Rebutting "REBUTTING an atheistic documentary on the Kalam" by
Вставка
- Опубліковано 27 лип 2024
- @PhilHalper1 recently made a documentary criticizing the Kalam cosmological argument. Trent Horn (@TheCounselofTrent) claims to have 'REBUTTED' the documentary. I claim he has done no such thing.
Like the show? Help it grow! Consider becoming a patron (thanks!): / majestyofreason
If you wanna make a one-time donation or tip (thanks!): www.paypal.com/paypalme/josep...
RESOURCES
Kalam documentary: • Physicists & Philosoph...
Trent Horn's 'REBUTTAL': • REBUTTING an atheistic...
My Kalam playlist: • Some Paradoxes of Infi...
Malpass, A. and Morriston, W. 2020. “Endless and Infinite”, The Philosophical Quarterly. Link: drive.google.com/file/d/15XuA...
Malpass, A. 2021. “All the time in the world”, Mind. Link: drive.google.com/file/d/1z07W...
Malpass, "Craig's Five Point Response: A Response": useofreason.wordpress.com/202...
Malpass, "The Paradox of Dry Eternity": useofreason.wordpress.com/202...
My review of the Horn-Watkins debate on @CapturingChristianity: • Has Trent Horn Disprov...
My video with Malpass on Hilbert's Hotel: • Hilbert’s Hotel and Cr...
My video with Malpass on the endless future problem for the GRP: • The Endless Future and...
Malpass, Hedrick, and Morriston video on the Craig-Malpass debate on @thoughtology7732: • Episode 16, Wes Morris...
My website: www.josephschmid.com
NOTE: At 2:45:55, I say that an infinite intensive magnitude [e.g., infinite temperature or pressure] is an actual infinite despite not being a collection of definite and discrete elements whose cardinality is aleph-null [or, more technically and precisely, any transfinite cardinal number]. However, earlier in the video I had defined actual infinite as just such a collection. So, this note is a clarification that resolves this apparent conflict, and I apologize for the unclarity in this regard. A clarification could come in one of two ways, and I'm fine with either: first, we could say that an actual infinite is more precisely defined disjunctively as either infinite number of things [and so a collection of definite and discrete elements etc.] OR an infinite *quantity*. Second, if we instead leave the definition of 'actual infinite' unchanged, we could modify my claim that 'an infinite intensive magnitude is an actual infinite' to the claim that 'an infinite intensive magnitude is still a concretely realized infinity, and it, too, will possess (at least many of) the problematic aspects of infinity that people like Craig adduce.' Note that nothing of substance in my point in the video would be lost on either clarification, and so my original point stands.
Lmaooooo hahahaha I think everyone knew that Joe would make a 3 month long reply to Trent 😂😂
@Oners82 whoosh
@Oners82 time is relative !
I really appreciate your thorough breakdown of these subjects, after watching your videos for a while I am definitely beginning to understand some of these words 💚
Lmao
I'm doing well, thanks for asking. I feel like a lot of the objections apologists make regarding infinities also apply to zero, but we're used to operating in a paradigm that includes zero so it seems more intuitive. Zero isn't a number, it's simply a consequence of the arithmetic law of identity. If we were taught in grade school that any number added to an infinite set of numbers will result in the same infinite set of numbers, it would resolve a lot of the unintuitive nature of infinities. (and probably change a lot of playground taunts)
Hey Joe, what is your preferred view(s) of mathematical realism (I understand you lean towards it)? And which books, articles or authors have best defended it (or a view similar to it)?
Kenny Boyce and I cover some helpful book recommendations in my video with him; and other great places to go are SEP, IEP, and Philosophy Compass
So glad you make the time to make this video. I was thinking of writing a response in the comments below Trent's video, but now I only need refer him here.
Appreciate all you do :)
Much love ❤️
That was a MAJESTIC response, Joseph! 😉
I was honestly surprised and pleased to see that you decided to respond to Trent's critique, Joe!
Good job as per usual.
I wonder if a modified version of the Hilbert's hotel thought experiment could provide reason against thinking the rejection of the metaphysical possibility of actual infinites is actually a good explanation of anyone's intuitions about Hilbert's hotel. For example, consider the following thought experiment:
"Consider a hotel with infinitely many rooms which is fully occupied by infinitely many guests. Suppose they are expecting a new guest to arrive in some time. Rather than move any of the guests, though, the hotel owner builds a new room in the hotel prior to the arrival of the new guest so the new guest can now be accommodated."
The scenario above seems conceivable, perhaps even benign. However, many of the features that were supposedly problematic about the original thought experiment also apply to this new thought experiment. The hotel had the same number of rooms and guests before and after the construction of the new room, but the hotel was fully occupied beforehand and fails to be fully occupied afterwards. The person who rejects the possibility of actual infinites as a result of considerations regarding the original Hilbert's hotel thought experiment needs to also provide an explanation of what the difference is between apparently benign and apparently problematic scenarios involving Hilbert's hotel. Finitism alone doesn't provide them with the resources to explain these intuitions, and yet it seems that any conceptual resources that could be invoked to explain the difference between the two kinds of scenarios could also be invoked to reveal that the original thought experiment was unproblematic all along. In any case, the conclusion that actual infinites are absurd is unmotivated.
What are your thoughts on this response to Hilbert's hotel arguments against actual infinites?
Thanks for this! :)
I think this is fascinating, and I want to reflect on it further. I suspect that they will reject your characterization of the scenario as benign; they will probably say, instead, that -- precisely because this scenario of yours shares lots of those [allegedly] problematic features with the original HH scenario, your scenario isn't benign but is just as problematic
@@MajestyofReason Thanks for the reply.
My impression has been that they find something particularly counterintuitive about the idea that a rearrangement of the guests in a hotel could yield a vacancy that wasn't there before and that this thing they find counterintuitive isn't shared by the modified version I laid out. It's in that case that I would ask what precisely that would be. The inductive support we receive from finitely-sized hotels might be interesting in its own right, but probably not as compelling of a reason as they might hope it is. But any answer that doesn't merely draw inductive support from our experience with finitely-sized hotels will plausibly have to invoke the conceptual resources that, in the end, make the rest of the paradox unproblematic.
If they actually don't believe this, though, then it would seem that the HH paradox would be completely reducible to a problem with the idea that the difference between two infinite sets can yield a set of infinite, finite, or zero cardinality depending on the membership of the sets involved and the use of a hotel to illustrate this point isn't doing any heavy lifting, as it were. If that's the case, then it becomes difficult to see how HH is supposed to show the metaphysical absurdity of that notion independently of showing that it is also logically or conceptually absurd.
This is such an underrated channel. Keep it up man =)
Much love❤️
bro youre the gift that keeps on giving
You should start these feature-lengths films with the old skool 70s "our feature presentation" logo.
Will you request Dr Alexander Pruss for a WRITTEN discussion for this channel ?
I think Pruss Will agree for a written discussion
Perhaps! Maybe some time after my graduation when I’ll have more time
@@MajestyofReason fantastic:)
Hi Joe, I hope you read this.
Might an objection to your “destroyer” example with the Hilbert Hotel not be something like that the floors/rooms of the Hotel are ontologically/causally prior to the Hotel as whole?
They might solve the “problem” by saying that such a Hotel can’t presently exist in the first place. It must have be built first, and that could be done in an infinite amount of time, which would be logically possible when time extends infinitely into the past.
0:30 Thanks for asking, I am doing bad today, I feel old and everytime I wash the dishes more dishes get dirty again!
That’s just baseline humanity. The dishes never stop
@@HumblyQuestioning I have thought about making a "Day in the life of a Philosophy of Religion Bayesian" video as a joke and update on all sorts of things like doing the dishes and their LR's on theism:atheism etc
@@DigitalGnosis ahahaha plz do that
I appreciate your work. I pray for your prosperity and growth brother
can you pray for people who are starving instead.
@@HarryNicNicholas I do both. Ain't no limit to who a man should pray for.
Just bought Graham Oppy’s book on infinity. I’ve skimmed through it, but I’m excited to go into more detail!
❤️
I downloaded most of Dr Oppy's books from Z library you can download ALL books by Oppy,Josh,Pruss,koons,WLC,etc etc for free from Z library also
@@Hello-vz1md Nice, I'll have to check it out. I wanted the physical book for infinity because it fits nicely on my bookshelf next to my mathematics texts. Also, I want to fill the pages with sticky notes and highlighted quotes.
@@JM-us3fr Also the physical Oppy book can sit on top of the physical Craig books FTW
Were you directly or indirectly involved in the making of the original ''documentary''?
Nope
I hope physicalism is true only so we can clone Joe's brain for future usage
Joe, I appreciate the video! One minor nit, when you're talking about the failure of the Craig's attempt at symmetry breaking by treating future different from past, you repeatedly say something like "the number of future events is clearly aleph null". I think a better way to say this is that "the number of future events is clearly at least countably infinite". This leaves the door open for uncountably many future events, which for example is the case if all events are subdividable into a countably infinite events. Most real events are at least significantly subdividable (e.g. there are atomic events that happen as subcomponents of any macro event), and while quantum mechanics suggest this division terminates at some point, it is possible that it is only our perception that terminates, and events themselves are infinitely subdivideable (in which case future events, and indeed even present events, are probably the cardinality of the continuum).
Excellent! You’re correct in one sense - that if events are subdividable in that manner, then the cardinality of future events is greater than aleph null. But the reason why I stick with what I said in the video is that Craig et al simply couldn’t grant that events are fine-grained in this manner, since that would imply an actual infinite. (And this is true entirely apart from considerations about the past and future.) So I wanted to grant him that events aren’t subdivided in that manner
@@MajestyofReason I personally don't find an actual infinite to be problematic, indeed one could argue that God, if actual, is necessarily actually infinite, and thus the theist has to grant at least one actual infinite. And it seems likely unreasonable to expect a priori that a God with potentially infinite actions would necessarily actualize only a finite number of them, which makes the likelihood of subordinate actual infinities greater than 0.
