DIALOGUE: Does the Kalam argument work? (with Alex Malpass)

[@slow9573]

(Writing from my husband’s account), my degree is in philosophy, so listening to this as a stay-at-home mom in between homeschooling my kids was pure joy. Thank you!

[@Abdullah21038]

I don't mean to seem disrespectful but I hope this playlist on the evidences of islam helps to provide our case despite the controverises kzbin.info/aero/PLM-o12h2ocHgP5aQ1GtqhqUrHhL38FvrT

[@Abdullah21038]

There are further playlists that refute false claims or answer doubts, as well as critiques of other ideologies

[@IronBoxing]

@@Abdullah21038 Only Jesus is the way to the Father. And he wasn’t only a prophet. Instead of copy pasting playlists from “scholars” who have been refuted 1000x times, listen to the actual videos here. God bless

[@RebornLegacy]

@@IronBoxing You're both wrong. The Flying Spaghetti Monster is the one true God. Even Alex Malpass has to concede this point.

[@introvertedchristian5219]

This is the most interesting conversation I've heard all day.

[@claytonweaver2684]

finally, I haven't seen a video with Dr. Malpass in way too long

[@christsservant583]

I love Dr. Malpass!

[@LiquidatedAgain]

I just saw this pop up on my phone. I’ve really been struggling on this. Im so excited to watch this

[@jdotoz]

I think we should define the structure of a modus pwnens argument though.

[@TheMizymod]

This is the greatest endevour any philiosopher could undertake this days ;)

[@soulcutterx13]

I think it's quite funny that Trent suggests that a common refrain in trying to prove actual infinity is to reduce infinity down to a number line, which removes the causal principle from the equation entirely, and then at 1:55:49 that's exactly what Mr. Malpass does with his "I love you" note example. Just as, in an infinite number line, each odd number will be matched by a corresponding even number, so too will each note from one to the other will be matched by another note, but there is no contingent relationship between them. Consider on the other hand the idea that infinitely they write "I love you" on the same note, with the intention that the next person should be able to *see* the most recently written "I love you" in pencil, and you've now got a paper infinitely covered in "I love you", and it has always been thus; as each person endeavors to write it in a new spot where it will be legible separately, and we've just got another grim reaper paradox. The big thing you "solve" by his example is removing any causal contingency, and since we know that causal contingency is a part of the real world, it's quite difficult to justify jettisoning it, even theoretically. Edit: I can't believe I jumped in the shower and posted my thought, and literally five minutes past where I paused...

[@DavidSmith-zd6nn]

You missed the point entirely. Why are logically coherent infinite causal sequences ruled out merely because certain types of infinite causal sequences are ruled out logically? Is it logically impossible for there to be an infinite past filled with reapers passing notes to each other, on which they each write a word beginning with the last letter of word they received from the previous reaper? There's no contradiction there - which just seems to be the definition of logical possibility. Bernadette paradoxes are logically impossible wherever they're found, not just in the domain of the infinite past. You don't need an infinite past to make a Bernadette paradox. It's a highly dubious procedure to just start placing these logically inconsistent states of affairs inside of otherwise logically consistent worlds and concluding that other, otherwise consistent properties of that world are logically impossible. It's, as Malpass said, guilt by association/contamination (that the interlocutor has cooked up.) Ask yourself this - is the grim reaper paradox, as articulated, contradictory? If it is, why do you think you can just import it into otherwise possible worlds and start making deductions? Why can't I do that with square circles: "If there were an infinite past, there could be an infinite number of square circles." The reason is that square circles are logically inconsistent states of affairs, and they cannot exist anywhere, and I cannot just put them inside of some other world and declare that the whole world is impossible or that some feature of that world is impossible. It was conceptual contraband before I smuggled it in, and so are Bernadette paradoxes. It's an intrinsic problem specific to that particular set of objects/logical operators.

[@soulcutterx13]

@@DavidSmith-zd6nn The second doesn't follow from the first in your case. Indeed, that the present follows from the past is precisely the problem that the grim reaper paradox demonstrates. If there was an infinite contingent past, then contingent things could not have happened, because the contingency would already have been fulfilled at some point in the past. It's a logical contradiction. Further, this isn't the only logical paradox created by an infinite past.

