the infinities at the start had some good explanations, but we don't any intuition for any of the other theorems e.g the hawking-Penrose theorem, you just showed hawking and Penrose saying no one believes it, and people see it as meaning general relativity must be wrong, without explaining where the contradiction comes from, making it seem like they are just trying avoid Craig's conclusion (I'm sure they're not, but its never really explained).
This video is just a : Craig quote physicist and mathematicians and same physicists and mathematicians answers he did not understand shit, therefore making his arguments invalid. That's all it is.
It's good to hear from people who can speak to the technical details. I always got the impression from Craig that he was engaging in "mathematical woo" with his statements about infinity. For someone like me (without formal training), to debunk the Kalam I like to focus on the first premise, "whatever began to exist must have a cause." The obvious problem with this premise is that we don't have any examples of anything that has ever "begun to exist" in a physically real way. So we cannot honestly make statements about things that "begin to exist", because we have never observed anything "begin to exist". I'll debunk a potential counter-example: a watch. You might say that a watchmaker has observed the "beginning of existence" for a particular watch. But did the watch ever actually begin to exist? There was a moment when the watch was assembled and wound for the first time, but is that the watch's "beginning of existence" in physical reality, in the sense used in the Kalam? No. In fact, any point that you decide to call the watch's "beginning" is just an arbitrary point when you decide to apply a label to the constituent parts. This label has nothing to do with the physical existence of the object - it's a language construct, a shorthand that helps us communicate. The watch was parts on the shelf, it was the raw materials in the ground, it was the stardust from a supernova, etc. The constituent parts have changed and moved and interacted even before we called them "a watch". They may have always existed. Our labels do not have the power to determine when a physical object began to exist in reality. The Kalam is not interested in when we started to label the universe as "beginning to exist" - it's interested in when the universe began to exist in actual physical reality. But since we cannot say that anything has ever "begun to exist" physically, we cannot take the first premise of the Kalam seriously. It's equivocation, it's wordplay.
you can debunk the first argument pretty easily, and I think you are going in that direction, by introducing a parody of the kalam cosmological argument by changing the first premise: "Everything that begins to exist is made out of pre-existing stuff" This premise is as intuitive as the original one, it covers all the same examples, it cannot be disputed through observation. But then... you arrive at a completely different conclusion for the argument: The universe is made out of pre-existing stuff. The only way the apologists can debate you on introducing this premise, is to try to show that there are some things that have a cause but are not made out of pre existing stuff... and those things do not exist. So the same intuitions that supports the kalam, seems to support the parody of the kalam. And so we cannot really derive much of a conclusion after all.
I always stick to empirical evidence, sure we have quantum equations which get us further back., but our oldest empirical data is the CMB and star light from telescopes We have no evidence for creation or for the universe not existing, we have no examples of nothingness, all empirical data shows the there is something and always has been, theists or deists then add an unnecessary god and lose occams razor
At 35:46, they show a page of WLC taking about signals travelling faster than light. What I note is the very weird diction of WLCs discussion. When he talks about the behaviour of a tachyon particle, he says that the behaviour predicted by the theory is “pathological”. WTF?
@@PhilHalper1I'm still attempting to comprehend and let alone finish the video I mean the total Summed IQ of these people would dismantle my brain lol even for days. The only really "compelling" argument I see is the contingency argument for god. That which argues through the "Principle of Reason" that all things must have an explanation or a non contingent thing that causes things that are contingent. By your careers in yt have you encountered such an argument. If so, are they sound?
Vilenkin's claim that the Universe could emerge through tunneling from "nothing" is ill defined because he does not define mathematically a quantum mechanical state called "nothing". Quantum tunneling happens from state A to state B. He does not define the state A, just calls it "nothing". It's just rubbish. Just look at his original paper to see that it is only a crazy speculation with no mathematical back up, dressed in fancy wording. I'm surprised PLB accepted this paper for publication at all.
We voiced this criticms in our film with Richard Gott . I thnk the importnat point we wanted to make is that if Vilenkins model is right then it is not a universe from a pre existing vaccum. We ceetinaly present other models and so in our film series so were not relying on its truth. in fact if there no viable mdoels of universe form nothing then Criaigs claim that there is accord between the Xtian concept of creation ex nihlio and sceince is then false.
@@PhilHalper1 Vilenkin's ides is not even a physical model, it is a mathematically ill defined speculation. Indeed there is no viable model of Universe from nothing and there never will be. That is because the only mathematical representation of nothing is the 0. So quantum mechanically we would have to consider a tunneling from a 0 state Hilbert space vector (with 0 norm) to a non-0 state (non zero norm). However this process is not allowed by the Heisenberg evolution equation. According to Heisenberg equation, 0 state will always evolve to 0 state. Therefore the claim "something from nothing" is against the basic principles of the QM. The whole Vilenkin's idea is just rubbish. Why this rubbish paper was published? Probably the referee was his good buddy - happens all the time.
@@sodancethesamba911 I agree, Vilenkin’s nothing is in fact not nothing at all. Also, as of now, in science, there is not a single example of an actual infinite that actually exists. Up to now when physics generates an actual infinite it is usually taken to mean that the theory breaks down at that point.
William Lane Craig is just annoying. He emphatically declares to be so, those things he believes support his existing beliefs, while consciously ignoring anything that contradicts his beliefs or that is contradictory within his beliefs. I'm not even sure his world view is the product of confirmation bias. I think he probably does this deliberately as it gives him a lucrative career backed by lots of cheerleaders among the religiously affiliated. It is interesting to contrast the attitude of WLC to that of the scientists, mathematicians and philosophers who spoke in this video. Notice the certainty with which WLC declares his conclusions.
@@PhilHalper1 Indeed that is true, however as I tried to indicate I don't think that is the underlying issue with WLC. I think he is disingenuous if not consciously dishonest. He is clearly smart enough to see through the follies he propagates. I suspect it serves his political ideology if not his own career to do what he does.
Billions of smart people through history started with the presupposition that there is a god and by any contortion, want to find evidence to demonstrate it. A tragic waste of human talent; where we could have been if those people followed the evidence and applied science. Watching this video gave me goosebumps and was infinitely more awe-inspiring than any prayer at any mosque/masjid ever.
Mind-blowing stuff. I'd probably need to watch it quite a few times to understand it. Speaking for myself I have no problem with mathematical infinities, but cosmological ones wreck my brain. I think that's why The Big Bang ( as lay people understand it) is so appealing. It posits a universe finite in both time and space.
The William Lane Craig approach to Science. God exists. Lets make a model that supports my argument because it better be true. I couldn't possibly live without god. Thinking otherwise would make life not worth living, because if there is nothing afterwards, that would really suck !!!
@@PhilHalper1 You know, this is a great channel, keep it up. I actually had lunch with Roger P once, in the nineties, well, more like, he was at the same table I was at at Oxford Uni, but I didn't really know who he really was at that time, internet was limited from home and all, but ignorance is bliss :) Today I feel proud of that moment to have even shared a conversation about obscurities of phase space in chemical systems with him, okay I am a chemist, it's a different field, that's my only excuse. :D That man is a genius of the highest order.
Actually, if someone was honest and said something along the lines of, "I need to believe in a god because belief in a god helps me to get through life and stay positive", I think that would be far more respectable than what Craig is arguing. I really don't think it's intellectually honest to claim that a view is compatible with modern science and then keep referring to specific theories long after the authors of those theories have repeatedly pointed out they disagree with him. It annoys me when people go on making claims like this to audiences that they know full well are not educated enough to have heard the counter-arguments. It's dishonest.
WLC often refers to - even harps on - the Borde-Vilinken-Guth theorem to argue the past cannot be “past infinite”. It must have a starting point. Thus God. In other words, he cherry-picks the parts of science which he thinks supports his pre-ordained conclusion. Even those guys don’t agree with his interpretation, but of course he’s entitled to his own “take”.
The way Craig is just so happy wrapped in his ignorance he’s practically giddy. Being ignorant on purpose is like a drug because if you try to cure that ignorance then the addict get loud and irrational. If you tell him god is simply a concept then his brain will shut down immediately because he’s afraid of losing his drug of choice…religion.
Great video! Definitely will watch it again to better understand everything that being said here. Only thing it's lacking right now is an attention it deserves.