@33:30 I'm not sure if Alex addresses this, but couldn't the Christian grant Alex's point, even if for the sake of argument, and say,
"Yes, the there will be an end to all future events, and the future will be finite. However, in that last eternal moment, we will experience an eternity of bliss".
To unpack, here is an illustration. There was once a monk who asked God for a taste of heaven's bliss. God sent him a song bird and it sang for 3 minutes the sweetest of songs. He returned back to the monastery. But he recognized no one. And no one knew him. They searched the archives and it told of a monk who disappeared over 200 years ago. While his experience of the song bird felt like 3 minutes, It took place in the span of 200 years.
Maybe, our afterlife will be as the same as God is alleged to have under Ryan Mullins and Richard Swinburne's model. God resided in an eternal present, which was without metric. Maybe we could have an eternal peace with God that will be a blissful eternal now, with an eternity of happiness packed into one moment as the monk has 200 years of happiness packed into what felt like 3 minutes.
Excellent question. Check out my response to another person in this comment section named “Caleb P”, since Caleb asks a similar question🙂
Thanks Joe, I'll have to mull these replies over, and while there might be some dialectical context I'm missing, I think there are plausible responses to the ones given to Caleb at this moment.
"(1) Christianity entails the resurrection of the body. But bodies seem essentially temporal - to have a body is to have something that undergoes succession as it changes in various ways (Eg, as one moves one’s arms or legs). And so we couldn’t be timeless in heaven."
I don't think that our bodies need to undergo succession in order for our minds to have a particular sort of perception. After all, in the beautific vision, we are able to have a perception of God we currently lack, and he is counted d as timeless by many in the theistic tradition. I also don't see why God couldn't immobilize our bodies from further succession, while
we are maintaining an amorphous sort of experience.
"(2) second, if there actually can be material timeless things capable of standing in causal relations (as would be the case if we were timeless in heaven), then the Kalam’s inference to God seems undercut; for then it seems plausible that there could (in principle, as a live epistemic possibility) be a timeless material cause that produced temporal material reality."
I could grant that, but the issue is that a purely material body would still necessitate its effect (if it was a non-agent). Whereas an agent cause does not and would prevent further issue of an eternally existing material body necessitating the universe.
"(3) it seems deeply counter-intuitive, if not potentially contradictory, or I say that a temporal thing could become timeless or transition to a state of timelessness; for then it would seem to be true, of one in one’s timeless state, that one was or used to be temporal; but then something timeless stands in a temporal relation with something temporal, which isn’t possible."
I'm not sure what is problematic about bodies coming to an permeant freeze when they're raised (of even gradually), and the minds they interact with are, in that moment, perceiving and infinite moment of peace. After all, the monk's soul was still interacting with - what I imagine - was his body standing at a near still for 200 years, and yet he perceived a song playing for all of 3 minutes.
"(And also, defenders of the Kalam seem to be being inconsistent if they reject actual cases of Cantor’s property based on their intuition while accepting the by-my-lights-at-least profoundly counter-intuitive view that something temporal could become timeless. But note that I am happy to admit that none of these considerations are decisive, and that there may be room for reasonable disagreement here"
I agree here, which is why I'm not fond of merely playing on intuitions, I'm much more sympathetic with Pruss's line of thought where given the existence of various paradoxes arising over infinite numbers, it just might be better to conclude that actual infinites don't exist, and I just think that the causal explaination is a lot better. But I'm still agnostic on that question, which is why I usually don't make Kalam arguments.
Boy, Trent totally flew over your head, didn't he..
Yes he did.... Smh
You should respond to his criticisms of the documentary involving the first premise pretty please!
25:55
I know I'm late, but I still don't get the whole actual vs potential distinction. Or at least the furious insistence on the distinction. Doesn't the acceptance of potential infinities (as stated) make you necessarily accept actual infinity? Because if one defines potential infinity as a collection, which is at all times finite, but always increasing, another may simply ask "And how big is _the number of increases_ of this collection?" What I mean by that is that if some collection grows with time and is finite at each point, then you can measure the size of this collection every time it grows and create a collection of this measurements. One can't say that this collection is finite, because that would either make this potential infinite not even a potential infinite, but only a finite collection; or that would mean that it's an actual infinite, because at least the last measure should be greater then any finite amount to avoid previous case. However, one also can't say that this collection is infinite, because that would make this collection an actual infinity ("So how many increases there _will be_ ?")
And any actual infinity can be thought of as a limit of a potential infinity, which makes them one and the same.
Am I missing something? I don't get the whole division of infinities into actual and potential ones.
Really great video joe, just so much content
Are you going to comment on Craig’s responses to the documentary? The first of four podcast episodes came out recently.
Maybe; maybe not. We'll see!
@@MajestyofReason just do it!
@@MajestyofReason maybe you could include those in your kalam series with RR
I can't find the podcasts
Anyone please give me the link
@@Hello-vz1md search for reasonable faith on Spotify. It’s the latest one (but there are 3 other episodes still to be released)
Matt Dillahunty : Kalam is a stupid argument
Joe Schmid : I'm not convinced
Give Joe another 35 years of this.
You have to try _a lot_ harder than Craig to make it not stupid.
@@w4rsh1p And then he will convert? I don't get it
That moment nothing makes sense and then you realize you've only been using the audio and there's been a slide show the whole time
I think something's wrong with me. I've watched this at 1x speed for 3 hours yet I think that some movies are long and not worth watching if above 2 hours. Also, you really made me laugh at 45:10 , Joe! haha
I wish all these didn't boil down to intuition. The strength of the Kalam is definitely intuition. Some will say follow your intuitions except there is good reason to deny it.
It seems that they are confusing the "size is infinite" with "infinity" being its identity.
@Oners82 what is? Size not being equal to identity?
7:50 I think Trents interpretation here is plausible in a sense, though I would want to press into that a little bit more.
Though the Kalam proposes to give standalone premises for Gods existence I would say that the Abrahmic monotheistic theologies have clearly motivated the train of thought that undergirds the Kalam. These Abrahmac traditions all contain some commitment to an origin myth of creation by the deity. When we take a methodologically naturalist approach to philosophy of religion and investigate these arguments and the dialogical contexts they're situated within I think that we should consider the theological origin stories Christianity provides as analogous to the Lao Shu turtle (and so on) at least with respect to the fact that these origin stories play a foundational part in human religions and cultural narratives.
Surely Trent wouldn't deny that the Christian origin story is an origin story? The Christian origin story is in the set of all origin stories which, as you pointed out, are simply being used as a kind of explanandum, providing some context to viewers that the video is taking a methodologically naturalist approach and then saying something to the effect of: "here's some compelling storytelling about the salient features of religions that we're going to explore an aspect of in this video."
Trents disatisfaction with this seems to be that the truth of Christianity isn't being assumed here. Christianity isn't being put on a pedestal and given a privileged position by the documentaries creators (as it usually is in western Philosophy of Religion contexts.) While this might be slightly uncharitable of me to say (Joe is a better man than me) I will leave it up to viewers/readers to decide why that might be unsettling to a committed Christian, viz. that people take a methodologically naturalist approach to phil of religion and don't specifically privilege their conclusions as more plausible than the conclusions of other non-western theologies...
> Surely
don't call me Shirley
> Surely Trent wouldn't deny that the Christian origin story is an origin story?
Of course he would deny it - it's not a story. It's the
*TRUTH®©℠™*
the only *TRUTH®©℠™*
and the complete *TRUTH®©℠™*
*TRUTH®©℠™* with CAPITAL TEE, CAPITAL R, CAPITAL U, CAPITAL T AND CAPITAL H
yell it from the mountaintops,
KALAM IS THE *TRUTH®©℠™* because
*JESUS is THE TRUTH®©℠™*
That's a lot of words to say "I'm committing the genetic fallacy". It's also a complete red herring.
The Kalam isn't an argument for the existence of the Christian God per se. Trent's personal adherence to Christianity is irrelevant.
If the Kalam is sound, then all non-monotheistic religious are false period. It's not a case "privileging] their conclusions as more plausible than the conclusions of other non-western theologies." It follows logically and necessarily from the conclusion that Eastern Polytheistic religions are false.
I love Trent’s work, but I had a feeling when I watched many of the assertions in this video were dubious, but I couldn’t put my finger on it. Thank you for all the work to put this video together, teasing out all the nuances in this area, and not simply relying on intuition. I’m a theist but I’m not going to give up mathematical realism to keep the Kalam
Why would it be that you'd be giving up mathematical realism for the Kalam argument?
I'm doing great Joe! Thanks for asking
Keep searching, God bless ✝️❤️🔥🙏🏽
One time I saw Homer eat an infinite amount of doughnuts on the Simpsons, I dont know how he finished them all but he did.
Joe, if you consider events that actually happend, there's an obvious symetry breaker between the future and the past right? The word "actual" used to describe actual infinites seem irrelevant to me.
cumulating some quantity over time is problematic in the past because of what it entails materialy (having an infinite collection in front of you), whereas in the future you can never really transpose the metaphysical actual infinite into a material hilbert hotel, because this would entail that some form of actual infinite already exists materially, and that's a much stronger notion
Thanks for the comment my dude! :)
You say: “Joe, if you consider events that actually happend, there's an obvious symetry breaker between the future and the past right? The word "actual" used to describe actual infinites seem irrelevant to me.”
That isn’t by itself a symmetry breaker. For we can equally consider events that actually *will* happen. All we’ve done is switch your simple past tense ‘happened’ with the simple future tense ‘will happen’. Nothing here implies that we have a relevant difference between the pst and future; in fact, we’ve simply re-stated the difference between the past and future (namely, one happened, the other will happen). And so we don’t have a relevant difference that could account for why one collection cannot be infinite while the other can.
Second, even if this counted as a symmetry breaker, we still have the result that the collection of future events, if the future is endless, instantiates all the allegedly ‘absurd’ properties that HH was alleged to possess. [Cf. the video for justification :) ] And so an endless future is still problematic *even if* you’ve pinpointed a symmetry breaker.
