Wow, you've come a long way. I remember you in the debate forums on Facebook years ago. I love your setup, lighting, logo, name, logo colors, and really long videos. God speed.
Capturing Christianity What Planet are you on! Show me any Philosophy that gives us knowledge?? Craig is lost in Fallacies of Composition,Ignorance and Incredulity! He also equates Authenticity with Credibility,possibility with probability:. Craig is lying: 1(X + 1) + 1/(X + 1)^2 + 1/(X + 1)^3 .....1/(X + 1)^n This is an infinite Series yet converges to 1 + X ..so who is to say the Universe cant converge to fundamental Laws we have yet to discover! Moreover,Hawking showed the Cosmos could have space-time boundary or even continuum..God would then be unnecessary!! ruclips.net/video/M1c_GlAjvy4/видео.html ruclips.net/video/2pfjJ49wCcM/видео.html ruclips.net/video/rak2YVNR1gI/видео.html ruclips.net/video/8CChnwOsg9I/видео.html ruclips.net/video/P28hy8JRYUk/видео.html ruclips.net/video/l6esL6yz52Q/видео.html ruclips.net/video/oMwp9Wd-QmE/видео.html ruclips.net/video/LVyGk3vldMI/видео.html ruclips.net/video/O4GmgZBuEMU/видео.html ruclips.net/video/oD06eEbrzj/видео.html conwayhall.org.uk/ethicalrecord/william-lane-craigs-eight-reasons-for-god-refuted/
Capturing Christianity Why don't you ever have Atheists on like Dr Richard Carrier BA,MA,MPhil,PhD..or Bart Erhman who have already shown the Bible is historized Fiction based on emulation Mythology.. there is no actual evidence for God but Faith and metaphysical Apologetics!
Would it be feasible for you to send participants out an expensive microphone like you use? (and a return addressed package so they can easily send it back after) Maybe even a really good camera that's compatible with most computers as a webcam
Cameron I’m still shocked by these conversations. I remember when you were just another Facebook guy. I’m proud of you. Knew Capturing Christianity would take off.
perhaps rightly, WLC is getting a lot of love for this discussion, but I actually think Alex Malpass is being overlooked for how cordial and respectful he was. It's so refreshing to see and I'm grateful.
Craig appears utterly deluded ..he keeps using the word "God" yet gives no precise mechanism how such an infinite and immaterial can cause anything.."God" in his head is a place holder for ignorance because he is so indoctrinated,he actually believes his verbal vacuity means anything but noise!! Until Craig stops lying and Inventing evidence because he isn't frightened to live in a Godless Universe,to write a paper that proves a loving God exists and wins a Nobel Prize..no serious Ancient Historian, Physicist or Philosopher will take him seriously!
“Wow, what a great debate. You should have seen how cordial the one guy was.” “Yeah, Tyson Fury won, convincingly I might add, but could you believe how cordial Deontay Wilder was? What an incredibly polite boxer he is”
This sounds like a backhanded compliment. Don’t overlook Alex’s intellect, he’s not just being “cordial”. In my eyes he won the debate. Check out his blog useofreason.wordpress.com
Sceptical Scientist We can all play ultimate skeptic. It’s easy because you don’t have to deliver the “imminent” state of *being* convinced, and you never have to make any claims. It’s easy to continue on to absurdity by never stating that anything is “persuasive”, and thus cannot be held true (even when you truly believe it to be true). To give you an example that EVERYONE can play ultimate skeptic, and that it doesn’t necessarily bring you any closer to truth: Regarding your claim, Why would you need evidence to conclude anything is true? Why does evidence imply truth? It seems like you are just going off intuition rather than a precise mechanism because you don’t want to live in an evidenceless universe.
@@kjustkses I will admit I thought WLC made the better argument here. That said I am not entirely sure that Alex disagrees with the idea that the past was not infinite, he just has issues with some of the philosophical arguments put forward in defence of the idea. Personally I have no real issue with the idea that time doesn't go back infinitely and began at a certain point in the past, that is what Big Bang cosmology tells us after all. My main issues with the Kalam all revolve around the wording of the first premise, the one that WLC always likes to skip past as if there are no problems with it.
Da Koos yes that part. WLC likes to state that this part of the argument is supported by both empirical evidence and our intuition, and yet he cherry picks both, leaving out the parts that would undermine his conclusion that the universe was created from nothing by God. If he was really basing it on what empirical evidence and intuition tells us then the first premise should read like this: What ever begins to exist within the universe has both an efficient and a material cause of its existence. I think it’s pretty obvious why it isn’t worded that way, even though that far more accurately reflects what we see in the world around us.
rabbitpirate Strange, that is the one part of the kalam which I don’t have a problem with. If you say that everything has a materialistic cause, and space time and matter came into existence, then how did matter have a materialistic cause?
I am so happy to see Craig doing online discussions like these, and am proud of guys like you who help bridge those gaps. You’re doing a great job Cameron!
Eric Hernandez Actually,we don't know if the Universe needs a cause because of QM! Even if it did..it doesn't remotely prove God did it: This infinite Series: 1/(X + 1) + 1/(X + 1)^2 + 1/(X + 1)^3.....converges to 1 + X Who is Bill to say the Universe cant converge to fundamental Laws we have yet to discover? ruclips.net/video/M1c_GlAjvy4/видео.html ruclips.net/video/8CChnwOsg9I/видео.html ruclips.net/video/NNdwt1gy5xM/видео.html ruclips.net/video/4YYWUIxGdl4/видео.html ruclips.net/video/ew_cNONhhKI/видео.html ruclips.net/video/O7ybg0IMPto/видео.html ruclips.net/video/rak2YVNR1gI/видео.html conwayhall.org.uk/ethicalrecord/william-lane-craigs-eight-reasons-for-god-refuted/ rationalwiki.org/wiki/William_Lane_Craig Did you also know that Craig's PhD Advisor at Birmingham University,the late Prof John Hick didn't agree with Craig as most Scientists and Philosophers don't ha ...I rest my Case! ruclips.net/video/7JibSTglpnU/видео.html
So you think some minor Philosopher can tell us about reality or cosmic causes ...the guy cant even understand College Maths or Physics yet thinks Einstein was wrong ha More Fallacies of ignorance and composition.. conflating Authenticity with Credibility! Ha See Hector Avalos on it. It’s all possibiliter fallacies ignoring evidence and making up hypotheses for which there is no evidence.
V H Craig is wrong: There is no divine Laws that created the Cosmos: ruclips.net/video/M1c_GlAjvy4/видео.html ruclips.net/video/rak2YVNR1gI/видео.html ruclips.net/video/8CChnwOsg9I/видео.html
V H Actually,we don't know if the Universe needs a cause because of QM! Even if it did..it doesn't remotely prove God did it: This infinite Series: 1/(X + 1) + 1/(X + 1)^2 + 1/(X + 1)^3.....converges to 1 + X Who is Bill to say the Universe cant converge to fundamental Laws we have yet to discover? ruclips.net/video/M1c_GlAjvy4/видео.html ruclips.net/video/8CChnwOsg9I/видео.html ruclips.net/video/NNdwt1gy5xM/видео.html ruclips.net/video/4YYWUIxGdl4/видео.html ruclips.net/video/ew_cNONhhKI/видео.html ruclips.net/video/O7ybg0IMPto/видео.html ruclips.net/video/rak2YVNR1gI/видео.html conwayhall.org.uk/ethicalrecord/william-lane-craigs-eight-reasons-for-god-refuted/ rationalwiki.org/wiki/William_Lane_Craig Did you also know that Craig's PhD Advisor at Birmingham University,the late Prof John Hick didn't agree with Craig as most Scientists and Philosophers don't ha ...I rest my Case! ruclips.net/video/7JibSTglpnU/видео.html
They've been doing a bunch of shoutouts for Capturing Christianity and other awesome apologetics RUclipsrs on the Reasonable Faith podcast. It's been great.
@@nathanfosdahl7525 I asked about the endorsement as an inside joke. When Cameron first interviewed him, Craig gave him a flat out "no!" when asked if he would endorse CC. It was hilarious but soul crushing. Now we have the trophy. Lol. Had to get it in recording.
This is so much more practical than a formal debate. Being able to stop the other person and seek clarification like this makes it where the participants aren't just talking past their opponent in an attempt to score Whose Line Is It Anyway points. Less ground might be covered like this, but the ground that is covered is so much more fruitful. I commend both participants for their patience and respectful behavior towards each other.
It requires civility, though. There are aggressive informal debates with two or more people speaking at the same time. In this channel that is not expected to happen. It's not about fights and seeing who wins. I noticed Cameron and some atheist RUclipsrs share compliments in the comments section.
I must say I loved this. I think Alex is great but I’ve never been a fan of WLC, but here, maybe because they weren’t talking religion, I could really see why so many people rate him so highly. A brilliant job by both of them, would love to hear them discuss other questions.
rabbitpirate I found myself agreeing with WLC, which isn’t a normal thing for me ;-) I agree with your assessment. (PS: he lost me again after his next point (inability to count to infinity) seemed to destroy his point I agreed with (potential infinite).
This is one of the best discussions I've ever seen. Two respectful, intelligent, well-read, and similarly motivated truth seekers working through things together.
@Scott Holder The term "apologist" can be applied to anyone who defends a particular position. Instead of attacking a title and making baseless accusations, maybe try engaging with the arguments and, well, seek the truth.
@@zbulmer Here is a philosophical analysis of the arguments made in this video debate about whether the universe began to exist: Analysis of Craig's Argument: - Craig relies on the Kalam cosmological argument to argue that the universe had a beginning, and therefore requires a cause outside of itself - which he equates with God. - However, showing the universe began to exist does not necessarily prove God caused it. Other potential explanations like multiverses or abstract timeless principles are ignored. - Even if a cause is required, there's no justification given for why this cause must have the attributes of God instead of a more abstract entity. Critique of the Argument: - The Kalam argument relies on controversial premises like "everything that begins to exist has a cause." This is questionable when applied outside of our space-time. - Craig does not sufficiently rule out actual infinite regresses. An eternal but changing universe is still possible. - The jump from an abstract first cause to the Christian God is an unjustified leap. The argument at best points to a deistic god. Analysis of Malpass' Objections: - Malpass rightly questions the equivocation between "began to exist" and "was created out of nothing." The universe may have begun from pre-existing matter. - He points out that current physics allows for models where time had a starting point but not space or matter/energy. So the universe did not necessarily "begin to exist" in the sense required. In conclusion, Craig does not succeed in conclusively proving the Christian God created the universe out of nothing. At best he shows a deistic first cause may be rationally inferred, but strong objections remain that he fails to sufficiently address. The existence of God is far from proven.
@@zbulmer Here is an analysis using analytic philosophy, symbolic logic, and math to show problems with William Lane Craig's Kalam cosmological argument: Analytic Breakdown: 1. Craig argues that an actual infinite cannot exist in reality. But he fails to prove this philosophically. There are coherent models of an eternal universe with infinite past events. 1. He asserts everything that begins to exist has a cause, but provides no justification for why this principle would apply outside of spacetime. We have no examples to inductively reason about non-spacetime causation. 1. The argument makes an unjustified leap from an abstract 'first cause' to a personal, omnipotent, conscious God. This is a non sequitur. Symbolic Logic: 1. ∃x(Ix & Rx)\ There exists some x, such that x is an actual infinite and x is real. 1. ~∃x(Ix & Rx) There does not exist some x, which is an actual infinite and real. Craig asserts 2, but does not prove it. 1 is a coherent countermodel showing that actual infinites existing in reality cannot be ruled out a priori. Math: Hilbert's Hotel shows how an actually infinite number of things (rooms) can exist in reality. The infinite set of natural numbers exists in math. Craig's premise that "actual infinites cannot exist" is thus unjustified mathematically. Conclusion: Craig's key premises are not proven true. He commits multiple non sequiturs in equating a first cause with a theistic being. The Kalam argument as presented fails to show God exists using symbolic logic and math-based analysis
Craig is wrong.. Cosmologists have a shown mathematically,the Universe might not need a cause...Craig has been schooled many he times but he won't grow up!
Chesed Mercado What Planet are you on! Show me any Philosophy that gives us knowledge?? You are lost in Fallacies of Composition,Ignorance and Incredulity! You also equate Authenticity with Credibility,possibility with probability:. Craig is lying: 1(X + 1) + 1/(X + 1)^2 + 1/(X + 1)^3 .....1/(X + 1)^n This is an infinite Series yet converges to 1 + X ..so who is to say the Universe cant converge to fundamental Laws we have yet to discover! Moreover,Hawking showed the Cosmos could have space-time boundary or even continuum..God would then be unnecessary!! ruclips.net/video/M1c_GlAjvy4/видео.html ruclips.net/video/2pfjJ49wCcM/видео.html ruclips.net/video/rak2YVNR1gI/видео.html ruclips.net/video/8CChnwOsg9I/видео.html ruclips.net/video/P28hy8JRYUk/видео.html ruclips.net/video/l6esL6yz52Q/видео.html ruclips.net/video/oMwp9Wd-QmE/видео.html ruclips.net/video/LVyGk3vldMI/видео.html ruclips.net/video/O4GmgZBuEMU/видео.html ruclips.net/video/oD06eEbrzj/видео.html conwayhall.org.uk/ethicalrecord/william-lane-craigs-eight-reasons-for-god-refuted/
Chesed Mercado I was referring to his Theology not empirical evidence..again you are using strawman arguments! A fallacy is something that is either contradictory or flawed not supported by Evidence! Maths has formidable Proofs but that doesn't mean to say it reflects anything about reality! Numbers are infinite yet Stars and we not! We don't actually know if the Universe has a cause.. transcendent or otherwise...the Models we have are infinite...so we don't necessarily need a God or laws to create something that has always been here! You are like Craig..he knows nothing of Cosmology..so spouts ancient Ontological arguments which are not grounded in reality! However beautiful your mathematical models or Theological claims are,they still have to be rigourously tested,if not they are a Faith System...not reality! People say Craig is brilliant yet he is so indoctrinated,he uses his educational kudos to trick people: He has no understanding or respect for the Scientific method...and mocks anyone who disagrees with him! Everything that comes out if his mouth is metaphysical Apologetics but he is so indoctrinated or obsessed with God,he actually believes so convinces other self deluded Fools! ruclips.net/video/yfqfihvb21o/видео.html ruclips.net/video/8CChnwOsg9I/видео.html ruclips.net/video/ew_cNONhhKI/видео.html ruclips.net/video/0xpUWF2UkdA/видео.html ruclips.net/video/2pfjJ49wCcM/видео.html ruclips.net/video/GALtT5doyzI/видео.html ruclips.net/video/rak2YVNR1gI/видео.html ruclips.net/video/LVyGk3vldMI/видео.html ruclips.net/video/c7_BFBi0KdE/видео.html ruclips.net/video/1iMmvu9eMrg/видео.html ruclips.net/video/xgSEVFwRo34/видео.html ruclips.net/video/fOoCH6R914U/видео.html ruclips.net/video/FQfujdlO4oY/видео.html ruclips.net/video/X1Iyq-L0yvc/видео.html ruclips.net/video/ie3waMRtbxE/видео.html www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2011/oct/20/richard-dawkins-william-lane-craig
This wasn't really a debate. They haven't even started entering each others brains. This is more like an opening statement. Am sorry philosophers are too smart.
There's a false equivalence in saying: 1) "Why is Bobby Kennedy dead?" is partially explained by "Because he was shot," and 2) "Why didn't Cameron didn't finish counting up from negative infinity 10 seconds ago?" is partially explained by "Because he was counting up from negative infinity at a rate of one negative integer per second and 10 seconds ago he counted -10." The reason the first is a legitimate partial explanation and the second isn't is because the first partial explanation introduces new information and thus removes some of the mystery. The second tells me nothing that I didn't already know and removes none of the mystery.
Before you only knew he was counting up from negative infinity, you didn't know what number he was on, but now you know the rate at which he counts and the number he was on 10 seconds ago
@@superfarful Exactly. It introduces information about rate, speed, history. It could have been the case that 10 minutes ago, he was on number 2, and he counts at the rate of one number per trillion years. Or it could have been the case that he got to number 2 a trillion years ago, took a trillion year nap, woke up again, and continued.
I think that's a joke, but I assume Cameron and William are in their offices maybe using desktop computers. It seems Alex is in the living room sitting on the couch using a laptop. That explains the angles.
This was like watching Nan (Alex, a skilled philosopher) vs Master Roshi (Craig, world's greatest apologist) at the first Dragon Ball Tournament. Alex was a surprisingly nice atheist, different from Dawkins and Krauss. Nice to see good debates like this one.