Although the video is better produced than others, I find its criticism very superficial, it does not add anything new and it makes the same mistakes as always: 1--Confusion of a metaphysical theory with a scientific theory 2--Only place detractors but not defenders 3--Confusion of infinite potentials with actual infinites 4--Comparison with "eternal life", which does not proceed at all. This particular criticism is pretty silly. 5--Confusion of infinity of concrete things with the concept of infinity. 6--Philosophers who assume the infinite without questioning it in order to aspire to defend it. It is almost as if they said: "See, all paradoxes are what is expected of infinity ... it may be absurd but don't ask more" 6-Scientists who claim to have a better model than the standard but have practically no empirical proof of it or their models are not infinite at all. In many cases, they practically agree with Craig. And others with speculative models, never really describe how they solve the problem or provide empirical evidence for them. "...you can violate any theorem as long you violate the assumptions.." 7--Appeal to the future when the future is uncertain... almost as if they said "A theory of quantum gravity is going to solve everything in the future." "We don't have it but when it comes out it will solve your atheist problems". 8-Believe that the Kalam cannot be defended in the b-theory of time, which is false. 9-Confuse causal infinity with other types of infinities. 10-Typical: "it is possible that the universe comes from nothing". Great maybe God "comes out of nowhere" too, or a playstation 5, or a naked woman! 11-Confusion of indeterministic causality with non-causality (at the quantum level) 12-Acceptance of the possibility of self-creation? If this were true... What door could not be opened with this? Do we deny miracles to accept bigger ones? 13-Believe that the causal loops solve the problem. 14-And the worst, believing that if the universe is infinite (either in cycles or multiverse) somehow solves the problem! Not at all, it makes it worse... now instead of a single universe to explain, you have an infinite number of them existing "magically" without explanation. And much more... pure atheist propaganda.
Don't see how it serves as 'atheist propaganda' - think that's uncharitable. Can you expand a little more on your feedback. Eg: 1- in what sense are they confusing the two? 3- in what sense are they confusing the two? 4- Why is it 'silly' criticism? What do they get wrong? 5- in what sense are they confusing the two? 6 (two 6s?)- which scientists and models are you referring to? 8- how can it be defended in B-theory? 9- in what sense are they confusing the two? 11- in what sense are they confusing the two? 14- what 'problem'? Thanks.
Okay genius, as for point 10, you are completely wrong. Universe could come from nothing if the net energy of the universe is 0. Naked woman and ps5 both have non zero energy, so you cannot go from a state of 0 energy to non zero energy spontaneously Many physicists have said that the total energy of our universe could be 0.
13 jesus christ!! None of those scientists said that CTCs can solve problems. They just said there are models without inconsistencies. Our universe could be in a CTC could not be. Nobody knows
I consider this one of the best Kalam documentaries available so great job. I also understand that you have loads and loads of other information available as well please consider a part two. The most important question idd like to ask you is to also make a video that responses to WLC responses that were discussed in bad apologetics. And please add the link to that episode here. It's a must watch after this documentary.
@@PhilHalper1 not only a great documentary maker but a great responder to. What are you the perfect RUclips content creator. Think you can even go for part three and four. Lol. Really appreciate your work. It's often hard for scientist to respond to such stuff because they don't have the audience nor the motivation..so not only are you doing a great job for us enabling them to briefly address such matters is a great service to them as well. You are appreciated.
Well I was never bought into the cosmological argument, specially the prime mover, and many thiests consider it to be a good sound argument, but I will explain why it is not. Now even if we accept causes as part of our physical reality and indepentent of our perception ( Which I don't), first you need to understand how we define a cause. we learn about causes from basically events that we observe which involves actions concieved by motions and change of certain states, so a cause is defined as a part of motion or dependent on motion and since this is how we understand the concept of a cause, you cannot therefore argue about a cause independent of a motion, you will just be redefining and remaking the concept. So asking about what causes all the motion is fallacious, and there being a first cause of motion is too. so if you were to ask "what caused the first motion", you would be basically asking "what motion dependant thing initiated the first motion", this is incoherent. Now a thiest can defend their claim and say that god has motion and he initiated all other motions himself, but that will be a supposition, since they have a no way of knowing or reasoning about what god has or what he can do. we can only use logical reasoning on our physical reality.
The most basic meaning about causality is not that an effect will always have a cause that has its own cause. No, not so. Rather, causality basically just indicates that everything that begins to exist has a cause; now, realize that something eternal doesn't need to be caused, and therefore could perhaps initiate the first movement, the first creation/effect/arrangement/transformation. Realize? However, what would prove that something eternal capable of moving things is possible or even the case? It is precisely the Paradox of the Infinite Past, which is something impossible and therefore not applicable to our temporal reality consisting of past, present and future in transformation. Now, where there is transformation or movement, there are finite sequences towards only the endless future.
Criag claims he doesn't claim that infinity is logically contradictory only metaphysically impossible, except he did say it was logically contradictory and mathematicians says o. So theres no straw man.
@@PhilHalper1 It absolutely is a straw man as Craig himself has already pointed out. Trent Horn just released a response to this video. Yall look like a laughing stock. Reminds me of when Krauss edited Velinkin's email to make it look as if Craig had misinterpreted tue BGV theorem. Velinkin later stated that Craig had represented the theorem accurately. Even in this "documentary" he said theyre MAY be some room for a past eternal universe. Makes me wonder what you left out. It is funny to see the atheist trying to salvage a past eternal or oscillating universe after the multiverse theory has basically fallen apart.
@@PhilHalper1 Craig did not say actual infinities are logically contradictory. He argues the *existence* of an actual infinity in reality leads to contradictions, and is absurd. Hilbert himself agreed with this very same thing Imprecise language leads to strawmans
@@AndresGonzalez-rx3mv WLC argued that infinity is metaphysically impossible which I agree but he Actually himself said in debate that Mathematican thinks infinity lead to contradictions I think Craig used such misinformed rhetoric to influence the audiences Majesty of reason made a video on this
The people in this video are overthinking it, lol. A single moment actually does depend on the previous even if we could not witness it. The mathematical laws would still apply whether or not humans existed. We literally would NOT be having this conversation if the universe, theoretically, had an infinite past(which really just means it never even *began* to exist or never existed in the first place, lol). Maybe these people believe the universe is some sort of omniscient being😆
skydivephil : Thank you so much for taking the time to put together this video with such a deep variety of perspectives around the world from leading expert's. I am forever indebted 👍
@@PhilHalper1 He has REFUTED. I studied everything carefully. The opinions, obfuscations, misrepresentations, misdirections, lies, and half-truths of this video are fully refuted.
I would say much the same. There are no complete agreements by scientists. Theists say God is responsible for everything, atheists say we don't know. I tend to believe not only we can never know but we cannot know. The more we know the more we realise we don't know.
@@redmed10 I reject the idea that it would be much the same. We have many theists actively distorting what is actually known to contort the information into something that would support their position. This has the net effect of a lot of resources having to be spent addressing the BS that is often presented. This video ITSELF is an example of the resource drain that theological advocates have on society with regard to our advancement.
What is frightening is that these Death Cults making these cheap promises of an easy living in the sky for eternity have pushed so much division and hate & dominate the 21st century So many innocents have been raped and mass murdered due to this hate & division these Death Cults preach
@@Vic2point0 We have zero empirical evidence for creation, we have zero evidence for philosophical nothingness, we have zero evidence for anything preceding the known universe or any plausible alternative to the known universe. 100% of empirical evidence shows an eternal infinite dynamic universe So the main fluffy false assumption is that the universe had a beginning or cause , which invalidates every argument after
It’s fun watching this now in light of the fact that low-bar Bill has explained to us all that his entire career is nothing but a pile of motivated reasoning 😂
This needs to be seen by every Christian apologist who's ever tried to use the Kalam.
thanks so much
@@PhilHalper1 Bertrand Russell said that most of the arguments attempting to prove a god are just bad grammar.
Wonder will Braxton hunter of trinity radio address it? He most of all after Craig uses and defends the Kalam as a near slam dunk argument for proof of god’s existence.
Craig might need some cool aid to answer this ;))
Thanks for the link to this on Twitter. I will definitely be forwarding it to others.
So damn excited! Will be sure to share this an infinite number of times :P Thank you
wow, it would be an honour if you did. I dont know if you remember but we met in Oxford when you debated my good friend Justin Brierley. I think you are going to love this film. Finger crossed, let me know what you think when you see it and yes shares would be great. We dont have the reach of yourself and Alex but i think when you see this you will want it spread far and wide. Hope you are well and happy new year btw.
Maybe You should Mention this Film in your Kalam Series with joe (Majesty of reason ) as a Resource
I'm here because of Rationality Rules. So looking forward to it, though my mind might explode before the end. 😅
Skydivephil is church for the naturalist/atheist! And I don't mean that in a good way.
@@eenkjet Obviously you don't mean that in a good way as atheists have no reason to attend a church. This is merely educational, which is not the purpose of a church.
Christians: God created everything. Infinite doesn't exist.
Also Christians: God is Infinite.
My favorite
Except that the usage of the term "Infinite" is equivocal in both statements, so there's nothing inconsistent in affirming both.
This puts my own videos on the Kalam to shame. Great job Phil and Monica. This may be the definitive response to Kalam for some time to come.
thanks David , thats very gracious of you to say
The Kalam, as phrased by the WLC moron they are using...has been debunked MANY TIMES...
@@leeshackelford7517 I don't think it is fair or justified to refer to Dr Craig as a "moron". He is anything but. Perhaps you were just using hyperbole for effect, but I think charity is valuable in these discussions.
That said, what phrasing of the Kalam do you think has NOT been debunked or has been debunked fewer that "many times"?
@@Nai61a just saw your reply,
Since they were using that version, I used THAT version.
Of course they've all been debunked.
