The Kalam Cosmological Argument - Part 2: Philosophical
Вставка
- Опубліковано 3 лют 2021
- Did the universe have a beginning? Or has it existed from eternity past?
If it DID have a beginning, this raises a question: Did the universe have a Creator?
In PART 1 we explored this question scientifically. Now, let’s look at it philosophically.
Aristotle believed the universe was eternal in the past.
But Al-Ghazali disagreed. He pointed out that if the universe did NOT have a beginning, then the number of past events in the history of the universe is infinite.
But that’s a problem because the existence of an actually infinite number of past events leads to absurdity! It’s metaphysically impossible.
Why?
For more information visit: www.reasonablefaith.org/kalam
_______________________________________
Reasonable Faith features the work of philosopher and theologian Dr. William Lane Craig and aims to provide in the public arena an intelligent, articulate, and uncompromising yet gracious Christian perspective on the most important issues concerning the truth of the Christian faith today.
_______________________________________
We welcome your comments in the Reasonable Faith forums:
www.reasonablefaith.org/forums/
Be sure to also visit Reasonable Faith's other channel which contains full-length clips: / reasonablefaithorg
Follow Reasonable Faith on Twitter: / rfupdates
Add Reasonable Faith on Facebook: / reasonablefaithorg
Can we appreciate al ghazali for his wisdom
No. He was Muslim.
😁🤣😁
@@karlmuud I mean come on bruh, even tho I m as a muslim definitely. At least in here we are agree there s a God.
He made islam a pretty oppressive religion and is a reason for the horror today. So he has negative as well
@@suzaneoriordan4366 how did Ghazali do that?
@@ykn08001 he made a division of religion and philosophy and disregarded Aristotle's work, which is probably a reason for the violence for in islam today
This philosophical version has always been the most powerful to my thinking (although admittedly, what convices one individual person is subjective). When I was not a Christian and was following a type of "New Spirituality" the reality of time and the fact of the present moment haunted me and was used by God to help me see the logical need for God's existence. Thank you for these excellent resources as always.
Thanks for sharing that brief testimony. It illustrates to me that it is not one thing that brings us to faith in God.
@@JamesKimSynergize Thank you. Yet, thankfully He knows what each one of us needs (if we are at least willing) and meets us where we are.
@@terryhollifield9343 I share some of the same having been an agnostic.
@@JamesKimSynergize Glad to be in the family with you.
Thank imam alghazali and kalam science
I'm not afraid to admit that I wept when I viewed this video. Such an eloquent explanation. This also helps me defend my faith against an increasing amount of people who want to tear it down.
Thank to al gazali and wiliam l craige
eloquency doesnt prove anything. logic and observation does.
@@matswessling6600Can you justify materialism or atheism in the face of the Kalam Cosmological Argument? (Which you didn't attempt to refute.)
@@Johnny-mz9ot "materialism"? why bother with "materialism"? The important thing is to separate out what information that good evidence from the bad information.
Khalam Cosmological argument doesnt provide any information so it is useless.
And the argument in itself is faulty
1) everything that begins to exist has a cause.
i say that nothing that really begins to exist has a cause. Why? because most things are just rearrangenets of atoms and doesnt really "begin to exist". only things that seems to "begin to exist" are virtual particles and they are notoriously uncaused.
And it also fails in another way: everything we see are things that folliws the laws inside the universe. We know nothing about the laws outside the universe and they are the laws that guides how the universe began.
so first statement of Kalam is not necessarily true and thus we dont have to care about the rest.
Makes sense. Actual infinities would lead to contradictions. For example, an infinitely dense planet would be condensed into a sphere with a radius zero, i.e. it would not exist.
@@pauls464 Zero volume means thing doesn't exist. Otherwise, there is no infinite density.
Black holes don't have infinite density at the center.
@@pauls464 black holes only have a super highly density, yet it cannot reach the realm of infinity
In the drcraig video on the Leibniz' Contingency Argument, it says numbers exist necessarily. However, in this video it says numbers don't exist. I am confused.