Oners82 It’s not just his kindness in debating. Even his expressions showed that he was listening and open to the arguments. The stereotype probably comes from the bad exemple Dawkins, Krauss, Dillahanty and others give.
@Oners82 "It's kinda weird that many theists (especially in the US) have this bizarre stereotype that all atheists are angry and behave like Krauss or Dawkins. Very odd." No, it's not odd at all. Go to any comments section on atheist youtube channels, or even in recent comment sections on Capturing Christianity. Atheists are there calling belief in God irrational, calling Christians idiots, etc.
@Oners82 This comment of yours is so ironic because you yourself are an example of those types atheists that are prideful, mean and condescending which shows it isn't a stereotype. In another comment you literally made a personal attack against Craig and got refuted badly by philosopher Andrew Moon for trying to question Craig's credentials.
@Oners82 I'm not quick to judge. Anecdotally, I've noticed that atheists in real life act different than internet atheists. But for all I know, some of the angry bitter atheists online live in Norway, Denmark, or Iceland. Maybe they would act differently in real life because when one is speaking to someone face to face it becomes obvious enough for even an atheist to realize that insults are counterproductive and hateful. A difference for Christians is that when they are engaging in such antics, not only are they being counterproductive and hateful, but hypocritical too by defying the teachings of Jesus. Atheists are plausibly being consistent with their worldview with such bad behavior, which says something about the worldview. My point still stands that it's not bizarre at all that Americans have this impression of the angry bitter atheist because internet atheists are terrible at invalidating the impression.
In this particular example, it is not right to call The Hilbert's hotel as a place with infinite rooms, filled with infinite people or not. Because if a potentiality for more persons beyond infinity becomes an actuality, then the same potentiality is simultaneously actuated to the motel's rooms too. If it is not absurd to actuate more people beyond infinity then the same applies to the hotel rooms too.
I thought the same thing exactly. Also, the main reason Hilbert's Hotel appears absurd is because the property 'full' is being applied to something for which that property makes no sense. How can an infinite set ever be 'full', especially when maths show that parts of infinite sets can have the same cardinality as the totality ? The thought experiment only serves to illustrate how the concept of being filled doesn't make sense with infinite sets, not that the existence of infinite sets in itself is absurd.
"Begins to exist" seems like just word-play. Nothing actually "begins" to exist. What exists, exists, what does not exist, does not. What exists merely changes form. A tree only begins to exist in the sense of form. An automobile only exists as a specific collection of parts. Is there some sort of elementary particle or force? We don't really know. But whatever is eternal, needs no mind to change form. In fact, only an eternal mindless force is logically possible, because no form can last forever. Note: Modern physics does NOT say that there was absolutely nothing before the universe began in its current form.
Well written and insightful comment. I agree wholeheartedly. No phenomenon (object, event, substance, entity, process, system, or being) _instantaneously begins to exist._ Each and every phenomenon *_emerges_* from necessary and sufficient antecedents _over some interval of time,_ no mater how brief or epoch, without exception. And the realm of phenomenon occur within an eternal cosmos. I assert that universes emerge from this eternal cosmos. Here is an interest quote: "While we can understand how the universe we see came to be, it's possible that the Big Bang was not the first inflationary period the universe experienced. I have recently come in favor to believe we live in a cosmos that goes through regular cycles of inflation and deflation, and that we just happen to be living in one of these phases." Alan Guth, PhD, Professor Physics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, "Extremely Big Eyes on the Early Universe", Institute of Astronomy and Astrophysics Symposium, 25 Mar 2019, Kashiwa, Japan I want to point out again your insightful reply. Please keep posting! We all need to hear rational voices such as yours!
@@spectre8533 That certainly is not my approach. Mine is to replace mythical beings with rationality, personal responsibility, and an unrelenting pursuit of truth. I can show you the path if you would like to rid yourself of irrational beliefs that keep you from the discovery of truth. No charge.
@Phantom Navigator so far, you haven't done any interesting or concrete contribution other than saying what others are, think or have achieved. Dare you think by yourself! Or else be humble and learn...
Phantom Navigator Even if you used the perfect tense and say there would have been an actual infinite, then you are contradicting yourself. If at anytime the infinite would have been, it would no longer be an infinite. Maybe you are not as smart as you think. Please Sit down.
I'm glad that Craig is moving towards these discussions rather than his normal debate format. Bullying non philosophers on basics is fun to watch, but this is much more valuable than the "I have five arguments that are very complex, and im just gonna scale up the complexity of how we discuss each one until your overwhelmed" tactic. You simply can't put the kalem cosmological argument as one fifth of what your gonna say in a timed debate and have either side do it justice.
This would have been far better if they had ONE idea/argument that they fully discussed vs hinting at many, and then constant references to see this book/article/website etc. (Kent Hovind style).
One problem with Malpass's marbles-in-the-jar thought experiment is that it subtly shifts to a tenseless theory of time by representing the future as a pile of marbles one picks from to fill the jar. But the future, in a tensed theory of time, is potential, so to represent it as a present pile of marbles is cheating, because it gives you your actual infinite.
Craig does mention this later on. One point Malpass could have made to convince Craig of the relevance of his simple future/ future perfect distinction is to have asked Craig whether he thinks he will live forever. I guess Craig would say yes. If you believe in the immortality of the soul, then you believe you will live an infinite amount of time, but you will never have lived an infinite amount of time. The road goes on forever, but you have never gone on forever. (Though picturing the future as an infinite road is, once again, falling into a tenseless representation of time...)
Cameron, will you have Craig back for a debate on the tenseless theory of time? That is so important to his Kalam that I’m surprised he hasn’t done such a (public) debate yet.
@@TheProdigalMeowMeowMeowReturns I vaguely remember that debate and time tenses coming up to some extent but, I wouldn't argue with you if you remember that better. I was aware that he had written fairly extensively on this and had really thought about diving into that but, haven't. I'm in a weird place on this, where I think I agree with both depending upon what perspective you're allowed.
While I’m not sure I agree with Dr Craig on tensed theory of time, it does seem obvious that he’s correct regarding the marble thought experiment. It’s like asking how many times will Atalanta arrive at a half way stage of a subsequent distance. It’s just potentially infinite but it will never be actually infinite.
This guy lost all credibility when he was humiliated and completely owned in a live debate where the actual author of the paper he cited as proving the universe had a beginning addressed him personally, saying “no, I think the universe is probably eternal.” It didn’t give Craig even a moments doubt or reflection. This says a lot. Look, it’s possible that Craig is an incredibly gifted amateur physicist and understands the implications of the paper better than Gouth himself, but for it not even to give him pause, even the slightest comment of humility “oh that’s surprising, maybe I’m wrong about that.” Tells me everything I need to know about his intellectual honesty.
For years, WLC has gaily ignored Borde and Guth explicitly saying he is quite wrong in his misrepresenting their theorem. No wonder he can’t get a job at a real university, but has to teach at Biola, a Bible college that promotes Creationism. From RationalWiki “Biola University maintains a doctrine of Biblical inerrancy. Biola's doctrinal statement further amplifies a conservative creationist doctrine, and though not overtly homophobic, implicitly condemns same-sex marriage.[1] As a final guarantee of strict adherence to its theological worldview, the university requires every faculty member, when first hired and again upon application for tenure, to submit their understanding of and complete agreement with each item of the doctrinal and teaching statements to the Talbot School of Theology for evaluation.” Nuff said.
Reall good conversation. Much prefer seeing Craig tangle with another philosopher rather than untrained new atheist types. Far more interesting and productive.
Imagine the failure of the god who created a situation where conversations like these have to take place and be decided in order to even get to the question of whether or not he might exist. This just debates one part of one premise of Kalam....which in turn doesn't even get you to god. How about he just shows us some more of those cool miracles to prove he exists?
@@pkosh1 Maybe you know EM personally and thereby know that he/she wouldn't believe either way. But me and many other people would believe something if we directly saw it. That said, I agree with EM. I love watching debates... and this debate had a point or two that pushed up to (if not pased) the limits of my understanding... even Malpass admitted confusion at certain points. It would be more useful to do a demonstration of God. In other words, I don't think I would believe that a tv works if I never saw one, even if you gave me explanation of the inner workings thereof. But I would believe you if you showed me a tv, working.
@@random_nerd_stuff6576 "I think I can safely say that nobody understands quantum mechanics." -Richard Feynman, The Character of Physical Law (MIT Press: Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1995), 129. JKeck (talk) 10:56, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
Random_nerd_stuff we can see massive amounts of genetic information being passed down everyday which is miraculous given the level of complexity which is why Francis Collins is a theist. We see miracles constantly but we are convinced that there is a physical/natural explanation behind them. If God showed up and wrote “I exist” in fire in the sky, we wouldn’t be sure we could believe our eyes and we surely couldn’t convince others it wasn’t a mass hallucination or something that could be explained away by some as of yet unexplained natural cause
WLC clearly won the infinity points on the past. There cannot be an infinite past in time and space and there cannot be an infinite future.in time and space. Job done.
@Rabbi Circumcistein Whether you like apples or oranges is a valid differing opinion. You don’t get to place something that has never been proven, ever, into the ‘just a differing opinion’ or ‘different worldview’ basket. I doesn’t work like that. If you call him a comedian or a creative artist in what he says, then that’s fine. Maybe we could start there?
@Rabbi Circumcistein I’m a 32 year old, polynesian and welsh male from New Zealand. I love in Melbourne where I have practiced as a clinical psychologist for just under 5 years and am doing my PhD this year. My PhD involves a lot of quantitative data collection from social media and RUclips, thus my presence on sites like this. I stand by my words. William Craig is a intellectually dishonest at best. Keep your mind open.
@@poerava Firstly, I'd like to congratulate you on your achievements. Hats off man. It's truly great. You're an inspiration to many, myself included. Secondly, I'm not convinced Dr. Craig is an intellectually dishonest person. One does not easily achieve 2 PHDs from accredited schools through intellectual dishonesty. The level of peer reviewed acumen required at this level is staggering. It's also possible you simply fail to properly grasp his arguments. If you don't already hold to his persuasions, de-confirmation bias is a powerful influencer.
@@jesserochon3103 Thank you mate Appreciate that. As far as ‘intellectual dishonesty’, this is what his peers say, not just me. I mention this as I am not a philosopher. I know he has a PhD in philosophy. Philosophers much more accomplished, mention his intellectual dishonesty. From my grasp of why his peers say this about him, it is because of the claims made, reductionist language and the way he leaves out crucial information for his listeners. For example, I know a fellow PhD that basically worships Jordan Peterson, yet in his videos, he leaves out the fact that many of Petersons takes on ‘masculine and feminine’ are absolutely buffoonish and inaccurate according to the literature. Don’t get me started on his advice for raising children. As academics, there is a requirement for disclosure. Full disclosure. Financial interests. How we are required to clear up possible (or highly likely) perceptions from listeners and followers. Another example is a friend of mine who has a masters (I’m not sure if they have a PhD) in biology (specialising in auto immune conditions) is selling supplements online. She talks about them in videos and conveniently does not disclose that there is not any literature that conclusively says the supplements that she sells actually does anything. In fact there is a wide body of literature that confirms they do nothing and do not do what they claim. She uses epidemiological studies to ‘suggest’ that this is proof that that they work. It is not. This is intellectually dishonest. Omission of important information, is by definition, intellectually dishonest. This is because intellectually, the person at this level of education knows that the average listener would benefit from knowing this information, and they do not share it. So how does William Lane Craig compare to other intellectually, dishonest, commentators or advocates? He shares philosophical theories that are certainly theories, but defends the fact that they are true theories, without disclosing that the merit of these theories, in a very real sense as far as there being a God, has as much or less comparable statistical significance as the theories we have about there being fairies down in the garden and Santa being real. Not sharing this information to people who want a God to literally exist and knowing that these listeners are hoping that his philosophical expertise can add gravity to this hope, is intellectually dishonest. It is quite shameful and a non academically credible practice. We are aware of his copious speaking fees and also his ‘sponsors’. It’s unfortunately a reality that his behaviour as a speaker on this topic is disgraceful and worthy of condemnation in this regard, yet may be a brilliant mind in his discipline.
51:36 This discussion of a potential infinite that's finite in practicality hurts my head in the best way possible. I'll be thinking about this for months.
I think the issue is the terminology Craig uses, and the terms actual and potential are confusing. A potential infinite collection is neither infinite nor possibly (potentially) infinite- it just means increasing without bound/limit. When Craig refers to the future as a potential infinite, I believe he is mistaken, and what he really means is the collection of past moments that will have occurred at a moment in time (in other words, the past relative to a moment in the future). As time progresses, the collection of moments that have passed increases, but (if time began) there will always only be a finite number of moments that have passed. I recommend Alex Malpass’s post debate review with two other philosophers ruclips.net/video/ZZYSjuWjn70/видео.html Alex is a very clear thinker
I have many issues with what Malpass said, but I'm at the spot with the loaf of bread as a truth-preserving case of the fallacious scope-shifting inference, and it's just amazing to me that Malpass doesn't see the problem: the fallacy Craig is pointing to is thinking that it FOLLOWS from being able to eat any slice that you can eat the whole loaf. It's not that it's a fallacy for both to be true; it's a fallacy to *reason from the one directly to the other.*
The example he picked was, unfortunately, a fallacy. For sure. He's acknowledged this elsewhere. Craig, however, was wrong that Malpass had committed a modal operator shift when talking about the cardinality of Cameron's counting; and Malpass was correct in pointing out that Bill does indeed make arguments about the future by using the future perfect analogy. The bread example was terrible though - really derailed the whole point.
@@DavidSmith-zd6nn You don't think it's an illicit shift to go from "for any number, Cameron will eventually count it" to "Cameron will eventually count all the numbers"? It seems like moving from a rule about members of a set to a statement about the set itself (somewhat like the "mother every person has" analogy Craig gave).
@@Mentat1231 I think the introduction of the word "eventually" is confusing here. It seems to imply that the task will be completed as of that time - which would be slipping into the future perfect tense. It seems to me that the right way to think about it is: 1) Q: How many real numbers are there? Answer: An infinite amount. 2.) Which means, If Cameron's future counting events line up one to one with the real numbers, than the number of Cameron's future counting events must be the same as the number of real numbers, which is infinite. That's the future tense, because the simple future "will count" just fills the future with it's forward-looking cardinality. The number of numbers that Cameron will have counted at any time t* (future perfect) is the finite number increasing toward infinity.
@@DavidSmith-zd6nn I think that's a mistake, as Craig was trying to explain to Malpass by saying the moment of finishing could be the last moment of time or of Cameron's life. There would be no moment after finishing from which he could say "I have counted them all". But there needs to be a moment at which he finishes, or else he never does count them all. My own view is that there is no such thing as "all the real numbers" nor any "amount" of them all. But, sticking to the assumptions Craig and Malpass granted, it is still the case that Cameron hasn't done it yet, and so can only "eventually" do so, and that doing so means finishing.
@@Mentat1231 But we (and they) agree on that! - Ha. There is a never a point at which the job is done. There is never a point at which Cameron will have (future perfect) counted all the numbers, but that does not mean that Cameron will (future) never count all the numbers. This is the fallacy that they both agreed was a fallacy in the discussion: If it is true that it will never have been that (p); then it is true that it never will be that (p). That's an invalid inference. Craig agrees that it's an invalid inference, he just doesn't agree that he's making it. It seems to me that he clearly is, however. If the number of real numbers is infinite, and for each real number, there is a counting event, then the number of counting events must be the same as the number of real numbers. To be sure, there's points about this whole infinite past discussion that are opaque to me, but this one point is particularly clear to my mind.
Craig is one of the most debunked apologists on the planet. If you are interested in honesty I'd suggest looking up why he's considered a joke amongst actual philosophers and scientists.
@@littlefurrow2437”Graham Oppy is one of the most debunked atheists on the planet. If you are interest in honesty I’d consider looking up why he’s considered a joke among actual philosophers and scientists.” See how easy it is to make false claims about highly accredited academics you don’t like?
I wish I could ask Malpass: Let's say I grant you that what is impossible is not the simple future case, but the future perfect... Is it not the case that the present stands in relation to the past series as a future perfect? We actually are at the end of the past series and looking back at it, no? I also wish I could mention that "truth preserving cases" where some wholes have the properties of their parts do absolutely nothing to make *reasoning FROM* parts to a whole stop being illicit. That's still a Fallacy of Composition, despite there being cases where a whole has the properties of its parts. "I can eat every slice and I can eat the whole loaf" is not the same as "I can eat every slice *therefore* I can eat the whole loaf". The latter would make one think that, given a loaf far too big for a human to ever eat, I should still suppose I could accomplish it because each slice is edible.