It is stupid, to keep repeating the same BS, once the idea has been debunked to the speaker personally. That's why I call Ham and Hovind stupid
WLC, is obviously well educated. Since he is well educated, his level of stupidity, is much much deeper, so I raised him to the "moron" level.
(His level of education...he should see the nonsense as nonsense. I COULD be generous ....just lying for Jesus....and raise him up a level in his ability to lie)
The people in this video are overthinking it, lol. A single moment actually does depend on the previous even if we could not witness it. The mathematical laws would still apply whether or not humans existed.
We literally would NOT be having this conversation if the universe, theoretically, had an infinite past(which really just means it never even *began* to exist or never existed in the first place, lol). Maybe these people believe the universe is some sort of omniscient being😆
Here because of Rationality Rules, I enjoyed the thorough response and analysis of the argument. And great documentary quality 👌 Keep up the amazing work… Subscribed 👍
thanks very much , glad you liked it.
Here from the “Critical Faculty” RUclips channel.
Incidentally, are you VEGAN? 🌱
@@TheWorldTeacher Im vegetarian.
@@PhilHalper1, you are urged to become VEGAN, since carnism (the destructive ideology which supports the use and consumption of animal products, especially for “food”) is arguably the foremost existential crisis.🌱
Do you have any comment on Craig's refutation of this video? He put it up in his own video titled "WLC Responds to a Video Critiquing Him and the Kalam"
As a mathematician I hate to see mathematics being misused with such wild claims such as 'mathematicians agree that infinity leads to self controdiction'. that is just the lowest of the low and you can see that they are scraping the bottom of the barrel for arguments
yep
Actual infinity is maybe inconsistent. If the universe is infinite, then it is boundless. The universe is not boundless. Further, a bounded infinity is self-contradictory. So, the universe is not an actual infinity.
How do you substantiate your claim the universe is not boundless? I think many cosmologists would say that the universe is either infinite or so large it is indistinguishable from infinite
Came here from Paulogia. Love this thorough dive into the Kalam argument! It's difficult to fully understand the flaws of this argument with only a layman background, so breaking it down like this was very helpful!
thanks glad you liked it.
@@PhilHalper1 why did you lie about a "nothingness" when you know full well its a quantum fluctuation? This "nothings" is a vortex which has this quantum fluctuation inside it that requires space and yes time to exist. It is not a nothing just a very small and complex something yet you chose not to say that.
@@somebodysomewhere5571 did you even watch the film?
@@PhilHalper1 yes
@@PhilHalper1 It doesnt change the fact of the matter. You lied about nothingness and used "philosophers" who all they said was "its not one sided in the philosophy community" like obv but nothing ever is.
Honestly, this is so much more interesting than simply "debunking religious people who use the Kalam cosmological argument". I love the idea of taking these big philosophical questions and looking at them through the lens of science as we know it.
thanks glad you liked it.
The people in this video are overthinking it, lol. A single moment actually does depend on the previous even if we could not witness it. The mathematical laws would still apply whether or not humans existed.
We literally would NOT be having this conversation if the universe, theoretically, had an infinite past(which really just means it never even *began* to exist or never existed in the first place, lol). Maybe these people believe the universe is some sort of omniscient being😆
@@Revolt_west maybe it would help you if you actually watched the vid, bud. Here's a timestamp that addresses your point: 24:53
@@laggruntythirst It must not be a good point if you cannot explain it yourself...bud🤓.
@@PhilHalper1 Craig has MORE than refuted this video. Carlo Rovelli is straight out lying about Neo-Lorentzianism and Black Holes. A W Moore is lying about the work of John Barrow - even a casual reading of the web page in the video confirms this. The philosophers talk of the infinite singularity is contradicted by the physicists later in the video. A singularity in General relativity means the equations blow up and does not give an infinite cardinality. There are similar infinities in QCD as well and are resolved by renormalisation this might not be possible in classical GR but even than this does not imply an actual infinite as the Barrow article says. A Neo-Lorentzian does not imply or need faster than light travel, General Relativity does not rule out FTL travel both statements are lies.. The individual who interviewed Danial Isaacson lied - he told Dan that Craig was arguing against the consistency of higher set theory and not its metaphysical implausibility in the real world.
TRY AGAIN.
I am very pleased by the quality of the video, the caliber of speakers, the framing of the Kalam argument and the beauty of the refutations. This could easily be behind I pay wall so thank you for bringing this to us for free!!!!
you are more than welcome, thanks for your comment
Unfortunately, the Kalam is misrepresented here.
Are we now in the age where whatever gets published online - because it fits a certain narrative or confirms our biases - that we take it to be true?
You should look at Dr William Lane Craig's response videos on his channel, to this docu.
Then come back and restate your above comment.
@@thecloudtherapist Lmao, "misrepresnted"; I love how everytime Craig's life, bullshit and sophistry are exposed; the sycophantic christ-cultists and jesus-fuckers come up with some "misrepresentation". Also, the calimnous video serious by craig has been responded to; and Craig has been, once again, in the eyes of all reasonable people, embrassed publicly. Craig is barely good enough to get a pass-by as a philosopher; his butchery and perversion of actual science however, is near unforgivable. So, tragically: you have openly misrepresented the state of the argument here; and I think you should edit your comment or reply with an apology to me and the commentor above.
@@thecloudtherapist does this video ever make a transition from talking about infinity to talking about the argument? Where are they saying the argument is false?
Sorry, Craig debunked this video. See "WLC Responds to a Video Critiquing Him and the Kalam"
Looks super awesome! Glad to see Alex Malpass in there, his formulation of the unsatisfiable pair diagnosis is a pretty good response.
Yes Alex is awesome , he has a lot of good points made in this film
I marked out when I saw Dr. Malpass, hes great
Regarding the philosophical arguments: There are many confusions in this video, even by experts.
lets start with the first philosophical argument. Craig, never claimed that infinity is a contradictory concept in *mathematics* . This is a clear straw man on your part, and the video you cut was taken out of context. Craig's claim is that though infinity is mathematically consistent, it cannot exist in the physical world because it leads to impossible metaphysical cases and even contradictory (when the people check out of the hotel). It should be noted that what is mathematically possible is not always metaphysically possible. For example, the quadratic equation x2−4 = 0 can have two mathematically consistent results for ‘x’: 2 or −2, but if the question is ‘how many people carried the computer home’, the answer cannot be ‘−2’, for in the concrete world it is metaphysically impossible that ‘−2 people’ carried a computer home. Thus the conclusion of ‘2 people’ rather than ‘−2 people’ is not derived from mathematical equations alone, but also from metaphysical considerations: ‘−2 people’ lack the causal powers to carry a computer home. This shows that metaphysical considerations are more fundamental than mathematical considerations
.
Second philosophical argument- The woman in the video asks what if a person counts for an infinite amount of time, can he count to infinity? and then others say yes. However, the problem with this argument is that it confuses counting endlessly with having traversed an endless sequence, the former representing a potential infinite and the later representing an actual infinite. The difference is that the process of counting endlessly is never complete and there will always be numbers that have not yet been counted, whereas having traversed an endless sequence means that one has already gone through each member in the sequence one at a time and no more numbers need to be counted. Accordingly, even if a person never stops counting, there will always be an endless sequence of numbers the person has not yet counted (because, for any given finite number n, even if the person eventually counts n, he or she still has to count all the numbers after n, such as n C 1, n C 2, and so on ad infinitum). Therefore, it is false that, if a person never stops counting, he or she will eventually traverse an actually infinite sequence.
Maplass tries avoid the difficulties associated with traversing infinite time by insisting that, if the past is beginningless, an actually infinite sequence of events has always been traversed. Thus, the objection is that, for any past event e, if the regress of events is beginning-less, then e can occur because all events prior to e have occurred. This objection is circular because it presupposes that an actually infinite sequence of events has been traversed to try to show that an actually infinite sequence of events can be traversed. Hence, the objection amounts to saying that an actually infinite past can be traversed if it has been traversed! But this response fails to refute the intuitive notion that an actually infinite sequence of congruent events can never be completed (or traversed). It is important to remember that we are dealing with a sequence of congruent events, whose members do not come into being or occur all at once, but occur one at a time with equal duration. In addition, because the set of events that must occur before the present event can occur is actually infinite, the process of events occurring before the present moment never ends. Therefore, the present moment can never be reached.
With regards to the singular point of the big bang. No, most physicists take it to be a mathematical idealization. They would say this boundary point to spacetime is not a physical entity; it's a mathematical idealization, and that's why it's equivalent to nothing. It's not an actual physical thing that exists.
How many events will there be in the future? potentially infinite. And by the way it is an ad hominem argument because it doesn't refute either of the premises.
OK, so you're saying that infinity doesn't fit into Craig's metaphysical concept. Except, of course, when he needs it. In other words, he uses infinity to fit whatever his metaphysical concept requires. Metaphysics is more fundamental FOR CRAIG. We noticed. Nothing new. That's what the scientists criticized.
@@stefanheinzmann7319
No I didn't say that. you put words in my mouth instead of answering the arguments provided. Craig never uses infinity to fit his metaphysical concepts. Craig gives arguments against infinity, which this video has failed to refute, as I explain in my comment.
