Physicists & Philosophers debunk the Kalam Cosmological Argument featuring Penrose, Hawking, Guth
Вставка
- Опубліковано 27 лип 2024
- We have assembled some of the world’s leading physicists and philosophers to reply to the Kalam Cosmological Argument for God (as presented in popular debates by the Christian Philosopher William Lane Craig). The argument says that everything that begins to exist has a cause, the universe began to exist, therefore the universe has a cause, which must be God. We show the flaws in this argument, featuring interviews we conducted with physicists Roger Penrose, Stephen Hawking, Alan Guth, Carlo Rovelli, Alex Vilenkin, Niayesh Afshordi and many others as well as philosophers such as AW Moore (co-editor of the world's leading philosophy journal Mind), Oxford logician Daniel Isaacson, Cambridge philosopher Arif Ahmed, philosopher of science specialising in foundations of quantum mechanics Alastair Wilson, and Alex Malpass and Daniel Linford who have both published multiple articles on the Kalam in leading journals. Most of the footage was shot especially for this film and all of those participants reviewed it carefully before release. All of the other living participants, where we reused interview footage from previous films, were sent a draft of this one in advance and asked if they objected to appearing or wanted changes. None objected and all changes are in the final film you see. Most participants gave extremely positive feedback and we hope you will too.
Timecodes
0:00 Introduction
1:38 Actual versus Potential Infinity
2:40 Cantor's Infinity
3:06 The Infinite Property
5:42 Hilbert’s Hotel
11:16 Contradiction & not a Contradiction
13:38 Jupiter and Saturn
14:52 Physicists on Infinity
16:38 Counting to Infinity
18:36 The Infinite Future
22:35 Spacetime Singularity
24:50 Carlo Rovelli on Neo Lorentzian Relativity and Cosmic Time
28:29 Hawking, Penrose, Vilenkin, Efstathiou on The Big Bang & Quantum Gravity
29:37 Strings, Loops and the Big Bounce
31:16 Guth and Vilenkin on the BGV
34:00 Is a Collapsing Universe Unstable?
35:31 Wall Theorem, Ashtekar and Afshordi
36:36 Anthony Aguirre on Past Eternal Universe
37:47 Singularities, Magueijo and Vidotto
38:24 Second Law, Guth and Ashtekar
40:43 A Universe From Nothing? Vilenkin
42:53 Causality
44:17 Interpretations of QM
48:05 Tigers in Our Living Room, Vilenkin
49:44 Causality and Philosophy
51:25 Simultaneous Causation
54:46 Can The Universe Create Itself?
56:51 Ghazali's Argument
57:53 Closing Arguments - Наука та технологія
This needs to be seen by every Christian apologist who's ever tried to use the Kalam.
thanks so much
@@PhilHalper1 Bertrand Russell said that most of the arguments attempting to prove a god are just bad grammar.
Wonder will Braxton hunter of trinity radio address it? He most of all after Craig uses and defends the Kalam as a near slam dunk argument for proof of god’s existence.
Craig might need some cool aid to answer this ;))
Thanks for the link to this on Twitter. I will definitely be forwarding it to others.
So damn excited! Will be sure to share this an infinite number of times :P Thank you
wow, it would be an honour if you did. I dont know if you remember but we met in Oxford when you debated my good friend Justin Brierley. I think you are going to love this film. Finger crossed, let me know what you think when you see it and yes shares would be great. We dont have the reach of yourself and Alex but i think when you see this you will want it spread far and wide. Hope you are well and happy new year btw.
Maybe You should Mention this Film in your Kalam Series with joe (Majesty of reason ) as a Resource
I'm here because of Rationality Rules. So looking forward to it, though my mind might explode before the end. 😅
Skydivephil is church for the naturalist/atheist! And I don't mean that in a good way.
@@eenkjet Obviously you don't mean that in a good way as atheists have no reason to attend a church. This is merely educational, which is not the purpose of a church.
This puts my own videos on the Kalam to shame. Great job Phil and Monica. This may be the definitive response to Kalam for some time to come.
thanks David , thats very gracious of you to say
The Kalam, as phrased by the WLC moron they are using...has been debunked MANY TIMES...
@@leeshackelford7517 I don't think it is fair or justified to refer to Dr Craig as a "moron". He is anything but. Perhaps you were just using hyperbole for effect, but I think charity is valuable in these discussions.
That said, what phrasing of the Kalam do you think has NOT been debunked or has been debunked fewer that "many times"?
@@Nai61a just saw your reply,
Since they were using that version, I used THAT version.
Of course they've all been debunked.
It is stupid, to keep repeating the same BS, once the idea has been debunked to the speaker personally. That's why I call Ham and Hovind stupid
WLC, is obviously well educated. Since he is well educated, his level of stupidity, is much much deeper, so I raised him to the "moron" level.