Yet another thing I don't think Malpass has come to grips with: It's not enough to just call Hilbert's Hotel "impossible to produce ex nihilo". There needs to be a reason why its impossible, and one wonders "why do you (Malpass) think it would be impossible for God to do?" I would think the answer is because such a thing would be incoherent, and so, wholly apart from whether God can make it, we need to deal with why its incoherent.
It seems like the argument about “the impossibility of forming an infinite by successive addition” is useless because it begs the question by saying that the process of time moving had a beginning. The whole point about a beginningless past is that there never was a beginning, so *there has always been* an infinite number of moments that have elapsed. *There is no act of forming an infinite collection.* So the fact that one cannot jump from the past having finitely many moments to the past having infinitely many moments is a non sequitur. There never was such a time when the past has finitely many moments. We can just imagine having a recording of the events, which has recorded everything up until the present. We take this device, tell it to stop recording, and start rewinding the film, putting everything in reverse-and just watch as the film keeps rewinding and keeps rewinding. There’s nothing incoherent about that. I don’t know about the grim reaper paradox though haha
While I am partial to agreement with Dr. Malpass, I really enjoyed this and appreciate both of them both taking the time to have the discussion and Cameron for organizing it. Well done.
For Craig's first Hilbert Hotel example, he's saying an absurdity would arise if (1) someone asked to get a spare room. (2) Hilbert then individually asks all the people in the then-full hotel to shift down a room. (3) This creates a spare room. Wouldn't step 2 take an infinite amount of time? Craig just described them as 'real flesh and blood people' in each room, and I'd say that means shifting each would take a finite amount of time. So if his absurdity would occur after an infinite amount of time has passed, does it really ever occur? I suspect many of Craig's own apologetics would say it does not.
Much respect for both participants. It feels like they only scratched the surface, but the philosophy of infinity is really interesting, so I enjoyed it.
Cameron, just wanted to follow up on my last comment. I really do love and appreciate your videos. I didn’t intend to be so negative. Just know that your videos are excellent.
@@JohnSmith-bq6nf Oooohh, a PHD. - He's got a doctorate as well, but it doesn't make him correct. And you'd think with such academic training he would therefore understand how weak the kalam argument is. Which makes me think he is a snake oil salesman first and foremost....
The problem with the subject of this debate is theists almost always assume that the entirety of the conversation of existence falls within the realm of our local universe...and our universe only. Theists must narrow the conversation down to even have a chance at buttressing their arguments.
Not quite - Craig is talking about the cosmos as a whole, not just our local universe. If the issue was our local universe, then there wouldn't need to be much of a debate - our local universe definitely began to exist.
Via Dr. Craig's argument @32:21: He says that it would be a heavy burden of proof to show that it is impossible to have a world that has a beginning and no end. What would that burden even look like? How would one even go about showing that such a world is impossible (if not by arguments that Dr. Malpass uses). Intuition? Can we even have an intuition about possible worlds?
I am not well-versed in these arguments, I just recently became interested in this topic, so I apologize if it is obvious or just a stupid question, but here it is: If both things are true, that an actual metaphysical infinite is impossible and that it is also impossible to get an infinite by successive addition, then what is heaven supposed to be? I know that Dr. Craig has said before that God was timeless sans time and within time at the first moment of time, thus, he enters time (presumably losing his timeless essence? but maybe God can enter in and and exit out of time as God pleases). That means that if God wanted to, God could count from the first moment of time until infinity. Unless Dr. Craig would argue that God's omnipotence is limited to the following "God is omnipotent in the sense that God can do everything and anything within logical and metaphysical limits." If so, then could Dr. Craig be arguing that God is not omnipotent in the traditional sense (which other theologians have said before, so it wouldn't be too controversial). Also, what would that mean for "heaven?" My understanding of the concept of heaven, is that it will be forever, meaning infinite. Will the souls of those that are saved be joining a set of timeless beings (angels) that have existed without time (some of them presumably have entered time to meet with prophets) and these souls will then be infinitely accompanied by a beings that are infinite (even if they were timeless sans creation, I have a difficult time grasping this idea of entering/exiting time and still remaining timeless). Sorry for the long comment and I apologize if I misunderstood the arguments, since they were using technical terms that I have never heard of before. Edit: Never mind, Dr. Craig tried to answer both of my questions later on in the Q and A portion of the video. I am not convinced by his answer for the second question (I'm sure it is partly due to my ignorance) and I have not read Dr. Pruss' book for the first question.
Since youtube ate my original comment, I'll just have to summarize here: 1. I agree with Malpass that if you have a "potentially infinite sequence" then it must be embedded in an actually infinite set. There's no other way you could guarantee the sequence is unbounded otherwise. Craig never addressed that point thoroughly. 2. There's an easy solution to the Reaper's Paradox. Just take a subsequence of the reapers and replace them with angels, with two properties: a. P is kept alive if P is alive, P is made alive if P would be dead. b. for any reaper, this reaper is a finite number of indexed values away from at least one angel. Those two solve the paradox. 3. The countdown problem seems to be solved by stochastic time rather than linear time. Instead of "-3, -2, -1, done!" instead it would be something like "-348584934584, -3432049, -2929348504, -34859502029394940, 0, done!" Then the question of why it hadn't finished sooner solves itself. As Pruss notes in the Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology, randomness is an explanation. 4. The above are consistent with an Atheistic worldview of time as a sequence of randomly generated events. The issue seems to be that Theists want to describe time like an overarching story, such as a beginning / end. 5. This discussion is the least of Kalam's problems as far as I'm concerned. Premise 1 is the most trouble, and the conclusion of the argument seems to be incompatible with Christianity. Compared to those problems, these concerns are purely academic, even in the context of an academic discussion.
The thing of it is, they never really got into the meat and potatoes of the arguments - as the proposed criticisms were left unsatisfied due to time constraints.. With that said, I would have preferred to see a complete presentation on each contending view along with an exhaustive defense - otherwise, the arguments prove cannot prove sufficient for onlookers.
I don't know, but that's not the only solution to the paradox either. It's just a solution that an Atheist would prefer due to a cyclic model of continuously changing causes / effects. A Classical Theist who rejects a Kalam model of infinites, who instead thinks that God exists for an infinite amount of metaphysical time (indeed is the basis for such time, due to its own immutability) would prefer a solution like this: Let G be a particular P with the rule that G never switches from alive to dead for any reaper. Then for any reaper, G is always alive and the paradox shuts down that way as well. There was a third solution for a different philosophical disposition I came up with, but I forgot it. I was on the Capturing Christianity Facebook group months ago discussing this Rasmussen and all he had to say was that my generalization of the Reaper Paradox and the solutions I presented were "clarifying and helpful". But he didn't tell me if they corresponded to something already written.
It seems like they're engaging different definitions of "infinity". One is a line that is assumed to stretch endlessly, and another is a line ending at a point we can never reach but is assumed to exist. The fact that WLC presents himself as a presentist doesn't particularly surprise me given that it coincides with his belief that he (or at least his consciousness) is immortal.
Cameron, loved it, but why do you keep referring to Alex as "Alex" but Dr. Craig as "Craig"? Please, either "Bill" or "Dr. Craig" -- it's like nails on a chalkboard ... :)
In order to have infinity you either need infinite time or infinite space. And according to Einstein its one thing- space time fabric. This is also known to have the beginning via big bang. So its ridiculous to argue if universe begin to exist. It did. The problem is that if time began to exist how the cause for it happened since nothing can happen outside of temporal dimension. So it could happen in other temporal dimension that caused this universe to exist. Could this happen infinitely ? How could we plumb that mistery. I just dont see why not.
William Lane Craig takes the position (and is the majority held position by most theists) that God is atemporal, meaning he exists outside of time, so he doesn’t exist “infinitely into the past,” but out of time altogether, (and furthermore would be the explanation as to why temporal time exists.) if you want more information on this I can link some resources!
@@RadicOmega cool thanks, yes please! My first thought is that God may then require his own 'time' otherwise he would be changeless unable to preform an action. If that may be the case, I'd then ask would Gods' time of had a finite start.
@@RadicOmega Nooooo absolutely not. Craig holds the position that God exists in time. God existed atemporally "prior" to His creation of time, but once God created time He entered into it.
I'm still smarting from Bertuzzi hand waving what I thought were some pretty cogent skeptical arguments as "uninteresting" back when he used to post on Dr. Craig's "Reasonable Faith" Forum. But, oh well...Anyway, wow! He has Dr. Craig on his show now. I begrudgingly offer my congrats on the success of "Capturing Christianity."
42:35 Why does Dr. Craig (a presentist) believe that past events, although they do not exist (presently), can form an actual infinite because they have been instantiated, and yet future events, although they also do not exist (presently), cannot form an actual infinite- even though they will be instantiated? It appears that Dr. Craig is double dipping: he says that past events don’t exist, but he appealed to them “having been” instantiated in the past as a reason to say they can form an actual infinite. Why does “having existed in the past” mean actual, but “will exist in the future” means potential, if neither past or future exist presently? Edit: I think it is bad to use the terminology “actual” and “potential” in this context that is different than metaphysical actuality and potentiality as introduced by Aristotle
I think you're making a good point. Here are my thoughts: It seems that the past is a list of events. These events don't exist. They are like abstract objects. Such a list could be infinite, in the same way that Craig believes the list of God's beliefs about the eternal future is infinite. But in both cases, none of the items in the list actually exists; it's simply useful to make statements about them, because such statements can correspond to reality. For example, the statement "God knows that tomorrow will be amazing" doesn't imply that tomorrow already exists. But if tomorrow ends up being amazing, then our statement corresponds to reality. Similarly, saying "The universe is 6,000 years old" doesn't imply that all those years still exist. But since modern science has practically refuted that statement, we can safely say that such a statement does not correspond to reality. The issue is that an infinite list cannot be created by successive addition, even if the list contains only non-existent objects. So God, if he exists, could not count from zero to infinity (or from negative infinity to zero). Similarly, on a presentist view of time, the collection of past events has been created by successive addition. To do this, you have to pass through a unique 2nd-to-last item in the collection. But an infinite list does not have a unique 2nd-to-last item, since infinity minus 1 is infinity! In other words, the last event (the "infinity-th" event) is the same as the 2nd-to-last event (the "infinity-minus-one-th" event), since infinity and infinity minus one are the same number, and therefore would necessarily refer to the same event. So I think, even if an actually infinite list of things can exist, and even if your point goes through, the list of past events cannot be infinite. I'd love to hear your thoughts on this.
You have misunderstood his argument-but he could have been more clear. Craig DOESNT believe the past can contain an ACTUAL infinite number of instantiated past events. Moreover he believes it IS possible that something that came into being a finite time ago can go in a “later than” future direction towards a POTENTIAL infinite.
@@mattb7069 Its obvious the futuret can go on forever but never reach an actual infinite, you cant have an infinite number of past events or traverse an actual infinite. I dont think Alex has a case
The Copenhagen interpretation certainly isn't absurd. Besides, the free will theorem excludes the possibility of compatibilist free will, which is what Craig views commit him to even if he says otherwise, so to keep free will Craig would have to accept an indeterministic interpretation of QM like Copenhagen.
@@richardgamrat1944 Well, he says he's a libertarian, but I think all of his other views commit him to compatibilism. If you combine substance dualism and deterministic quantum mechanics (both his positions) I don't see how you can be a libertarian. Plus the free will theorem removes compatibilism so he'd have to adopt an indeterministic interpretation of QM, so he'd have to give up his substance dualism as well and become an idealist.
@@TheBrunarr I am not very well versed in philosophy, can you please elaborate why substance dualism leads to compatibilism/isnt compatible with libertarian free will?
@@richardgamrat1944 Sure, well substance dualism posits the reality of the physical in that is posits the existence of a physical substance and a mental substance. Since Craig holds to a deterministic interpretation of QM, our bodies, which are physical, are subject to determinism. A compatibilist would say that free will is compatible with external causal determinism, and would reject the principle of alternative possibilities, which is a principle of libertarian free will which says that we have ability to do otherwise in a given situation, which Craig explicitly rejects! Craig even says "So the compatibilist does think that free choice is compatible with our choices’ being causally determined by external factors, in contrast to libertarians like me." But his adherence to the reality of the physical and a deterministic interpretation of QM exactly commits him to the position he says he denies. Plus there are problems with substance dualism like the interaction problem and causal closure. The only way he can maintain free will is to adopt an indeterministic interpretation of QM. I can explain further if needed.
@@counteringchristianity9109 Only hard libertarianism says things like our desires, our character, etc are not determined. Soft libertarianism is the position closest to a true free will, since "free will" specifically is talking about the "will" and not meta aspects like character, desires, our past, our genes, etc. As long as things are determined by the choices of agents we can have libertarian free will.
It's so funny to me that Malpass doesn't notice how his acceptance that the future perfect of an infinite series cannot be the case completely validates finitism about the past, because the present _is_ the future perfect (the sort of "looking back point") for the entire, completed set of past events. As of the present moment, the entire past series *has elapsed*. And so, even if the future simple form for an infinite series could hold, agreeing the future perfect form cannot gives the past-finitist all she needs.
I whipped up a quick syllogism that could be used to show this point: 1) It is not possible for a temporal moment to occur after an actually infinite number of consecutive temporal moments that precede it. 2) If the past were eternal, then the present day would be a temporal moment that is occurring after an actually infinite number of consecutive temporal moments that precede it. 3) Therefore, an eternal past is impossible. This is something I want to think more about since I have already discovered some really weird conclusions that follow from denying premise 1, such as the fact that if the past were eternal you could not know whether a day existed an actually infinite number of days ago, even though people who defend the possibility of a beginning less past will claim that a beginning less past does not involve a day existing an infinite amount of time ago.
I think Alex understands Craig but believes that Craig is wrong. If the future is endless, then the future is a collection of infinitely many moments that will pass. However, the collection of moments that have already passed at any moment will always have finitely many members, and it will grow as time progresses. But that is not the future- that is the past relative to moments in the future. You can call that a potential infinite collection if you want, but that sounds confusing to me because it is neither infinite in size nor possibly (potentially) infinite.
I enjoyed this debate. However, I don't think it clearly defined the primary question until the Q&A at the end. I think Bill's position is that, since the universe (time & space) had a beginning there must have been a beginner. Alex is saying maybe not, the universe may have always existed. I would like to hear more about Bill's understanding of time before the beginning of space & time. Was there duration with one event transpiring after another? Is reality eternal in the past?
moderating a discussion is difficult, and I think he was merely trying to make an attempt to be fair to a participant who was participating in an environment of christians who disagree with him. For example by referencing readers to his works for further clarification, giving Malpass the last words, and just trying to clarify Malpass arguments to the viewers. Yeah it was unnecessary at times, but it was in good faith I think.
Craig is misunderstanding/misinterpreting the concept of infinity. It is not a number - it is a concept. Hilbert's example is meant to illustrate this fact - that we cannot comprehend infinity as a number. That is the essence of the paradox.
Wow, this is just really fantastic! This may be the first time I've seen a discussion on the kalam cosmological argument that reached any real depth. So refreshing!
@@rationalsceptic7634 Hmm, I'm not sure I can agree with you on that. However, I'd love to read the article/book that refuted it. A philosophical or scientific breakthrough, such that it could refute one of the premises of the kalam, would certainly make some big waves in its respective field. Can you give a link?
@@rationalsceptic7634 If I understand the criticisms of these videos (specifically related to the Kalam) they are as follows: 1) While it may seem incredible that the things come into being uncaused from nothing, that is what the evidence shows. 2) Dr. Guth (of the BGV theorem) thinks that the universe is eternal. 3) The Kalam relies on an A-theory of time. But certain features of tiny particles act in such a way that, if A-theory were true, at least one particle would have to exist and not exist from different frames of reference. This would make A-theory false, making the Kalam false. Dr. Craig rejects this interpretation of quantum mechanics because he believes that God has a privileged frame of reference, thus avoiding the force of the particle experiments. However, since he is appealing to God to support a premise of the argument, he is assuming the conclusion that needs to be proved. Is there anything I missed?