Excellent, Eli!
@@elihaitov1849 You were saying that metaphysics are more fundamental for Craig, which I agree with. He uses the concept of infinity as he sees fit for his metaphysical concept, and this means that he rejects it when it doesn't fit his metaphysics, and he embraces it when he needs it for his metaphysical concept. This is essentially what the scientists pointed out. You just follow and embrace his maneuvering.
@@stefanheinzmann7319
No I didn't say it was *for Craig* I gave an argument why metaphysics is more fundamental (the argument with the equation and of people). you again misread and put words in my keyboard.
I'm glad I spent the two hours to watch this. Two hours you ask: yes - I needed time to look things up, or just think. This programme was worthy of that.
I am pleased that this has confirmed much of what I thought (I am a Physicist by training, Biophysicist by research), and introduced me to concepts with which I was not previously familiar.
I'd have liked a bit more on causality, in particular simultaneous causation. If two events are simultaneous which causes the other? Does the depression of the pillow cause the sinking of the ball, or vice versa? What causes photon pair production, as everywhere is simultaneous for the photon? There is the necessity of the nearby nucleus, but there is no sufficiency.
To one of your contributors, Alastair Wilson: if you are ever in Staff House bar when I am I'd like to discuss this with you.
thanks so much for your comment , and two hours of watch time. Alas we decided to try and keep it to less than one hour so inevitably there will be sections that could go further. Still Criags video on the topic are just 5 mins.
Yes, but if you subtract those two hours from infinity, it's the same as subtracting zero from infinity. So we can say that in an infinite universe, you spent no time watching this video! 😂
As I understood it, gravity acting on the ball caused the depression in the pillow. But if you deny that event, and just observe the ball nestled in the depression, the simultaneous cause and effect, then that state can only be understood in terms of an infinitely past event. That is, an uncaused cause or simultaneous causation.
There is no such thing as simultaneity though, both you and I should know that from relativity
It took me at least 1.5 hours, but I'll be thinking about this for weeks or years.
As I'm sure you're aware, despite the rapid growth of Atheism, at an institutional level Chriatian Apologetics enjoys a wide variety of support in terms of funding, influence, and organizational advantage. Simply look at the size of some of the biggest Christian YT channels as well as the quality of videos produced by organizations such as Reasonable Faith, Word on Fire, and others. With that in mind, it is finally so amazing to see a high-quality and well produced film that brings the best of Atheism in Philosophy and Science to take on the Kalam Cosmological Argument. Because of the argument's popularity, the majority of responses on both sides (from Atheists and Theists) have been relatively poor and uninformed. But with your video, where you highlight what relevant epistemic experts have to say on the matter, I'm hoping it can raise the level of discourse around the Kalam.
Truly this is a remarkable achievement and this is something that as Rationality Rules said, I will be sharing multiple times over and over again. Thank you so much for putting this together as you have done a tremendous service to everyone who is engaged in the debate on the Kalam. Well done.
Thanks so much , really appreciate what you just said. Rationality Rules did say he would share multiple times, but wed behapy for one tweet. So far he hasnt tweeted about it or given any reactions. Im curious to know what he thought maybe if you know him you could ask him ?
@@PhilHalper1 you should tweet this video to Every Popular Atheists and Theists by this engagement on Kalam debate Will do better
@@Hello-vz1md thanks. I have tried but that doesn't seem to work, maybe if you can as well that might help.
@@PhilHalper1 I think Rationality Rules has now shared things from his end. For what it's worth, we've also been promoting this video where we can. One further suggestion, for any other projects dealing with the Kalam (or any other argument for Theism), I'd highly recommend inviting Graham Oppy, Wes Morriston, C.M. Lorkowski, Paul Draper, Evan Fales, Stephen Puryear, Stephen Maitzen, J.L. Schellenberg, Robin Le Poidevin, Felipe Leon, Gregory Dawes, etc for a production as all these people have published scholarly literature/boooks and are relevant epistemic experts in this area.
@@RealAtheology thanks, yes I see Stephen shared it now so thats great. I think we may do fine tuning next, who do you think we should have for that? Im based n Uk so Eurpean names preferred but may travel further afield for it.
Far and away the best and clearest response to the Kalam I have seen. Thank you for this!
thanks so much
I just want to add a extremely strong thumbs up to your comment! Far more than the one I'm officially permitted.
I've thought of a lot of these objections to the Kalam myself, but not being a mathematician or physicist, I lacked the confidence that I was correct. It's nice to see them confirmed by the people who have the goods. Craig founds his arguments on a cherry-picked list of hypotheses and interpretations that are not favored by the larger scientific community. The end result is a kind of theoretical Rube Goldberg machine that is constructed to bolster a predetermined conclusion. Interestingly, Craig has stated that even if his logical rationale for God was proved wrong, he would believe anyway. He bases this outlook on an incorrigible inner experience of God.
Well that is fine for him, but to go on from there to create an ad hoc byzantine construction full of suppositions rejected or disfavored by most experts in the relevant fields, taking positive stands on propositions that no one can know, is pure dishonest sophistry.
It has become clear that Craig's actual project is not to create a valid rationale for God's existence, but to put his argument on a level of sophistication where the average person cannot follow, but where they can be bamboozled by the technical esoterica that he can deploy. This can be seen when he lectures to general audiences. In those settings he makes outrageous absolute statements. He should hope that the God and Hell he believes in are not actually true, if he believes that God has a serious criterion for honesty.
@@donnievance1942 I couldn't agree more. I remember once hearing him speak to some non-technical Christian audience and make reference to de Sitter space. And I remember thinking, how nice that his audience probably understands that he's referring to a maximally symmetric Lorentzian manifold with constant positive scalar curvature which is the Lorentzian analogue of an n-sphere (with its canonical Riemannian metric). Nice solution to Einstein's GR field equations too!
@@CosmosMarinerDU LOL.
Wow! No doubt this will be excellent! I love this subject of the Kalam. I'm glad Daniel Linford was invited. :) He surely deserves it.
yeah he's brilliant and very helpful
@@PhilHalper1 You were not kidding when you said you're working in a bigger project, Phil! :)
@@CosmoPhiloPharmaco the Kalam video is not the bigger project. Thats something way bigger
@@PhilHalper1 what's your bigger project?
@@Hello-vz1md I cant say at the moment but Im sure you will hear about in time
As a philospher, I am left with an unchanged conclusion that Kalam is sound. While the scholars cited here are extraordinary they are not responding to the Kalam in its academic form but a sophomoric caricature presented to them by the publisher. This sort of populism needs to stop. One of many problems is that the argument Dr. Craig gives has never been that an actually infinite is contradictory rather that the instantiation of an actual infinite as a pertains to the sequence of physically relevant or a multiplicity of real objects is simply impossible from a metaphysical perspective. This and many other crucial distinctions get ignored when you try to take something which is complex and philosophically well researched and move it into a popular level for rhetorical effect. Especially when done on the basis of someone who is not seeking truth, but seeking to perpetuate some sort of fundamental an underlying predisposition towards a worldview rather than the seeking of philosophical truth and scholarly criticism. This popularization of philosophical debate is akin to toddlers throwing sand at each other while the rest of us philosophers are storming the beaches of Normandy. I apologize for the strong claims but this video lacks sufficient academic muster and merely confuses non-academics, we need to have more developed discussions on this. I will commend the publisher for speaking to so many experts. I will also note that it is entirely possible the publisher is unaware of the academic language and literature of the argument. May I ask if you have read Dr. Pruss's Infinity, Causation, and Paradox, Dr. Aron Wall's work on Quantum Gravity and Quantum Gravity Models?
IF YOU DISAGREE FIRE AWAY. I am more than happy to engage in a debate.
I should mention that while the cosmological side of defending premise 2 is simply less determinate than the philosophical one there are still considerable reasons to believe that a finite universe is more scientifically plausible. (See Dr. Aron Wall's work as one of many examples.)
Also I’ve gone back and forth with the soundness of the Kalam. But these arguments are not what brought me to question it.
The very notion of _metaphysical possibility_ is dubious in the first place. There is logical and physical possibility. Metaphysical possibility is just something people made up and it means nothing.
@@zverh so logical possibility is metaphysical possibility.
Rationality rules sent me here
I'm glad I came
what did you think of the film?
It was quite entertaining and informative. It is a work of art, one of the many things I am grateful for, is now I have a topic I can pour my time into. The big bounce theory
Suggestion for a future video: Reaction of people as they hear Craig quoting them.
lol that might be fun
Want to see William Lane Craig's response? Here is his full point-by-point response:
Part 1: www.reasonablefaith.org/writings/question-answer/physicists-philosophers-reply-to-the-kalam-cosmological-argument-pt-i
Part 2: www.reasonablefaith.org/writings/question-answer/physicists-philosophers-reply-to-the-kalam-cosmological-argument-pt-ii
Part 3: www.reasonablefaith.org/writings/question-answer/physicists-philosophers-reply-to-the-kalam-cosmological-argument-pt-iii
Part 4: www.reasonablefaith.org/writings/question-answer/physicists-philosophers-reply-to-the-kalam-cosmological-argument-pt-iv
Good. Now watch Skyedivephil's point-by-point response in the channel Digital Gnosis
This is perfect! Every time I hear that ridiculous "we couldn't get to now from infinite past"' thing I start to cry and bang my head against the desk, and I'm sure I'm not the only one. Nice to see that the big minds have heard the banging.