@@hsingh5650 Provide times in both videos where he says what you claim. Nobody is going to re-watch both videos again.
@@les2997 ua-cam.com/video/FPCzEP0oD7I/v-deo.html
Go to 2 mins 22 seconds
0:08 So glad she said, "raises the question" instead of "begs the question."
Why?
@@friendly_user1233 Eristic atheists nitpick Christians with the argument that there's nothing conscious there doing any 'begging'. Atheism is wrong, and they'll look for ANYTHING to hurl back at us.
Are u suggesting the argument begs the question? Why? In order for something to beg the question it should presoppouse it's conclusion in it's premises, but the argument doesn't do that: p1 is based on a priori intuitions wich don't presoppouse the idea that the universe has a cause in the slightest and p2 is based on scientific evidence and finitist philosophical arguments wich also don't presoppouse the universe has a cause.
@@yourfutureself3392 It doesn't have to be used as a fallacy term all the time.
@@allstar4065 if he's saying the argument begs the question, but he's not using the term "beg the question" in its actual definition and as a logical fallacy then there's nothing wrong with begging the question. It's like accusing someone if special pleading and then claiming that you're not using the term "special pleading" as a logical fallacy. It's useless, misleading, wrong (as that's not the word's actual definition), makes no actual criticism of the argument and doesn't provide anything substancial
Nice video. Fortunately, I have an infinite number of points built up in the Hilbert Hotel Rewards Program, in case an infinite number of guests show up, I still get an upgrade.
Very helpful. I have struggled to explain the Hilbert hotel and this makes it’s much easier.
@TallestPiper
Yes, someone on Facebook pointed it out to me in support of an actual infinite past and not understanding it exactly, I felt I had to defend my point of view against it. Not knowing that it's meant to show the absurdity of actual infinities.
This video disproves evolution. Not sure if that was the intended purpose. For anything infinite to exist. There would need to be a Creator of infinite solutions. When the proposed odd number of rooms appeared, most would hopefully ha e recognized, a negative solution is still a valid infinite possibility.
Nothing created nothing destroyed. The empty rooms simply become a negative potential. God has a universe created by laws and mechanisms we can't see the design of the mechanisms, but we see the existence that it is built upon.
For example, *evil* . We do not see evil beings, but we see the effects of evil doers.
Been waiting for a video version of the phislosophical argument for premise 2 of Kalam Cosmological argument.
@@abashedsanctimony154 We see evil, these are the satanic pedofile demons that rules the media's.
I enjoy the simplicity & depth of Dr.Craig's work.
The Kalam Cosmological Argument does not have a god/creator as it's conclusion.
In it's entirety the argument is:
1) Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
2) The universe began to exist.
3) Therefore, the universe has a cause.
The conclusion is the universe had a cause.
Any use of the Kalam argument beyond the 2 premises and the conclusion presented here is NOT the Kalam Argument.
Simple, yes, deep, no. The reasoning is atrocious.
@@TXLogic I don't find his reasoning atrocious at all. Care to explain why you think it is?
I really love these animated videos. PLEASE KEEP IT UP!
Al Ghazali was a Legend 🔥💓
He was a monster
Another great video. Thanks Dr. Craig. Greetings from the Philippines.
Superb! Well Done!
I LOVE THESE VIDEOS!! thank you Dr. Craig!
This is a really good quality video, the voice work and art work is very nice!
May Allah bless Al Ghazali for writing the cosmological argument
but your salafistes kafarouhou..
@@majukanumi9639?
Great video! To me, Ghazali's second argument is easier to understand and explain to people, so I generally go with that one
I teach apologetics and you came out with this video JUST IN TIME! Starting the cosmological argument next week!
The Kalam Cosmological Argument does not have a god/creator as it's conclusion.
In it's entirety the argument is:
1) Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
2) The universe began to exist.
3) Therefore, the universe has a cause.
The conclusion is the universe had a cause.
Any use of the Kalam argument beyond the 2 premises and the conclusion presented here is NOT the Kalam Argument.