General Relativity is our working model of the cosmos, although it is problematic. Gamow and Lemaitre, way back in the 1950s, ran the equations backwards, and they arrived at a finding that before the rapid expansion of the Universe, there was a state we now call the Singularity: not very dense, hot and small, but infinitely hot, dense and small (“curved”) , a geometric point. That “singularity” is in like anything we know. In fact we cannot know about it. It is a limit to our understanding. What William Lane Craig wants to oreted is that he can know not only the Singularity but the “Realm” in which it exists. He claims he can do so on the basis of metaphysical “necessity”. Yet one could never check to see if that claim is true.
Many years ago after reading the KCA, it occurred to me that a similar argument could be made against the possibility of an omniscient being. There are various interpretations of "omniscience", but philosophers and theologians seem in agreement that whatever else omniscience includes, it must at the very least include knowing all true propositions. The problem of course then becomes instantly apparent, because the number of true propositions constitutes an actual infinite. Consider for example that for any number "N", it must be the case that N either is or is not a prime number. How many propositions of this sort must God know about N? An actual infinite number of them. But if the concept of an actual infinite is either unintelligible or incoherent, then so too is the concept of an omniscient being.
*The problem of course then becomes instantly apparent, because the number of true propositions constitutes an actual infinite.* How did you come to that conclusion?
@@JM-jj3eg Whatever else we might want to opine about what constitutes knowledge, it should be clear that, "7 is prime" and "4 is not prime", etc., etc., are quite separate and distinct propositions, the truth of which a being must know in order to be omniscient. All we need to ask then, is how many of these propositions must an omniscient being know? The answer of course is, "infinitely many", and that's what gets us into hot water if we admit that the notion of a completed infinite is either unintelligible or incoherent, as Craig argues. By the way, this problem is by no means specific to theism; mathematicians like Abraham Fraenkel freely concede that the very concept of an infinite totality has been shown to be deeply problematic, even in the abstract realm of set theory. It is for this reason that Fraenkel argues that the existence of infinite sets must be asserted axiomatically, because every attempt to prove their existence has only led to contradictions and antinomies.
@@goldenalt3166 That's not a problem for theists. A lot of what we know about God involves apophatic (negative) theology - knowing what God is not. However, the alpha privative doesn't entail an ontological privation. Saying that God is atemporal, immaterial, etc...doesn't mean he is bereft of some capacity or is 'lacking' something. It means he is not limited by any aspects of contingency.
I want to make sure I have this correct: I think there is a difference between the truth preserving instances of the fallacy of composition and the use of it to justify a position. Even if it preserve the truth, the fallacy don´t justify believing in that truth. It has to be believed through other reasoning. Given the unreliability of the fallacy to aim at truth, we should not use it for that.
I have a very (very) limited understanding of phliosphy but feel there is a trend with how WLC argues. He likes to (use a scenario) or set up a scenario and add a set of constraits to this then he points out that you are unable to get past his scenario and therefore he has proven X Y or Z. Take the famous grimreaper scenario. Yes it makes sense that you could keep introducing a new reaper by adding one half the time before the previous one and this would have no end. However , you also cant stop the movement of time . 12 am will always become 12.05 and the same amount of time will pass always between these two times no matter how you try to represent it (spliting the second down does not stop time from ticking on and it time ended or changed then this would defeat the concept of the arguement). WLC could argue the same point using a small cake scenario "if you had a small cake with a magical pixie sat on the plate who keeps slicing the current slice of a cake in half , you would never finish the cake if you ate it a slice at a time". Again this scenario is very structered and biased to end with a certain conclusion. The pixie replaces slicing the cake just replaces the reapers slicing time. Like you can't stop time you couldn't stop a person from picking up the plate and dropping the whole cake into thier mouth whilst the pixie is slicing it, thus eating the cake so there is no cake left to slice in half (like how the time will moe from 12.00 to 12.05). Yes WLC could add into his scenario that the person is not aloud to pick the cake up and must eat it at a slice at a time (like how he NEVER mentions how you cant stop time) but where does this get us it we rig the game? Setting up a scenario with such limitations does not prove anything other than that this scenario follows the path we have set up for it to follow. Its almost circular in its reasoning and we gain very little from it.
Craig says that actual infinites are impossible, due to all of the logical inconsistencies, like the Grim Reaper paradox and so on. But it seems to me that some of these inconsistencies can be applied to God as defined in the overall Kalam argument. If there was a time t0 when God made the universe, it follows that there was a time t-1 when God hadn't made the Universe. But now we fall into something akin to the Grim Reaper paradox, because there is a time t-.5 where God still hasn't made the universe, a time t-.25, t-.125 and so on to infinity. I suspect the get-out would be some special pleading on how God experiences things. But this is to weaken the argument considerably.
Paul Harman Craig, in essence, claims that God is logically prior to t-1 but his actions are temporally simultaneous with it as he creates. So t-1 is dependent on God. God isn’t dependent on t-1.
@@LtDeadeye It's contradictory. You cannot both say God existed prior to the universe, and then say there were no events prior to the universe being created. There were at least 2 events, the universe existing and the universe not existing.
Paul Harman God, prior to his creating the universe, didn’t exist in space. He is an immaterial mind. I’m not sure that non existence qualifies as an event.
Such a great discussion. All parties (including the host) did such a great job engaging cordially in this. Not sure that I caught a definition of 'metaphysical impossibility' from WLC.
If god is whatever caused the observable universe, then I'm not an atheist. You can Stop calling us atheists if you believe that. But if you want to argue that you know what caused the universe and what it wants you to do, you've got the whole infinite road ahead of you.
1:24:49 I thought Malpass's talk of a "partial explanation" in regards to some formulation of the PSR was helpful. 1:27:55 Why does Craig reject Malpass's statement that "she finished today because one day ago she had 86400 numbers to count" as an explanation for why she finished today instead of yesterday--- given that they have accepted only a weak, partial explanation-based PSR? WLC kind of fumbles and acts like Alex's question (Why do you think my partial explanation violates a partial explanation-requiring version of the PSR?) required him to have memorized Graham Oppy's specific formulation of the PSR 1:28:14
I think Malpass wants to say that finite (in the sense of eventually running out) and actually-infinite exhaust the possibilities, so that the future is *either* actually-infinite *or* it will run out. If the future will never end then it’s actually-infinite, on Malpass’s view. Otherwise, the future would have to be *finite* in the sense of coming to an *end.* IF it’s not actually infinite then it will eventually end, or so the reasoning goes. WLC wants to suggest that a “potential infinite” is in between these two options. It’s finite, but not in the sense that it will end. Malpass doesn’t agree, but overall it seems to me that WLC had more persuasive arguments. A series that has a starting point but no end will not reach a point of a *completed* infinity, whereas a past series that lacks any beginning will have completed infinities at *every* point.
In math, infinite is always approached, but never reached. As it is approached, the system may converge to a specific value, or else proceed in some direction infinitely. It seems odd to me to say that the past is infinite, since that implies that infinite has already been reached, as opposed to being approached. Sometimes I wonder if we have the wrong concept of "where we are" on a plot, or set, or whatever, of reality.
'whereas a past series that lacks any beginning will have completed infinities at every point' It will have completed an infinity from what point? There is no particular point from which it has completed an infinite. There are only infinitely many points which are a finite 'distance' away back in the past. Just as there are infinitely many points which are a finite 'distance' away in the future.
@@nemdenemam9753 "It will have completed an infinity from what point? " - You misread what he said. He said that, at every point in the past (given a beginning less past) an actually infinite number of temporal moments will have already occurred. He never made any reference to a beginning of a beginning less past.
@@jackplumbridge2704 what does it mean to say 'x number of elements have occured' without a starting point? Are you trying to argue that he is saying something analogous to 'the size of the set of integers that are lower than 2 is the same as the size of the set of integers that are lower than 3'? Where 'size' means they can be set in a one to one correspondence with each other? In that case I indeed missed the meaning but then I don't see the contradiction.
Imagine an endless count, in which Cameron is counting out the natural numbers. Obviously, he will never have finished. That is, he will never have counted out all the numbers. But it is nevertheless possible that for each natural number n, Cameron will count n. Rewording that slightly, we have: 1. For each natural number n, there will be a “counting” of n by Cameron. From 1 it follows that 2. The number of such future “countings” = the number of natural numbers (aleph-0). 3. So aleph-0 is the number of Cameron’s future “countings”. 2 follows from 1, and 3 from 2. Since 1 is metaphysically possible, it follows that 3 is also metaphysically possible. This argument seems pretty tight to me. So where does Craig think the argument goes wrong? Well, he says that (“on presentism”) there are no future “countings” and that their number is therefore zero. So maybe he thinks it goes off the rails at step 2. To see just how wrong-headed this response is, consider another case featuring future countings. Suppose that (a) each of numbers one through five is such that it will be counted by Cameron, and (b) that after the count of five Cameron will never do any more counting. Now, then, ask yourself this: how many such "countings" will ever be done by Cameron? The answer, surely, is five; and not zero as Craig would have it. The takeaway point is that even if presentism is true, we can still refer to and number events that don't yet exist but will do. Just as we can refer to and number events that have existed but no longer do.
You appear to be saying that as we encounter things they become more concrete and that this does not disprove the possibility of an actual infinity in the future. But 1 Craig never said otherwise and 2 this appears to reinforce his point. Take a date far into the future and then keep adding one to it and naming the new date as we go those dates become more concrete but they do not represent infinity because as we name them they become a new endpoint rather than an example of infinity. In other words near as I can tell infinity is just a word we use to describe a number that we either don't want to or don't have the time to count to. I think this is different from eternity. I think of eternity as a state where time has no real application and that is why we can have an eternal future but not an infinite future.
@@davidryan8547 No, that's not what "infinity" means here. No one is saying that one could count all the way to aleph-0 (the first cardinal infinity). What I am saying is (a) that it is possible that an angel (say) will count forever; and (b) that it is therefore possible that for each natural number n the angel will count n. If you disagree with (b), you need to say why. If you accept (b), as I think you should, then I invite you to ask yourself the following question. How many different values of n are such that the angel will count n? If you answer that question correctly, you will be well on your way to understanding what I am getting at.
@@wesleymorriston2191 All i am saying is whether b is true or not it doesn't mean that actual infinity in terms of time exists. Because as you quantify it, it stops being infinite it becomes finite and when we thought of it as a piece of infinity we only did so because we hadn't yet given it another name aka quantified it. If I am still missing what you're saying I am sorry I just don't see how saying someone can continually quantify something means that infinity as a concept logically exists.... Furthermore, the whole IDEA of an infinite universe is usually brought up as a way to explain away the fine-tuning argument. Where the atheist/agnostic will say that with an infinite amount of time and space all things are possible including a universe as seemingly fine-tuned as ours. The problem is if they are right then there are also an infinite number of objections to such IDEAS. Therefore such an IDEA would seem to defeat itself.
@@davidryan8547 I do not understand your response. If you accept (b) then you can't avoid the question I asked. How many different values of n are such that the angel (or Cameron) will count n? (The only possible answer is aleph-0.) If, on the other hand, you don't accept (b) then you need to explain why. Returning to the argument in my original post (1 - 3), it is crystal clear that Craig rejects 3. He explicitly denies that the number of events, each of which will occur, is aleph-0. So if you mean to be supporting his side of the argument, you need to explain either why you don't accept 1, or why you don't think 2 follows from 1, or why you don't think 3 follows from 2.
@@wesleymorriston2191 "How many different values of n are such that the angel (or Cameron) will count n? (The only possible answer is aleph-0)." Let's restate your argument in plainer language. If I get it wrong then please clarify. But you appear to be saying that the angel or Cameron will count n forever and that this means infinity exists because they will count an uncountable number of numbers(Aleph-0) but isn't that a self-defeating argument because if they are counting these numbers then those numbers are not in fact uncountable are they?
Here’s the link to the short film my videographer produced that I mentioned toward the end: vimeo.com/400573799
Wow, you've come a long way. I remember you in the debate forums on Facebook years ago. I love your setup, lighting, logo, name, logo colors, and really long videos. God speed.
Capturing Christianity
What Planet are you on!
Show me any Philosophy that gives us knowledge??
Craig is lost in Fallacies of Composition,Ignorance and Incredulity!
He also equates Authenticity with Credibility,possibility with probability:.
Craig is lying:
1(X + 1) + 1/(X + 1)^2 + 1/(X + 1)^3
.....1/(X + 1)^n
This is an infinite Series yet converges to 1 + X ..so who is to say the Universe cant converge to fundamental Laws we have yet to discover!
Moreover,Hawking showed the Cosmos could have space-time boundary or even continuum..God would then be unnecessary!!
ruclips.net/video/M1c_GlAjvy4/видео.html
ruclips.net/video/2pfjJ49wCcM/видео.html
ruclips.net/video/rak2YVNR1gI/видео.html
ruclips.net/video/8CChnwOsg9I/видео.html
ruclips.net/video/P28hy8JRYUk/видео.html
ruclips.net/video/l6esL6yz52Q/видео.html
ruclips.net/video/oMwp9Wd-QmE/видео.html
ruclips.net/video/LVyGk3vldMI/видео.html
ruclips.net/video/O4GmgZBuEMU/видео.html
ruclips.net/video/oD06eEbrzj/видео.html
conwayhall.org.uk/ethicalrecord/william-lane-craigs-eight-reasons-for-god-refuted/
Capturing Christianity
Why don't you ever have Atheists on like Dr Richard Carrier BA,MA,MPhil,PhD..or Bart Erhman who have already shown the Bible is historized Fiction based on emulation Mythology.. there is no actual evidence for God but Faith and metaphysical Apologetics!
Would it be feasible for you to send participants out an expensive microphone like you use? (and a return addressed package so they can easily send it back after)
Maybe even a really good camera that's compatible with most computers as a webcam
By chance, could you try and convince Dr. Craig to debate Matt Dillahunty, or even Rabbi Tovia Singer/Yosef Mizrachi? Thanks!
These two can argue about infinity forever. Or they can't.
Potentially
You think there's a chance?
They wont even begin. Cameron will never finish his introduction.
Yes they could. That would be a potential infinity
I legit laughed so hard at this
Cameron I’m still shocked by these conversations. I remember when you were just another Facebook guy. I’m proud of you. Knew Capturing Christianity would take off.
Agreed, great testament to your hard work and focus Cameron - congratulations.
Yep. I remember the days in CASG when he was looking to name CC. Good times.
Mitch Rowe Indeed. He’s well on his way to being the next “Unbelievable?”.
Dave Cherrie
Nonsense Craig is wrong in every way
Sceptical Scientist
wrong in every way? Lol
This was not a debate. It was a Master Class.
There is only one master here.
Les Thanx, m8.
@@les2997 yeah Craig is a master
Les
They are both great thinkers. To suggest otherwise would say a lot.
Are you implying that Craig demolished Malpass?
perhaps rightly, WLC is getting a lot of love for this discussion, but I actually think Alex Malpass is being overlooked for how cordial and respectful he was. It's so refreshing to see and I'm grateful.
Craig appears utterly deluded ..he keeps using the word "God" yet gives no precise mechanism how such an infinite and immaterial can cause anything.."God" in his head is a place holder for ignorance because he is so indoctrinated,he actually believes his verbal vacuity means anything but noise!!
Until Craig stops lying and Inventing evidence because he isn't frightened to live in a Godless Universe,to write a paper that proves a loving God exists and wins a Nobel Prize..no serious Ancient Historian, Physicist or Philosopher will take him seriously!
“Wow, what a great debate. You should have seen how cordial the one guy was.” “Yeah, Tyson Fury won, convincingly I might add, but could you believe how cordial Deontay Wilder was? What an incredibly polite boxer he is”
This sounds like a backhanded compliment. Don’t overlook Alex’s intellect, he’s not just being “cordial”. In my eyes he won the debate. Check out his blog useofreason.wordpress.com
Skeptical scientist, you are such a confused person. And /or deliberately uncharitable. Your comments remind me of debates between politicians.
Sceptical Scientist
We can all play ultimate skeptic. It’s easy because you don’t have to deliver the “imminent” state of *being* convinced, and you never have to make any claims. It’s easy to continue on to absurdity by never stating that anything is “persuasive”, and thus cannot be held true (even when you truly believe it to be true).
To give you an example that EVERYONE can play ultimate skeptic, and that it doesn’t necessarily bring you any closer to truth:
Regarding your claim,
Why would you need evidence to conclude anything is true? Why does evidence imply truth? It seems like you are just going off intuition rather than a precise mechanism because you don’t want to live in an evidenceless universe.
Two hours of Alex Malpass and the kalam cosmological argument. Must be my birthday
rabbitpirate
Pity he couldn’t defend his position.