Yes, that argument is irritating. I wonder if WLC and his ilk would argue that Xeno's Paradox proves you can't shoot a tortoise with an arrow?
hahaha - I empathise with you. I tend to I always hold my head in my hands like that Cpt. Picard meme.
yes Im so glad we could get some experts to explain why this is wrong
This argument is indeed flawed. But I think it is the best argument they have (in comparison to Hilbert's Hotel and the Grim Reaper paradox and others). When I first heard of it, I was puzzled. Of course, after reading I realized it is fallacious.
@@CosmoPhiloPharmaco The Hilbert Hotel example was ridiculous with the statement an infinite hotel being full. That shows a complete misunderstanding of the notion of infinite anything.
This response was absolutely fascinating. I'm not overly familiar with WLC's argument, but the one thing that has always stuck out to me is when pushed on A vs B theory of time, he never really provides an answer to B other than to ignore it.
Illuminating video. Thanks to all involved.
I suggest you look up WLCs response to this video, in another video titled "WLC Responds to a Video Critiquing Him and the Kalam"
WLC unironically said skeptics of his argument are deliberately abusing science LMAO
Thank you for creating this and for sharing these ideas and concerns. A huge thank you to all of the interviewees who shared their time with us. 🌺
you are most welcome, appreciate the support.
To be honest,. YOU DONT KNOW.
no one does
Craigs philosophical arguments are obviously correct when dealing with the infinite past, anyone who thinks the past can be infinite, just boggles your mind, whether your a physicist or a philosopher.
"obviously"
Hello, Mr, sorry for my English, I wanted to know if I can ask you a question, I hope you answer despite the time that has passed.
God who is eternal, and hence had an infinite past: Bruh
He remained outside of time until he decided to enter it. Hence avoiding an infinite regress. Bruh.
It is obvious and if it isn’t to you, well… I feel kinda bad for you
Easily the best video on the kalam. Thanks for this.
thats really kid of you to say
@@PhilHalper1 hey! It's just true. I'm in many debate groups on Facebook and I'm so tired of the argument. This gives me some new information to use I didn't have previously. I hate how science is constantly misrepresented by believers, but I'm not a scientist so it's hard for me to put in words these concepts sometimes. These people being paragons of intellect make it understandable to a lay person such as myself.
@@walkerflocker7811 cool, feel free to link to this video in such groups.
It's really funny how much blabbering is done in this hour long video and yet nowhere did they directly address or refute the actual claims of the KCA. This is embarrassing.
I wonder why then Criag felt the need to do not one but four podcasts replying?
for PR purposes only 🤣
This channel and Closer to Truth are the best and the most adventurous cosmology content on RUclips.
thanks, thats very kind of you to say
You would love this then ruclips.net/p/PLROBLlvnR7BEF9b1NOvRf_zhboibmywJb
This video only proves that infinity can exist in theory but not in a physical realm.
Here's why :
let us imagine we believed that the universe was infinite. Because this universe is so large, (given a quantum probablistic universe) the chance of some configuration of atoms existing somewhere in this universe (providing it does not break the laws of physics) becomes certain. This means anything that could exist somehow within the rules of physics MUST exist somewhere in the universe. Often this property of infinity is posed using the Infinite monkey theorem.
This infinite universe includes all number of absurd things. An infinite universe means there exists somewhere in space an exact clone of earth but where everyone has three legs. It means there exists a clone of earth where everything is identical but that I have one fewer atoms in my right hand.
Ultimately, there needs to be a necessary existence, making the Kalam still valid and sound.
If the universe is infinite, yes these things exists, but you cannot simultaneously label them as "absurd" and physically possible.
And I cannot the the relevancy with the Kalam
if the universe is infinite then yes all physically possible states happen but not necessarily with equal probability
It’s incredibly to hear a theist say that without an eternal life with god, life is meaningless, and then accuse all atheists of being nihilists 😂
Tell me again how everything else has more value the more rare it is, except life it self.
Even funnier: So, when there is a meaning to life that ONLY God can prescribe and that can ONLY be revealed via the Bible, then what is it?
Can God change the meaning of life as he fancies?
Is the meaning of Life individual or the same for all people everywhere anytime and anytime in their life?
When you ask such questions to a normal believer, you get crickets.
And I daresay even when you ask a professional apologist, you will get vague commonplaces and nothing concrete (beyond everyone has to find the meaning of life for yourself, and for that I do not need God)
I think the whole is simply created to give the people security/certainty; that you have to ultimately make up your own morals (consistent for living together in a society) and your own meaning, and that you are NOT special, but just a "random" product of many in a giant universe in which nothing is stable and lasting forever (except the principle of constant change) is disturbing for many.
Would we admit that and teach how to COPE with that, how to find ways to handle this and fill the voids and to accept that this will be a constant process would be far better.
I just have to look at how WE change throughout our lifetime, and it is clear that there are no absolutes.
Theists like having meaning imposed on them.
Atheists like finding their own meanings.
I like the contrast between Craig's rather aggressive, asertionist approach soaked with an ever-present vibe of mockery and the scientists' calm, educational tone.
thanks
This is the most comprehensive and complete examination of the Kalam. Kudos to you
thanks very much . Have you seen our follow up film? I think I like it better
You can’t prove god or disprove god, but science has zero need for god in its explanations of the universe.
Yes.
And you can't prove two headed fairies or disprove two headed fairies but science has zero need for two headed fairies in its explanations of the universe.
@@canwelook yes you can prove someting false , like a can prove that it rain water and not milk ..........
so its false that nothing that it doesnt exist can be prove ....... just science cant prove that GOD isnt exist
😉😉😉😉😉😉😉😉😉
@@hectorantoniodejesusibarra7431
Science doesn't assume things exist until shown to exist.
Fantasy remains the realm of religion.
A superb focused exposition that is expressed in la language for the non-specialist. No easy task. We are all in the debt of the producers of this - it is a model of clarity, rationality and intellectual rigour.
thanks so much, really appreciate your comment.
“Many of us are dubious that just simply pointing that something seems absurd is enough to forbid it from existing in reality philosophers have to be a lot bolder than that.” What irony 🤣
Tertullian's ghost smiles.
WLC has one of the weakest arguments based on fluffy assumptions, he stands alone making a bold baseless claim
I don't understand how theists cite anything from thermodynamics the first law states that matter/energy/mass cannot be created. This is probably why when they appeal to thermodynamics they never mention the first law. They don't even try and argue how it doesn't apply or supports their cause. Its just 2nd law all the time
I point that out to them myself
(english isn't my first language)
The first law of thermodynamics does not deny the metaphysical possibility of divine creation, but it denies the physical possibility of spontaneous generation. This means that matter cannot create itself (nothing comes from nothing, and something can't be the cause and the effect itself).
The fact that matter exists implies that it had to begin to exist. That beginning necessarily leads to the conclusion that it was created by something earlier.
But even if the universe and matter were eternal (it is not, there are many implications that prevent this possibility, I can say them in another comment if necessary), its reason for being and its configuration would have to be explained.
@@user-lg8uj4ib9p okay no worries with English not being first language.
The first law-so matter came be created via supernatural means…but can’t be created by natural means?
The first law doesn’t say that something can’t be the coarse of itself.
Couldn’t there be a possibility that matter/energy has always existed?
_the fact that matter exists implies that it had to begin to exist_
Why? If a creator doesn’t need a cause or begin to exist why can’t matter/energy also just have always existed in some form?
We don’t think that this universe is eternal I agree. But that doesn’t preclude the possibility that matter/energy couldn’t be eternal.
@@therick363 what I put in parentheses in the first law of thermodynamics are philosophical principles related to said law, not the postulates of it.
And before answering the impossibility of the eternity of matter, I need to ask you: how do you think it is possible for matter to be eternal without the universe also being eternal, since matter is part of the universe?
@@user-lg8uj4ib9p well are you making the assumptions that matter/energy can only exist in this universe? Because who says they can’t exists and keep going though changes from one universe after another?
And I get that those are philosophical principles-but there are parts of philosophical principles where no outside cause is needed, where an event can be it’s own cause in a closed loop.
This was such a great video. It really exposes how Infinities can be abused by trying to apply arithmetic functions against them that are themselves, not logically defendable.
thanks
Holy moly thank you so very much!! I've been asking to several religious people what exactly do they mean by an infinite regress and this does wonders to understand what I already suspected, that it's an invalid question or at least distinct questions not compatable with finite time.
you are welcome
If they didn’t just respond with “an endlessly long sequence of events” then they are bad at defending their faith
@@somebodysomewhere5571 defending faith is not hard doing so without logical fallacies, misrepresenting science, assumptions after assumptions and overestimating the bible... That is the Challenger.