@@cnault3244 bro what? 😂 the cause is God
@@djSevalFerrick It doesn't say that in the Kalam Argument.
@@cnault3244 He doesn't say it, but you have to read between the lines, (the kalam is the logic in islamic way, as you mentionned "Everything that begins to exist has a cause" the first cause could not be created else we will be in a circle (infinite proposition) and logic don't accept that, so that means there is a first cause, which is god,
each creation is a fantastic creation and very complex that means the creator master what he did and what he is doing, so god is an expert...
)
I hope you understand what I mean
@@oussama-od3un " "Everything that begins to exist has a cause"
Sure. Now, can you present evidence of something that exists but didn't begin to exist?
"there is a first cause, which is god,"
That's a claim, not evidence.
Our universe began to exist at the moment of the big bang. All we can examine is our universe. Whatever existed prior to the big bang is unknown.
الله يرحم مولانا الحجة الغزالي
Thanks for giving us this great video. It gives better ideas to explain things.
Love the illustrations.
4:06 that sounded really cool
Great job, does help explain the Hilberts Hotel which I have always struggled with as not noted by others, I love the philosophical evidences even if they are sometimes hard to get your head around.
OUTSTANDING VIDEO! PLEASE MAKE MORE
This is terrific!
awesome infographic video very illustrative
That was excellently explained. The philosophical implications of infinity does present logical difficulties for those who propose a universe that has always been in existence.
God has offered rationality in the underpinnings of the creation that exists today and it is those who humbly and intellectually seek it find the wisdom and reason which holds the grounds of our existence. I hope more people would come to terms with this. And I pray that more Christians would be on a pursuit of the wonders of the cosmos in light of the Lord Himself.
Great job here, Reasonable Faith! May God bless your ministry all the more for Godʼs glory and the good of His people.
Amazing video!
great work, thank you
Great work Dr Craig.
God bless you.
Thank Dr Craig and thank al gazali
Me encantó. Muchas gracias Profesor Craig. 🙂❤✌
Awesome!
4:06 This one gave me a Transformers vibe, ngl.
Thank you for making this video. God bless.
great video
Absolutely marvellous!!!👍🤓
Yeah thanks Dr. Craig!!!
Animated videos sure do help guys like me. Lord knows that's the only way I can understand things.
Love this!!!!!!!!
So cool! Very cool! Thank you!😎👍👍💥🎉
Excellent and informative video. The part where the vocal transitioned from the woman to the man was odd though. It sounded like a horror movie for a sec.
i really love this channel, it gave me easier explanation on God, GBU from Indonesia
May God bless this apologist . She is so smart ❤ i am amazed
Excellent. I defend this argument in Christian Apologetics. See also J.P. Moreland's treatment in Scaling the Secular City.
I am going to use this in my apologetic class.
amen
You should also check out Grim Reaper paradoxes, they are even more effective since they lead to direct contradictions. Compared to some of the other paradoxes we have, Hilbert’s Hotel is one of the weaker ones!
Rationality Rules gives some interesting talks on the Grim Reaper paradox in a video with CC.
@@vaskaventi6840 See Methusaleh's Diary paradoxes and the problem of vicious circularity as well, as defended in Andrew Loke's new book. I think there are at least five sound philosophical arguments for premise 2, and that's not even getting into the scientific support :)
This indeed is a very strong argument for the presence/existence of a Divine Being.
🤣
@Michael Ellingsworth you'll be wanting to share some evidence of a divine being then. It's really not complicated.
@Michael Ellingsworth OK boomer
The Kalam Cosmological Argument does not have a god/creator as it's conclusion.
In it's entirety the argument is:
1) Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
2) The universe began to exist.
3) Therefore, the universe has a cause.
The conclusion is the universe had a cause.
Any use of the Kalam argument beyond the 2 premises and the conclusion presented here is NOT the Kalam Argument.
great philospher
The Kalam Cosmological Argument is a philosophical argument for the existence of God. It originated in medieval Islamic theology and was developed by Muslim philosophers such as al-Ghazali and al-Farabi. The argument goes as follows:
1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause.