@@kjustkses I will admit I thought WLC made the better argument here. That said I am not entirely sure that Alex disagrees with the idea that the past was not infinite, he just has issues with some of the philosophical arguments put forward in defence of the idea. Personally I have no real issue with the idea that time doesn't go back infinitely and began at a certain point in the past, that is what Big Bang cosmology tells us after all. My main issues with the Kalam all revolve around the wording of the first premise, the one that WLC always likes to skip past as if there are no problems with it.
rabbitpirate
Everything which begins to exist has a cause? That part?
Da Koos yes that part. WLC likes to state that this part of the argument is supported by both empirical evidence and our intuition, and yet he cherry picks both, leaving out the parts that would undermine his conclusion that the universe was created from nothing by God. If he was really basing it on what empirical evidence and intuition tells us then the first premise should read like this:
What ever begins to exist within the universe has both an efficient and a material cause of its existence.
I think it’s pretty obvious why it isn’t worded that way, even though that far more accurately reflects what we see in the world around us.
rabbitpirate
Strange, that is the one part of the kalam which I don’t have a problem with. If you say that everything has a materialistic cause, and space time and matter came into existence, then how did matter have a materialistic cause?
I am so happy to see Craig doing online discussions like these, and am proud of guys like you who help bridge those gaps. You’re doing a great job Cameron!
Eric Hernandez
Actually,we don't know if the Universe needs a cause because of QM!
Even if it did..it doesn't remotely prove God did it:
This infinite Series:
1/(X + 1) + 1/(X + 1)^2 +
1/(X + 1)^3.....converges to 1 + X
Who is Bill to say the Universe cant converge to fundamental Laws we have yet to discover?
ruclips.net/video/M1c_GlAjvy4/видео.html
ruclips.net/video/8CChnwOsg9I/видео.html
ruclips.net/video/NNdwt1gy5xM/видео.html
ruclips.net/video/4YYWUIxGdl4/видео.html
ruclips.net/video/ew_cNONhhKI/видео.html
ruclips.net/video/O7ybg0IMPto/видео.html
ruclips.net/video/rak2YVNR1gI/видео.html
conwayhall.org.uk/ethicalrecord/william-lane-craigs-eight-reasons-for-god-refuted/
rationalwiki.org/wiki/William_Lane_Craig
Did you also know that Craig's PhD Advisor at Birmingham University,the late Prof John Hick didn't agree with Craig as most Scientists and Philosophers don't ha ...I rest my Case!
ruclips.net/video/7JibSTglpnU/видео.html
So you think some minor Philosopher can tell us about reality or cosmic causes ...the guy cant even understand College Maths or Physics yet thinks Einstein was wrong ha
More Fallacies of ignorance and composition.. conflating Authenticity with Credibility! Ha
See Hector Avalos on it. It’s all possibiliter fallacies ignoring evidence and making up hypotheses for which there is no evidence.
V H
Craig is wrong:
There is no divine Laws that created the Cosmos:
ruclips.net/video/M1c_GlAjvy4/видео.html
ruclips.net/video/rak2YVNR1gI/видео.html
ruclips.net/video/8CChnwOsg9I/видео.html
V H
Actually,we don't know if the Universe needs a cause because of QM!
Even if it did..it doesn't remotely prove God did it:
This infinite Series:
1/(X + 1) + 1/(X + 1)^2 +
1/(X + 1)^3.....converges to 1 + X
Who is Bill to say the Universe cant converge to fundamental Laws we have yet to discover?
ruclips.net/video/M1c_GlAjvy4/видео.html
ruclips.net/video/8CChnwOsg9I/видео.html
ruclips.net/video/NNdwt1gy5xM/видео.html
ruclips.net/video/4YYWUIxGdl4/видео.html
ruclips.net/video/ew_cNONhhKI/видео.html
ruclips.net/video/O7ybg0IMPto/видео.html
ruclips.net/video/rak2YVNR1gI/видео.html
conwayhall.org.uk/ethicalrecord/william-lane-craigs-eight-reasons-for-god-refuted/
rationalwiki.org/wiki/William_Lane_Craig
Did you also know that Craig's PhD Advisor at Birmingham University,the late Prof John Hick didn't agree with Craig as most Scientists and Philosophers don't ha ...I rest my Case!
ruclips.net/video/7JibSTglpnU/видео.html
@@mystery6411 Wow, you just dunked on yourself.
It's official. #CraigEndorsed. Add it to your resume.
They've been doing a bunch of shoutouts for Capturing Christianity and other awesome apologetics RUclipsrs on the Reasonable Faith podcast. It's been great.
@@nathanfosdahl7525 I asked about the endorsement as an inside joke. When Cameron first interviewed him, Craig gave him a flat out "no!" when asked if he would endorse CC. It was hilarious but soul crushing. Now we have the trophy. Lol. Had to get it in recording.
This is so much more practical than a formal debate. Being able to stop the other person and seek clarification like this makes it where the participants aren't just talking past their opponent in an attempt to score Whose Line Is It Anyway points. Less ground might be covered like this, but the ground that is covered is so much more fruitful. I commend both participants for their patience and respectful behavior towards each other.
It requires civility, though. There are aggressive informal debates with two or more people speaking at the same time. In this channel that is not expected to happen. It's not about fights and seeing who wins. I noticed Cameron and some atheist RUclipsrs share compliments in the comments section.
I must say I loved this. I think Alex is great but I’ve never been a fan of WLC, but here, maybe because they weren’t talking religion, I could really see why so many people rate him so highly. A brilliant job by both of them, would love to hear them discuss other questions.
rabbitpirate I found myself agreeing with WLC, which isn’t a normal thing for me ;-) I agree with your assessment.
(PS: he lost me again after his next point (inability to count to infinity) seemed to destroy his point I agreed with (potential infinite).
Craig is definitely a master at rhetoric.
When I started watching I thought 2 hours would be too long, now I realize it was far too short. Great show!
This is one of the best discussions I've ever seen. Two respectful, intelligent, well-read, and similarly motivated truth seekers working through things together.
@Scott Holder The same can be said about any atheist. This game can be played both ways...
@Scott Holder The term "apologist" can be applied to anyone who defends a particular position. Instead of attacking a title and making baseless accusations, maybe try engaging with the arguments and, well, seek the truth.
@@zbulmer Here is a philosophical analysis of the arguments made in this video debate about whether the universe began to exist:
Analysis of Craig's Argument:
- Craig relies on the Kalam cosmological argument to argue that the universe had a beginning, and therefore requires a cause outside of itself - which he equates with God.
- However, showing the universe began to exist does not necessarily prove God caused it. Other potential explanations like multiverses or abstract timeless principles are ignored.
- Even if a cause is required, there's no justification given for why this cause must have the attributes of God instead of a more abstract entity.
Critique of the Argument:
- The Kalam argument relies on controversial premises like "everything that begins to exist has a cause." This is questionable when applied outside of our space-time.
- Craig does not sufficiently rule out actual infinite regresses. An eternal but changing universe is still possible.
- The jump from an abstract first cause to the Christian God is an unjustified leap. The argument at best points to a deistic god.
Analysis of Malpass' Objections:
- Malpass rightly questions the equivocation between "began to exist" and "was created out of nothing." The universe may have begun from pre-existing matter.
- He points out that current physics allows for models where time had a starting point but not space or matter/energy. So the universe did not necessarily "begin to exist" in the sense required.
In conclusion, Craig does not succeed in conclusively proving the Christian God created the universe out of nothing. At best he shows a deistic first cause may be rationally inferred, but strong objections remain that he fails to sufficiently address. The existence of God is far from proven.
@@zbulmer Here is an analysis using analytic philosophy, symbolic logic, and math to show problems with William Lane Craig's Kalam cosmological argument:
Analytic Breakdown:
1. Craig argues that an actual infinite cannot exist in reality. But he fails to prove this philosophically. There are coherent models of an eternal universe with infinite past events.
1. He asserts everything that begins to exist has a cause, but provides no justification for why this principle would apply outside of spacetime. We have no examples to inductively reason about non-spacetime causation.
1. The argument makes an unjustified leap from an abstract 'first cause' to a personal, omnipotent, conscious God. This is a non sequitur.
Symbolic Logic:
1. ∃x(Ix & Rx)\
There exists some x, such that x is an actual infinite and x is real.
1. ~∃x(Ix & Rx)
There does not exist some x, which is an actual infinite and real.
Craig asserts 2, but does not prove it. 1 is a coherent countermodel showing that actual infinites existing in reality cannot be ruled out a priori.
Math:
Hilbert's Hotel shows how an actually infinite number of things (rooms) can exist in reality. The infinite set of natural numbers exists in math. Craig's premise that "actual infinites cannot exist" is thus unjustified mathematically.
Conclusion:
Craig's key premises are not proven true. He commits multiple non sequiturs in equating a first cause with a theistic being. The Kalam argument as presented fails to show God exists using symbolic logic and math-based analysis
WLC is not concerned about truth and has freely admitted it decades ago.
I think it was very nice to discuss high-level disagreement on the kalam argument, as opposed to all the other criticisms you might see online
"But if God caused the Universe, what caused God?"
"Good question, good question. I wonder that too."
These are the kind of discussions that we need.
„Well, I have a five-point response to this” :)
Oh, I just love Craig
Lol yea that was awesome. And I wouldn't expect anything less from Dr. Craig.
Craig is wrong.. Cosmologists have a shown mathematically,the Universe might not need a cause...Craig has been schooled many he times but he won't grow up!
Chesed Mercado
What Planet are you on!
Show me any Philosophy that gives us knowledge??
You are lost in Fallacies of Composition,Ignorance and Incredulity!
You also equate Authenticity with Credibility,possibility with probability:.
Craig is lying:
1(X + 1) + 1/(X + 1)^2 + 1/(X + 1)^3
.....1/(X + 1)^n
This is an infinite Series yet converges to 1 + X ..so who is to say the Universe cant converge to fundamental Laws we have yet to discover!
Moreover,Hawking showed the Cosmos could have space-time boundary or even continuum..God would then be unnecessary!!
ruclips.net/video/M1c_GlAjvy4/видео.html
ruclips.net/video/2pfjJ49wCcM/видео.html
ruclips.net/video/rak2YVNR1gI/видео.html
ruclips.net/video/8CChnwOsg9I/видео.html
ruclips.net/video/P28hy8JRYUk/видео.html
ruclips.net/video/l6esL6yz52Q/видео.html
ruclips.net/video/oMwp9Wd-QmE/видео.html
ruclips.net/video/LVyGk3vldMI/видео.html
ruclips.net/video/O4GmgZBuEMU/видео.html
ruclips.net/video/oD06eEbrzj/видео.html
conwayhall.org.uk/ethicalrecord/william-lane-craigs-eight-reasons-for-god-refuted/
Chesed Mercado
I was referring to his Theology not empirical evidence..again you are using strawman arguments!
A fallacy is something that is either contradictory or flawed not supported by Evidence!
Maths has formidable Proofs but that doesn't mean to say it reflects anything about reality!
Numbers are infinite yet Stars and we not!
We don't actually know if the Universe has a cause.. transcendent or otherwise...the Models we have are infinite...so we don't necessarily need a God or laws to create something that has always been here!
You are like Craig..he knows nothing of Cosmology..so spouts ancient Ontological arguments which are not grounded in reality!
However beautiful your mathematical models or Theological claims are,they still have to be rigourously tested,if not they are a Faith System...not reality!
People say Craig is brilliant yet he is so indoctrinated,he uses his educational kudos to trick people:
He has no understanding or respect for the Scientific method...and mocks anyone who disagrees with him!
Everything that comes out if his mouth is metaphysical Apologetics but he is so indoctrinated or obsessed with God,he actually believes so convinces other self deluded Fools!
ruclips.net/video/yfqfihvb21o/видео.html
ruclips.net/video/8CChnwOsg9I/видео.html
ruclips.net/video/ew_cNONhhKI/видео.html
ruclips.net/video/0xpUWF2UkdA/видео.html
ruclips.net/video/2pfjJ49wCcM/видео.html
ruclips.net/video/GALtT5doyzI/видео.html
ruclips.net/video/rak2YVNR1gI/видео.html
ruclips.net/video/LVyGk3vldMI/видео.html
ruclips.net/video/c7_BFBi0KdE/видео.html
ruclips.net/video/1iMmvu9eMrg/видео.html
ruclips.net/video/xgSEVFwRo34/видео.html
ruclips.net/video/fOoCH6R914U/видео.html
ruclips.net/video/FQfujdlO4oY/видео.html
ruclips.net/video/X1Iyq-L0yvc/видео.html
ruclips.net/video/ie3waMRtbxE/видео.html
www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2011/oct/20/richard-dawkins-william-lane-craig
This wasn't really a debate. They haven't even started entering each others brains. This is more like an opening statement. Am sorry philosophers are too smart.
33:42
I love how Craig is making himself giggle when he says "well i have a 5 point response to this..."
Excellent discussion. More importantly, WE HAVE OPPY VS CRAIG
WAIT REALLY WHEN?
@@TheBrunarr tbd
When?
@@TheBrunarr when 😳😳
@@Kenji17171 to be decided
There's a false equivalence in saying:
1) "Why is Bobby Kennedy dead?" is partially explained by "Because he was shot," and
2) "Why didn't Cameron didn't finish counting up from negative infinity 10 seconds ago?" is partially explained by "Because he was counting up from negative infinity at a rate of one negative integer per second and 10 seconds ago he counted -10."
The reason the first is a legitimate partial explanation and the second isn't is because the first partial explanation introduces new information and thus removes some of the mystery. The second tells me nothing that I didn't already know and removes none of the mystery.
Before you only knew he was counting up from negative infinity, you didn't know what number he was on, but now you know the rate at which he counts and the number he was on 10 seconds ago
@@superfarful
Exactly. It introduces information about rate, speed, history. It could have been the case that 10 minutes ago, he was on number 2, and he counts at the rate of one number per trillion years. Or it could have been the case that he got to number 2 a trillion years ago, took a trillion year nap, woke up again, and continued.
The two bottom people have bookshelves in their background, while Alex has pictures of cats and fish. Now that is confidence.
🤣💀that's exactly what I was thinking
if it was pictures of his kids i might agree
maybe because thats reality
I think that's a joke, but I assume Cameron and William are in their offices maybe using desktop computers. It seems Alex is in the living room sitting on the couch using a laptop. That explains the angles.
This was like watching Nan (Alex, a skilled philosopher) vs Master Roshi (Craig, world's greatest apologist) at the first Dragon Ball Tournament. Alex was a surprisingly nice atheist, different from Dawkins and Krauss. Nice to see good debates like this one.
Oners82 It’s not just his kindness in debating. Even his expressions showed that he was listening and open to the arguments. The stereotype probably comes from the bad exemple Dawkins, Krauss, Dillahanty and others give.
Oners82 It’s difficult to avoid stereotyping when you just proved the stereotype.
@Oners82 "It's kinda weird that many theists (especially in the US) have this bizarre stereotype that all atheists are angry and behave like Krauss or Dawkins. Very odd."
No, it's not odd at all. Go to any comments section on atheist youtube channels, or even in recent comment sections on Capturing Christianity. Atheists are there calling belief in God irrational, calling Christians idiots, etc.
@Oners82 This comment of yours is so ironic because you yourself are an example of those types atheists that are prideful, mean and condescending which shows it isn't a stereotype. In another comment you literally made a personal attack against Craig and got refuted badly by philosopher Andrew Moon for trying to question Craig's credentials.
@Oners82 I'm not quick to judge. Anecdotally, I've noticed that atheists in real life act different than internet atheists.
But for all I know, some of the angry bitter atheists online live in Norway, Denmark, or Iceland. Maybe they would act differently in real life because when one is speaking to someone face to face it becomes obvious enough for even an atheist to realize that insults are counterproductive and hateful.
A difference for Christians is that when they are engaging in such antics, not only are they being counterproductive and hateful, but hypocritical too by defying the teachings of Jesus. Atheists are plausibly being consistent with their worldview with such bad behavior, which says something about the worldview.
My point still stands that it's not bizarre at all that Americans have this impression of the angry bitter atheist because internet atheists are terrible at invalidating the impression.
WLC is the GOAT. His preparation is God-like. 10/10 would never debate.
LOL
I think we all agree that one simply kant put the ‘horse’ in front of descartes...
How did this not get a load of likes
In this particular example, it is not right to call The Hilbert's hotel as a place with infinite rooms, filled with infinite people or not. Because if a potentiality for more persons beyond infinity becomes an actuality, then the same potentiality is simultaneously actuated to the motel's rooms too. If it is not absurd to actuate more people beyond infinity then the same applies to the hotel rooms too.