@@Carlos-fl6ch Sounds like you making assumptions about defending faith
@@somebodysomewhere5571
Assumptions. Hmm. Consider this. defending anything is not hard doing so without logical fallacies, misrepresenting science, assumptions after assumptions and overestimating your position... That is the Challenger.
But better yet. Proof me wrong and I'll admit
Wow! So many nails for a coffin whose content has been rotting away for quite a while already!
This channel is a sheer treasure. I do wish it had closed captions though. All these minds are brilliant but a bit hard to understand their accents sometimes.
Will WLC respond with "an incredulous stare"? I look forward to it. Great video, thanks.
It wouldn't surprise me
Reminder is ON!
great thanks
Very professsional analysis of more problems than just the argument itself
thanks
Don't buy a used car from anyone named Bill Craig
Yeah, because each sale comes with a free proclamation of the gospel of Jesus 😁
Excellent work, I felt that Craig's arguments had some holes in them but I lacked the clarity to see exactly where. This video helped tremendously. Thanks very much.
you are very welcome
Look into Craigs response to this on his site
Already watched 3 times ... Just amazing and i don't have any other words to add.
Thank you so much for this !!
really appreciate your comment
Such a wonderful episode, I would definitely watch a deep dive on the concept of infinity. There was a really great special done in England on Infinity I think by Horizons but if you made one I would be the first person to watch.
We may do this in the future. Seriously looking into it
Now ladies and gentlement and non-binaries, this is what you call a DEBUNKING video! No strawmaning, show the actuality of the person words, and asking experts to answer all of those!
Thanks
7:25 There is a misunderstanding or rather premeditated miscomprehension In the phrase: "and yet, EXACTLY THE SAME NUMBER of people left the hotel this time when the odd-numbered guests checked out."
It is simply not true. Just because the number of people leaving we call: "infinity" doesn't mean it is a number. The infinity does not equal any number. The notion of infinity cannot be misapprehended as any number. Simply infinity is not a number. Kantor showed that there are some different kinds of infinities - some are bigger than others.
After you realized such a thing, there is no paradox in both situations compared. Somebody has just used the same word for different things. It often happens, when arguing negligently.
Using one word (infinity) for different things doesn't make those different things the same. This is a very similar problem to dividing by zero.
I like your phrase 'premeditated miscomprehension'. Given that WLC has at least a basic understanding of Hilbert's argument, I don't think there is any misunderstanding but a willful attempt to misrepresent it.
@@condorboss3339 nah you are being clearly uncharitable to paint a narrative
INFINITIES are fascinating. Though they have indeterminate end point, they have different densities or compactness. 😃
@@terminusadquem6981 A deep insight indeed. I like it.
ive seen Craig explain the difference between infinities on The Cosmic Skeptic. so he understands the concept, i think he is just disingenuous about it.
in what way?
The holy boy (Craig?) is a flim flam artist who likes to use big words and drop big names to serve his quest to "prove" the existence of his little god of the old testament.
His arguments go along the lines of mis-quoting some science using as many big words and dropping as many names as possible, followed by "therefore" leading to his little old testament god.
And his arguments always fail at that little word "therefore".
And even if you granted his flim flam and admitted a prime mover in the universe he is still an infinity of miles from proving the truth of the particular little god he is pushing.
"That video is so below threshold." What a great description 😅
yeah I liked that quote too
WLC says infinities are impossible with one breath then says god in infinite with the next -- he's not someone to take seriously but his influence on others should be. Which is why this video is important.
Thanks glad you thinker video is important.
Well yeah, he gives reasons for the distinction.
Wow, the kalam just got destroyed so thoroughly that everyone who uses it from this point onwards either hasn't seen this video, is an idiot, or is dishonest.
thanks for the kind words.
Does the big bang prove the existence of god? No. Next question.
Cantor was a true genius. I don't know if it's accurate, but Wikipedia says of Cantor //"...To Cantor, his mathematical views were intrinsically linked to their philosophical and theological implications - he identified the Absolute Infinite with God,[73] and he considered his work on transfinite numbers to have been directly communicated to him by God, who had chosen Cantor to reveal them to the world.[5] He was a devout Lutheran whose explicit Christian beliefs shaped his philosophy of science.[74] Joseph Dauben has traced the effect Cantor's Christian convictions had on the development of transfinite set theory.[75][76]..."//
thanks for your comment, but not sure the relevance?
here after watching Trent horns rebuttal
have you seen Majesty of Reasons reply ? ruclips.net/video/dqmIQcNrzTY/видео.html
Imagine WLC watching this and feeling slightly embarrassed.
my guess is cognitive dissonance might prevent that
I'm fairly certain that WLC is nowhere near humble enough, and far too arrogant, to have EVER felt embarrassed.
Ah yes I can see you are very mature
“WLC is a demon! A demon I say” -this comments section at this point
Nice pep talk there 😅
What a lot of non-philosophers don't seem to understand is that infinity is NOT "a really really big number" it is an INFINITE number and useful, just like the square root of -1 (negative one) is "not real" and is "imaginary" but still useful in conceptual calculations such as are required to understand and work particulars in topics involving alternating current.
Complex numbers or the imaginary element of mathematics, are also valid formulas or laws deduced by the human being, as well as laws of physics, to obtain reliable results from theoretical questions with relevance and correspondence in the real world. Just this. They are useful, applicable and coherent deductions for the real world. Now no infinite set of mathematics has any correspondence and coherence in the concrete world. Infinities already traveled are impossible in the real world and even in the mathematician. I think it lacks competent philosophers to correctly interpret what infinite set theories really mean. Craig, who is not even from this area, had to correct current mathematicians and philosophers about their misconceptions.
I dislike how u start with a conclusion and then just argue for that for the whole hour. At least give the dude u are trying to argue against a chance to respond or something. This came off as extremely bias to me, even tho I probably agree with your position.
there are video advocating for the Kalam and so it seems a reposes it justified, why not?
@@PhilHalper1 thx for responding. I am interested in and watch a lot of philosophy/physics type content and I guess that is why youtube reccommended your video to me. I never heard of the Kalam or the dude u are arguing against before your video. Hence my reaction to your video.
@@synx6988 fair enough
Damn, Arif Ahmed is really good. Great video by the way
hes awesome, such clear thinking and so to the point and accessible. Definitely going to use him again!
The general problem is that we assume that reality must conform to our perceived and named categories of perception
The fact is that “the beginning of the universe” is a logical concept that only appears to make sense…. When in reality we have no reason to think we know anything at all about how or why those events transpired
Agree 👍👍👍
Yet Craig has no issue claiming his god has infinite compassion, is infinitely powerful, etc.
Talk about contradictory!
Hey Phil - thanks for doing this. I'm excited to FINALLY watch it, especially given my book on the subject: "Did God Create the Universe from Nothing? Countering William Lane Craig's Kalam Cosmological Argument"
let me know what you think
@@PhilHalper1 it's brilliant. I'll blog it this week.
@@ATipplingPhilosopher about time mate! glad you liked it
@@PhilHalper1 I'm so fricking busy I've been struggling. You know Carrier heavily cited it in a recent discussion?
WELP!!!
Theists..... Run😈😈😈
lol
this video lacks proper proof of most of its claims, which is obviously hard to do being 1 hour long as it currently is. However, this leads to most of the video especially the physics part being "the experts don't believe this is true", which doesn't prove anything to the skeptic.
i get that the actual ideas are really complicated and take years to understand, but high level explanations of stuff with enough information/pointers to look up the ideas would be really helpful. It would be much better if you could say why the expert believe what they believe.
this isn't a problem for the whole video, a few the bits were like this theorem assumes this and so that etc which is good, and the infinities at the start had some good explanations, but we don't any intuition for any of the other theorems e.g the hawking-Penrose theorem, you just showed hawking and Penrose saying no one believes it, and people see it as meaning general relativity must be wrong, without explaining where the contradiction comes from, making it seem like they are just trying avoid Craig's conclusion (I'm sure they're not, but its never really explained).
This video is just a :
Craig quote physicist and mathematicians and same physicists and mathematicians answers he did not understand shit, therefore making his arguments invalid.
That's all it is.
@@laurentmaquiet5631 we do show screen shot of our 10 part series where more is explained in detail.
@@PhilHalper1 cool thanks
You took most of what he said out of context
you can't keep stacking if you didn't start stacking but you can keep stacking forever if you don't stop.
It's good to hear from people who can speak to the technical details. I always got the impression from Craig that he was engaging in "mathematical woo" with his statements about infinity.
For someone like me (without formal training), to debunk the Kalam I like to focus on the first premise, "whatever began to exist must have a cause."
The obvious problem with this premise is that we don't have any examples of anything that has ever "begun to exist" in a physically real way. So we cannot honestly make statements about things that "begin to exist", because we have never observed anything "begin to exist".
I'll debunk a potential counter-example: a watch. You might say that a watchmaker has observed the "beginning of existence" for a particular watch.