(His level of education...he should see the nonsense as nonsense. I COULD be generous ....just lying for Jesus....and raise him up a level in his ability to lie)
The people in this video are overthinking it, lol. A single moment actually does depend on the previous even if we could not witness it. The mathematical laws would still apply whether or not humans existed.
We literally would NOT be having this conversation if the universe, theoretically, had an infinite past(which really just means it never even *began* to exist or never existed in the first place, lol). Maybe these people believe the universe is some sort of omniscient being😆
Here because of Rationality Rules, I enjoyed the thorough response and analysis of the argument. And great documentary quality 👌 Keep up the amazing work… Subscribed 👍
thanks very much , glad you liked it.
Here from the “Critical Faculty” UA-cam channel.
Incidentally, are you VEGAN? 🌱
@@TheWorldTeacher Im vegetarian.
@@PhilHalper1, you are urged to become VEGAN, since carnism (the destructive ideology which supports the use and consumption of animal products, especially for “food”) is arguably the foremost existential crisis.🌱
Do you have any comment on Craig's refutation of this video? He put it up in his own video titled "WLC Responds to a Video Critiquing Him and the Kalam"
Looks super awesome! Glad to see Alex Malpass in there, his formulation of the unsatisfiable pair diagnosis is a pretty good response.
Yes Alex is awesome , he has a lot of good points made in this film
I marked out when I saw Dr. Malpass, hes great
Came here from Paulogia. Love this thorough dive into the Kalam argument! It's difficult to fully understand the flaws of this argument with only a layman background, so breaking it down like this was very helpful!
thanks glad you liked it.
@@PhilHalper1 why did you lie about a "nothingness" when you know full well its a quantum fluctuation? This "nothings" is a vortex which has this quantum fluctuation inside it that requires space and yes time to exist. It is not a nothing just a very small and complex something yet you chose not to say that.
@@somebodysomewhere5571 did you even watch the film?
@@PhilHalper1 yes
@@PhilHalper1 It doesnt change the fact of the matter. You lied about nothingness and used "philosophers" who all they said was "its not one sided in the philosophy community" like obv but nothing ever is.
Christians: God created everything. Infinite doesn't exist.
Also Christians: God is Infinite.
My favorite
Except that the usage of the term "Infinite" is equivocal in both statements, so there's nothing inconsistent in affirming both.
I am very pleased by the quality of the video, the caliber of speakers, the framing of the Kalam argument and the beauty of the refutations. This could easily be behind I pay wall so thank you for bringing this to us for free!!!!
you are more than welcome, thanks for your comment
Unfortunately, the Kalam is misrepresented here.
Are we now in the age where whatever gets published online - because it fits a certain narrative or confirms our biases - that we take it to be true?
You should look at Dr William Lane Craig's response videos on his channel, to this docu.
Then come back and restate your above comment.
@@thecloudtherapist Lmao, "misrepresnted"; I love how everytime Craig's life, bullshit and sophistry are exposed; the sycophantic christ-cultists and jesus-fuckers come up with some "misrepresentation". Also, the calimnous video serious by craig has been responded to; and Craig has been, once again, in the eyes of all reasonable people, embrassed publicly. Craig is barely good enough to get a pass-by as a philosopher; his butchery and perversion of actual science however, is near unforgivable. So, tragically: you have openly misrepresented the state of the argument here; and I think you should edit your comment or reply with an apology to me and the commentor above.
@@thecloudtherapist does this video ever make a transition from talking about infinity to talking about the argument? Where are they saying the argument is false?
Sorry, Craig debunked this video. See "WLC Responds to a Video Critiquing Him and the Kalam"
Thank you for creating this and for sharing these ideas and concerns. A huge thank you to all of the interviewees who shared their time with us. 🌺
you are most welcome, appreciate the support.
Suggestion for a future video: Reaction of people as they hear Craig quoting them.
lol that might be fun
Honestly, this is so much more interesting than simply "debunking religious people who use the Kalam cosmological argument". I love the idea of taking these big philosophical questions and looking at them through the lens of science as we know it.
thanks glad you liked it.
The people in this video are overthinking it, lol. A single moment actually does depend on the previous even if we could not witness it. The mathematical laws would still apply whether or not humans existed.
We literally would NOT be having this conversation if the universe, theoretically, had an infinite past(which really just means it never even *began* to exist or never existed in the first place, lol). Maybe these people believe the universe is some sort of omniscient being😆
@@Revolt_west maybe it would help you if you actually watched the vid, bud. Here's a timestamp that addresses your point: 24:53
@@laggruntythirst It must not be a good point if you cannot explain it yourself...bud🤓.