[@DavidSmith-zd6nn]

@@soulcutterx13 Why does it follow that if you can have an infinite past, you can have a contradictory infinite causal sequence? I just described to you an infinite causal sequence that was consistent and from which you cannot derive a formal contradiction. Why is that not a possible world? The grim reaper paradox is a set, constructed all at once, in which a particular logical operator is distributed to an infinite sequence of objects. We agree, that cannot obtain. But what does that say about consistent operators applied to infinite sequences? It seems to me that what you are doing is combining a possible world (with an infinite past), that up to this point, was contradiction free, and then inserting this contradictory set you've made into that world and concluding that some other feature of that world (the infinite past timeline) is logically impossible. But I think that just like a square circle, you've introduced a set of objects and operators that is internally incoherent. I reject the notion that this would be possible if there were an infinite past.

[@crockettlegendas6126]

Love your work, Trent. Thanks! Again from Brazil!

[@mangekyou5571]

Quem ganhou esse debate para vc?

[@bigbrointhesky]

@@mangekyou5571 Clearly Malpass.

[@brendansheehan6180]

A gas has a shape because it has limits. And just because you can describe a things limits an infinite number of ways, that doesn't imply the thing lacks any limits. That's a confusion between relation and expression.

[@georgwagner937]

Yes, I think here is another way to say it: The description of triangles can account for an infinite amount of things that fit that description, but that doesn't mean that there is an infinite amount of triangles in the universe.

[@brendansheehan6180]

@@georgwagner937 I could express a relationship an infinite number of ways (by adding a multiple of 1, for instance). But that doesn't mean that there is an infinite number of the given relationship. It just means any expression can be made an infinite number of ways.

[@WagesOfDestruction]

Also at any moment of time, the mustard gas cloud has a shape.

[@lyterman]

Trent geeking out at 1:17:20 is so wholesome

[@tethyn]

50:20 two point to be made here. First, Gödel second incompleteness theorem is not about the information per se but how we come to truth through the form of the system (the logic formalism behind the system). He came up with his Gödel numbering so that a statement can be converted into a mathematical statement in which the system ZFC set theory for instance, cannot tell if the statement is true or false. Thus the system is incomplete; however there is another option and this to include things which we know to be true but are not consistent with the system. So a system can either be complete and inconsistent (we have all truth but the truths cannot be verified with any rule or formal system for its consistency) or incomplete and consistent (thus we do not have all truths within the system but we have a way to verify the truth value of those that we have). The second point is that of the continuum hypothesis. Gödel proved that a formal system can either assume it is true or assume it is false and it would not change the truth value of the system. The continuum hypothesis cannot be proven true or proven false. So how do these two points solve the current situation of an actual infinite? Using the second point first, the Kalam cosmological argument can be true whether there is an actual infinite or not since the formal system can either be complete (the first point) and inconsistent (due to conclusions that are derived from an actual infinite) or incomplete (not including an actual infinite) but having a consistent formal system. To wrap this up (and I apologize if this may not be as clear but comments sections are not good for a thesis) one can allow an actual infinite by allowing inconsistency in the naturalistic framework (remember this about the causation and contingency of events) which brings inconsistent naturalistic possibilities but diminish the Kalam argument ; or you can say that actual infinites do not exist and maintain the consistent naturalistic explanation but are still on the hook for kalam argument. I hope this helps the discussion forward or maybe anyone interacting is interested I can expound and argue some of the minor points and fill in the blanks for the argument. Take care.

[@afham5510]

51:55 Alex, you got it! You were so close to realizing what you said. “There is nothing about the real world that follows from that [mathematical operations with infinity]”… that is precisely the point, infinity cannot exist metaphysically. An actually infinite cannot exist “in the real world” (metaphysically exist)… so, precisely, don’t worry about it but yes it is important

[@zsoltnagy5654]

No. The point is, that there is nothing about the real world, that follows from counterintuitive results from eating soup with a fork. Similarly there is nothing about the real world, that follows from counterintuitive results from doing incompatible mathematical operations on infinity.