The cause is then argued to be a necessary, uncaused, timeless, and spaceless being, which is identified as God. The argument is based on the idea that the universe had a finite beginning and that everything that begins to exist must have a cause. Proponents of the Kalam Cosmological Argument argue that the cause of the universe must be an uncaused, eternal being, since it cannot be caused by something that came into existence after it.
There are several criticisms of the Kalam Cosmological Argument, including the following:
The first premise - that everything that begins to exist has a cause - has been challenged by some philosophers and scientists. They argue that the cause-and-effect relationship only applies to things within the universe, and that it is not necessarily applicable to the universe as a whole.
The second premise - that the universe began to exist - is based on the standard Big Bang model of cosmology, which is still a matter of scientific debate and not a proven fact. Some philosophers and scientists argue that the Big Bang theory does not necessarily imply a beginning of the universe, and that alternative models, such as the cyclic model or the emergent model, are possible.
The conclusion that the cause of the universe must be an uncaused, eternal being is not logically necessary. There could be other explanations for the cause of the universe, such as a natural cause or a multiverse.
The identification of the cause of the universe as God is not logically necessary. The Kalam Cosmological Argument does not prove the existence of a personal deity with specific attributes, but only the existence of a necessary, uncaused being.
In conclusion, the Kalam Cosmological Argument has faced numerous criticisms and objections, and its validity as a proof for the existence of God is still the subject of ongoing philosophical and scientific debate.
Al ghazali is a gem in Islamic philosophy
Excellent videos on the philosophical basis for God. No argument will convince those who don't want to consider it, but at least this prevents those undecided people, especially the young, for being so quick to decide that atheism is the only way.
This is awesome. Please translate this Part 2 into Spanish 😩
Al Ghazali is very genius
Thanks Dr. Craig; I thought the world was ending at 6:03 because I had my subwoofer on LOL.
The temporal world would end, an eternal world would begin...
This video trains my brain
Awesome as usual! I prefer the scientific version, though. I think it appeals to modern Americans better than the philosophical version.
How about a video on how we got the Bible and why it is trustworthy?
Science exists on top of philosophy.
@@les2997 But Tim is right, modern Americans prefer scientific videos to philosophical videos. OBviously, this philosophical defense is even better than the first video.
@@prime_time_youtube si
The Hilbert hotel is a great example of how maths and reality are not the same thing. Things that work in maths do not always work in real life.
Legend says it took them 8 years to find that audio clip
Alhamdulillah....
Al Kindi also used some of the arguments in this video. Al-Kindi also stated that the universe and time are created.
1. We don’t know if something can from nothing
2. We don’t know if the universe always existed
3. We don’t know what it means to say a mind can think outside of time
Those are good questions; one way to arrive at an answer would be to employ one of several standards, including a "high degree of certainty", or "beyond a reasonable doubt"; notice that I'm not asking for s standard of evidence that is or even approaches 100%. With this in mind, it appears one can reasonably state "something cannot come from nothing". On #2, I think it's a safe argument to say the universe, at least in it's present form, cannot have always existed..
To all the atheist youtubers who will respond and nitpick at this video, keep this in mind:
This video is a broad summary of a variety of arguments that attempts to express them in layman’s terms. It is meant to get the idea across to someone who is at the level of a high school student or so. There are much more rigorous and precise defenses of these arguments, so if you want to respond to the arguments for premise 2, please address some of the more advanced defenses, since they generally address the issues one has with the broad video summary.
You can't have your cake and eat it. You shouldnt produce a video if you are going to shut out people. Unless you don't want people to respond unless it's 'praise' 🤦
@@interestingreligion5204 He is not shutting out people, but only giving a heads-up to this and there is nothing wrong with that.
@@steelcarnivore8390 the tone and texture of a message can be easily miscommunicated. I'm easily fooled into the wrong assumption.