Next you say: “cumulating some quantity over time is problematic in the past because of what it entails materialy (having an infinite collection in front of you), whereas in the future you can never really transpose the metaphysical actual infinite into a material hilbert hotel, because this would entail that some form of actual infinite already exists materially, and that's a much stronger notion”
Importantly, though - later on in the video - I pointed out that the same is true of the endless future. In particular, if we focus on *destroying* a HH room on each day of the endless future, this *does* entail, materially, a HH in the present. And so if a beginningless past problematically implies the possibility of a material HH in the present by dint of the possibility of *constructing* a room per day of the beginningless past, the endless future likewise problematically implies the possibility of a material HH in the present by dint of the possibility of *destroying* a room per day of the endless future.
Second, it is *also* true of cumulating some quantity over time in a beginningless past that ‘some form of actual infinite already exists materially’ - indeed, on every single day of the past, you will have an infinite collection in front of you. You never make a transition from a finite quantity to an infinite quantity. And so it is untrue that an endless future results in a much stronger notion than a beginningless past in this regard - both result in the same thing (already having an infinite collection in front of one).
@@MajestyofReason
You're really kind to answer my posts, thanks a lot.
You said: "Second, even if this counted as a symmetry breaker, we still have the result that the collection of future events, if the future is endless, instantiates all the allegedly ‘absurd’ properties that HH was alleged to possess."
I agree with this, the "metaphysical absurdities" of the HH always seemed to me a weak argument to begin with
Regarding this: " In particular, if we focus on destroying a HH room on each day of the endless future, this does entail, materially, a HH in the present"
Aren't you supposing that some kind of material infinity already exists in this statement(namely some HH)? And I mean as DISTINCT from the notion that all future events form an actual infinite (which isn't a material existence only metaphysical, unless I'm missusing those concepts).
My intuition is that the argument is much stronger if we focus on material actualisation of events. In a series of ten days in which i write a number on a paper on each day, at day five the past is distinct in what it left a trace in physical reality whereas no amount of conceptualization can do the same for the five following days
Thanks a lot! :-)
I love this format. Fwiw listening to your stream of consciousness response to Trent is more informative than the highly polished/curated format. I like how you hit an idea over and over again in slightly different ways. This has the effect of disambiguating anything that might not be understood on a single explanation, no matter how clear/concise.
Much, much love❤️
It’s nice to hear that you appreciate it and that it is serving you🙂
@@MajestyofReason make more videos like this maybe a "Majestic Reaction series "
I wanna see joe Schmid Vs Trent Horn
I mean if they’re claiming they’re doing a “documentary” i feel they do have some obligation to go into the various rejoinders that exist in the dialectic of the Kalaam.
I think it depends on their purposes.
They only care about smearing Craig, he even admits it when i asked him why he didnt read or take into account the latest arguments from Koons or Pruss.
Quote from the creator of the ''documentary'', you can find it in the comments section:
''in our film. We are attacking the most popular presentation of the Kalam , Craigs debates have millions of views and is film on the scientific premise has about 600k views, this gives us reason to offer a critique.''
They dont actually care about what most ''powerful'' versions of the Kalam are, they just care about smearing a person who has been eating their lunch for 40 years, and its a shame Schmid is involved with these people.
@@floydthomas4195 I’m not “involved” with these people lmao. What’s really a shame is your uncharitable interpretation of the video. They can’t hope to address every single aspect of the Kalam. Instead, they have to narrow their focus. And they chose to focus on the most popular presentation of the argument, as propounded by its champion, WLC. The arguments of Pruss and Koons are nowhere near as popular - by orders of magnitude. And so it’s perfectly kosher for them to focus only on the aspects of the Kalam that are in the vast majority of popular presentations.
@@MajestyofReason I mean, am i really the only one who sees through your charade of niceness and ''truth seeking'' when you go out of your way to defend a sophomoric effort at best?
The least they could do than, is to put a ''disclaimer'' that they are trying to rebut only the most popular version of the argument - and therefore wouldn't have entire comment section filled with people thinking that the argument is stuck in the 90s and its been ''refuted''.
@@floydthomas4195 I actually criticized the documentary repeatedly in the video; I wasn’t here to “defend” the documentary. Instead, I was responding to the (quite poor) arguments *of Trent*. The least you could do is lend the documentary an iota of charity and recognize that its goal was to address the most popular version of the Kalam. (In fact, they could easily and quite naturally be interpreted as implying, at the beginning their video, that their focus is on Craig; sure, they didn’t say “we will here solely focus only on Craig”, but they specifically name-dropped him (and him alone) and his arguments.)
For me, the driving force and contention surrounding this critique and Trent's original video is around 1:18:00 , and I'm afraid I don't quite understand your objection. I don't think they're trying to say that only physical objects can follow Euclid's principle, but that all physical objects must follow Euclid's principle. And if all physical objects must follow Euclid's principle, then it seems plausible to say, absent space being continuous, that there aren't an infinite number of physical objects. If the amount of mass in the universe is finite, and thus the amount of energy in the universe is finite (which is what I understand physics to support), then where are our infinite physical objects arising out of besides some kind of ex-nihilo divine creation? If your entire case for an infinitude of physical objects relies on space being continuous, then your case seems much weaker than what your presenting here, especially when we have theories like string theory which predict non-continuous space.
Thanks for the comment! :)
Lots to say in response: first, they don't justify why Euclid's principle (EP) holds of all physical objects. As far as I can tell, it's simply an unsubstantiated assertion. Second, as far as I can tell, the exact same thing that seems to be motivating their application of EP to physical things -- namely, intuition -- would equally apply to *non*-physical things as well, since the intuition doesn't wane if the parts and wholes in question are non-physical. Third, I don't share your seeming when you say "it seems plausible to say, absent space being continuous, that there aren't an infinite number of physical objects". I have no seeming either way; for all I know, space might be infinite in extent, with infinitely many things as occupants thereof; or for all I know, there might be an infinite multiverse of spatiotemporally disconnected but finite universes; or for all I know, while at no particular point in time has there been infinite mass or infinite energy, the total amount of mass and energy across the span of, say, a beginningless past sums to infinity; and so on. None of these require ex nihilo divine creation; none of them require continuous time or space. Finally, you say: "if your entire case for an infinitude of physical objects relies on space being continuous, then your case seems much weaker than what you[']r[e] presenting here". This strikes me as strange, since I am not making a case for an infinitude of physical objects. I am simply making a case for the claim that *Trent's* case *against* the possibility of infinitely many physical objects fails.
@@MajestyofReason
*As far as I can tell, it's simply an unsubstantiated assertion*
Many things can seem so obvious to people that they don't bother trying to support it. I once had to justify whether or not my own thoughts existed during an ethics debate. I once had to justify why I thought vegetables couldn't engage in science during a debate with a naturalist (don't ask). It can be very difficult to intuit where to begin and end justifications for positions during a series of arguments. I imagine that Craig and Trent don't justify why (EP) applies to all physical objects because they think it's just obvious. How much fault one can lay on them for that is hard to know, as I myself rather think it's obvious that it's the case.
*...the exact same thing that seems to be motivating their application of EP to physical things -- namely, intuition -- would equally apply to non-physical things as well, since the intuition doesn't wane if the parts and wholes in question are non-physical.*
This can be rejected prima facia. Intuitions are not uniform. What's the reasoning to suspect that their intuition in regard to applying (EP) to physical objects would not wane in regards to parts and wholes in non-physical objects? Physicality has its own ontological and epistemological modalities that are not identical to the ones evident in the non-physical realm, such as mathematics. Math and Physics are not identical disciplines, for example.
*I have no seeming either way; for all I know, space might be infinite in extent, with infinitely many things as occupants thereof; or for all I know, there might be an infinite multiverse of spatiotemporally disconnected but finite universes; or for all I know, while at no particular point in time has there been infinite mass or infinite energy, the total amount of mass and energy across the span of, say, a beginningless past sums to infinity*
The problem with all of this is that, if we're going to argue that there are infinitudes of objects within space, then by my lights we're going to have to, at some point, make empirical arguments as to its validity. And physically measuring infinities is simply not possible, as it would require infinitely precise measurement tools. Now I'm no positivist or instrumentalist, but if we're never going to be able to measure infinities, and thus we're never going to be able to empirically verify whether or not physical infinities exist, then it seems like we're resting on pretty weak ground.
1:32:33 Remind me again what your defence for the problem of evil is? "It's not logically impossible", you say, but my metaphysical intuition is that a creator is reflected in his creation and that action is what defines the nature of a being.
I am sorry but does anyone else get tired about the "love" stuff at the beginning of these critiques? This only seems to be needed because people are too sensitive to criticism.
I can understand how it might be tiresome. I still feel it's important, though, since we too often shift into a 'debate mode' or a tribalistic mindset, and so it serves as a helpful reminder that our focus should be on serving one another, with love, in the pursuit of truth. Reminders never hurt :)
Are you an atheist or a Christian? I’m not really sure from the videos I have watched.
Check out my video “why am I agnostic?”❤️🙂
I’m curious, why do you spend so much time on philosophy of religion? It seems like most philosophers today think that it’s a less interesting area of philosophy. I guess they think the arguments for God are not good or the debates are hackneyed. You think it’s still an area that is worth the time to study, rather than some other area?
I talk about my reasons for focusing on phil rel in my video "3k AMA" -- check it out if you're curious!
My main reason is ultimately interest. I just find it so boundlessly fascinating. It basically amounts to doing metaphysics, epistemology, logic, ethics, and so on all together
im doing awful today joe thanks for asking
🥲
1:41:30 Huemer also thinks that the past is infinite
Isn't,
"There is an elephant, and it's number is 7" also really weird
Just say, there are 7 elephants
Or
There are 0 elephants
See Wittgenstein and his broom wrt "a more analysed form of a sentence" as philosophers offer - I think it's around S60 in the Philosophical Investigations
I think you’re right; I wanted to find some common ground with Trent and Craig at least in agreeing that “there is an elephant and it’s number is zero” is crazy haha
I think he was saying you cant have zero elephants, not that the elephant itself is a number. You can have seven elephants, you cant have an elephant if you have zero of them.