[@afham5510]

@@zsoltnagy5654 No. There are no real world consequences from doing mathematical operations on infinity, precisely because infinity is a purely mathematical conception. There is no such thing, in the real world, as an actually infinite number of things. Alex saying, “so don’t worry about it” should lead us to understanding its implications rather than to ignore those metaphysical implications. “I can’t describe it. It’s counterintuitive. It’s a brute fact.” - these statements do not represent an advancement to understanding. Math is descriptive, but causally effete. So, like Craig says, you can slap the hand of the mathematician but there’s nothing to stop an infinity of people from checking out of a hotel. Except such a thing doesn’t, and cannot, exist

[@zsoltnagy5654]

@@afham5510 Yes, Craig can't describe infinity properly. Yet he is doing it in his arguments anyway. And any mathematician describing Cantorian transfinite arithmetic is describing infinity without any counterintuitive results. So yeah, people can check out of an infinite hotel without any problems or counterintuitive results and yes, Craig's intuitions or "counterintuitions" about infinity are causally effete. For what reason other then special pleading or question begging is infinity supposed to be not actually possible? If you are not understanding, what Alex is meaning by _"don't worry about such counterintuitive results",_ then how about this _"counterintuitive result"_ in logic? (I) The logical law of excluded middle: For any proposition P, either proposition P itself is true or the negation of the proposition P is true. (II) The logical law of noncontradiction: For any proposition P, it is never the case, that the conjunction of proposition P and its negation ~P is true. Let's suppose and consider the following particular proposition P': "The proposition P' is false." So if proposition P' is true, then the negation of proposition P' is true and if the negation of proposition P' is true, then proposition P' is true. So proposition P' is true, if and only if the negation of proposition P' is true. This implies, that there is a proposition P', such that either it's not the case, that P' or ~P' - violating the logical law of excluded middle, or it's the case, that P' and ~P' - violating the law of noncontradiction. So then how do we resolve this "counterintuitive result" in logic? By denying the existence of *any* proposition P or by only denying the existence of this *particular* proposition P' or do we deny those laws of logic? I would say, that the most parsimonious solution would be here to deny the existence of that *particular* proposition P'. "Don't worry about it", since even if that particular proposition P' might have that "counterintuitive result", it doesn't follow that *any other* proposition P has also the same or similar "counterintuitive result". Just because you have presented a particular Swan to be White, it doesn't follow from that, that any other Swan is therefore also White. Stating otherwise to be the case is to make a fallacious *hasty generalization.* Same goes for any examples - any PARTICULAR examples - with infinity supposedly having "counterintuitive results". It is fallacious to conclude only and sololy from them, that any other examples with infinity will also have the same or similar "counterintuitive results" and therefore there are no actual infinities. The matter of fact is, that there are examples with infinity without any such "counterintuitive results". "So don't worry about" such PARTICULAR and causally effete examples with supposedly _"counterintuitive results"!_

[@afham5510]

@@zsoltnagy5654 you have used a lot of words, but not dealt with the objection. Just because we can conceptualize something does not mean we can actualize that something. Just because I can imagine an infinite past or future does not mean it actually exists. Because mathematical conceptions are potentially descriptive, but only descriptive - that is they are causally effete - it does not follow that mathematical conceptions must necessarily exist metaphysically. This is why Trent said that mathematics was broader in its scope and reality narrower. Mathematicians can talk about infinity, they can write these things down, but they do not exist in the real world precisely because paradoxes, counterintuitive results, and metaphysical impossibilities ensue. Can demonstrate an actual infinity of concrete objects or measurements can exist (if you divide a number line infinitely, or say time is infinite then all you’ve actually done is give a potential infinity)? Please show me a conception that exists, metaphysically, that is infinite.

[@zsoltnagy5654]

@@afham5510 Dito! You also used a lot of words. Yet you didn't proof anything. Besides that I don't have to proof anything. But I'm objecting your so called _"proof",_ since that is not a proof at all. You are assuming incompatible things with infinity and then say, _"hah, the counterintuitive results and paradoxes are the foult of infinity, therefore infinity is impossible"._ It's like suggesting and proposing eating soup only with a fork. Since that is supposed to be possible, because you can eat almost anything with a fork, but it isn't really possible to eat soup with a fork, therefore soup is metaphysically impossible. All the given _"paradoxes"_ with infinity are like that. Again, why would you or anyone then therefore do such an irrational and fallacious *hasty generalization* from such particular and specific lack luster examples - to conclude, that any scenario with infinity is impossible? Because of special pleading or because of question begging? Or because of both? I guess, that it's the latter. Besides that even if those supposedly counterintuitive scenarios with infinity are actually paradoxical and therefore not possible, then it's your claim, that infinity is supposed to be metaphysically impossible. So it's your burden of proof of your claim and not mine. My claim is, that you didn't meat that burden of proof, since you have only proved supposedly, that some scenarios with infinity are impossible and that's not the same as any scenario with infinity being impossible. Learn some proper prepositional logic and also learn either the traditional or the modern *square of opposition:* Some x is not predicate P, if and only if not any x is predicate P. Also any x is not predicate P, if and only if not some x is predicate P. Congratulations on supposedly proving the obvious statement "Some scenario with infinity is not possible." or to say, that "Not any scenario with infinity is possible.". Duh. But that doesn't get you anywhere close to your desired statement "Any scenario with infinity is not possible." or to say, that "Not some scenario with infinity is possible." 🤦