@@PhilHalper1 Craig has MORE than refuted this video. Carlo Rovelli is straight out lying about Neo-Lorentzianism and Black Holes. A W Moore is lying about the work of John Barrow - even a casual reading of the web page in the video confirms this. The philosophers talk of the infinite singularity is contradicted by the physicists later in the video. A singularity in General relativity means the equations blow up and does not give an infinite cardinality. There are similar infinities in QCD as well and are resolved by renormalisation this might not be possible in classical GR but even than this does not imply an actual infinite as the Barrow article says. A Neo-Lorentzian does not imply or need faster than light travel, General Relativity does not rule out FTL travel both statements are lies.. The individual who interviewed Danial Isaacson lied - he told Dan that Craig was arguing against the consistency of higher set theory and not its metaphysical implausibility in the real world.
TRY AGAIN.
Great documentary. A must watch! Would love one for the ontological argument as well.
Wow! No doubt this will be excellent! I love this subject of the Kalam. I'm glad Daniel Linford was invited. :) He surely deserves it.
yeah he's brilliant and very helpful
@@PhilHalper1 You were not kidding when you said you're working in a bigger project, Phil! :)
@@CosmoPhiloPharmaco the Kalam video is not the bigger project. Thats something way bigger
@@PhilHalper1 what's your bigger project?
@@Hello-vz1md I cant say at the moment but Im sure you will hear about in time
I'm glad I spent the two hours to watch this. Two hours you ask: yes - I needed time to look things up, or just think. This programme was worthy of that.
I am pleased that this has confirmed much of what I thought (I am a Physicist by training, Biophysicist by research), and introduced me to concepts with which I was not previously familiar.
I'd have liked a bit more on causality, in particular simultaneous causation. If two events are simultaneous which causes the other? Does the depression of the pillow cause the sinking of the ball, or vice versa? What causes photon pair production, as everywhere is simultaneous for the photon? There is the necessity of the nearby nucleus, but there is no sufficiency.
To one of your contributors, Alastair Wilson: if you are ever in Staff House bar when I am I'd like to discuss this with you.
thanks so much for your comment , and two hours of watch time. Alas we decided to try and keep it to less than one hour so inevitably there will be sections that could go further. Still Criags video on the topic are just 5 mins.
Yes, but if you subtract those two hours from infinity, it's the same as subtracting zero from infinity. So we can say that in an infinite universe, you spent no time watching this video! 😂
As I understood it, gravity acting on the ball caused the depression in the pillow. But if you deny that event, and just observe the ball nestled in the depression, the simultaneous cause and effect, then that state can only be understood in terms of an infinitely past event. That is, an uncaused cause or simultaneous causation.
There is no such thing as simultaneity though, both you and I should know that from relativity
It took me at least 1.5 hours, but I'll be thinking about this for weeks or years.
Great vid. Will be watching it a few times to process the information.
Already watched 3 times ... Just amazing and i don't have any other words to add.
Thank you so much for this !!
really appreciate your comment
Rationality rules sent me here
I'm glad I came
what did you think of the film?
It was quite entertaining and informative. It is a work of art, one of the many things I am grateful for, is now I have a topic I can pour my time into. The big bounce theory
Far and away the best and clearest response to the Kalam I have seen. Thank you for this!
thanks so much
I just want to add a extremely strong thumbs up to your comment! Far more than the one I'm officially permitted.
I've thought of a lot of these objections to the Kalam myself, but not being a mathematician or physicist, I lacked the confidence that I was correct. It's nice to see them confirmed by the people who have the goods. Craig founds his arguments on a cherry-picked list of hypotheses and interpretations that are not favored by the larger scientific community. The end result is a kind of theoretical Rube Goldberg machine that is constructed to bolster a predetermined conclusion. Interestingly, Craig has stated that even if his logical rationale for God was proved wrong, he would believe anyway. He bases this outlook on an incorrigible inner experience of God.
Well that is fine for him, but to go on from there to create an ad hoc byzantine construction full of suppositions rejected or disfavored by most experts in the relevant fields, taking positive stands on propositions that no one can know, is pure dishonest sophistry.
It has become clear that Craig's actual project is not to create a valid rationale for God's existence, but to put his argument on a level of sophistication where the average person cannot follow, but where they can be bamboozled by the technical esoterica that he can deploy. This can be seen when he lectures to general audiences. In those settings he makes outrageous absolute statements. He should hope that the God and Hell he believes in are not actually true, if he believes that God has a serious criterion for honesty.
@@donnievance1942 I couldn't agree more. I remember once hearing him speak to some non-technical Christian audience and make reference to de Sitter space. And I remember thinking, how nice that his audience probably understands that he's referring to a maximally symmetric Lorentzian manifold with constant positive scalar curvature which is the Lorentzian analogue of an n-sphere (with its canonical Riemannian metric). Nice solution to Einstein's GR field equations too!
@@CosmosMarinerDU LOL.
This channel is a sheer treasure. I do wish it had closed captions though. All these minds are brilliant but a bit hard to understand their accents sometimes.