Is the amount of energy in the universe infinite?
Isn't Craig a presentist? So the number of past events is 0, right?
Great question! I discuss this at some point in the video and explain how Craig can consistently say it’s aleph null🙂❤️
2:31:12 Craig is demonstrating the idea of a larger infinite consuming the smaller that Trent thought was absurd.
Joe Schmid , an atheist philosopher at Tuesday , Thursday , Saturday and theist philosopher at Monday , Wendsday , Friday
who is he at sundays
@@przemor1150 Spider-Man
Hitchens wasn't a new atheist. He was a journalist and author, who was willing to debate individuals who had made a career claiming to prove the existence of one god or another. The dismissive manner in which the new new atheists/agnostics who have developed careers around these debates seem to have forgotten, or perhaps never known, is that the individuals referred to as the new atheists made significant contributions to society which had nothing to do with being professional atheists.
I called it on Trent's video. I literally call it.
So many of my thoughts during this were:
A) Set theory is just one area of mathematics and I don't understand why we're treating it as gospel
B) Not every function can take every argument. 0/0 was brought up but it's one of many. Also, not every function is reversible.
It seems so strange to me that so much of this argument seems to be centered around the idea that because one area of mathematics (set theory) contains partial functions that we can derive some sort of truth about the universe. Hours and hours of this, and for what?
As for the idea of some "mystery force", this is not complicated. I can not truthfully say "I was unable to write this post on UA-cam today", whatever would have prevented me from writing that would have prevented it from being true. And why are we presuppoing that "if time travel is real" is a reasonable thing to grant? "If we break the laws of physics, what is this mystery rule that prevents contradictions?" well it was the *laws of physics* dude.
1) Set theory helps to expand on why there aren't contradictions or absurdities like Craig argues.
2) If you think that using set theory can't help us understand the universe, then Craig's argument and many others that depend on logic and mathematics would be useless as well. If you're gonna argue from maths, then congratulations, you have attached a lot of additional mathematical baggage that needs to be dealt with.
3) Your b) point is missing a lot of nuance. For one, that doesn't mean you can't generalize a function to accept further values (e.g. the gamma function), also if you find an issue with the function then you can point it out, like if your input is outside of the domain of the function in question. Also also, limits exist and they can take 0/0 in multiple forms.
4) The time travel option is talking about a possible world in which you could time travel, pointing out how such a world would require an additional limitation that avoids paradoxes. Saying that our current physics don't allow that is ignoring the point of the argument - showing that just because you can imagine something that results in a paradox, it doesn't mean that the paradox is realizable in such an example case
Thanks for the reply.@@ellyam991
> 1) Set theory helps to expand on why there aren't contradictions or absurdities like Craig argues.
But why set theory? Why not some other area of math? Why not homotopy type theory? Or category theory? This is what I find confusing - why is it that so many of these arguments rely on set theory as a foundation, then say "well here's a limitation of set theory" as if (to my ears) there aren't other areas of mathematics with totally separate limitations.
> If you think that using set theory can't help us understand the universe, then Craig's argument and many others that depend on logic and mathematics would be useless as well.
I suppose this is sort of what I need convincing of. For example, in physics you don't argue from math, math is sort of just a tool. It's observations, experimentation, etc, and math is sort of just a way to show that you can provide a consistent model. It's considered bad, from my understanding, to start with math and try to go from there.
> For one, that doesn't mean you can't generalize a function to accept further values
This is sort of my point. Every function can be defined arbitrarily. You could define `0/0` to simply evaluate to `0`, or eliminate `0` from the valid values of your logic. So why are we concerned with whether a function is partial or not when that is simply one component of one area of mathematics?
> The time travel option is talking about a possible world in which you could time travel, pointing out how such a world would require an additional limitation that avoids paradoxes
To me this came off as "We're eliminating an existing limitation, which would allow for time travel, and then asking why time travel would still be impossible" and I find this to be such a strange argument. Why would we posit a universe in which time travel is possible but then expect that universe to be consistent? It very well may not be. Why is that a salient point?
> showing that just because you can imagine something that results in a paradox, it doesn't mean that the paradox is realizable in such an example case
Perhaps I should rewatch this to try to understand better.
Candidly, I am no philosopher, just someone who's gone through a few dozen hours of this content on UA-cam. Some of it I've found interesting and compelling, but I found a lot of these arguments very uncompelling. Having watched much more of Oppy recently I think he's resonated most with me in that he's basically said he finds none of these logical arguments compelling, and instead he prefers to compare the theories as a whole in terms of their simplicity and explanatory power - hopefully I'm not butchering what he's said, again I am a novice here.
@@coyork15 ooooh, ok, I see what you're saying now. So to answer:
1) I think it's just because the set complement function is an intuitive way to understand what's going on in the Hilbert's hotel case. It's more to show that when Craig or Horn claim that there's no mathematical language that can explain what's going on, they're wrong
2) Oh yeah, it's a metaphysical discussion, so the talk about maths about what's possible or impossible are apt for this, not for physics. Think of it as examining the logical consequences of a scientific finding P, we could be wrong but it's the best tool we have as of now.
3) You can define any function arbitrarely, I think it's more about pointing out the errors in the arbitrary analysis Craig et al. are doing.
4) Yes! That's exactly the point. We're looking at a universe were time travel is possible, but that means that we then couldn't have contradictions resulting from it or that world in question would be impossible. It's as if we said we can imagine a world where doors are made of 100% metal and a world where doors are made of 100% wood, so we could imagine a world with doors that are 100% metal and 100% wood. It creates a logical contradiction, so it would in fact be an impossible world.
5) Oppy is right in my lights with that analysis, but it's more that a lot of people are still parading these arguments arround and using them to decide how to live their lifes, so poking holes in them and showing how they fail is important
Hey, I'm doing good and appreciate your video
much love❤
Joe, if you think having always been counting negative numbers until the day you reach zero is conceivable, then it means you have no problem with someone having counted an infinite number of numbers. Isn't that problematic? You agreed that reaching (by the process of counting, not by merely considering all future possibilities) the actual infinite in the future is out of the question, why this assymetry?
There's a clear reason for the asymmetry: because you can't reach the end of an endless process (and the process of counting up the natural numbers is endless), whereas the process of counting down the negative integers *does* have an end, and so the barrier to reaching its end isn't present (like it is in the case of counting up). Wes Morriston has already addressed this in depth in my video with him on the successive addition argument. Moreover, here's a second reason for the asymmetry: reaching a point in the future where one has counted infinitely many numbers requires there to be a point infinitely distant in the future, which is absurd, and yet there need not be a point infinitely distant in the past for one to have completed counting the negative integers. And here's a third reason for the asymmetry: the future case would require transitioning from a finite collection to an infinite collection with only a finite number of steps, which is absurd; and yet this isn't the case for the past. One has always had an infinite collection -- one never makes a transition from a finite collection to an infinite collection.
@@MajestyofReason Wow, thank you so much for taking some time to answer.
You said: " and yet there need not be a point infinitely distant in the past for one to have completed counting the negative integers."
I don't get this. If you completed the counting (let's say, today), haven't you effectively counted an infinte number of numbers?
@@tonybanks1035 Hello,
I think what Joe means is that the task of counting down all negative numbers has an end, because it has a final member ie: -1. This means it is conceivably a task that can be completed because there is a clear definitive completion point (-1). Where as the task of counting up all positive numbers has no end, because it has no final member. This means it is not conceivably a task that can be completed because there is no clear definitive completion point.
"If you completed the counting (let's say, today), haven't you effectively counted an infinte number of numbers?"
In a sense, yes. But this is because the task of counting down all negative numbers has a completion point ie: -1. Joe is saying that there isn't anything absurd about completing a task that has a completion. Where as counting up is different task since it is an infinite count with no completion.
Hopefully that helps?
@@christaylor6574 Hi Chris, it does help thank you very much. Unfortunately this point seems rather artificial to me, since the presence of some conceivable feature (the task has an end) doesn't negate a feature that seems unconceivable (having been counting forever).
I think ultimately this is Craig's point (despite all its semantical shortcomings as successfully argued by Joe). If we start from the presumption that actual actualised infinites don't exist until proven otherwise (a reasonable presumtion), then an infinite past has one presumably conceivable feature (it is completed) and a presumably unconceivable feature (it has existed forever), whereas starting an infinte task has only conceivable features (no actual actualised infinites, only actual metaphysical infine, which I would argue is not problematic).
So, to answer Joe more directly, you don't need an infinitely distant point in the past to complete the task, but wouldn't you need one to start it? Isn't that the whole point?
@skydivephil documentary video is the gold standard concerning the kalam. Highly recommend it.
@skydivephil misguides the audience about the fundamentals of quantum cosmology. Quantum Cosmology is idealist, panendeist, mathematical platonist... all which do not favor metephysical naturalism. By clipping/cherry picking, the video's commenters present an overly idealized explanation.
@@eenkjet The vast majority of physicists do not adopt interpretations of QM that commit them to or entail idealism, pandeism or Platonism. The consensus amongst physicsits is the Copenhagen interpretation, now arguably that doesn't tell you much because thats whats standardly taught on undergrad physics courses so there's probably a selection effect going on. The only case I've seen anyone make for "Quantum idealism" is based on an equivocation between our ordinary sense of "observer" as an intentional agent vs. the specialist physicist sense of "observer" as something which *physically* interacts with a system. In the double slit experiment photons are not collapsed to particles by the intentional effects of human minds looking at the slit - how would a human even know which slit the photon went through when the photon did not impact their retina! The measurement device is some kind of light gate, an electronics device which *physically* interacts with the photon... whatevers going on is weird but not the result of agentic intentionality.