I thought the same thing exactly. Also, the main reason Hilbert's Hotel appears absurd is because the property 'full' is being applied to something for which that property makes no sense. How can an infinite set ever be 'full', especially when maths show that parts of infinite sets can have the same cardinality as the totality ?
The thought experiment only serves to illustrate how the concept of being filled doesn't make sense with infinite sets, not that the existence of infinite sets in itself is absurd.
@@john_reese Thanks for putting this very clearly than I did. WLC has been getting away with things like this all the time.
"Begins to exist" seems like just word-play. Nothing actually "begins" to exist. What exists, exists, what does not exist, does not. What exists merely changes form. A tree only begins to exist in the sense of form. An automobile only exists as a specific collection of parts. Is there some sort of elementary particle or force? We don't really know. But whatever is eternal, needs no mind to change form. In fact, only an eternal mindless force is logically possible, because no form can last forever.
Note: Modern physics does NOT say that there was absolutely nothing before the universe began in its current form.
Well written and insightful comment. I agree wholeheartedly. No phenomenon (object, event, substance, entity, process, system, or being) _instantaneously begins to exist._ Each and every phenomenon *_emerges_* from necessary and sufficient antecedents _over some interval of time,_ no mater how brief or epoch, without exception. And the realm of phenomenon occur within an eternal cosmos. I assert that universes emerge from this eternal cosmos.
Here is an interest quote:
"While we can understand how the universe we see came to be, it's possible that the Big Bang was not the first inflationary period the universe experienced. I have recently come in favor to believe we live in a cosmos that goes through regular cycles of inflation and deflation, and that we just happen to be living in one of these phases."
Alan Guth, PhD, Professor Physics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, "Extremely Big Eyes on the Early Universe", Institute of Astronomy and Astrophysics Symposium, 25 Mar 2019, Kashiwa, Japan
I want to point out again your insightful reply. Please keep posting! We all need to hear rational voices such as yours!
Mindless forces have no will.
@@spectre8533 And those who abdicate their will to mythical beings have no mind of their own.
Replace the mythical being with a monkey-mind and become god-like.
🐂
@@spectre8533 That certainly is not my approach. Mine is to replace mythical beings with rationality, personal responsibility, and an unrelenting pursuit of truth. I can show you the path if you would like to rid yourself of irrational beliefs that keep you from the discovery of truth. No charge.
Dr.Craig is unbelievable smart and clear. God bless him for the wonderful work he is doing testifying to the Lord.
Phantom Navigator lol
@Phantom Navigator incoherent where
@Phantom Navigator so far, you haven't done any interesting or concrete contribution other than saying what others are, think or have achieved. Dare you think by yourself! Or else be humble and learn...
Phantom Navigator
Even if you used the perfect tense and say there would have been an actual infinite, then you are contradicting yourself. If at anytime the infinite would have been, it would no longer be an infinite.
Maybe you are not as smart as you think. Please Sit down.
J w You have? I don’t believe that given the nonsense you’ve tried to get past me.
CC: "You know what comes to mind? Quantum mechanics, and superpositions."
Yeah...he literally just said that.
I'm glad that Craig is moving towards these discussions rather than his normal debate format. Bullying non philosophers on basics is fun to watch, but this is much more valuable than the "I have five arguments that are very complex, and im just gonna scale up the complexity of how we discuss each one until your overwhelmed" tactic. You simply can't put the kalem cosmological argument as one fifth of what your gonna say in a timed debate and have either side do it justice.
This would have been far better if they had ONE idea/argument that they fully discussed vs hinting at many, and then constant references to see this book/article/website etc. (Kent Hovind style).
I agree one hundred percent!
One problem with Malpass's marbles-in-the-jar thought experiment is that it subtly shifts to a tenseless theory of time by representing the future as a pile of marbles one picks from to fill the jar. But the future, in a tensed theory of time, is potential, so to represent it as a present pile of marbles is cheating, because it gives you your actual infinite.
Craig does mention this later on. One point Malpass could have made to convince Craig of the relevance of his simple future/ future perfect distinction is to have asked Craig whether he thinks he will live forever. I guess Craig would say yes. If you believe in the immortality of the soul, then you believe you will live an infinite amount of time, but you will never have lived an infinite amount of time. The road goes on forever, but you have never gone on forever. (Though picturing the future as an infinite road is, once again, falling into a tenseless representation of time...)
Cameron, will you have Craig back for a debate on the tenseless theory of time? That is so important to his Kalam that I’m surprised he hasn’t done such a (public) debate yet.
There are forms of the Kalam that work under both theories. I think a tense less theory of time is just what Craig prefers to argue for.
I may be mistaken but, I think he has done such a debate with Sean Carroll?
MIchael, Craig has published heavy hitting books on the debate, but his debate with Carroll didn’t really explore the topic
Craig himself has said that the kalam is at least more defensible on the tensed theory. It’s not a small issue.
@@TheProdigalMeowMeowMeowReturns I vaguely remember that debate and time tenses coming up to some extent but, I wouldn't argue with you if you remember that better. I was aware that he had written fairly extensively on this and had really thought about diving into that but, haven't. I'm in a weird place on this, where I think I agree with both depending upon what perspective you're allowed.
While I’m not sure I agree with Dr Craig on tensed theory of time, it does seem obvious that he’s correct regarding the marble thought experiment. It’s like asking how many times will Atalanta arrive at a half way stage of a subsequent distance. It’s just potentially infinite but it will never be actually infinite.
27:16 "Don't interrupt me, layman."
lol
My favorite discussion yet! Absolutely fascinating topic with two individuals who are both well versed in the field and both cordial.
This guy lost all credibility when he was humiliated and completely owned in a live debate where the actual author of the paper he cited as proving the universe had a beginning addressed him personally, saying “no, I think the universe is probably eternal.” It didn’t give Craig even a moments doubt or reflection. This says a lot. Look, it’s possible that Craig is an incredibly gifted amateur physicist and understands the implications of the paper better than Gouth himself, but for it not even to give him pause, even the slightest comment of humility “oh that’s surprising, maybe I’m wrong about that.” Tells me everything I need to know about his intellectual honesty.
For years, WLC has gaily ignored Borde and Guth explicitly saying he is quite wrong in his misrepresenting their theorem. No wonder he can’t get a job at a real university, but has to teach at Biola, a Bible college that promotes Creationism. From RationalWiki “Biola University maintains a doctrine of Biblical inerrancy. Biola's doctrinal statement further amplifies a conservative creationist doctrine, and though not overtly homophobic, implicitly condemns same-sex marriage.[1] As a final guarantee of strict adherence to its theological worldview, the university requires every faculty member, when first hired and again upon application for tenure, to submit their understanding of and complete agreement with each item of the doctrinal and teaching statements to the Talbot School of Theology for evaluation.”
Nuff said.
Cam Fam, by far one of my favorite episodes you put together. Well done my friend!
It is Gedanken time! Great show if you love increasing blood flow to the brain - prepare to get blown away! Thanks all, this was fun.
Reall good conversation. Much prefer seeing Craig tangle with another philosopher rather than untrained new atheist types. Far more interesting and productive.
Imagine the failure of the god who created a situation where conversations like these have to take place and be decided in order to even get to the question of whether or not he might exist. This just debates one part of one premise of Kalam....which in turn doesn't even get you to god.
How about he just shows us some more of those cool miracles to prove he exists?
LOL!
You wouldn't believe it if He did
@@pkosh1 Maybe you know EM personally and thereby know that he/she wouldn't believe either way. But me and many other people would believe something if we directly saw it.
That said, I agree with EM. I love watching debates... and this debate had a point or two that pushed up to (if not pased) the limits of my understanding... even Malpass admitted confusion at certain points. It would be more useful to do a demonstration of God.
In other words, I don't think I would believe that a tv works if I never saw one, even if you gave me explanation of the inner workings thereof. But I would believe you if you showed me a tv, working.
@@random_nerd_stuff6576 "I think I can safely say that nobody understands quantum mechanics." -Richard Feynman, The Character of Physical Law (MIT Press: Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1995), 129. JKeck (talk) 10:56, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
Random_nerd_stuff we can see massive amounts of genetic information being passed down everyday which is miraculous given the level of complexity which is why Francis Collins is a theist. We see miracles constantly but we are convinced that there is a physical/natural explanation behind them. If God showed up and wrote “I exist” in fire in the sky, we wouldn’t be sure we could believe our eyes and we surely couldn’t convince others it wasn’t a mass hallucination or something that could be explained away by some as of yet unexplained natural cause
2:00:55 When the beans hit back with full force.
The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics was never refuted and the expansion of the Universe is an observable fact.
@@les2997 What does that have to do with a fart?
Listen closely at the timestamp, my dude.
@@FlamSalad Do you understand what Craig is talking about and why science points to the beginning?
What is the primary cause of the bacteria that respirated upon consuming the beans?
Great discussion! It’s always great to see people share opposing view points and still maintain a level of respect.
WLC clearly won the infinity points on the past. There cannot be an infinite past in time and space and there cannot be an infinite future.in time and space. Job done.
Thanks Dr Craig.
Thanks for letting us know that having two PhD’s does not mean that you can think reasonably or be honest.
@Rabbi Circumcistein
Whether you like apples or oranges is a valid differing opinion.
You don’t get to place something that has never been proven, ever, into the ‘just a differing opinion’ or ‘different worldview’ basket.
I doesn’t work like that.
If you call him a comedian or a creative artist in what he says, then that’s fine.
Maybe we could start there?
@Outside LookingIn
I actually respect that. His theology qualification should enlighten him to the fact that religion is all man made.
@Rabbi Circumcistein
I’m a 32 year old, polynesian and welsh male from New Zealand. I love in Melbourne where I have practiced as a clinical psychologist for just under 5 years and am doing my PhD this year.
My PhD involves a lot of quantitative data collection from social media and RUclips, thus my presence on sites like this.
I stand by my words. William Craig is a intellectually dishonest at best.
Keep your mind open.
@@poerava Firstly, I'd like to congratulate you on your achievements. Hats off man. It's truly great. You're an inspiration to many, myself included.
Secondly, I'm not convinced Dr. Craig is an intellectually dishonest person. One does not easily achieve 2 PHDs from accredited schools through intellectual dishonesty. The level of peer reviewed acumen required at this level is staggering. It's also possible you simply fail to properly grasp his arguments. If you don't already hold to his persuasions, de-confirmation bias is a powerful influencer.
@@jesserochon3103
Thank you mate
Appreciate that.
As far as ‘intellectual dishonesty’, this is what his peers say, not just me. I mention this as I am not a philosopher. I know he has a PhD in philosophy. Philosophers much more accomplished, mention his intellectual dishonesty.
From my grasp of why his peers say this about him, it is because of the claims made, reductionist language and the way he leaves out crucial information for his listeners.
For example, I know a fellow PhD that basically worships Jordan Peterson, yet in his videos, he leaves out the fact that many of Petersons takes on ‘masculine and feminine’ are absolutely buffoonish and inaccurate according to the literature. Don’t get me started on his advice for raising children. As academics, there is a requirement for disclosure. Full disclosure. Financial interests. How we are required to clear up possible (or highly likely) perceptions from listeners and followers.
Another example is a friend of mine who has a masters (I’m not sure if they have a PhD) in biology (specialising in auto immune conditions) is selling supplements online. She talks about them in videos and conveniently does not disclose that there is not any literature that conclusively says the supplements that she sells actually does anything. In fact there is a wide body of literature that confirms they do nothing and do not do what they claim. She uses epidemiological studies to ‘suggest’ that this is proof that that they work. It is not. This is intellectually dishonest. Omission of important information, is by definition, intellectually dishonest. This is because intellectually, the person at this level of education knows that the average listener would benefit from knowing this information, and they do not share it.
So how does William Lane Craig compare to other intellectually, dishonest, commentators or advocates?
He shares philosophical theories that are certainly theories, but defends the fact that they are true theories, without disclosing that the merit of these theories, in a very real sense as far as there being a God, has as much or less comparable statistical significance as the theories we have about there being fairies down in the garden and Santa being real. Not sharing this information to people who want a God to literally exist and knowing that these listeners are hoping that his philosophical expertise can add gravity to this hope, is intellectually dishonest. It is quite shameful and a non academically credible practice.
We are aware of his copious speaking fees and also his ‘sponsors’. It’s unfortunately a reality that his behaviour as a speaker on this topic is disgraceful and worthy of condemnation in this regard, yet may be a brilliant mind in his discipline.
Thanks a lot CC! You put a lot of work into your videos! Love the quality and more importantly, the content!
Not gonna lie, kind of freaked out when I saw the runtime 😂(out of hype)
51:36 This discussion of a potential infinite that's finite in practicality hurts my head in the best way possible. I'll be thinking about this for months.
I think the issue is the terminology Craig uses, and the terms actual and potential are confusing. A potential infinite collection is neither infinite nor possibly (potentially) infinite- it just means increasing without bound/limit. When Craig refers to the future as a potential infinite, I believe he is mistaken, and what he really means is the collection of past moments that will have occurred at a moment in time (in other words, the past relative to a moment in the future). As time progresses, the collection of moments that have passed increases, but (if time began) there will always only be a finite number of moments that have passed.
I recommend Alex Malpass’s post debate review with two other philosophers ruclips.net/video/ZZYSjuWjn70/видео.html Alex is a very clear thinker
I swear Alex keeps looking at the ceiling like it’s a chest sheet
computing...
I have many issues with what Malpass said, but I'm at the spot with the loaf of bread as a truth-preserving case of the fallacious scope-shifting inference, and it's just amazing to me that Malpass doesn't see the problem: the fallacy Craig is pointing to is thinking that it FOLLOWS from being able to eat any slice that you can eat the whole loaf. It's not that it's a fallacy for both to be true; it's a fallacy to *reason from the one directly to the other.*
The example he picked was, unfortunately, a fallacy. For sure. He's acknowledged this elsewhere. Craig, however, was wrong that Malpass had committed a modal operator shift when talking about the cardinality of Cameron's counting; and Malpass was correct in pointing out that Bill does indeed make arguments about the future by using the future perfect analogy. The bread example was terrible though - really derailed the whole point.
@@DavidSmith-zd6nn
You don't think it's an illicit shift to go from "for any number, Cameron will eventually count it" to "Cameron will eventually count all the numbers"? It seems like moving from a rule about members of a set to a statement about the set itself (somewhat like the "mother every person has" analogy Craig gave).
@@Mentat1231 I think the introduction of the word "eventually" is confusing here. It seems to imply that the task will be completed as of that time - which would be slipping into the future perfect tense. It seems to me that the right way to think about it is:
1) Q: How many real numbers are there? Answer: An infinite amount. 2.)
Which means, If Cameron's future counting events line up one to one with the real numbers, than the number of Cameron's future counting events must be the same as the number of real numbers, which is infinite.
That's the future tense, because the simple future "will count" just fills the future with it's forward-looking cardinality. The number of numbers that Cameron will have counted at any time t* (future perfect) is the finite number increasing toward infinity.
@@DavidSmith-zd6nn
I think that's a mistake, as Craig was trying to explain to Malpass by saying the moment of finishing could be the last moment of time or of Cameron's life. There would be no moment after finishing from which he could say "I have counted them all". But there needs to be a moment at which he finishes, or else he never does count them all.
My own view is that there is no such thing as "all the real numbers" nor any "amount" of them all. But, sticking to the assumptions Craig and Malpass granted, it is still the case that Cameron hasn't done it yet, and so can only "eventually" do so, and that doing so means finishing.
@@Mentat1231
But we (and they) agree on that! - Ha. There is a never a point at which the job is done. There is never a point at which Cameron will have (future perfect) counted all the numbers, but that does not mean that Cameron will (future) never count all the numbers.
This is the fallacy that they both agreed was a fallacy in the discussion:
If it is true that it will never have been that (p); then it is true that it never will be that (p).
That's an invalid inference. Craig agrees that it's an invalid inference, he just doesn't agree that he's making it. It seems to me that he clearly is, however.
If the number of real numbers is infinite, and for each real number, there is a counting event, then the number of counting events must be the same as the number of real numbers.
To be sure, there's points about this whole infinite past discussion that are opaque to me, but this one point is particularly clear to my mind.
1:21 Two PHDs one in Philosophy and one in History , it’s not History it’s Theology
It's the history of maths and maths proper. It's neither philosophy or theology.
Fantastic guests! Craig impressed me a lot here.
Dr. William Lane Craig has cleared up a lot of doubts I had. ❤
No it isnt lol. There are better arguments, but it's not outdated.