This response was absolutely fascinating. I'm not overly familiar with WLC's argument, but the one thing that has always stuck out to me is when pushed on A vs B theory of time, he never really provides an answer to B other than to ignore it.
Illuminating video. Thanks to all involved.
I suggest you look up WLCs response to this video, in another video titled "WLC Responds to a Video Critiquing Him and the Kalam"
As I'm sure you're aware, despite the rapid growth of Atheism, at an institutional level Chriatian Apologetics enjoys a wide variety of support in terms of funding, influence, and organizational advantage. Simply look at the size of some of the biggest Christian YT channels as well as the quality of videos produced by organizations such as Reasonable Faith, Word on Fire, and others. With that in mind, it is finally so amazing to see a high-quality and well produced film that brings the best of Atheism in Philosophy and Science to take on the Kalam Cosmological Argument. Because of the argument's popularity, the majority of responses on both sides (from Atheists and Theists) have been relatively poor and uninformed. But with your video, where you highlight what relevant epistemic experts have to say on the matter, I'm hoping it can raise the level of discourse around the Kalam.
Truly this is a remarkable achievement and this is something that as Rationality Rules said, I will be sharing multiple times over and over again. Thank you so much for putting this together as you have done a tremendous service to everyone who is engaged in the debate on the Kalam. Well done.
Thanks so much , really appreciate what you just said. Rationality Rules did say he would share multiple times, but wed behapy for one tweet. So far he hasnt tweeted about it or given any reactions. Im curious to know what he thought maybe if you know him you could ask him ?
@@PhilHalper1 you should tweet this video to Every Popular Atheists and Theists by this engagement on Kalam debate Will do better
@@Hello-vz1md thanks. I have tried but that doesn't seem to work, maybe if you can as well that might help.
@@PhilHalper1 I think Rationality Rules has now shared things from his end. For what it's worth, we've also been promoting this video where we can. One further suggestion, for any other projects dealing with the Kalam (or any other argument for Theism), I'd highly recommend inviting Graham Oppy, Wes Morriston, C.M. Lorkowski, Paul Draper, Evan Fales, Stephen Puryear, Stephen Maitzen, J.L. Schellenberg, Robin Le Poidevin, Felipe Leon, Gregory Dawes, etc for a production as all these people have published scholarly literature/boooks and are relevant epistemic experts in this area.
@@RealAtheology thanks, yes I see Stephen shared it now so thats great. I think we may do fine tuning next, who do you think we should have for that? Im based n Uk so Eurpean names preferred but may travel further afield for it.
As a mathematician I hate to see mathematics being misused with such wild claims such as 'mathematicians agree that infinity leads to self controdiction'. that is just the lowest of the low and you can see that they are scraping the bottom of the barrel for arguments
yep
Really appreciate this video.
thanks glad you liked it.
Very juicy! Thank you.
you are welcome
Excellent! Gave me a lot of food for thought.
thanks glad you found it stimulating
Excellent work, I felt that Craig's arguments had some holes in them but I lacked the clarity to see exactly where. This video helped tremendously. Thanks very much.
you are very welcome
Look into Craigs response to this on his site
Thanks for the video :)
you are welcome
Excellent content. Subscribed.
thanks
This is perfect! Every time I hear that ridiculous "we couldn't get to now from infinite past"' thing I start to cry and bang my head against the desk, and I'm sure I'm not the only one. Nice to see that the big minds have heard the banging.
Yes, that argument is irritating. I wonder if WLC and his ilk would argue that Xeno's Paradox proves you can't shoot a tortoise with an arrow?
hahaha - I empathise with you. I tend to I always hold my head in my hands like that Cpt. Picard meme.
yes Im so glad we could get some experts to explain why this is wrong
This argument is indeed flawed. But I think it is the best argument they have (in comparison to Hilbert's Hotel and the Grim Reaper paradox and others). When I first heard of it, I was puzzled. Of course, after reading I realized it is fallacious.
@@CosmoPhiloPharmaco The Hilbert Hotel example was ridiculous with the statement an infinite hotel being full. That shows a complete misunderstanding of the notion of infinite anything.
Holy moly thank you so very much!! I've been asking to several religious people what exactly do they mean by an infinite regress and this does wonders to understand what I already suspected, that it's an invalid question or at least distinct questions not compatable with finite time.
you are welcome
If they didn’t just respond with “an endlessly long sequence of events” then they are bad at defending their faith
@@somebodysomewhere5571 defending faith is not hard doing so without logical fallacies, misrepresenting science, assumptions after assumptions and overestimating the bible... That is the Challenger.
@@Carlos-fl6ch Sounds like you making assumptions about defending faith
@@somebodysomewhere5571
Assumptions. Hmm. Consider this. defending anything is not hard doing so without logical fallacies, misrepresenting science, assumptions after assumptions and overestimating your position... That is the Challenger.