@@DigitalGnosis I’ve seen many others misunderstand the observer effect too, almost like oops I bumped the machine! 😂 The observer can be a human or a measuring devise having sway over the results. To assert the mind has some effect, I’d need a demonstration that doesn’t also align with other explanations.
@@DigitalGnosis I mentioned Quantum Cosmology, not Foundations of Quantum Mechanics. Your Copenhagen comment would only apply to foundations. Also the Copenhagen approach is not an interpretation. It is rather the lack of interpreting (modeling) the measurement problem. I know it's called the Copenhagen "Interpretation". This can be confusing. Selection effects relate to Quantum Darwinism which falls under Everettian/MWI which is the measurement interpretation widely used in quantum cosmology. I've made no mention of human observer effects (CCC). You are jumping to classic arguments against quantum woo. Everettianism is the opposite of quantum woo.
1 - Quantum Cosmology absolutely does entail mathematical platonism because it is based on wave function realism which describes reality as nothing but a vector in Hilbert Space.
2 - Quantum cosmology is either deist or simulation hypothesis because it is computational and requires the Universal Wave Function to encode realities which we "then decohere" (after the fact). Wave Function Realism's Everettianism does not have local time-stepping evolution. It features either Block Universe-Branching, Causal Patch-Branching, or Record-Branching. All of which are deist in some way because the wave function is creating, complexity is not locally evolving.
3 - Quantum Cosmology is idealist because reality emerges from Hilbert Space. There is no objectively physically evolving local reality to speak of, only disperate causal patches. QC's wave function realism is "Hilbert Space Fundamentalism". We might say "Aha! that means mind is not fundamental!". But because QC's reality is the gestalt of this a computing/encoding system, the wave function itself is a mind.
It is a mind because due to universality any encoder that can emulate a human experience must too be given that machine class or greater. Therefore under quantum cosmology's wave function realism, the UWF is mind, and because it is fundamental, mind is fundamental.
@@eenkjet ok Alan.
Hilbert's Hotel is a silly proposition. There would never be an empty room, and there wouldn't be anyone without a room who needed one.
The way it's usually described, the rooms are emptied before they are assigned to new people. You could create an infinite number of empty rooms if you wanted to. Do you need an empty spot in order to count one higher than you ever have before?
@@goldenalt3166 the way I would approach it is that the rooms are an infinite set and the guests are an equal infinite set. In order for all of the rooms to be occupied, all of the guests would already be in the rooms, which would leave us with no empty rooms and no guests needing a room. I don't get where the extra guests are coming from that aren't already part of the existing guests in a room set. Does that make sense?
@@dustinellerbe4125 Having no empty rooms is just the preference of Hilbert, the hotel owner. He could just as easily leave rooms empty. The new guests come by bus. Infinite set of guests need not include all possible guests.
@@goldenalt3166 he can't have empty rooms if its full. Lol. That's my point, if its full, no one can be left out. They would already be occupying the rooms. These extra guests are just randomly created to cause a contradiction, but we could say that however many guests show up, causes that equal amount of rooms to be created to be occupied. You would be adding to both sets in that case.
@@dustinellerbe4125 No rooms are created. The hotel is always the same size. There's no contradiction. The hotel can be full and yet there's always room. It's just the nature of infinite sets that dividing the rooms into groups does not need to make any group smaller than the original.
I think your arguments are not right. I know mathematicians, and few feel that it's real in the natural sense. Infinite is not considered real its a concept
That doesn't make him wrong though, it shows that the position is not unanimous or held by a majority if anything. Some mathematicians I know don't believe in mathematical realism, some do, which is what Joe was saying too. The mathematicians he knows say P, but he doesn't know if it's a consensus amongst mathematicians
@@ellyam991 you're right, it's a complex topic. A major school of mathematical thought aligns with my understanding of infinity as a concept. The real challenge lies in the consequences that follow from dealing with infinity, wouldn't you agree?
@@WagesOfDestruction yep, I'd agree on that part
3 hours... Holy.
So I'm guessing that eternity and infinite aren't used in the same way by theists. Eternity/eternally seems to have a time tense to it. Time is required for both in my opinion. So I don't see how theists can say that God is eternal, but is timeless. It makes no sense to me.
They say lots of things that make no sense. If God is timeless, how can he die on the cross? If timeless actors can take on physical temporal forms that are them, then such forms beginning to exist does not imply an external cause.
@@goldenalt3166 I agree with you lol.
@Literally St. Bonventure So Jesus created an incarnation and the incarnation died. It wasn't Jesus that died?
@Literally St. Bonventure Did Jesus have a human nature before the incarnation?
@Literally St. Bonventure Can a timeless being experience subjective reality?
"Infinity is absurd, trust me bro"
Alexander Pruss hold my books
For the first time i have watched a youtube video at 3x
55:27 When there is a conflict between intuition and logic or scientific evidence then intuition is wrong . . .
1:18:00 . . . hence chuck out Euclid.
2:55:55 . . . and Rovelli agrees about intuition.
Intuition is a great servant but a poor master.
I realise that members of the _Amalgamated Union of Philosophers, Sages, Luminaries and other Professional Thinking Persons_ have a strange use of the word "intuition" that verges on the bullshit end of things, so I'll stick with what fellow Physicists might understand.
Infinity is a property of objects, so to show it exists, you need to demonstrate that objects with a property of infinity (in whatever sense) exist. And there are no such objects.
Importantly, however, no one is trying to “show that infinity exists”; I’m simply pointing out that Trent’s attempts to show it *couldnt* exist fail.
Cosmicskepic Need to learn ALOT from you and Ben watkins
Hope he improve his game
Brought here by Rationality Rules. Good stuff, if a LITTLE long!
Much love❤️
Ooh finally some more good ol’ Kalam :)
Contra Dillahunty, discussion about this argument is alive, and should remain so.
Very true. It’s such a fun thing to think about.
Note that Dillahunty is saying that the argument is dead as an argument for the existence of a god, simply because it never was alive in the first place. I guess he's tired of hearing people repeat it when asked "why do you believe in a god".
@@STAR0SS Dillahunty has done literally zero work, zero philosophical inquiry, study, or anything worthy or any respect, he is the last person we should take advice from on the kalam
@@ceceroxy2227 Irrelevant, is the Kalam an argument for the existence of a god ? No it's not, congratulation you agree with Dillahunty. OGM call the news !
@@STAR0SS Its an argument for a timeless spaceless immaterial cause of the universe. If you dont want to call that God, ok.
I'm doing great, thanks!
Can you unblock me? I've repented and found Jesus.
Cam You really should debate or host a debate with Jake the Muslim metaphysician since you agreed with him for this in past and please don't be a Hypocrite Giving stupid reasons like Jake called someone dishonest is bad but you invite people like David wood,AP,Matt,Tjump etc
At least response to his video
@@B.S._Lewis I saw you in my outhouse in the back yard looking down the hole - is that what you were looking for?
And he was actually down there?
bravo !
> I'm doing great, thanks!
did another friend die, giving you the
opportunity for more fundraising?
@@SanjeevSharma-vk1yo You've heard about Jesus on toast or Jesus on a dog's ass, right?
I'm bout to make a killing on Ebay. Kinda why I wanted back on CC. To hike up demand.
How's this for a video title?
"Don't believe in Doo Doo Jesus? WATCH THIS! (An interview with a priest who was constipated for 12 years.)
The debate with Kagan is one of my favorites. It is also, by my lights, a decisive rebuttal of Craig's unfortunately popular claim that atheism entails moral nihilism.
Watched that debate. If I remember correctly, the participants were informed that it was to be a conversation and not a full on debate. And indeed it was just that. Kagan and Craig were talking past each other at that point. I agree with Kagan that on a personal level people feel and hold on to meaning deeply in their personal lives (though Sartre and Camus would disagree). Craig will not disagree with that. But Craig was speaking more about the ultimate state of things. If reality and life are products of dumb luck then nihilism is absolutely inescapable. 'Meaning' is just a human construct that dies with humanity and ultimately in the death of the cosmos. A realist view on meaning is only possible when creation and life are not ACCIDENTAL (dumb luck) but INTENTIONAL (created with and for a purpose). To illustrate: a piece of rock exists accidentally (you can just crush it, use it for whatever, doesn't really matter), a smartphone exists intentionally (it exists with a telos, a purpose, a design). I'm with Craig, though I admit he did not push Kagan on the matter.
@@zgobermn6895 Ya, you're right that this was more of a discussion than a debate, although there was some back-and-forth. Craig brought some of his well worn arguments to bear and in response I think Kagan really nailed it. I'm not sure they were talking past each other and I think Kagan understood that Craig meant ultimate or cosmic significance. In fact, he brings this up specifically. What he wanted from Craig was a non-question begging justification of why the lack of cosmic or eternal meaning entails the lack of meaning entirely. You at least give a reason above. Craig didn't offer much other than the inevitable heat death of the universe and his own intuitions (although he spits some absolutely fire death-metal lyrics in the process if I remember correctly).
Personally, I don't agree that creation with a purpose is a necessary condition for meaning. If you are a theist, then you actually must agree, at least in a minimal sense. After all, God was not created with a purpose and yet God is supposed to be of infinite value and matter the most. Now, there are ways to distinguish between God and creatures. But my point is that, if you think God matters, then you must think there are at least some exceptions to the principle that objective meaning requires creation with a purpose. Personally, I think that conscious experience (perhaps with some other mental goodies thrown in too) is all that's needed for intrinsic, objective meaning or mattering. Consciousness is a real game changer when it comes to value in my opinion.
@@joshuabrecka6012 Thanks for the thoughtful reply.
"I'm not sure they were talking past each other and I think Kagan understood that Craig meant ultimate or cosmic significance. In fact, he brings this up specifically." - Kagan was expressing an EXISTENTIAL point, ie., the intimate experience of meaning people have. While Craig's emphasis was more ONTOLOGICAL, ie., if meaning is not intrinsic to existence (of the entire cosmos), to human existence in particular, then it's completely without any telos (goal, purpose, design, meaning) ultimately, thus nihilism is inescapable. Let me refer you back to my illustration between a rock and a smartphone.