[@Oskar1000]

At the "it is undefined in math"-thing There is a set difference operator that has well defined unique answers to your questions. So it's not like math can't answer the question. Just that a certain mathematical system can't guarantee uniqueness.

[@bigbrointhesky]

Yes, set difference is well-defined. What mathematical system are you referring to which cannot guarantee uniqueness?

[@Oskar1000]

@@bigbrointhesky I think trent thought that since infinity - infinity isn't defined (in peano) that this has some metaphysical consequences since reality wouldn't know what to do when removing stuff from some collection.

[@bigbrointhesky]

@@Oskar1000 "Infinity" is not a number that you can add or subtract, like the number 17, it is a property (cardinality) of certain types of sets, like the set of natural numbers. That doesn't mean that "infinity" is undefined and I don't see how that can have metaphysical consequences relating to non-existence of "real infinities," much less to the impossibility of a boundless past. What you _can_ do is add or subtract infinite sets from other sets. The examples that they mentioned in the video were (1) subtracting the even numbers from the natural numbers and (2) subtracting the natural numbers greater than 3 from the natural numbers. Both cases are subtracting infinite sets, but the sets being subtracted are different, so it's not surprising that you get different results. You do know "what to do" when removing them and the answers are unique: The odd numbers in the first case and the numbers 1,2,3 in the second case. You're not subtracting "infinities" you're subtracting sets that are different and this yields different answers. There's no "contradiction" here at all. As an analogy, suppose you subtract 7 from 10 and 2 from 10. You get different answers because the numbers being subtracted in each case are different. Both numbers being subtracted (7 and 2) are finite, so they have the property of "finitude." Does that mean that we could say "finitude minus finute" yields different answers, "contradiction," therefore "finitude" cannot exist in reality or something like that? No, that's absurd. It's the same thing when people say "infinity minus infinity" yields different answers therefore "infinity" cannot exist in "reality" or something like that.

[@nemrodx2185]

What is supposed to be more possible? that infinity does not exist or that I can perform the same subtraction with different results? Should my credulity in infinity make me doubt even mathematics? Or lead me to "prohibit" subtraction to protect a concept (actual infinityt)?

[@julianw7097]

The same subtraction? Isn’t there usually differences when the discussion goes there?

[@nemrodx2185]

@@julianw7097 Differences in the result subtracting the same quantity: infinity... Even Malpass accepts this and his only answer is you have to accept it without asking too many questions... basically.

[@julianw7097]

@@nemrodx2185 The same goes for "normal math" too, does it not? You just have to accept it.

[@nemrodx2185]

@@julianw7097 Maybe I'm not getting your point... could you give me an example?

[@julianw7097]

@@nemrodx2185 In "normal math" there are no differences in result when "subtracting" the same quantity. This too, you just have to accept. Pretend I don't accept this. What could you do other than appeal to intuition? My point was just that not much can be said here, so Malpass not saying much is fine. We are down at the level of axioms. Subtraction just isn't defined.

[@Oskar1000]

I got giddy when I saw this pop up

[@michaelremington5902]

Awesome discussion! I really can't see why an actual infinite of any kind cannot physically exist, under any and all circumstances. Why is it impossible for there to be infinite space, galaxies, etc.? I wonder if the finite parameters of our universe prevent paradoxes from happening in the physical world, like the speed of light and possibly plank-time or plank-length.

[@bigtombowski]

Trent explaining pwnage is such a *boomer moment* 💥 bppm

[@tonytebliberty]

Good conversation, please get WLC to respond on your channel.

[@educationalporpoises9592]

Even as a Christian I really don't care for the Kalam as it's usually presented. It's kinda a fun, pretty important, but not fundamentally essential thing, I think.

[@greengandalf9116]

1:26:17 You can see the gears

[@articlesbyaphysicist]

It's maybe a shame that the whole discussion was about the first premise: that the universe must have had a beginning. The premise that everything that begins to exist must have a cause is perhaps more interesting. Maybe another day? It was interesting anyway, but there's a definite set-up for a sequel.