But better yet. Proof me wrong and I'll admit
Great video! I think that understanding the eternalist view of time is important to comprehend better the physical theories involved in this discussion, would be nice to have a video about eternalism.
glad you like it, and thanks for your suggestion
Wow this is fantastic! Subscribed!
This channel and Closer to Truth are the best and the most adventurous cosmology content on UA-cam.
thanks, thats very kind of you to say
You would love this then ua-cam.com/play/PLROBLlvnR7BEF9b1NOvRf_zhboibmywJb.html
I'm excited for this, should prove to be interesting!
thanks, i look forward to hearing your thoughts afterwards.
Such a wonderful episode, I would definitely watch a deep dive on the concept of infinity. There was a really great special done in England on Infinity I think by Horizons but if you made one I would be the first person to watch.
We may do this in the future. Seriously looking into it
Wow! So many nails for a coffin whose content has been rotting away for quite a while already!
Thanks for making this video. Contradictions in infinity is infinitely beautiful. I am just amazed that my brain can grasp it. How is that possible?
your smarter than you think maybe?
Hey Phil - thanks for doing this. I'm excited to FINALLY watch it, especially given my book on the subject: "Did God Create the Universe from Nothing? Countering William Lane Craig's Kalam Cosmological Argument"
let me know what you think
@@PhilHalper1 it's brilliant. I'll blog it this week.
@@ATipplingPhilosopher about time mate! glad you liked it
@@PhilHalper1 I'm so fricking busy I've been struggling. You know Carrier heavily cited it in a recent discussion?
I consider this one of the best Kalam documentaries available so great job. I also understand that you have loads and loads of other information available as well please consider a part two.
The most important question idd like to ask you is to also make a video that responses to WLC responses that were discussed in bad apologetics. And please add the link to that episode here. It's a must watch after this documentary.
thanks, we are making part 2 , Im editing now
@@PhilHalper1 not only a great documentary maker but a great responder to. What are you the perfect UA-cam content creator.
Think you can even go for part three and four. Lol.
Really appreciate your work. It's often hard for scientist to respond to such stuff because they don't have the audience nor the motivation..so not only are you doing a great job for us enabling them to briefly address such matters is a great service to them as well.
You are appreciated.
@@Carlos-fl6ch thanks so much for your kind words, very much appreciated.
So great to have you back and providing content again....and what great content it is! Can not find Hilbert's Hotel on my travel app, however.
thanks i did read a SCIFI novel Called White Light by Rudy Rucker where the characters stay there.
The Hilbert Hotel is vastly overrated. Room service takes forever to answer your call.
This was such a great video. It really exposes how Infinities can be abused by trying to apply arithmetic functions against them that are themselves, not logically defendable.
thanks
WLC unironically said skeptics of his argument are deliberately abusing science LMAO
Having proper subtitles would be really helpful. I have some auditory processing issues so I have trouble understanding what some of these professors are saying, especially the interviewees with heavier accents. Trying my best to understand these concepts but it's pretty challenging. Please consider making some. Thanks. ❤️
if you know someone that wants to make them we would be happy to upload them
This is a fantastic video. Thank you
You're welcome. Thanks for your kind words
Great video! Definitely will watch it again to better understand everything that being said here. Only thing it's lacking right now is an attention it deserves.
thanks glad you liked it.
“Many of us are dubious that just simply pointing that something seems absurd is enough to forbid it from existing in reality philosophers have to be a lot bolder than that.” What irony 🤣
Tertullian's ghost smiles.
WLC has one of the weakest arguments based on fluffy assumptions, he stands alone making a bold baseless claim
Excellent idea for debunking certain arguments. Empanel a handful of experts to deconstruct these seemingly complex arguments
thanks
This is beautiful. I'll be here when you reach a million subscribers.
lol, thanks
A superb focused exposition that is expressed in la language for the non-specialist. No easy task. We are all in the debt of the producers of this - it is a model of clarity, rationality and intellectual rigour.
thanks so much, really appreciate your comment.
Will WLC respond with "an incredulous stare"? I look forward to it. Great video, thanks.
It wouldn't surprise me
Added to favorites after watching. So many great minds and nuggets.
thanks
"That video is so below threshold." What a great description 😅
yeah I liked that quote too
I like the contrast between Craig's rather aggressive, asertionist approach soaked with an ever-present vibe of mockery and the scientists' calm, educational tone.
thanks
Easily the best video on the kalam. Thanks for this.
thats really kid of you to say
@@PhilHalper1 hey! It's just true. I'm in many debate groups on Facebook and I'm so tired of the argument. This gives me some new information to use I didn't have previously. I hate how science is constantly misrepresented by believers, but I'm not a scientist so it's hard for me to put in words these concepts sometimes. These people being paragons of intellect make it understandable to a lay person such as myself.