But did the watch ever actually begin to exist? There was a moment when the watch was assembled and wound for the first time, but is that the watch's "beginning of existence" in physical reality, in the sense used in the Kalam? No. In fact, any point that you decide to call the watch's "beginning" is just an arbitrary point when you decide to apply a label to the constituent parts. This label has nothing to do with the physical existence of the object - it's a language construct, a shorthand that helps us communicate.
The watch was parts on the shelf, it was the raw materials in the ground, it was the stardust from a supernova, etc. The constituent parts have changed and moved and interacted even before we called them "a watch". They may have always existed. Our labels do not have the power to determine when a physical object began to exist in reality.
The Kalam is not interested in when we started to label the universe as "beginning to exist" - it's interested in when the universe began to exist in actual physical reality. But since we cannot say that anything has ever "begun to exist" physically, we cannot take the first premise of the Kalam seriously. It's equivocation, it's wordplay.
you can debunk the first argument pretty easily, and I think you are going in that direction, by introducing a parody of the kalam cosmological argument by changing the first premise:
"Everything that begins to exist is made out of pre-existing stuff"
This premise is as intuitive as the original one, it covers all the same examples, it cannot be disputed through observation. But then... you arrive at a completely different conclusion for the argument: The universe is made out of pre-existing stuff.
The only way the apologists can debate you on introducing this premise, is to try to show that there are some things that have a cause but are not made out of pre existing stuff... and those things do not exist.
So the same intuitions that supports the kalam, seems to support the parody of the kalam. And so we cannot really derive much of a conclusion after all.
I always stick to empirical evidence, sure we have quantum equations which get us further back., but our oldest empirical data is the CMB and star light from telescopes
We have no evidence for creation or for the universe not existing, we have no examples of nothingness, all empirical data shows the there is something and always has been, theists or deists then add an unnecessary god and lose occams razor
This is the most brutal takedown of Craig's Kalam I've seen so far. So much destruction.
thanks so much , really appreciate your comment
Atheists desire for God not to exist is so funny
@@ceceroxy2227 that's not what an atheist is though.
On the contrary ,theists believing in god seems childish (Santa Claus level)
@@ceceroxy2227 jajaja yea
@@laurentmaquiet5631 jajajajaja yea told san aquino about that 😉
Excellent! Gave me a lot of food for thought.
thanks glad you found it stimulating
At 35:46, they show a page of WLC taking about signals travelling faster than light. What I note is the very weird diction of WLCs discussion. When he talks about the behaviour of a tachyon particle, he says that the behaviour predicted by the theory is “pathological”.
WTF?
Oh my the effort with inviting those people to dismantle the KCA. This'll be something I'll definitely enjoy
lets know what you thought
@@PhilHalper1I'm still attempting to comprehend and let alone finish the video I mean the total Summed IQ of these people would dismantle my brain lol even for days. The only really "compelling" argument I see is the contingency argument for god. That which argues through the "Principle of Reason" that all things must have an explanation or a non contingent thing that causes things that are contingent. By your careers in yt have you encountered such an argument. If so, are they sound?
@cxtrusmc i don't think the contingency argument sound at all. But you should look to znajesty of Reason channel for criticism. Tell Joe I sent you
@@PhilHalper1 alrighty! Thank you
Excellent video. Does a nice job of addressing the substance of Craig’s arguments while showing some of his slimier tactics.
Vilenkin's claim that the Universe could emerge through tunneling from "nothing" is ill defined because he does not define mathematically a quantum mechanical state called "nothing". Quantum tunneling happens from state A to state B. He does not define the state A, just calls it "nothing". It's just rubbish. Just look at his original paper to see that it is only a crazy speculation with no mathematical back up, dressed in fancy wording. I'm surprised PLB accepted this paper for publication at all.
We voiced this criticms in our film with Richard Gott . I thnk the importnat point we wanted to make is that if Vilenkins model is right then it is not a universe from a pre existing vaccum. We ceetinaly present other models and so in our film series so were not relying on its truth. in fact if there no viable mdoels of universe form nothing then Criaigs claim that there is accord between the Xtian concept of creation ex nihlio and sceince is then false.
@@PhilHalper1 Vilenkin's ides is not even a physical model, it is a mathematically ill defined speculation.
Indeed there is no viable model of Universe from nothing and there never will be. That is because the only mathematical representation of nothing is the 0. So quantum mechanically we would have to consider a tunneling from a 0 state Hilbert space vector (with 0 norm) to a non-0 state (non zero norm). However this process is not allowed by the Heisenberg evolution equation. According to Heisenberg equation, 0 state will always evolve to 0 state. Therefore the claim "something from nothing" is against the basic principles of the QM. The whole Vilenkin's idea is just rubbish. Why this rubbish paper was published? Probably the referee was his good buddy - happens all the time.
@@sodancethesamba911 I agree, Vilenkin’s nothing is in fact not nothing at all. Also, as of now, in science, there is not a single example of an actual infinite that actually exists. Up to now when physics generates an actual infinite it is usually taken to mean that the theory breaks down at that point.
William Lane Craig is just annoying. He emphatically declares to be so, those things he believes support his existing beliefs, while consciously ignoring anything that contradicts his beliefs or that is contradictory within his beliefs. I'm not even sure his world view is the product of confirmation bias. I think he probably does this deliberately as it gives him a lucrative career backed by lots of cheerleaders among the religiously affiliated.
It is interesting to contrast the attitude of WLC to that of the scientists, mathematicians and philosophers who spoke in this video. Notice the certainty with which WLC declares his conclusions.
we all have confirmation bias but maybe some have it more than others
@@PhilHalper1 Indeed that is true, however as I tried to indicate I don't think that is the underlying issue with WLC. I think he is disingenuous if not consciously dishonest.
He is clearly smart enough to see through the follies he propagates. I suspect it serves his political ideology if not his own career to do what he does.
Billions of smart people through history started with the presupposition that there is a god and by any contortion, want to find evidence to demonstrate it. A tragic waste of human talent; where we could have been if those people followed the evidence and applied science.
Watching this video gave me goosebumps and was infinitely more awe-inspiring than any prayer at any mosque/masjid ever.
thanks so much for your comment, really appreciated.
@J if you mean a theory of all four forces of nature yes I think its possible but by no means notable.
Mind-blowing stuff.
I'd probably need to watch it quite a few times to understand it.
Speaking for myself I have no problem with mathematical infinities, but cosmological ones wreck my brain.
I think that's why The Big Bang ( as lay people understand it) is so appealing.
It posits a universe finite in both time and space.
The William Lane Craig approach to Science. God exists. Lets make a model that supports my argument because it better be true. I couldn't possibly live without god. Thinking otherwise would make life not worth living, because if there is nothing afterwards, that would really suck !!!
something like that
@@PhilHalper1 You know, this is a great channel, keep it up. I actually had lunch with Roger P once, in the nineties, well, more like, he was at the same table I was at at Oxford Uni, but I didn't really know who he really was at that time, internet was limited from home and all, but ignorance is bliss :)
Today I feel proud of that moment to have even shared a conversation about obscurities of phase space in chemical systems with him, okay I am a chemist, it's a different field, that's my only excuse. :D
That man is a genius of the highest order.
Actually, if someone was honest and said something along the lines of, "I need to believe in a god because belief in a god helps me to get through life and stay positive", I think that would be far more respectable than what Craig is arguing. I really don't think it's intellectually honest to claim that a view is compatible with modern science and then keep referring to specific theories long after the authors of those theories have repeatedly pointed out they disagree with him. It annoys me when people go on making claims like this to audiences that they know full well are not educated enough to have heard the counter-arguments. It's dishonest.
WLC often refers to - even harps on - the Borde-Vilinken-Guth theorem to argue the past cannot be “past infinite”. It must have a starting point. Thus God. In other words, he cherry-picks the parts of science which he thinks supports his pre-ordained conclusion. Even those guys don’t agree with his interpretation, but of course he’s entitled to his own “take”.
I can not measure properly the amount of thank you for being here.
Much appreciated
The way Craig is just so happy wrapped in his ignorance he’s practically giddy.
Being ignorant on purpose is like a drug because if you try to cure that ignorance then the addict get loud and irrational.
If you tell him god is simply a concept then his brain will shut down immediately because he’s afraid of losing his drug of choice…religion.
Great video! Definitely will watch it again to better understand everything that being said here. Only thing it's lacking right now is an attention it deserves.
thanks glad you liked it.
Although the video is better produced than others, I find its criticism very superficial, it does not add anything new and it makes the same mistakes as always:
1--Confusion of a metaphysical theory with a scientific theory
2--Only place detractors but not defenders
3--Confusion of infinite potentials with actual infinites
4--Comparison with "eternal life", which does not proceed at all. This particular criticism is pretty silly.
5--Confusion of infinity of concrete things with the concept of infinity.
6--Philosophers who assume the infinite without questioning it in order to aspire to defend it. It is almost as if they said: "See, all paradoxes are what is expected of infinity ... it may be absurd but don't ask more"
6-Scientists who claim to have a better model than the standard but have practically no empirical proof of it or their models are not infinite at all. In many cases, they practically agree with Craig. And others with speculative models, never really describe how they solve the problem or provide empirical evidence for them. "...you can violate any theorem as long you violate the assumptions.."