Oh boy. I got a bridge I'd like to sell you
Craig is one of the most debunked apologists on the planet. If you are interested in honesty I'd suggest looking up why he's considered a joke amongst actual philosophers and scientists.
@@littlefurrow2437”Graham Oppy is one of the most debunked atheists on the planet. If you are interest in honesty I’d consider looking up why he’s considered a joke among actual philosophers and scientists.” See how easy it is to make false claims about highly accredited academics you don’t like?
@@littlefurrow2437shut your mouth layman😂
I wish I could ask Malpass: Let's say I grant you that what is impossible is not the simple future case, but the future perfect... Is it not the case that the present stands in relation to the past series as a future perfect? We actually are at the end of the past series and looking back at it, no?
I also wish I could mention that "truth preserving cases" where some wholes have the properties of their parts do absolutely nothing to make *reasoning FROM* parts to a whole stop being illicit. That's still a Fallacy of Composition, despite there being cases where a whole has the properties of its parts. "I can eat every slice and I can eat the whole loaf" is not the same as "I can eat every slice *therefore* I can eat the whole loaf". The latter would make one think that, given a loaf far too big for a human to ever eat, I should still suppose I could accomplish it because each slice is edible.
Good conversation! Thanks for hosting Cameron! :)
Yet another thing I don't think Malpass has come to grips with: It's not enough to just call Hilbert's Hotel "impossible to produce ex nihilo". There needs to be a reason why its impossible, and one wonders "why do you (Malpass) think it would be impossible for God to do?" I would think the answer is because such a thing would be incoherent, and so, wholly apart from whether God can make it, we need to deal with why its incoherent.
What language are they speaking? Can't be English- nothing there I understand!
@Oners82 I thought I understood philosophy a little, but this talk proved me wrong.
"Sapere aude": Latin for 'dare to know'
It seems like the argument about “the impossibility of forming an infinite by successive addition” is useless because it begs the question by saying that the process of time moving had a beginning. The whole point about a beginningless past is that there never was a beginning, so *there has always been* an infinite number of moments that have elapsed. *There is no act of forming an infinite collection.* So the fact that one cannot jump from the past having finitely many moments to the past having infinitely many moments is a non sequitur. There never was such a time when the past has finitely many moments.
We can just imagine having a recording of the events, which has recorded everything up until the present. We take this device, tell it to stop recording, and start rewinding the film, putting everything in reverse-and just watch as the film keeps rewinding and keeps rewinding. There’s nothing incoherent about that.
I don’t know about the grim reaper paradox though haha
While I am partial to agreement with Dr. Malpass, I really enjoyed this and appreciate both of them both taking the time to have the discussion and Cameron for organizing it. Well done.
For Craig's first Hilbert Hotel example, he's saying an absurdity would arise if (1) someone asked to get a spare room. (2) Hilbert then individually asks all the people in the then-full hotel to shift down a room. (3) This creates a spare room.
Wouldn't step 2 take an infinite amount of time? Craig just described them as 'real flesh and blood people' in each room, and I'd say that means shifting each would take a finite amount of time. So if his absurdity would occur after an infinite amount of time has passed, does it really ever occur?
I suspect many of Craig's own apologetics would say it does not.
Almost all scientists (regardless of whether they are Christians or not)
agree the universe began to exist.
-random fact I heard.
Much respect for both participants. It feels like they only scratched the surface, but the philosophy of infinity is really interesting, so I enjoyed it.
Cameron, just wanted to follow up on my last comment. I really do love and appreciate your videos. I didn’t intend to be so negative. Just know that your videos are excellent.
How did I missed this, great job buddy on setting this up.
Craig isn't a philosopher, he's a theologian. He's also a snake oil salesman.
He's both though.
And that, sir, is what's known as an ad hominem.
@@JohnSmith-bq6nf Oooohh, a PHD. - He's got a doctorate as well, but it doesn't make him correct. And you'd think with such academic training he would therefore understand how weak the kalam argument is. Which makes me think he is a snake oil salesman first and foremost....
@@versioncity1 That’s what we call begging the question. WLC, a philosopher, doesn’t do those
The problem with the subject of this debate is theists almost always assume that the entirety of the conversation of existence falls within the realm of our local universe...and our universe only.
Theists must narrow the conversation down to even have a chance at buttressing their arguments.
Not quite - Craig is talking about the cosmos as a whole, not just our local universe. If the issue was our local universe, then there wouldn't need to be much of a debate - our local universe definitely began to exist.
You should try to get an interview with Trent Horn.
@@TheWorldsStage that's a lie.
Solid vid: keep up the good work! Nice to see WLC again!
Via Dr. Craig's argument @32:21: He says that it would be a heavy burden of proof to show that it is impossible to have a world that has a beginning and no end. What would that burden even look like? How would one even go about showing that such a world is impossible (if not by arguments that Dr. Malpass uses). Intuition? Can we even have an intuition about possible worlds?
I am not well-versed in these arguments, I just recently became interested in this topic, so I apologize if it is obvious or just a stupid question, but here it is:
If both things are true, that an actual metaphysical infinite is impossible and that it is also impossible to get an infinite by successive addition, then what is heaven supposed to be? I know that Dr. Craig has said before that God was timeless sans time and within time at the first moment of time, thus, he enters time (presumably losing his timeless essence? but maybe God can enter in and and exit out of time as God pleases). That means that if God wanted to, God could count from the first moment of time until infinity. Unless Dr. Craig would argue that God's omnipotence is limited to the following "God is omnipotent in the sense that God can do everything and anything within logical and metaphysical limits." If so, then could Dr. Craig be arguing that God is not omnipotent in the traditional sense (which other theologians have said before, so it wouldn't be too controversial).
Also, what would that mean for "heaven?" My understanding of the concept of heaven, is that it will be forever, meaning infinite. Will the souls of those that are saved be joining a set of timeless beings (angels) that have existed without time (some of them presumably have entered time to meet with prophets) and these souls will then be infinitely accompanied by a beings that are infinite (even if they were timeless sans creation, I have a difficult time grasping this idea of entering/exiting time and still remaining timeless).
Sorry for the long comment and I apologize if I misunderstood the arguments, since they were using technical terms that I have never heard of before.
Edit: Never mind, Dr. Craig tried to answer both of my questions later on in the Q and A portion of the video. I am not convinced by his answer for the second question (I'm sure it is partly due to my ignorance) and I have not read Dr. Pruss' book for the first question.
Since youtube ate my original comment, I'll just have to summarize here:
1. I agree with Malpass that if you have a "potentially infinite sequence" then it must be embedded in an actually infinite set. There's no other way you could guarantee the sequence is unbounded otherwise. Craig never addressed that point thoroughly.
2. There's an easy solution to the Reaper's Paradox. Just take a subsequence of the reapers and replace them with angels, with two properties:
a. P is kept alive if P is alive, P is made alive if P would be dead.
b. for any reaper, this reaper is a finite number of indexed values away from at least one angel.
Those two solve the paradox.
3. The countdown problem seems to be solved by stochastic time rather than linear time. Instead of "-3, -2, -1, done!" instead it would be something like "-348584934584, -3432049, -2929348504, -34859502029394940, 0, done!" Then the question of why it hadn't finished sooner solves itself. As Pruss notes in the Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology, randomness is an explanation.
4. The above are consistent with an Atheistic worldview of time as a sequence of randomly generated events. The issue seems to be that Theists want to describe time like an overarching story, such as a beginning / end.
5. This discussion is the least of Kalam's problems as far as I'm concerned. Premise 1 is the most trouble, and the conclusion of the argument seems to be incompatible with Christianity. Compared to those problems, these concerns are purely academic, even in the context of an academic discussion.
The thing of it is, they never really got into the meat and potatoes of the arguments - as the proposed criticisms were left unsatisfied due to time constraints.. With that said, I would have preferred to see a complete presentation on each contending view along with an exhaustive defense - otherwise, the arguments prove cannot prove sufficient for onlookers.
Has anyone presented that response to the Grim Reaper Paradox in the literature before? Seems sort of obvious in hindsight.
I don't know, but that's not the only solution to the paradox either. It's just a solution that an Atheist would prefer due to a cyclic model of continuously changing causes / effects. A Classical Theist who rejects a Kalam model of infinites, who instead thinks that God exists for an infinite amount of metaphysical time (indeed is the basis for such time, due to its own immutability) would prefer a solution like this:
Let G be a particular P with the rule that G never switches from alive to dead for any reaper. Then for any reaper, G is always alive and the paradox shuts down that way as well.
There was a third solution for a different philosophical disposition I came up with, but I forgot it. I was on the Capturing Christianity Facebook group months ago discussing this Rasmussen and all he had to say was that my generalization of the Reaper Paradox and the solutions I presented were "clarifying and helpful". But he didn't tell me if they corresponded to something already written.
It seems like they're engaging different definitions of "infinity". One is a line that is assumed to stretch endlessly, and another is a line ending at a point we can never reach but is assumed to exist. The fact that WLC presents himself as a presentist doesn't particularly surprise me given that it coincides with his belief that he (or at least his consciousness) is immortal.
Cameron, loved it, but why do you keep referring to Alex as "Alex" but Dr. Craig as "Craig"? Please, either "Bill" or "Dr. Craig" -- it's like nails on a chalkboard ... :)
This was a wonderful conversation on such a very narrow subject. Kalam argument is really an interesting topic for study.
woohooo! Dr. William Lane Craig FTW! Thanks Capturing Christianity for hosting this!
In order to have infinity you either need infinite time or infinite space. And according to Einstein its one thing- space time fabric. This is also known to have the beginning via big bang. So its ridiculous to argue if universe begin to exist. It did. The problem is that if time began to exist how the cause for it happened since nothing can happen outside of temporal dimension. So it could happen in other temporal dimension that caused this universe to exist. Could this happen infinitely ? How could we plumb that mistery. I just dont see why not.
Research intrinsic vs extrinsic change in philosophy.
Maybe I'm missing something, but why doesn't Craig's finite past also apply to God?
Thanks for hosting Cameron, good discussion.
William Lane Craig takes the position (and is the majority held position by most theists) that God is atemporal, meaning he exists outside of time, so he doesn’t exist “infinitely into the past,” but out of time altogether, (and furthermore would be the explanation as to why temporal time exists.) if you want more information on this I can link some resources!
See Feser’s first debate with Oppy.
@@RadicOmega cool thanks, yes please! My first thought is that God may then require his own 'time' otherwise he would be changeless unable to preform an action. If that may be the case, I'd then ask would Gods' time of had a finite start.
@@RadicOmega Nooooo absolutely not. Craig holds the position that God exists in time. God existed atemporally "prior" to His creation of time, but once God created time He entered into it.
God exists timelessly without (not prior) to the universe, he doesn't endure through infinite time. Craig understands time to be a sequence of events.
I'm still smarting from Bertuzzi hand waving what I thought were some pretty cogent skeptical arguments as "uninteresting" back when he used to post on Dr. Craig's "Reasonable Faith" Forum. But, oh well...Anyway, wow! He has Dr. Craig on his show now. I begrudgingly offer my congrats on the success of "Capturing Christianity."
42:35 Why does Dr. Craig (a presentist) believe that past events, although they do not exist (presently), can form an actual infinite because they have been instantiated, and yet future events, although they also do not exist (presently), cannot form an actual infinite- even though they will be instantiated? It appears that Dr. Craig is double dipping: he says that past events don’t exist, but he appealed to them “having been” instantiated in the past as a reason to say they can form an actual infinite. Why does “having existed in the past” mean actual, but “will exist in the future” means potential, if neither past or future exist presently?
Edit: I think it is bad to use the terminology “actual” and “potential” in this context that is different than metaphysical actuality and potentiality as introduced by Aristotle
I think you're making a good point. Here are my thoughts:
It seems that the past is a list of events. These events don't exist. They are like abstract objects. Such a list could be infinite, in the same way that Craig believes the list of God's beliefs about the eternal future is infinite. But in both cases, none of the items in the list actually exists; it's simply useful to make statements about them, because such statements can correspond to reality. For example, the statement "God knows that tomorrow will be amazing" doesn't imply that tomorrow already exists. But if tomorrow ends up being amazing, then our statement corresponds to reality. Similarly, saying "The universe is 6,000 years old" doesn't imply that all those years still exist. But since modern science has practically refuted that statement, we can safely say that such a statement does not correspond to reality.
The issue is that an infinite list cannot be created by successive addition, even if the list contains only non-existent objects. So God, if he exists, could not count from zero to infinity (or from negative infinity to zero). Similarly, on a presentist view of time, the collection of past events has been created by successive addition. To do this, you have to pass through a unique 2nd-to-last item in the collection. But an infinite list does not have a unique 2nd-to-last item, since infinity minus 1 is infinity! In other words, the last event (the "infinity-th" event) is the same as the 2nd-to-last event (the "infinity-minus-one-th" event), since infinity and infinity minus one are the same number, and therefore would necessarily refer to the same event.
So I think, even if an actually infinite list of things can exist, and even if your point goes through, the list of past events cannot be infinite. I'd love to hear your thoughts on this.
You have misunderstood his argument-but he could have been more clear. Craig DOESNT believe the past can contain an ACTUAL infinite number of instantiated past events. Moreover he believes it IS possible that something that came into being a finite time ago can go in a “later than” future direction towards a POTENTIAL infinite.
@@mattb7069 Its obvious the futuret can go on forever but never reach an actual infinite, you cant have an infinite number of past events or traverse an actual infinite. I dont think Alex has a case
I'm presently, and delightfully surprised to see WLC doing an online discussion like this! Thanks Cam for making stuff like this happen!
The Copenhagen interpretation certainly isn't absurd. Besides, the free will theorem excludes the possibility of compatibilist free will, which is what Craig views commit him to even if he says otherwise, so to keep free will Craig would have to accept an indeterministic interpretation of QM like Copenhagen.
Craig is compatibilist regarding free will? I thought he is libertarian.
@@richardgamrat1944 Well, he says he's a libertarian, but I think all of his other views commit him to compatibilism. If you combine substance dualism and deterministic quantum mechanics (both his positions) I don't see how you can be a libertarian. Plus the free will theorem removes compatibilism so he'd have to adopt an indeterministic interpretation of QM, so he'd have to give up his substance dualism as well and become an idealist.
@@TheBrunarr I am not very well versed in philosophy, can you please elaborate why substance dualism leads to compatibilism/isnt compatible with libertarian free will?
@@richardgamrat1944 Sure, well substance dualism posits the reality of the physical in that is posits the existence of a physical substance and a mental substance. Since Craig holds to a deterministic interpretation of QM, our bodies, which are physical, are subject to determinism. A compatibilist would say that free will is compatible with external causal determinism, and would reject the principle of alternative possibilities, which is a principle of libertarian free will which says that we have ability to do otherwise in a given situation, which Craig explicitly rejects! Craig even says "So the compatibilist does think that free choice is compatible with our choices’ being causally determined by external factors, in contrast to libertarians like me." But his adherence to the reality of the physical and a deterministic interpretation of QM exactly commits him to the position he says he denies. Plus there are problems with substance dualism like the interaction problem and causal closure. The only way he can maintain free will is to adopt an indeterministic interpretation of QM. I can explain further if needed.
@@counteringchristianity9109 Only hard libertarianism says things like our desires, our character, etc are not determined. Soft libertarianism is the position closest to a true free will, since "free will" specifically is talking about the "will" and not meta aspects like character, desires, our past, our genes, etc. As long as things are determined by the choices of agents we can have libertarian free will.
It's so funny to me that Malpass doesn't notice how his acceptance that the future perfect of an infinite series cannot be the case completely validates finitism about the past, because the present _is_ the future perfect (the sort of "looking back point") for the entire, completed set of past events. As of the present moment, the entire past series *has elapsed*. And so, even if the future simple form for an infinite series could hold, agreeing the future perfect form cannot gives the past-finitist all she needs.
That is a good point, I hadn't thought of that before.
I whipped up a quick syllogism that could be used to show this point:
1) It is not possible for a temporal moment to occur after an actually infinite number of consecutive temporal moments that precede it.
2) If the past were eternal, then the present day would be a temporal moment that is occurring after an actually infinite number of consecutive temporal moments that precede it.
3) Therefore, an eternal past is impossible.
This is something I want to think more about since I have already discovered some really weird conclusions that follow from denying premise 1, such as the fact that if the past were eternal you could not know whether a day existed an actually infinite number of days ago, even though people who defend the possibility of a beginning less past will claim that a beginning less past does not involve a day existing an infinite amount of time ago.
How can I understand the potential infinite future/ marbles but the guy with a doctorate can’t?!?