"why the lack of cosmic or eternal meaning entails the lack of meaning entirely" - Your use of "entirely" needs more nuance. Craig does not deny the EXISTENTIAL experience of meaning (thus he does not deny it "entirely" in that sense). What he is pointing at is the logically unavoidable ONTOLOGICAL implications of a naturalistic-atheistic universe--a universe that exists by dumb luck (like the rock in my illustration). An entity that exists as a mere accident is devoid of any REAL, OBJECTIVE meaning, purpose, or goal. It just is.
"After all, God was not created with a purpose and yet God is supposed to be of infinite value and matter the most." - This is a contradiction. An entity that is created, or comes into existence automatically disqualifies itself from being God (in the classical Abrahamic theism of Judeo-Christianity). God is God because unlike thingies (the universe, atoms, elephants, etc) he is Existence, not dependent on anything else for his own existence. This is the difference between the God of Bible and the pantheon of gods from say the Greek, the Romans, or the Norse myths. The gods in those systems are said to be immortal, but not eternal. They emerge at some point into an already existing 'universe', and it's a universe that they're not in complete control. In fact these gods are often scared to go into some deep areas of the universe. They also rape and kill and betray each other--like the Greeks, the Romans, and those Nordic tribes.
"Personally, I think that conscious experience (perhaps with some other mental goodies thrown in too) is all that's needed for intrinsic, objective meaning or mattering." - I would disagree with "is all that's needed". Conscious experience (with "mental goodies") of course is a necessary requirement for meaning to matter (for ANYTHING to matter at all from an epistemological and existential standpoint). But i would argue that it is not sufficient. Under naturalism and naturalistic evolutionary thinking, whatever "intrinsic, objective meaning or mattering" consciousness seem to have, these things only emerged as tools for something else, as aids to better the survivability of the organism, it's not really something necessary to the organism. Other organisms survive without consciousness, or with only extremely low level consciousness (enough for survival).
On this point, I would strongly encourage you to carefully read CS Lewis' 'Miracles' (at least chapters 1-6, here www.basicincome.com/bp/files/Miracles-C_S_Lewis.pdf). Perhaps follow it up with the atheist Thomas Nagel's Mind & Cosmos (ch1-3).
Under a naturalistic-atheistic perspective, what really is consciousness is even hotly debated-- an illusion? an epiphenomenon? a controlled hallucination? an emergent property of the brain? All of these have issues and problems.
"Consciousness is a real game changer when it comes to value in my opinion." - Value. Michael Ruse (atheist philosopher of science) comes to mind, "Morality (or moral values) is a biological adaptation no less than are hands and feet and teeth... Considered as a rationally justifiable set of claims about an objective something, ethics is illusory. I appreciate that when somebody says, 'Love thy neighbor as thyself,' they think they are referring above and beyond themselves... Nevertheless... such reference is truly without foundation. Morality is just an aid to survival and reproduction... and any deeper meaning is illusory..."
In naturalism, value is always UTILITARIAN, not an end itself. The real game is what enhances survivability. Values change according the the need for survival.
@@joshuabrecka6012 And let me add the following: In Craig's argument, there must be coherence between the existential (the human experience), the ontological (the nature of humanity and of the cosmos itself), and the ESCHATOLOGICAL (ie., that in the end there is relevance to existence and our actions in it, e.g., that justice is not just a fleeting mental construct but a feature of ultimate reality, that fairness, responsibility and accountability are truly important and truly matters in the final culmination of things). Without that, human existence would just be a pointless blink of an eye in the aeons of aeons of meaningless and purposeless history of the accidental existence of the cosmos.
@@edgarrenenartatez1932 I would say that, under Craig's view, there's actually no truly important possible action made by humans. Under Craig's particular view on Christianity, whatever humans can choose to do by their free will, it will not stop God's Kingdom to arise. And because Craig is a monilist and God already said in the BIble that God's Kingdom will arise, no possible free willed action by humans might have an impact on this. So, under Craig's own definition of relevant meaning, humans life would have no ultimate meaning. But, obviously, Craig would respond that ultimate meaning in that context has to be modified, and if that move is available to Craig, it's available to Shagan as well.
I'm doing great Joe. Thanks for asking bae.
❤️❤️❤️
difference between intuitive and illogical
very true!
Jeez... you guys love your Hilberts Hotel😂
2:28:47 "stuff like Wes Morriston and Alex Malpass" Malpass and Morriston are chips in a philosophical poker game?
How many future events will there be? The answer is that events will be EVER increasing, if the future is infinite.There will NEVER be a boundary called the infinite that will be reached. Otherwise the future wouldn’t be infinite. The answer that there will be inifitely many future events is semantically fooling us. Just replace it with ”ever increasing” or ”continuosly ongoing” or something like that. Then you realize that infinity per definition must be potential.
If the future is endless, it is clearly false that the number of events is ever increasing. Imagine we have an angel that will count each natural number (1, 2, 3, etc) on each day of the endless future. This shows that the number of days each of which is such that it will happen is identical to the cardinality of the natural numbers (since there’s a one-to-one correspondence), and hence actually infinite. And notice that the number of days each of which is such that it will transpire is NOT increasing. After the angel counts (say) 10 numbers within the next 10 days, the number of future events stays exactly the same. The angel still has infinitely many numbers to count, and so there are still infinitely many days each of which is such that it will happen. Thus, it is false that the number of future events is ever increasing. The only thing that is ever increasing is the number of events that ***will have happened*** between some arbitrarily selected past or present time and the ‘moving spotlight’ of time as it progresses into the future. But that - as already explained ad nauseam in the video - is the future *perfect* tense, not the simple future tense. This was already addressed in the video, and in Malpass and Morriston’s 2020 paper linked in the description (I highly, highly recommend reading it).
@@MajestyofReason
You said:
“Imagine we have an angel that will count each natural number (1, 2, 3, etc) on each day of the endless future. This shows that the number of days each of which is such that it will happen is identical to the cardinality of the natural numbers (since there’s a one-to-one correspondence), and hence actually infinite."
My answer: The last day will never happen if the future is endless just as there can be no last number. The angel will never count till the end if the counting is infinite. Thus it seems false to say that “the number of days are each such that they will happen”. The last day will never happen although the process is continuously ongoing. That seems to me the very definition of infinity or endlessness.
You said: “After the angel counts (say) 10 numbers within the next 10 days, the number of future events stays exactly the same. The angel still has infinitely many numbers to count, and so there are still infinitely many days each of which is such that it will happen. Thus, it is false that the number of future events is ever increasing. The only thing that is ever increasing is the number of events that **will have happened”
My answer: You are ringt. The future events are not increasing, simply the events that have happened. Ever ongoing is a better word. The main point is that there is an ever ongoing process rather than an existing set of future events.
@@alriktyrving5051 notice, though, that nothing I said requires that the angel come to a last or final number; I said the number of days each of which is such that it will be actual is infinity”. This doesn’t mean that there will be some future day at which infinitely many days have transpired; instead, it means that when we count how many days satisfy the following condition (‘it will be actual’), that number is aleph null. And so it *is* true that the number of days each of which is such that it will be actual is aleph null.
@@MajestyofReason
I think that representing the concept of infinity by a number such as aleph null can lead to a semantic misunderstanding. Infinity is not really a number. It is a process.The condition “it will be actual” is not satisfied for infinity or its symbolic/mathematical representation. It is satisfied for any single proceeding number but not for the series as a whole. Language tricks us.
1:01:35 The surreal numbers formalism is an abelian group for addition/subtraction on infinite numbers.
There is no need to "ban" subtraction for infinite or infinitesimal calculus.
How’s that homework coming?
I actually got seriously behind in my homework as a result of making this video lmao. Plus behind now on studying for two exams this week, and so will be losing lots of sleep this week. 'Tis the nature and consequences of anxiety
@@MajestyofReason I’m in no position to give you advice, but I personally find that compartmentalizing has helped me not just in philosophy but in life. If I make quick notes to myself about an argument I’d like to make but don’t put them out in public, I give myself space to think of possible rejoinders, make the argument tighter, or even throw the train of thought out altogether. This also helps me keep track of my social and political commitments.
@@vulteiuscatellus4105 excellent advice🙂 thanks for your valuable comments - i truly appreciate the them❤️
@@MajestyofReason Two questions if you don’t mind:
1. Are formal causes something you find coherent at all?
2. Is Bradley’s Regress a big issue for metaphysics, and if not, why not?
Can you help me understand something? God is infinite in seemingly many ways and Trent believes god exists. So is his view that actual infinites are impossible within the universe but possible outside of the universe? I don't see how this business of denying actual infinites leads one to believe in an infinite god dude.
I'm only 1hr in. Maybe you end up answering this :)
One thing he could say in response is that God is infinite not in the sense of instantiating some actual infinity (e.g., an actual infinity of thoughts, or beliefs, or actions, or properties), but instead in the sense of being *unlimited*. This is qualitative notion (lacking limits or bounds) rather than. quantitative (having a quantity of something -- beliefs, say, or goodness points)
As a Catholic who follows Trent, MoR’s take is, I believe, accurate.
Calling God infinite comes from philosophical conclusions and is related to his “limitlessness.” God lacks “potential,” and must therefore be “infinite” by consequence.
I will also admit I may have said something incorrect about the Catholic position, so… there ya go lol
@@MajestyofReason on a view like that, could god think about what happens at every second for all of time, assuming a finite past and infinite future? When he created the universe wouldn’t he have done just that?
@@HumblyQuestioning great question. I think they will respond as follows. Yes, God can think infinitely many things. After all, God believes that joe is not identical to the number 1, that joe is not identical to the number 2, and so on ad infinitum. But this doesn’t entail that there actually exists infinitely many things; instead, God grasps all these truths by one single all-encompassing act of thought. (And the contents of the beliefs need not exist if we’re nominalists about propositions, as Craig is!)