7--Appeal to the future when the future is uncertain... almost as if they said "A theory of quantum gravity is going to solve everything in the future." "We don't have it but when it comes out it will solve your atheist problems".
8-Believe that the Kalam cannot be defended in the b-theory of time, which is false.
9-Confuse causal infinity with other types of infinities.
10-Typical: "it is possible that the universe comes from nothing". Great maybe God "comes out of nowhere" too, or a playstation 5, or a naked woman!
11-Confusion of indeterministic causality with non-causality (at the quantum level)
12-Acceptance of the possibility of self-creation? If this were true... What door could not be opened with this? Do we deny miracles to accept bigger ones?
13-Believe that the causal loops solve the problem.
14-And the worst, believing that if the universe is infinite (either in cycles or multiverse) somehow solves the problem! Not at all, it makes it worse... now instead of a single universe to explain, you have an infinite number of them existing "magically" without explanation.
And much more... pure atheist propaganda.
Don't see how it serves as 'atheist propaganda' - think that's uncharitable.
Can you expand a little more on your feedback. Eg:
1- in what sense are they confusing the two?
3- in what sense are they confusing the two?
4- Why is it 'silly' criticism? What do they get wrong?
5- in what sense are they confusing the two?
6 (two 6s?)- which scientists and models are you referring to?
8- how can it be defended in B-theory?
9- in what sense are they confusing the two?
11- in what sense are they confusing the two?
14- what 'problem'?
Thanks.
Okay genius, as for point 10, you are completely wrong. Universe could come from nothing if the net energy of the universe is 0. Naked woman and ps5 both have non zero energy, so you cannot go from a state of 0 energy to non zero energy spontaneously
Many physicists have said that the total energy of our universe could be 0.
12 nobody is accepting self creation. They said there are stable mathematical models of universes that can self create.
You are attacking a strawman.
13 jesus christ!! None of those scientists said that CTCs can solve problems. They just said there are models without inconsistencies. Our universe could be in a CTC could not be. Nobody knows
14. Comparing to theist position, if god can "magically" exist without any explanation, why cant the multiverse?
Apologists: infinity doesn't exist
Apologists: my God is infinite
Me: your God doesn't exist
I consider this one of the best Kalam documentaries available so great job. I also understand that you have loads and loads of other information available as well please consider a part two.
The most important question idd like to ask you is to also make a video that responses to WLC responses that were discussed in bad apologetics. And please add the link to that episode here. It's a must watch after this documentary.
thanks, we are making part 2 , Im editing now
@@PhilHalper1 not only a great documentary maker but a great responder to. What are you the perfect RUclips content creator.
Think you can even go for part three and four. Lol.
Really appreciate your work. It's often hard for scientist to respond to such stuff because they don't have the audience nor the motivation..so not only are you doing a great job for us enabling them to briefly address such matters is a great service to them as well.
You are appreciated.
@@Carlos-fl6ch thanks so much for your kind words, very much appreciated.
Thanks for making this video. Contradictions in infinity is infinitely beautiful. I am just amazed that my brain can grasp it. How is that possible?
your smarter than you think maybe?
Between Cantor and Penrose, the universe is without beginning or end
Great documentary. A must watch! Would love one for the ontological argument as well.
Well I was never bought into the cosmological argument, specially the prime mover, and many thiests consider it to be a good sound argument, but I will explain why it is not. Now even if we accept causes as part of our physical reality and indepentent of our perception ( Which I don't), first you need to understand how we define a cause. we learn about causes from basically events that we observe which involves actions concieved by motions and change of certain states, so a cause is defined as a part of motion or dependent on motion and since this is how we understand the concept of a cause, you cannot therefore argue about a cause independent of a motion, you will just be redefining and remaking the concept. So asking about what causes all the motion is fallacious, and there being a first cause of motion is too. so if you were to ask "what caused the first motion", you would be basically asking "what motion dependant thing initiated the first motion", this is incoherent. Now a thiest can defend their claim and say that god has motion and he initiated all other motions himself, but that will be a supposition, since they have a no way of knowing or reasoning about what god has or what he can do. we can only use logical reasoning on our physical reality.
The most basic meaning about causality is not that an effect will always have a cause that has its own cause. No, not so. Rather, causality basically just indicates that everything that begins to exist has a cause; now, realize that something eternal doesn't need to be caused, and therefore could perhaps initiate the first movement, the first creation/effect/arrangement/transformation. Realize? However, what would prove that something eternal capable of moving things is possible or even the case? It is precisely the Paradox of the Infinite Past, which is something impossible and therefore not applicable to our temporal reality consisting of past, present and future in transformation. Now, where there is transformation or movement, there are finite sequences towards only the endless future.
Lol a whole video built on straw manning Craig. Atheist getting desperate!
Criag claims he doesn't claim that infinity is logically contradictory only metaphysically impossible, except he did say it was logically contradictory and mathematicians says o. So theres no straw man.
@@PhilHalper1 It absolutely is a straw man as Craig himself has already pointed out. Trent Horn just released a response to this video. Yall look like a laughing stock. Reminds me of when Krauss edited Velinkin's email to make it look as if Craig had misinterpreted tue BGV theorem. Velinkin later stated that Craig had represented the theorem accurately. Even in this "documentary" he said theyre MAY be some room for a past eternal universe. Makes me wonder what you left out. It is funny to see the atheist trying to salvage a past eternal or oscillating universe after the multiverse theory has basically fallen apart.
@@PhilHalper1 Craig did not say actual infinities are logically contradictory. He argues the *existence* of an actual infinity in reality leads to contradictions, and is absurd. Hilbert himself agreed with this very same thing
Imprecise language leads to strawmans
@@AndresGonzalez-rx3mv WLC argued that infinity is metaphysically impossible which I agree
but he Actually himself said in debate that Mathematican thinks infinity lead to contradictions
I think Craig used such misinformed rhetoric to influence the audiences
Majesty of reason made a video on this
The people in this video are overthinking it, lol. A single moment actually does depend on the previous even if we could not witness it. The mathematical laws would still apply whether or not humans existed.
We literally would NOT be having this conversation if the universe, theoretically, had an infinite past(which really just means it never even *began* to exist or never existed in the first place, lol). Maybe these people believe the universe is some sort of omniscient being😆
skydivephil : Thank you so much for taking the time to put together this video with such a deep variety of perspectives around the world from leading expert's. I am forever indebted 👍
You are very welcome. Appreciate the comment
Really appreciate this video.
thanks glad you liked it.
Thanks for the video :)
you are welcome
This is a good match ... My hero is Roger Penrose and his cyclical universe
Why do you like this guess?
I agree. I get the impression that Mr Penrose is on the right track
@@Rossion64 Cyclical universes are for catching ZZZZ's.
@@wulphstein - A nice side-effect for nerdy insomniacs.
41:34 the irony of WLC using that phrase 🤦.
Every single moment of this video is thoroughly refuted on Dr. Craig's website.
we will reply Crga has replied not refuted.
@@PhilHalper1 He has REFUTED. I studied everything carefully. The opinions, obfuscations, misrepresentations, misdirections, lies, and half-truths of this video are fully refuted.
@@justinsturz5854 please, Craig wouldn't know how to refute my morning stool:)
Very juicy! Thank you.
you are welcome
I'm excited for this, should prove to be interesting!
thanks, i look forward to hearing your thoughts afterwards.
I always wonder where humanity could be if we all left behind magical thinking and focus only on reality.
indeed
I would say much the same. There are no complete agreements by scientists. Theists say God is responsible for everything, atheists say we don't know. I tend to believe not only we can never know but we cannot know. The more we know the more we realise we don't know.
@@redmed10 I reject the idea that it would be much the same. We have many theists actively distorting what is actually known to contort the information into something that would support their position. This has the net effect of a lot of resources having to be spent addressing the BS that is often presented. This video ITSELF is an example of the resource drain that theological advocates have on society with regard to our advancement.
@@MyContext
I probably would have agreed with you a few years ago. Furthermore lots people have wrong beliefs about lots of things not just religion.
What is frightening is that these Death Cults making these cheap promises of an easy living in the sky for eternity have pushed so much division and hate & dominate the 21st century
So many innocents have been raped and mass murdered due to this hate & division these Death Cults preach
"Here is Craig saying infinity is contradictory."
Craig: "Infinity *leads to* self-contradictions."
Yeah I see your game, Phil.
WLC has the weakest argument, based on fluffy false assumptions
@@knyghtryder3599 Seems irrelevant to the point I was making, but ok sure, what's one of these "fluffy false assumptions"?
@@Vic2point0 We have zero empirical evidence for creation, we have zero evidence for philosophical nothingness, we have zero evidence for anything preceding the known universe or any plausible alternative to the known universe.
100% of empirical evidence shows an eternal infinite dynamic universe
So the main fluffy false assumption is that the universe had a beginning or cause , which invalidates every argument after
It’s fun watching this now in light of the fact that low-bar Bill has explained to us all that his entire career is nothing but a pile of motivated reasoning 😂