@@interestingreligion5204 Then smarten up and don't be easily fooled bruv ;)
@@heartfeltteaching I can't and I am unsure if this is a serious post or a tongue in cheek response. 😜
This video will help me to make PowerPoint slides😜
I don't understand what actually number of past events mean? is it the movings of atoms? or the digits of time like second?
People say there can't be an infinite, but if the athiestic worldview is correct, how long does death last?
potentially forever, but you will never reach forever
And so the intellectual argument demands the question of who created God [i.e.The creator of the Universe--which according to this argument must have had a beginning] And then we are led to who created the God who created the God? And then we have no choice but to struggle with who created the creator of God. And so on. Intellectual honesty.
The Kalam argument itself only asserts that whatever has a beginning has a cause. If time began at the creation of the universe, then the cause would transcend time and therefore lack a beginning. See our video on the Leibnizian Argument from Contingency for an argument concluding that the cause of the universe is itself uncaused.
Let's talk about the Bible next and why it is one of the most historically accurate texts in existence. There are so many reasons it would be hard to put it in a 6 minute video.
simpatico ideale
Dio vi benedica
Yeah, he should do one on the Pauline epistles, one on the gospels, and maybe get a colleague to help him with the major prophets, psalms, proverbs.
Perfectly said Christian Brother
Quran is tbf
What do you mean by "historically accurate?" No historical errors regarding historical dates, places, people, events, etc? Please explain, I'm not understanding how you would make/support such a claim. Not saying it can't be true. Just why do you believe that.?
Alhamdulillah
Is this a reupload? The Argument from Intelligent Design is IMO a more powerful argument then the Kalam
"knowing" something intuitively is not actually "knowing", it is a feeling.
Intuitively. "Adverb. by means of direct perception, an instinctive inner sense, or gut feeling rather than rational thought:They've been married so long, they know intuitively how best to support each other."
We still don't "know" the universe began to exist, at best, we can say it might have begun as we know it at some point in the past.
But even if we fully accept it had a creator, all we have done regarding infinity, is kick the can down the road, because what created the creator, or the creators creator?
And none of this can point to a god until we have evidence for gods.
My brain is steaming.
Hasn't been disproved in a 1000 years.
I'll do it now. We don't have any example of something coming into existence. Therefore we cannot tell whether something that come into existence must have a cause or not. Done.
This comment came into existence.
@@piage84 Surely this in not intended to be a serious argument. At least try to keep your arguments within context. He is talking about objects that weren't there before and now they are. Things that meet this definition happen thousands, maybe millions of times per day right here on Earth. Cars, coney dogs, microprocessors - ALL of these things alone come into existence and have a cause. So much for '[nothing has come] into existence'. "I'll do it now" - no you won't. "Done" - hardly.
3:32 reminded me of "Doctor Who." Anyone else?
Truth is beautiful; especially the truth about God.
Is a black hole a potential infinite or an actual infinite?
Where is part 1 pls?
Here you go: ua-cam.com/video/6CulBuMCLg0/v-deo.htmlsi=whqndO_mZ_ArJk3w. - RF Admin
If there are an infinite number of rooms, they can never all be full, because an infinite number or other rooms are available an infinite number of times.
Surprised they're allowing comments! Hello to Nel the narrator. :)
The fact we can conceive of eternity as an idea, yet have always lived and known finite as creatures in a finite universe, means eternity exists, but not inside this realm, and yet, we somehow were able to conceive of it, which means we experienced it, or interacted with it.
The blind cannot conceive of sight, or colour. Likewise, we cannot think of new colours, only what we have already seen. We are ontological receivers, not projectors. Living in a finite universe, should by all means, cause us to be "blind" to the notion or idea of eternity. So eternity has somehow been "experienced" by us, or has been informed to us by something that in itself cannot be finite. Much like a sighted man telling a blind man about sight.
A finite Universe that births men who can conceive of infinity reveals his infinite origins or cause.