@@MajestyofReason could god emit a virtual particle pair at a random point in empty space simultaneously at every second in all of time? Like could god decide this afternoon he was going to do that, snap his finger, and like a light switch it would have changed the past, present, and all events in the future? Could he then undo it?
Good job though. I love you.
Much, much love
At 16:23 you say it’s not the majority interpretation. But at 19:23 you complain that Trent just asserts it is. But that’s exactly what you did, just asserting it’s not the majority view. Trent at least gives a source.
Don’t get me wrong there’s definitely disagreement about it, the sky dive Phil documentary is evidence of that. But the question about it being majority is probably not going to be settled without some sort of poll.
All I said at 16:23 was that *as far as I can tell* it’s not a majority position in the philosophy literature. It’s a claim about my own sense of the literature - a literature (on infinity, etc) I’m intimately familiar with, having published therein (and having several papers under review therein). I didn’t just blithely assert that it *isnt* a majority position. My point is based on (1) my own sense of the literature (which I explicitly said - “as far as I can tell”, which is a qualification universally understood to imply (roughly) that the judgment is based on the speaker’s own sense of the subject matter), and (2) relevant, deep engagement and interaction with said literature. This is unlike Trent (or Trent’s quoted author) who - in contrast to merely reporting his own sense about what the literature is like - confidently proclaims that it *is* a majority position, and not just in the literature that they’re familiar with or published in, but with literally *all* mathematicians. So no, it isn’t “exactly what I did”.
@@MajestyofReason thank you for the response, first I’d like to apologize if I came as rude or condescending. That was not my intention. But I see how I could have came off that way. I do enjoy your channel and what you do.
Yes you did say as far as I can tell, so sorry for making’s it seem like you just asserted it. And sense you do publish in this area I understand why you’d feel confident in talking about it. And I’d even go as far as saying you’d probably be a source in and of yourself. I simply didn’t consider that when I made my original comment.
It does seem you are making the opposite claim of Trent. Granted you’re not 100% sure of this claim, but you were at least contesting Trent’s claim. I don’t necessarily believe Trent or his source, my main point was that there seems to be a disagreement about whether or not there is a majority. And it probably won’t be settled without some sort of poll.
I started out watching skydive Phil’s response to Craig’s response to the documentary. And one of there first claims they said mathematicians don’t make claims about the metaphysically impossible. But I remember Trent quoting a mathematician saying infinity’s don’t exists and this is the majority position. So then I came here to check if Trent took the quote out of context or something. Because I remembered you did a review of his review. And again sorry if I came off rude.
@@charles4208 no worries my dude - I appreciate your comment, and it didn’t come off rude. I also don’t mean to come off rude; I just think it’s important to emphasize that what I did isn’t on an epistemic par with what Trent did, since I was considerably more careful - I was very careful to speak just based on my own sense of the literature, whereas Trent’s claim was far more bold and far more difficult to justify, requiring empirical evidence (where no such evidence was offered)🙂❤️
@@MajestyofReason no you didn’t come off as rude. I could just sense a little irritation maybe, at my comment. So I wanted to clarify. And yes I agree Trent was much more blunt with his claim, that’s why I came here to check if he took it out of context or something. But it seems like there’s just a disagreement between experts. So without some sort of poll we can’t be certain.
Sorry I'm late to the party. I've recommended people on my server watch this video in response to Trent's, it pointed out a lot of things I didn't catch on first watch but are obvious to me only in hindsight. The only commentary I'd really add here is the following:
1. I've looked into this quite a bit and I still have no idea what it means for something to be "metaphysically impossible". Physically impossible? Sure. Logically impossible / inconceivable? Got it. But I can't think of a well defined category of things that is both stronger than physical possibility (it's not just factually not how our physics works but it can't be how any physics works) that doesn't devolve into conceivability. There should be some impossibility in conceiving of a physics such that... and in this case our attempting to conceive of the physics should lead to a contradiction of some kind.
2. The part of the conversation that I think is most interesting is when you look at events in the past which carry over into the future. If you have an infinite number of past historical events, and the present is affected by every past historical event, then there should be an infinite amount of events from the past that we must take stock of to understand the present (unless we just want to say it's magic or something). This is why when thinking about the Kalam, I make the distinction between an infinite past, and an infinite past history. I can see why any past history might be finite, but I don't see why the past can't consist of an infinite number of independent past histories.
3. This is a big one. The more I think about it, the more improper I think it is to think of cardinal numbers as quantities. I have several reasons for this.
First, when you look at how cardinal numbers are constructed and used, they're constructed using equivalence classes of sets. Two sets have the same cardinality, i.e. A ~ B if and only if they can be put into 1-1 correspondence with each other. Cardinal numbers, then, by my lights, are just symbolic representations for all sets which share a given equivalence class. When we say: |S| = 4, for example, what we're really saying is that S is equivalent to all other sets of 4 elements. Likewise, Aleph-Null is a symbolic representative for the equivalence class of sets which can be put in 1-1 correspondence with the natural numbers.
Second, we already have a thing that gives sets an actual quantity, i.e. that's its job. And that's the measure of a set. There's actually a particular measure (the counting measure) that is currently defined in terms of cardinalities for finite sets (but not infinite ones). If we just specified that the counting measure of A counts all the stuff in A, and specified that the cardinality of A (even if finite) just yields a number representing a category of equivalent sets, then I think a lot of this conversation would be a lot less confused.
Third, If you look at the exact thing the apologists are point out here, it's no different than any other issue of trying to combine unlike categories of mathematical objects. Here's an easy example. Consider [7](mod 10), which consists of all the integers which have a remainder of 7 when divided by 10. Now suppose you try and subtract 2 from [7](mod 10). What do you get?
Well 7 - 2 = 5.
And, 17 - 2 = 15
And, 27 - 2 = 25
etc.
So it turns out that trying to subtract a number from an equivalence class of numbers gives us the issue of infinite answers. So why would we suspect that this would be any different for an equivalence class of sets - a set?
I'm sure there may be some reasons why you don't want to think of cardinal numbers this way, but the drawbacks would have to be pretty severe to offset the immediate clarity this would provide in my opinion.
4. Note that measure theory already has Monotonicity and Additivity as properties of a measure which do as good of a job as one could expect of preserving Euclid's property. Where they fail would be instances of, say, removing a single point from an area of infinite points. But this is something that Calculus students should already be familiar with, so I don't see an issue there. I don't see measure theory as opposed to cardinality brought up in these conversations as an extra clarifying tool we could use for infinite sets.
I think the main problem in all this is how are these mathematical properties apply in our world. For example, the famous Banach-Tarski paradox is mathematically valid but clearly impossible in the real world.
@@jaskitstepkit7153 right, I'm struggling to see a problem. What's the problem supposed to be exactly?
As far as I understand, metaphysical impossibility refers to that which is incompatible with the real essences of things. For instance, that gold should have the atomic number 60 is metaphysically impossible, because it belongs to the essence of gold to have the atomic number 79. (This is not reducible to logical impossibility, since the meaning of "gold" does not contradict the meaning of "has atomic number 60". The definition relevant to metaphysical possibility is a real definition, as opposed to a nominal definition.)
@@legron121 That doesn't make a lot of sense. If there were another physical system with different atomic laws such that gold(2) serves all the same functions as gold in our system, necessarily under a different atomic number, then for all practical intents and purposes gold(2) is that world's gold.
The only way to disagree with this is to say that by definition gold must be an artifact of our laws of physics with its atomic number. In which case it reduces to physical possibility (it's physically impossible for gold to have an atomic number than it otherwise does) or logical possibility (regardless of possible world, gold has to have its atomic number by definition so you're conceiving of "schmold" which has the same function as gold in that possible world but it's not gold).
Further, the meta issue at stake here is that ostensibly the Kalam proponent wants to show that X is metaphysically impossible. But now, if you're right, the first thing they have to do is get the other person to agree about essences. If the other person disagrees that there are such real things as essences, the entire metaphysical modality project is DoA, and you'll probably want to take another route other than the metaphysical modality route anyway.
I think WLC in his Response podcast part 1 explained what's Metaphysical impossibility
You may find answers in Books on metaphysics
Joe, it's better to have a debate with Trent than having such trend
We're considering writing a book, actually. Key word: considering
But also, I don't see this as a problematic trend. I'm just responding to a video that I think needs responding to
I agree a discussion would be much better, than going back and forth without any pushback.
32:09 ...Asking how many future events there "will be" is not the same as saying there "has existed " an infinite number of past events . When applied to the objectively real world we will never have an infinite number of future events .. There will always be the infinite number of future- events waiting to unfold thus we will always have a finite universe even if we hold to a notion of a infinite future
The most important aspect of this whole critique shouldn't rest solely on the philosophical but weather or not the theories play out in objective reality.
One can reasonably reject a past infinite universe in so far as the claim suggests that those events have "actually" happened in the objective world ....whilst at the same holding to a "possible" infinite future which will never actually unfold in the objectively real sense..
This shouldn't just be about quibbling over the philosophical details but weather or not the arguments can be reconciled with objective reality.
You,Dr Wes and Dr Alex should write a book on Kalam and infinity
Adding to infinity is a strange concept. It seems contradictory. To add to something presumes there is something lacking. Infinity cannot be lacking, otherwise it would be limited and, by definition, finite. If I eat infinite apples, there won’t be even one apple in existence that is uneaten. There are no apples to add to the amount I ate.
Suppose you have infinitely many apples numbered by the even numbers. Now suppose I have infinitely many apples labeled by the odd numbers. If you eat your infinitely many apples, there are still more apples in existence uneaten -- namely, mine :)
@@MajestyofReason Correct me if I’m wrong, but that supposes we are labeling all of the apples, you taking the odd and I the even. I eat mine (infinitely many) and there are still infinite left (your odd apples). This works because half of infinity is infinity.
However, this doesn’t seem to involve addition. We are dividing the initial set amongst ourselves. The point remains that if we eat the entire set (I eat the evens, you the odds) there is no apple left in existence.