@@walkerflocker7811 cool, feel free to link to this video in such groups.
i saw that you had a new video coming up today and decided to check this one out. Absolutely fascinating discussion about Math and Philosophy. Great content. Subscribed!
thanks , hope you like the new one, please let us know in the comment swhat you think
This is a BEAUTIFUL documentary. Thank you
You are welcome. Have you checked out our follow up film?
@@PhilHalper1 the '2: physicists and philosophers strike back'? I just began watching it... It has Wes Morriston in it! My favourite modern philosopher! This is a total GOLDMINE of a channel.. thank you 💕
@@bigol7169 cheers and I hope you like our new animal suffering argument film too
skydivephil : Thank you so much for taking the time to put together this video with such a deep variety of perspectives around the world from leading expert's. I am forever indebted 👍
You are very welcome. Appreciate the comment
Damn, Arif Ahmed is really good. Great video by the way
hes awesome, such clear thinking and so to the point and accessible. Definitely going to use him again!
Excellent presentation!
thank you very much
Don't buy a used car from anyone named Bill Craig
I learned so much. Thank you for this
You are welcome
This is a fantastic video. Well done!
thanks
This presentation is nearly infinitely enjoyable!
😉
thanks
This is one of the very few channels I have notifications on for. Great work!
thanks
Simply wonderful, thoroughly enjoyed.
thanks so much for your comment
here after watching Trent horns rebuttal
have you seen Majesty of Reasons reply ? ua-cam.com/video/dqmIQcNrzTY/v-deo.html
Excellent, wonderful work putting this together!
Thanks
This is the most comprehensive and complete examination of the Kalam. Kudos to you
thanks very much . Have you seen our follow up film? I think I like it better
7:25 There is a misunderstanding or rather premeditated miscomprehension In the phrase: "and yet, EXACTLY THE SAME NUMBER of people left the hotel this time when the odd-numbered guests checked out."
It is simply not true. Just because the number of people leaving we call: "infinity" doesn't mean it is a number. The infinity does not equal any number. The notion of infinity cannot be misapprehended as any number. Simply infinity is not a number. Kantor showed that there are some different kinds of infinities - some are bigger than others.
After you realized such a thing, there is no paradox in both situations compared. Somebody has just used the same word for different things. It often happens, when arguing negligently.
Using one word (infinity) for different things doesn't make those different things the same. This is a very similar problem to dividing by zero.
I like your phrase 'premeditated miscomprehension'. Given that WLC has at least a basic understanding of Hilbert's argument, I don't think there is any misunderstanding but a willful attempt to misrepresent it.
@@condorboss3339 nah you are being clearly uncharitable to paint a narrative
INFINITIES are fascinating. Though they have indeterminate end point, they have different densities or compactness. 😃
@@terminusadquem6981 A deep insight indeed. I like it.
excellent work. i wonder if craig will respond.
he has responded to ourmaterial in the past so maybe , we shall see.
I can not measure properly the amount of thank you for being here.
Much appreciated
Such an excellent channel, I love the content, so well researched and presented.👏👏👏👏👍👍👍👍
thanks so much , really kind of you to say
Imagine WLC watching this and feeling slightly embarrassed.
my guess is cognitive dissonance might prevent that
I'm fairly certain that WLC is nowhere near humble enough, and far too arrogant, to have EVER felt embarrassed.
Ah yes I can see you are very mature
“WLC is a demon! A demon I say” -this comments section at this point
You can’t prove god or disprove god, but science has zero need for god in its explanations of the universe.
Yes.
And you can't prove two headed fairies or disprove two headed fairies but science has zero need for two headed fairies in its explanations of the universe.
@@canwelook yes you can prove someting false , like a can prove that it rain water and not milk ..........
so its false that nothing that it doesnt exist can be prove ....... just science cant prove that GOD isnt exist
😉😉😉😉😉😉😉😉😉
@@hectorantoniodejesusibarra7431
Science doesn't assume things exist until shown to exist.
Fantasy remains the realm of religion.
I agree the content of this video is very well produced and researched. Thank you for making such a great film, my only suggestion is when developing a film like this it would be wise to include interviews with some of the contemporary defenders of this argument and historians who specialize in Al Ghazali’s work.
thanks for the compliment, the objective of the film was for it be polemical there is a lot material out there defencing the Kalam that is very high quality especially Dr Criag animated video series and we want to do something to answer it.
@@PhilHalper1 but Craig has interacted with many others to debate this issue. Unfortunately, the strength of the video is (imo) greatly reduced due to the lack of response from the Kalam side... it seems like the argument Craig gives is often mis- characterized in the video and then attacked in a weaker form. Would have been nice to hear the other side... Great video production otherwise!
@@2718rm this is such a weird criticism. Criag has put loads of videos out promoting the Kalam and other arguments for God with the other side not being heard. Why cant those critical of the argument do the same. As to mischaracterising Craig, i suggest rewatching the clips we included, he did say what we said he said.