Causes can be temporally prior to their effects and if this is true, then the kalam argument fails as an infinite past is generated. The statement for every event there is an temporally prior event that is its cause is logically consistent so an infinite past is logically posssible and metaphysically possible so long as it is metaphysically possible for causes to always be prior to their effects.
Filipino version please! for better understanding.
I do need to understand better this argument.
Do anyone know any book that explain easily this argument?
For example, if an actual infinity can't exist, what about God existing infinitely in time?
I don't understand a lot about this.
That is exactly my concern. What's the infinite standout of God.
@@mmachuenemaloba5594Well, God can be an actual infinity, but not a material infinity. Just an object that can change is inside time. Because it has potentials. A universe, can't exist forever, because it should be changing infinitely an so on. But God is unchangeable, there is no other potential for Him. So If there is no chance, there is not an infinite amount of changes in Him, nor seconds, because time is not a thing for unchangeable beings.
According to this vid, the Kalam leads to a timeless God. God, as proved by this argument (if sound) isn't temporally infinite. He doesn't exist for an actually infinite amount of time. In fact, he exists for no time at all. He doesn't exist for any amount of time. The arguments in support of p2 (if sound) rule out the possibility of God existing for an actually infinite amount of time, because the arguments try to prove an infinitely long amount of time is logically impossible. Even temporalist conceptions of God can reject that God exists for an infinite amount of time.
I’m confused how the number of past events being finite automatically means the universe began to exist? I can understand how a finite past points to the beginning of matter and energy since they are constantly changing, but how does a finite past point to the beginning of space and time?
Didnt you read the cosmo arguments everythings has a cause
The causal principle is not “everything has a cause.” It’s “everything that begins to exist has a cause.” Indeed, if the universe (all of space, time, matter, and energy) began to exist, it has a cause, but I’m asking how does the number of past events being finite imply that space and time began to exist?
@@anonymoushuman3657 well if time always existed the universe would need to be eternal which is not the cause since eternal past would mean today could never be reached. Its like this dominos fall forever and u expect the last to fall
@@anonymoushuman3657 are you hearing yourself
"I’m confused how the number of past events being finite automatically means the universe began to exist?" - This is necessarily entailed. Since the universe is a temporal object, and since time had a beginning, the universe must have had a beginning too.
Billy is like, "Wow, the only thing stranger than all these believers making such a commotion over something so obvious as this little two premise syllogism is the non-believers who deny it."
@Paul Dubya So, you are actually saying that the whole universe literally came from absolute nothing? You're not even talking about little known types of reality like the quantum vacuum, quantum gravity, the no boundary proposal, etc?
@Paul Dubya Well, I don't see the error, but what's the loop model? Is that like Hawking's no boundary proposal? Is it a pre-big-bang, pre-time model?
My neighbour has an explanation for the origin of the universe.
He is a Hindu. Should I love him ?
The arguments concerning the infinite in this video are so deeply confused and so profoundly misleading that I’m inclined to call them immoral, as I believe Craig himself knows better. They exploit *obvious* ambiguities (e.g., on what “full” means) to generate bogus “contradictions”. There is absolutely nothing contradictory about Hilbert’s Hotel and the “contradictions” the video claims are inherent in the infinite are easily explained by anyone with a basic knowledge of transfinite arithmetic.
When a philosopher meets a video creator
I love al gazali
Is it possible that as humans we are extremely limited in our abilities despite our grandiose concept of self? Isn't it possible that all of everything we will ever conceive of all sits within our capacity to conceive of things. And all of excistence actually goes far beyond our ability to concive. What is actually being proposed here is humans' infinite ability to understand, and that seems like a pretty faulty premise to build an argument on.
can someone explain this to me even more simpler?
Lololololololol
If the past were infinite the present wouldn't have arrived because it would be preceded by infinite events. Then space, matter and time began to exist and their cause must be beyond space, matter and time and extremely powerful.
Did that help?
@@yourfutureself3392 yes thank you
Honest question I have is: if God is imaterial, hence it has no matter, no format, no substance, or one can say it simply didn come to be, how could he have created man "on his own image", since he had to image?