@@MajestyofReason Though, I guess the point still remains that there are infinite apples remaining once I eat infinite apples. Eating infinite apples isn’t the same as eating EVERY apple. Nevermind.
@@MajestyofReason How can you even have an actual quantifiable infinite.
On the Kagan-Craig debate: Watched that debate a long time ago. If I remember correctly, the participants were informed that it was to be a conversation and not a full on debate (Craig made this comment post event). And indeed it was just that. Kagan and Craig were talking past each other at that point. I agree with Kagan that on a personal level people feel and hold on to meaning deeply in their personal lives (though Sartre and Camus would disagree). Craig will not disagree with that. But Craig was speaking more about the ultimate state of things. If reality and life are products of dumb luck then nihilism is absolutely inescapable. 'Meaning' is just a human construct that dies with humanity and ultimately in the death of the cosmos. A realist view on meaning is only possible when creation and life are not ACCIDENTAL (dumb luck) but INTENTIONAL (created with and for a purpose). To illustrate: a piece of rock exists accidentally (you can just crush it, use it for whatever, doesn't really matter), a smartphone exists intentionally (it exists with a telos, a purpose, a design). I'm with Craig, though I admit he did not push Kagan on the matter while Kagan pushed back hard.
Ugh Trent did not do a good job here… this is (imo) uncharacteristically negligent of him.
25:47 I do find something fishy and question begging about Cantorian infinities. Something about "the cardinality of the set of natural numbers" seems to me like it gets a free pass and then is used as a quantity... I'm not smart enough to really work on my objection here but I think my intuitions at least are with Craig about actual/potential infinities. I don't think there are any good arguments either way though!
Something to think about:
Is it begging the question in some way that’s different than what axioms do in general?
I mean, in something like ZFC, the existence of a set S which contain the empty set and where, if x is an element of S, then so is {x}; is taken as an axiom. Sure. In that sense it’s kind of begging the question regarding “does the theory contain infinite sets?” by taking one specific set as given which can be proven to be infinite. It’s not explicitly assuming “there are infinite sets”. And if we have one such sets we get many with the construction axioms.
It can make one feel a bit uneasy though.
Regardless of if such sets exists in reality (whatever that means), the system might be consistent and useful for developing theories.
Unless the theory is inconsistent, to actually decide if infinite sets, as modeled by set theory, are a part of reality, you’d have to actually look at reality, right. But maybe we can’t decide in practice because we’re restricted to finite measurements and finite paper to write the results on etc. but maybe reality might be infinite in some respect nonetheless. One could argue that maybe finite theories of how the world is should be thought of as always being simpler and should be preferred. Then again there could be other reasons to prefer infinite theories. It’s a difficult question.
Theory-wise, I’d say the infinite cardinals aren’t qualitatively different than the infinite sets themselves. They are just constructed using a different combination of the axioms. You could choose to revise the axioms in which case you might not be able to construct the cardinals even if you can construct the natural numbers.
“Adding” cardinals is just interpreted as defining a binary operator with certain properties that extent the notion of addition to a larger domain. There is nothing in principle more wrong there than the axioms used to construct it.
In the end, I think that as long as there are axiomatic systems or theories that give rise to infinite sets or other infinite objects that can’t be shown to be inconsistent then their existence as part of reality will just in principle have to be an empirical question. And empirical data may not be able to ever rule it out. That fact should probably make us extra cautious in asserting infinities in reality.
This is a big problem when arguing about mathematical realism in my experience. When you get into nitty gritty, so much of mathematics seems prima facia to rest on question begging (let f(x) = x^2, let XYZ axioms be true, etc). I myself am a mathematical realist, but fictionalists have a big rhetorical advantage when they can point to things like that and say "that's just an assertion" or "that's question begging".
Joe, why is accepting that the future cannot be endless (per Malpass’ symmetry argument) so problematic for the proponent of the Kalam?
Under Christian theism, surely heaven could be in a timeless or otherwise atemporal state, and so an endless future would not be a necessary condition?
Excellent, excellent comment. Alex Malpass and I discuss this in our video and give some reasons for rejecting it. None of the reasons are decisive; but they do seem plausible. Here are a few potential reasons here: (1) Christianity entails the resurrection of the body. But bodies seem essentially temporal - to have a body is to have something that undergoes succession as it changes in various ways (Eg, as one moves one’s arms or legs). And so we couldn’t be timeless in heaven. (2) second, if there actually can be material timeless things capable of standing in causal relations (as would be the case if we were timeless in heaven), then the Kalam’s inference to God seems undercut; for then it seems plausible that there could (in principle, as a live epistemic possibility) be a timeless material cause that produced temporal material reality. (3) it seems deeply counter-intuitive, if not potentially contradictory, or I say that a temporal thing could become timeless or transition to a state of timelessness; for then it would seem to be true, of one in one’s timeless state, that one *was* or *used to be* temporal; but then something timeless stands in a temporal relation with something temporal, which isn’t possible. (And also, defenders of the Kalam seem to be being inconsistent if they reject actual cases of Cantor’s property based on their intuition while accepting the by-my-lights-at-least profoundly counter-intuitive view that something temporal could become timeless. But note that I am happy to admit that none of these considerations are decisive, and that there may be room for reasonable disagreement here❤️
Didn't Christians traditionally believed that Heaven is Endless
in Heaven people will be with God for Endless TIME potential infinite
I know general Christians think this
2:33 to 5:41 - It's a fair point, but there's also something to be said for addressing the "most recent" train of thought for an argument _if_ the purpose is to advance the discussion instead of rehashing objections that have already been (successfully or not) addressed.
13:26 to 15:44 - I'm sympathetic that it's potentially misleading, but Craig really does believe that infinities _lead to_ contradictions. A quick example is subtracting infinities leading to inconsistent results. For a crude example: infinity + 3 = infinity + 2; subtract "infinity" from both sides of the equation and you get 3 = 2, which is surely logically impossible.
That 3=2 only follows if we allow transfinite subtraction, obeying the same rules as it does with finite quantities, within the relevant arithmetic system; but that isn’t allowed in the relevant arithmetic system. The way Craig responds to this is that we can perform the relevant subtractions in concrete reality if there could be actual concrete infinite. But that doesn’t mean that such subtractions in concrete reality are contradictory; sure, they lead to *different* results, but no contradictions - of the form p and ~p - ensue from his Hilbert Hotel subtractions. Contradictions only ensue if we add the auxiliary thesis that it must be the case that an identical quantity subtracted from an identical quantity must necessarily result in identical quantities in different cases in which such subtractions are performed. But nowhere does Craig justify this, firstly, and secondly, this principle isn’t itself entailed by there being an actual concrete infinity. And so my point stands: Hilbert’s Hotel, as Craig tells it, does not lead to a contradiction (ie, a statement of the form p and ~p)
For more on these points, cf. rest of video🙂
@@MajestyofReason Hey, i actually just watched Trent's video yesterday and asked some questions in your previous video. I'm actually really new to this and i was wondering what are some starting points i can check out in order to understand this stuff? Really appreciate it cheers.
@@abelj5145 amazing to see you here my dude!!! What would you like to understand? The Kalam in particular and all the moves being made in the discussions surrounding the Kalam? Or philosophy and philosophy of religion more generally? Or something else? This helps me personalize my recommendations
@@MajestyofReason As i'm new, i would to get an kinda an overall scope and reach of what the philosophy of religion has in terms of the questions it asks and the discussions the topic sparks. So i think that would be a good starting point. Because atm i don't really know any of the arguments for God in depth or any of the counter positions in depth apart from some youtube videos. I also don't really understand in depth the different positions on the spectrum ( or on the different dimensions?) of philosophy like atheism, theism - it's different forms and why they differ, deism and so on.
I'm doing good.
Based.
Bruh trent legit just posted this yesterday. I'm convinced you got rocket engine as a brain
You and Trent should debate since you guys made so long friendly refutation videos against each other
You should definitely invite WLC to discuss kalam and abstract objects
Maybe Andrew loke would be better to discuss kalam invite them both
Please
Not gonna lie though; the kalam documentary has some highly misleading moments.
Hey meow
Did you watched Dr Alex malpass's 3 hours long discussion on thoughts adventure podcast aka TAP ?
If you did please share your thoughts on that discussion
I did criticize the documentary at some points in my video here🙂
@@MajestyofReason Will you include WLC responses to this documentary in your kalam series with RR? did you interview Dr luke barnes for your next episode of kalam series
Thank you for your great works
@@MajestyofReason Joe, when are you going to interview Stephen Braude on postmortem survival? Do it before he gets too old. See his “Immortal Remains” and “Crimes of Reason”
I think Trent has nightmares where he is being haunted by Joe.
I doubt it - I bet his dreams are us chilling over a glass of wine (or, perhaps, infinitely many glasses of wine) and chatting about philosophy🙂❤️
@@MajestyofReason well that could very well be (minus the wine, you're still underaged)
@@VeNeRaGe nah home dawg, I turned 21 this past August🥳🥰
@@MajestyofReason oh crap. My bad, thought you turned 20 for some reason. Sorry!
@@VeNeRaGe No worries!
I’m doin’ guh real guh
Bro you've got to shorten this stuff.
I recommend listening to it in parts over time, and listening to it on (e.g.) 1.5x speed :)
I love you work man, you offer good rebuttals rather than pop Atheism. One thing I will say is I recommend not making fun of christian beliefs when you made the comment of God killing babies and stuff, I believe this makess you sound less respectible to christians and may make people defensive. Critisism is great but attacks like that arnt in the best taste.
The angel Gabriel is scheduled to sing god's praises on every Tuesday, but they are feeling lazy, so make a deal with Michael, G will cover M's praise day at a later point if M covers for G this week.
G keeps making this deal with M week after week, accumulating a potential infinite praise debt to M because there will always be enough time to pay it off.
Gabriel sings no praises, yet will sing the same amount as Michael.
No, I think that last statement might be wrong?
Either way, Michael is a schmuck.