@@PhilHalper1 of course they can, but in this case the entire video is devoted to refuting Craig's arguments and Craig isn't given a voice. Also, the mischaracterization of the arguments may not have been intentional but it sometimes seemed the critic being interviewed is answering a slightly different claim than that being made by Craig.. one example would be when addressing the actual infinite, seemed the critic often responded by addressing the mathematical concept instead of instantiating infinity in physical reality.
@@2718rm Againits hard to see this isn't an outrageous double standard. What voice does Craig give to his critics in his video series promoting the existence of God? Have you watched his debates? He assembles a bunch of quotes of scientists and deploys them to support his argument, why cant we do the same? The difference is we sent our video for approval to every scientist and philosopher to approve it. i doubt Criag does that for his quotes. The problem on the other point is that Craig said " mathematicians recognize that the existence of an actually infinite number of things leads to self-contradictions “This statement is clearly misleading, if Craig objection is metaphysical absurdity, why not say that metaphysicians find infinity absurd rather than mathematicians find it contradictory ? I think the answer is obvious , that will carry less weight to the audience.Therefore his statements create a false impression that mathematicians find infinity contradictory, this is what we want to correct in our film.
Want to see William Lane Craig's response? Here is his full point-by-point response:
Part 1: www.reasonablefaith.org/writings/question-answer/physicists-philosophers-reply-to-the-kalam-cosmological-argument-pt-i
Part 2: www.reasonablefaith.org/writings/question-answer/physicists-philosophers-reply-to-the-kalam-cosmological-argument-pt-ii
Part 3: www.reasonablefaith.org/writings/question-answer/physicists-philosophers-reply-to-the-kalam-cosmological-argument-pt-iii
Part 4: www.reasonablefaith.org/writings/question-answer/physicists-philosophers-reply-to-the-kalam-cosmological-argument-pt-iv
Good. Now watch Skyedivephil's point-by-point response in the channel Digital Gnosis
The general problem is that we assume that reality must conform to our perceived and named categories of perception
The fact is that “the beginning of the universe” is a logical concept that only appears to make sense…. When in reality we have no reason to think we know anything at all about how or why those events transpired
Agree 👍👍👍
This video only proves that infinity can exist in theory but not in a physical realm.
Here's why :
let us imagine we believed that the universe was infinite. Because this universe is so large, (given a quantum probablistic universe) the chance of some configuration of atoms existing somewhere in this universe (providing it does not break the laws of physics) becomes certain. This means anything that could exist somehow within the rules of physics MUST exist somewhere in the universe. Often this property of infinity is posed using the Infinite monkey theorem.
This infinite universe includes all number of absurd things. An infinite universe means there exists somewhere in space an exact clone of earth but where everyone has three legs. It means there exists a clone of earth where everything is identical but that I have one fewer atoms in my right hand.
Ultimately, there needs to be a necessary existence, making the Kalam still valid and sound.
If the universe is infinite, yes these things exists, but you cannot simultaneously label them as "absurd" and physically possible.
And I cannot the the relevancy with the Kalam
if the universe is infinite then yes all physically possible states happen but not necessarily with equal probability
Very professsional analysis of more problems than just the argument itself
thanks
Nice video. Very helpful.
glad you liked it
Reminder is ON!
great thanks
WLC says infinities are impossible with one breath then says god in infinite with the next -- he's not someone to take seriously but his influence on others should be. Which is why this video is important.
Thanks glad you thinker video is important.
Well yeah, he gives reasons for the distinction.
I love infinity problems, as they're weird and fascinating at the same time.
I know one video I saw not too long ago -- either by numberphile or veritiserum (apologies if those are spelled incorrectly) that actually dealt with Hilbert's hotel. He described an infinite bus pulling up to the hotel, and it the hotel was still able to accommodate everyone; just move the current guests into rooms 2x, and the new guests go into rooms 2x - 1. You can do Almost the same for any number of busses Y that show up: guests in the hotel move into room (Y+1)x, while new guests move into room yx, where (y=1..Y).
The problem occurs when Y is infinite, as now there is no way to "count" the number of rooms. That's a simple case that deomstrates countable vs uncountable infinities, whereas I believe what's talked about here are different sizes of countable infinities.
Still very cool once you wrap your head around it.
There aren't any different sizes of countable infinities. There's only one.
i thnk that was Veratasium , great video
@@Kalumbatsch
*thinks about it for a minute*
Yeah, your right. I just tried that exercise in my head and realized I was always coming up with the same set by definition.