Awesome video! It very succinctly gives us the meat of these arguments. Thank you for all of your hard work!
I will say though, it spurs me on to do more reading and thinking, because this whole video begs the question: isn't God infinite? 🤔🤯
When theologians speak of the infinity of God, they are not using the word in a mathematical sense to refer to an aggregate of an infinite number of elements. God's infinity is, as it were, *qualitative,* not quantitative. It means that God is metaphysically necessary, morally perfect, omnipotent, omniscient, eternal, and so on.
Taken from reasonablefaith DOT com Q&A: *#106 Is God Actually Infinite?*
Even if God were infinite, this wouldn't mean the argument begs the question. An argument begs the question if it presupposes the conclusion in one of its premises. The argument rulling out an infinite God as the cause of the universe wouldn't make it beg the question. However, when it is saud that God is infinite, it is not meant that he's an actual infinite, that is, that he is composed by an actually infinite amount of components. It refers to the fact that he's omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, omnibenevolent, begginingless, maximally virtuous, etc. It's a cualitative infinity.
Lol, the God of the Gaps is strong with this one.
Numbers arent infinite because they have a beginning. Even if you start counting backwards in a negative sense, how can you remove from something that doesn't exist? Even if you owe, you owe what?
This infinite hotel thought experiment only shows that anything countable must be finite. But who claims that an infinite time has countable events? It is not an ad absurdum as the proposition of infinite events does not also state that the events are countable. If you can imagine an infinite number of events in the future, i.e. Uncountable events in the future, and that is not absurd, the same holds for the past.
As for the domino analogy: it is begging the question.
That thing you said about the infinite events in the future isn't true. There is a difference between potential infinites and actual infinites. You should watch the talk Lane craig had with cosmic skeptic. They talked about that
The vid actually adresses your first argument. If the past is infinite, then there was enough time to make an infinite hotel if a room per year was added and all those contradictions would be possible. That's the response given in the vid.
What was before the big bang? Define Infinite
So, if I am to understand this correctly, you're saying that God and the big bang are one in the same? I'm trying to wrap my head around this.
No, the argument is that God is the cause of the Universe. The big bang is a theory to explain the past history of the universe up to its beginning (or back to its beginning if you like). The big bang theory says nothing about what caused the universe to begin to exist, only that it did begin to exist.
Ghazali was a hyper/super genius
1. If the universe needs a Cause to exist, why doesn't God?
2. If god can exist with out cause. Why can't the universe?
3. Aren't we taking the rules of the universe, applying them to a time before the universe, where they may not apply?
I asked the same question. I found an answer in philosophy. There is only one thing that can exist without a cause. Existence is the only thing that can exist of itself.
And logically, it has to be eternal. If there were a time when it did not exist, then nothing would.
@@Noahs_Crazy_Kid Well then that would mean that God would require a cause. At least, assuming that God is something that exists.
@@fanghur I apologize for not being clear. G-d ‘is’ existence. He is One and there is nothing else. That’s Existence.
@@Noahs_Crazy_Kid I'm sorry, but that is simply a nonsensical statement. Even under pantheism it is incorrect to say that God is conceptually identical to existence. It would simply be the case that there is only one fundamental thing IN existence, namely God.
This is metaphysics 101. There are two broad classes of entities that do not overlap. There are abstract entities and concepts, and there are concrete entities/objects. Existence is an abstract concept, whereas God, if there is one, is by definition a concrete entity, since it has causal powers.
So the common atheist rebuttal is to say that "but then how is God infinite in existence". I understand god was the supposed first cause that didn't begin exist to exist but he still had to exist eternally which faces the infinity paradox
I don't think that's a problem: "infinity" relates to time/space/matter as in "infinite number...of seconds, rooms/marshmallows, etc. "Eternity" is not time-bound. This is why God's timelessness is essential to his being. (e.g. Genesis 1:1, John 1:1-3, Col. 1:15-17). Short answer: Eternity is not the same thing as Infinity. As the video mentioned, God's non-space/time/matter existence is necessary exactly BECAUSE the Universe that we know exists requires a cause outside of its boundaries.