Because Alex's marbles weren't analogous and Craig's example of the marble appearing out of thin air before being dropped into the jar was.
Rick Gardner that’s what I thought too but then realized its more likely I don’t understand what he is saying since he is the one with the doctorate!
I think Alex understands Craig but believes that Craig is wrong.
If the future is endless, then the future is a collection of infinitely many moments that will pass. However, the collection of moments that have already passed at any moment will always have finitely many members, and it will grow as time progresses. But that is not the future- that is the past relative to moments in the future. You can call that a potential infinite collection if you want, but that sounds confusing to me because it is neither infinite in size nor possibly (potentially) infinite.
I enjoyed this debate. However, I don't think it clearly defined the primary question until the Q&A at the end. I think Bill's position is that, since the universe (time & space) had a beginning there must have been a beginner. Alex is saying maybe not, the universe may have always existed. I would like to hear more about Bill's understanding of time before the beginning of space & time. Was there duration with one event transpiring after another? Is reality eternal in the past?
CC really interrupts Alex a lot in the middle of his thoughts, and with unnecessary interjections.
moderating a discussion is difficult, and I think he was merely trying to make an attempt to be fair to a participant who was participating in an environment of christians who disagree with him. For example by referencing readers to his works for further clarification, giving Malpass the last words, and just trying to clarify Malpass arguments to the viewers. Yeah it was unnecessary at times, but it was in good faith I think.
@@jacobleaver2450 I wasn't implying it was in bad faith.
@@cloudoftime i didnt say you were
@@jacobleaver2450 I didn't say you said I did.
@@cloudoftime yo yo yo yo bro. Watch it. I didnt say you didnt say I didnt say that
Craig is misunderstanding/misinterpreting the concept of infinity. It is not a number - it is a concept. Hilbert's example is meant to illustrate this fact - that we cannot comprehend infinity as a number. That is the essence of the paradox.
Please watch the video and pay close attention to the terms being used on each side of the argument.
Wow, this is just really fantastic! This may be the first time I've seen a discussion on the kalam cosmological argument that reached any real depth. So refreshing!
Aaron Johnson
The Kalam argument was refuted many years ago
@@rationalsceptic7634
Hmm, I'm not sure I can agree with you on that. However, I'd love to read the article/book that refuted it. A philosophical or scientific breakthrough, such that it could refute one of the premises of the kalam, would certainly make some big waves in its respective field. Can you give a link?
Aaron Johnson
ruclips.net/video/M1c_GlAjvy4/видео.html
ruclips.net/video/M1c_GlAjvy4/видео.html
ruclips.net/video/crk0KAnp5FQ/видео.html
ruclips.net/video/rak2YVNR1gI/видео.html
@@rationalsceptic7634 If I understand the criticisms of these videos (specifically related to the Kalam) they are as follows:
1) While it may seem incredible that the things come into being uncaused from nothing, that is what the evidence shows.
2) Dr. Guth (of the BGV theorem) thinks that the universe is eternal.
3) The Kalam relies on an A-theory of time. But certain features of tiny particles act in such a way that, if A-theory were true, at least one particle would have to exist and not exist from different frames of reference. This would make A-theory false, making the Kalam false. Dr. Craig rejects this interpretation of quantum mechanics because he believes that God has a privileged frame of reference, thus avoiding the force of the particle experiments. However, since he is appealing to God to support a premise of the argument, he is assuming the conclusion that needs to be proved.
Is there anything I missed?
Sort of I guess. In depth? They discussed 1 part of 1 premise... And came nowhere near ant conclusion.
General Relativity is our working model of the cosmos, although it is problematic. Gamow and Lemaitre, way back in the 1950s, ran the equations backwards, and they arrived at a finding that before the rapid expansion of the Universe, there was a state we now call the Singularity: not very dense, hot and small, but infinitely hot, dense and small (“curved”) , a geometric point. That “singularity” is in like anything we know. In fact we cannot know about it. It is a limit to our understanding. What William Lane Craig wants to oreted is that he can know not only the Singularity but the “Realm” in which it exists.
He claims he can do so on the basis of metaphysical “necessity”. Yet one could never check to see if that claim is true.
Many years ago after reading the KCA, it occurred to me that a similar argument could be made against the possibility of an omniscient being. There are various interpretations of "omniscience", but philosophers and theologians seem in agreement that whatever else omniscience includes, it must at the very least include knowing all true propositions. The problem of course then becomes instantly apparent, because the number of true propositions constitutes an actual infinite. Consider for example that for any number "N", it must be the case that N either is or is not a prime number. How many propositions of this sort must God know about N? An actual infinite number of them. But if the concept of an actual infinite is either unintelligible or incoherent, then so too is the concept of an omniscient being.
@Bohrmaschine You're confusing omniscience with omnipotence.
*The problem of course then becomes instantly apparent, because the number of true propositions constitutes an actual infinite.*
How did you come to that conclusion?
Propositions are not concrete. They are abstract. Bad argument.
@@JM-jj3eg Whatever else we might want to opine about what constitutes knowledge, it should be clear that, "7 is prime" and "4 is not prime", etc., etc., are quite separate and distinct propositions, the truth of which a being must know in order to be omniscient. All we need to ask then, is how many of these propositions must an omniscient being know? The answer of course is, "infinitely many", and that's what gets us into hot water if we admit that the notion of a completed infinite is either unintelligible or incoherent, as Craig argues. By the way, this problem is by no means specific to theism; mathematicians like Abraham Fraenkel freely concede that the very concept of an infinite totality has been shown to be deeply problematic, even in the abstract realm of set theory. It is for this reason that Fraenkel argues that the existence of infinite sets must be asserted axiomatically, because every attempt to prove their existence has only led to contradictions and antinomies.
@@hudjahulos It's easy to demonstrate. I've done so in my opening post.
Sooooo looking forward to this one!
If an actual infinite cannot exist, does that mean that God isn’t infinite?
ruclips.net/video/s6jiKd5iphQ/видео.html
The Kalam proponents make a lot of claims about what god is not for no apparent reason.
@@goldenalt3166 That's not a problem for theists. A lot of what we know about God involves apophatic (negative) theology - knowing what God is not. However, the alpha privative doesn't entail an ontological privation. Saying that God is atemporal, immaterial, etc...doesn't mean he is bereft of some capacity or is 'lacking' something. It means he is not limited by any aspects of contingency.
Quantitative vs qualitative infinity
@@coolmuso6108 Sure it does. It deprives him of the act of existing, loving, caring, interacting, etc. And it doesn't follow from the argument either.
I want to make sure I have this correct:
I think there is a difference between the truth preserving instances of the fallacy of composition and the use of it to justify a position. Even if it preserve the truth, the fallacy don´t justify believing in that truth. It has to be believed through other reasoning. Given the unreliability of the fallacy to aim at truth, we should not use it for that.
Craig comes prepared...
I have a very (very) limited understanding of phliosphy but feel there is a trend with how WLC argues. He likes to (use a scenario) or set up a scenario and add a set of constraits to this then he points out that you are unable to get past his scenario and therefore he has proven X Y or Z. Take the famous grimreaper scenario. Yes it makes sense that you could keep introducing a new reaper by adding one half the time before the previous one and this would have no end. However , you also cant stop the movement of time . 12 am will always become 12.05 and the same amount of time will pass always between these two times no matter how you try to represent it (spliting the second down does not stop time from ticking on and it time ended or changed then this would defeat the concept of the arguement). WLC could argue the same point using a small cake scenario "if you had a small cake with a magical pixie sat on the plate who keeps slicing the current slice of a cake in half , you would never finish the cake if you ate it a slice at a time". Again this scenario is very structered and biased to end with a certain conclusion. The pixie replaces slicing the cake just replaces the reapers slicing time. Like you can't stop time you couldn't stop a person from picking up the plate and dropping the whole cake into thier mouth whilst the pixie is slicing it, thus eating the cake so there is no cake left to slice in half (like how the time will moe from 12.00 to 12.05). Yes WLC could add into his scenario that the person is not aloud to pick the cake up and must eat it at a slice at a time (like how he NEVER mentions how you cant stop time) but where does this get us it we rig the game? Setting up a scenario with such limitations does not prove anything other than that this scenario follows the path we have set up for it to follow. Its almost circular in its reasoning and we gain very little from it.
Craig says that actual infinites are impossible, due to all of the logical inconsistencies, like the Grim Reaper paradox and so on. But it seems to me that some of these inconsistencies can be applied to God as defined in the overall Kalam argument. If there was a time t0 when God made the universe, it follows that there was a time t-1 when God hadn't made the Universe. But now we fall into something akin to the Grim Reaper paradox, because there is a time t-.5 where God still hasn't made the universe, a time t-.25, t-.125 and so on to infinity.
I suspect the get-out would be some special pleading on how God experiences things. But this is to weaken the argument considerably.
Paul Harman Craig, in essence, claims that God is logically prior to t-1 but his actions are temporally simultaneous with it as he creates. So t-1 is dependent on God. God isn’t dependent on t-1.
@@LtDeadeye It's contradictory. You cannot both say God existed prior to the universe, and then say there were no events prior to the universe being created. There were at least 2 events, the universe existing and the universe not existing.
Paul Harman God, prior to his creating the universe, didn’t exist in space. He is an immaterial mind. I’m not sure that non existence qualifies as an event.
@@LtDeadeye This is the sort of special pleading I mentioned in my initial post.
Paul Harman This isn’t special pleading. God, if he exists, is by definition eternal.
Such a great discussion. All parties (including the host) did such a great job engaging cordially in this. Not sure that I caught a definition of 'metaphysical impossibility' from WLC.
I don't see how anyone could remain an atheist after listening to Craig.
@bic boi no it must be below 50 IQ to become an atheist
@bic boi wow congrats, you have won the first prize for being idiotic. I am so jealous and i am crying boo hoo
Now that was a funny exchange😆
If god is whatever caused the observable universe, then I'm not an atheist. You can Stop calling us atheists if you believe that. But if you want to argue that you know what caused the universe and what it wants you to do, you've got the whole infinite road ahead of you.
@@goldenalt3166 Strawman. God is not "whatever".
1:24:49 I thought Malpass's talk of a "partial explanation" in regards to some formulation of the PSR was helpful. 1:27:55 Why does Craig reject Malpass's statement that "she finished today because one day ago she had 86400 numbers to count" as an explanation for why she finished today instead of yesterday--- given that they have accepted only a weak, partial explanation-based PSR? WLC kind of fumbles and acts like Alex's question (Why do you think my partial explanation violates a partial explanation-requiring version of the PSR?) required him to have memorized Graham Oppy's specific formulation of the PSR 1:28:14
Craig is the GOAT
I think Malpass wants to say that finite (in the sense of eventually running out) and actually-infinite exhaust the possibilities, so that the future is *either* actually-infinite *or* it will run out.
If the future will never end then it’s actually-infinite, on Malpass’s view.
Otherwise, the future would have to be *finite* in the sense of coming to an *end.*
IF it’s not actually infinite then it will eventually end, or so the reasoning goes.
WLC wants to suggest that a “potential infinite” is in between these two options. It’s finite, but not in the sense that it will end.
Malpass doesn’t agree, but overall it seems to me that WLC had more persuasive arguments.
A series that has a starting point but no end will not reach a point of a *completed* infinity, whereas a past series that lacks any beginning will have completed infinities at *every* point.
Thank you this was very helpful.
In math, infinite is always approached, but never reached. As it is approached, the system may converge to a specific value, or else proceed in some direction infinitely. It seems odd to me to say that the past is infinite, since that implies that infinite has already been reached, as opposed to being approached. Sometimes I wonder if we have the wrong concept of "where we are" on a plot, or set, or whatever, of reality.
'whereas a past series that lacks any beginning will have completed infinities at every point'
It will have completed an infinity from what point? There is no particular point from which it has completed an infinite. There are only infinitely many points which are a finite 'distance' away back in the past. Just as there are infinitely many points which are a finite 'distance' away in the future.
@@nemdenemam9753 "It will have completed an infinity from what point? " - You misread what he said. He said that, at every point in the past (given a beginning less past) an actually infinite number of temporal moments will have already occurred. He never made any reference to a beginning of a beginning less past.
@@jackplumbridge2704 what does it mean to say 'x number of elements have occured' without a starting point?
Are you trying to argue that he is saying something analogous to 'the size of the set of integers that are lower than 2 is the same as the size of the set of integers that are lower than 3'? Where 'size' means they can be set in a one to one correspondence with each other? In that case I indeed missed the meaning but then I don't see the contradiction.
Imagine an endless count, in which Cameron is counting out the natural numbers. Obviously, he will never have finished. That is, he will never have counted out all the numbers. But it is nevertheless possible that for each natural number n, Cameron will count n. Rewording that slightly, we have:
1. For each natural number n, there will be a “counting” of n by Cameron.
From 1 it follows that
2. The number of such future “countings” = the number of natural numbers (aleph-0).
3. So aleph-0 is the number of Cameron’s future “countings”.
2 follows from 1, and 3 from 2. Since 1 is metaphysically possible, it follows that 3 is also metaphysically possible. This argument seems pretty tight to me.
So where does Craig think the argument goes wrong? Well, he says that (“on presentism”) there are no future “countings” and that their number is therefore zero. So maybe he thinks it goes off the rails at step 2.
To see just how wrong-headed this response is, consider another case featuring future countings. Suppose that (a) each of numbers one through five is such that it will be counted by Cameron, and (b) that after the count of five Cameron will never do any more counting. Now, then, ask yourself this: how many such "countings" will ever be done by Cameron? The answer, surely, is five; and not zero as Craig would have it.
The takeaway point is that even if presentism is true, we can still refer to and number events that don't yet exist but will do. Just as we can refer to and number events that have existed but no longer do.
You appear to be saying that as we encounter things they become more concrete and that this does not disprove the possibility of an actual infinity in the future. But 1 Craig never said otherwise and 2 this appears to reinforce his point. Take a date far into the future and then keep adding one to it and naming the new date as we go those dates become more concrete but they do not represent infinity because as we name them they become a new endpoint rather than an example of infinity.
In other words near as I can tell infinity is just a word we use to describe a number that we either don't want to or don't have the time to count to. I think this is different from eternity. I think of eternity as a state where time has no real application and that is why we can have an eternal future but not an infinite future.
@@davidryan8547 No, that's not what "infinity" means here. No one is saying that one could count all the way to aleph-0 (the first cardinal infinity). What I am saying is (a) that it is possible that an angel (say) will count forever; and (b) that it is therefore possible that for each natural number n the angel will count n. If you disagree with (b), you need to say why. If you accept (b), as I think you should, then I invite you to ask yourself the following question. How many different values of n are such that the angel will count n? If you answer that question correctly, you will be well on your way to understanding what I am getting at.
@@wesleymorriston2191 All i am saying is whether b is true or not it doesn't mean that actual infinity in terms of time exists. Because as you quantify it, it stops being infinite it becomes finite and when we thought of it as a piece of infinity we only did so because we hadn't yet given it another name aka quantified it.
If I am still missing what you're saying I am sorry I just don't see how saying someone can continually quantify something means that infinity as a concept logically exists....
Furthermore, the whole IDEA of an infinite universe is usually brought up as a way to explain away the fine-tuning argument. Where the atheist/agnostic will say that with an infinite amount of time and space all things are possible including a universe as seemingly fine-tuned as ours. The problem is if they are right then there are also an infinite number of objections to such IDEAS. Therefore such an IDEA would seem to defeat itself.
@@davidryan8547 I do not understand your response. If you accept (b) then you can't avoid the question I asked. How many different values of n are such that the angel (or Cameron) will count n? (The only possible answer is aleph-0.) If, on the other hand, you don't accept (b) then you need to explain why. Returning to the argument in my original post (1 - 3), it is crystal clear that Craig rejects 3. He explicitly denies that the number of events, each of which will occur, is aleph-0. So if you mean to be supporting his side of the argument, you need to explain either why you don't accept 1, or why you don't think 2 follows from 1, or why you don't think 3 follows from 2.
@@wesleymorriston2191 "How many different values of n are such that the angel (or Cameron) will count n? (The only possible answer is aleph-0)."
Let's restate your argument in plainer language. If I get it wrong then please clarify. But you appear to be saying that the angel or Cameron will count n forever and that this means infinity exists because they will count an uncountable number of numbers(Aleph-0) but isn't that a self-defeating argument because if they are counting these numbers then those numbers are not in fact uncountable are they?
Craig's reasoning only works if you "lower the bar".
And Craig definitely lowered the bar.