Complex numbers or the imaginary element of mathematics, are also valid formulas or laws deduced by the human being, as well as laws of physics, to obtain reliable results from theoretical questions with relevance and correspondence in the real world. Just this.They are useful, applicable and coherent deductions for the real world. Now no infinite set of mathematics has any correspondence and coherence in the concrete world. Infinities already traveled are impossible in the real world and even in the mathematician. I think it lacks competent philosophers to correctly interpret what infinite set theories really mean. Craig, who is not even from this area, had to correct current mathematicians and philosophers about their misconceptions.
This explained a lot. Thanks for producing this video.
Craigs philosophical arguments are obviously correct when dealing with the infinite past, anyone who thinks the past can be infinite, just boggles your mind, whether your a physicist or a philosopher.
"obviously"
Hello, Mr, sorry for my English, I wanted to know if I can ask you a question, I hope you answer despite the time that has passed.
God who is eternal, and hence had an infinite past: Bruh
He remained outside of time until he decided to enter it. Hence avoiding an infinite regress. Bruh.
It is obvious and if it isn’t to you, well… I feel kinda bad for you
AWESOME!!!!!
thank you
Hey, this was a super interesting video! I don't suppose you have uploaded the full interviews with these brilliant people anywhere?
thank you but no i haven't
@@PhilHalper1 Oh, that's too bad. Could you? Maybe link unlisted videos in the description? If not that's fine, but I'll take all the science resources I can get
@@dannyotten9305 ok that may be something for the future , watch this space.
Hey phil have u watched cosmicskeptic aka alex's podcast with dr. Craig.....i know he is very selective about interviews but have u ever approached him????
yes I saw it. have I approached Alex or Dr Craig?
@@PhilHalper1Dr. Craig obviously because he is quite selective about interviews.......
Dr. Craig used pseudo science in his lectures many times , are u aware of this?? If you are then tell me what is ur view on this??
Excellent video. Does a nice job of addressing the substance of Craig’s arguments while showing some of his slimier tactics.
It’s incredibly to hear a theist say that without an eternal life with god, life is meaningless, and then accuse all atheists of being nihilists 😂
Tell me again how everything else has more value the more rare it is, except life it self.
Even funnier: So, when there is a meaning to life that ONLY God can prescribe and that can ONLY be revealed via the Bible, then what is it?
Can God change the meaning of life as he fancies?
Is the meaning of Life individual or the same for all people everywhere anytime and anytime in their life?
When you ask such questions to a normal believer, you get crickets.
And I daresay even when you ask a professional apologist, you will get vague commonplaces and nothing concrete (beyond everyone has to find the meaning of life for yourself, and for that I do not need God)
I think the whole is simply created to give the people security/certainty; that you have to ultimately make up your own morals (consistent for living together in a society) and your own meaning, and that you are NOT special, but just a "random" product of many in a giant universe in which nothing is stable and lasting forever (except the principle of constant change) is disturbing for many.
Would we admit that and teach how to COPE with that, how to find ways to handle this and fill the voids and to accept that this will be a constant process would be far better.
I just have to look at how WE change throughout our lifetime, and it is clear that there are no absolutes.
Theists like having meaning imposed on them.
Atheists like finding their own meanings.
Incredible amount of work put into this. Wow. This is THE video on the subject.
thanks
The set of all numbers is infinite. Does infinity divided by 0 equal the set of all negative numbers and the set of all positive numbers?
Your question does not seem to be coherent. Can you reformulate?
WELP!!!
Theists..... Run😈😈😈
lol
This is the most brutal takedown of Craig's Kalam I've seen so far. So much destruction.
thanks so much , really appreciate your comment
Atheists desire for God not to exist is so funny
@@ceceroxy2227 that's not what an atheist is though.
On the contrary ,theists believing in god seems childish (Santa Claus level)
@@ceceroxy2227 jajaja yea
@@laurentmaquiet5631 jajajajaja yea told san aquino about that 😉
Very generous of you to provide such excellent ideas coherently, very easy to understand.
Thankyou for the effort.
thanks
Exactly what I’ve always thought. (They just say it slightly more elegant). I try to always assume I’m wrong, but lean heavily, and wait for others to confirm.
To be honest,. YOU DONT KNOW.
no one does
This the gold standard on the kalam. It’s a reference worthy video.
thats really kind of you to say, cheers.
If they start at room one and move everyone over one to make room for the new guy, is there a different result if the building Mgr used his infinite intercom systems and told everyone to move one room but at the same time?
Just wondering.
i dont think so
Rationality Rules brought me here, and I enjoyed the video. Sorry, "film" lol
Subbed!
As someone addicted to this excellent channel for many years now, I'd recommend you to also browse their past videos when you have time, the quality is outstandingly outstanding.
@@LuisAldamiz I shall check them out this weekend. If you suggest a starting point, I will begin there.
@@ScottDCS - I would go for the "Before the Big Bang" series, AFAIK all are very interesting and related to this video.
I must say I realize now I have missed some "recent" videos that look quite interesting anyhow like the one on the PCM theory of consciousness or the latest one on the "Big Bounce"