God is certainly difficult to understand. One of the big problems for us is when we try to define God using the rules of our universe. The definition of 'Eternal' absolutely depends on time. But since God created time, He's certainly not bound it. God does not have to exist 'eternally'; it is wrong to force Him into any universe rule that He, Himself, created.
The infinity this argument is facing is a quantitive infinite and the infinity that is part of God's attribute is a qualitative.
@@jean1785 The claim suggests not to think of God as what came before him or how long he exists. We are using space-time in that case which is a thing within our universe and not beyond it.
The argument is unsound
Al-Ghazali was Muslim, I hope you now view Islam a bit more differently that what you used to due to your corrupt media. There’s no rift that separates between us Jews, Christians and Muslims we all worship the same unchanging, eternal Creator who brought the Universe into being, we simply differ concerning the view of Christ.
SA accent...interesting
0:00 - 0:06 This is a false dichotomy. It is entirely possible that spacetime itself has only existed for a finite amount of time, but that the rest of the universe has existed for all time. In other words, it is entirely possible that the time axis is itself finite in length. So it could be the case that the universe has existed for a finite amount of time, but did not have a beginning. There is no contradiction here. One claim is about which time coordinates the universe has existed for, the other claim is about the length of the axis of which the time coordinates are elements of.
0:06 - 0:17 No. In part 1, you pretended to use science to support your claims, but completely misrepresented it and made false and baseless claims and tried to pass them off as scientific. I wrote an entire comment thread deconstructing the video and explaining how the science was misrepresented.
0:27 - 0:36 Yes, but he was wrong. He failed to account for the possibility above that I already explained: that if time itself is a set of points with finite length, then it is possible that the universe had no beginning, yet is finitely old. Something having a beginning has nothing to do with whether it has existed for a finite amount of time or a finite amount of time. It has to do with whether there existed a point in time prior to which the thing did not exist, and after which the thing did exist. If yes, then the thing in question has a beginning. If there is no point in time during which the thing did not exist, then it did not have a beginning, and this is true regardless of how long it has existed for. Al Ghazali did not realize this, because he made his arguments during a time when set theory and order theory were not well-understood.
0:36 - 0:45 It does not, and it is not.
0:46 - 1:28 There is no contradiction here. What does it mean for a hotel to be full? It means that that there is no room that is unoccupied. When you shift the guests of the hotal one room forward, the hotel becomes not full, because exactly one room is unoccupied. When the new guest fills the room, the hotel becomes full again. There is no logical contradiction here, because there is no point in time during which the hotel is full and not full at the same time. Nothing about the situation is absurd. The video fails to recognize that moving the guests to different rooms means that the hotel stopped being full.
1:29 - 2:09 Again, this objection makes the same mistake as in the previous situation: the video is assuming that the hotel stays full when you move the guests around the hotel. That is not the case. By moving the guests, the hotel becomes unfull. The fact that it can thus be filled with new guests is not an absurdity, just a mundane fact. If you start with a false assumption, then you get a false conclusion. Nothing surprising there.
2:09 - 2:25 What is absurd about that? There is nothing absurd about this. This is called Cantor's property. Cantor's property is the property that every infinite set has at least one proper subset that has the same cardinality as the original infinite set. In fact, we can know exactly how many subsets of a set have a given cardinality, and this includes the cardinality of the original set itself. The number is given by the generalized binomial coefficients, defined for cardinal numbers, finite and transfinite alike.
2:09 - 2:43 No. There is no logical contradiction here. The number of guests that left the hotel is the same for both scenarios, but the configuration of the rooms they occupied is different. Changing the configuration of the occupied rooms by moving guests in the hotel changes the properties of the hotel.
To be continued in the replies.
I agree with a lot of what you stated above, but it’s breath wasted here. The community around these videos won’t listen to anything unless it confirms what they already believe.
That hotel must be booming!!! For sure it wasn’t affected by the pandemic