[@DennisPulido]

Isn't infinity not really "endless" but rather just "undefined?" Like a circle isn't really infinite, and you can prove that by drawing a point in the line to define a begining/ending like a race circuit. And how do you even measure an infinite when you are a finite being? Won't you need to have existed in infinite time in order go measure an actual infinite?

[@bigbrointhesky]

It's well-defined mathematically, just like a circle is well-defined. Whether it exists in reality or not is an open question. I think you are right that, if it exists, it cannot be directly "measured," but it is possible that there are indirect methods of inferring that, for example, time is boundless in the past. Also, note that the same problem applies to the supposed "infinite" properties of the Christian god: How can finite beings be able to determine any of the god's infinite properties?

[@HeyHeyHarmonicaLuke]

There are some exotic solutions in General Relativity for how matter could be arranged so that it warps space into a time machine. They only allow time travel back to when the machine was 'switched on', but they work. I think some of these designs need to have matter crafted into infinitely long cylinders. If we found such a working time machine, we could infer that the cylinders are infinitely long even though we couldn't directly measure them :) :)

[@user-pn8ke3kf5f]

I'm not sure on the Kalam argument but I have no clue how anyone can take Craig seriously after the SkyDivePhil documentary on the Kalam and then the review on Digital Gnosis's channel. It 100% exposes Craig as a complete charlatan in the way in which he engages with people.

[@maciejpieczula631]

I don't really know how light works, but if you shined a flashlight up into the night sky wouldn't that light go on infinitely even though it had a starting point?

[@introvertedchristian5219]

It would go on forever, but there's no point at which it will have traveled an infinite distance. No matter how far it travels, that distance will always be finite.

[@STAR0SS]

Yes, assuming there's a perfect vacuum (no dust to block the light) and that space is infinite. Also the distance the light will travel is an actual infinite (contrary to "will have", which is a potential one).

[@ceceroxy2227]

How can you have an actual infinity, if there is no number which precedes it.

[@zsoltnagy5654]

The ontological status of an actual infinity doesn't hinges on the ontological status of a preceding number of such. It's like stating and claiming there to be three chickens, only if there are two chickens. The ontological status of chickens or a particular number of chickens doesn't hinges on the ontological status of a preceding number of chickens. To state otherwise to be the case is absurd.

[@ceceroxy2227]

@@zsoltnagy5654 more claims, you are going to need to demonstrate these claims to my satisfaction for me to agree with you, otherwise just claims. Incorrect sir

[@zsoltnagy5654]

@@ceceroxy2227 -infinite past,..., previous egg, previous chicken, egg, chicken, next egg, next chicken,..., +infinite future. You have to demonstrate your claim, that there is a contradiction here only due to infinity or only due to this causal chain to be infinite. Otherwise you are just presenting insignificant examples and explanations of infinity supposedly being contradictory and therefore metaphysically impossible. Otherwise you are also fallacious while making a false *hasty generalization,* which isn't working here.

[@nemrodx2185]

@@zsoltnagy5654 So, if infinity has no number preceding it... how do you count to infinity (of actual things)? We simply have to assume that there is begging the question?

[@zsoltnagy5654]

@@nemrodx2185 I deny the indirect assumption of your question _"How do you count to infinity?"._ It's not sufficient for the existence of a chicken or any number of chickens to be "countable". Or to be more precise, chickens or any number of chickens do not exist, because chickens or any number of chickens can be counted. So numbers and any number of things do not exist, because numbers and any number of things can be counted. This also goes for non-finite/infinite numbers and non-finite/infinite number of things.

[@nemrodx2185]

I don't understand how Malpass's comment on metaphysical possibility is supposed to work. If he tries to weaken the metaphysical possibility he opens a huge door. The problem would not be only for the theist but for the atheist and for any philosophy since if you only ask for logical contradictions a multitude of philosophies would be possible on equal grounds and there would be almost no way to defend or deny them.

[@CorndogMaker]

This discussing of the nature of infinity convinced me that human blood sacrifice is a perfect means of absolving someone of someonelses innate sinful nature.

[@spraycheese1383]

“Evidence for UFOS convinced me that the aliens use democratic processes in their elections”

[@VACatholic]

An infinite number of things would violate the law of the conservation of energy (as one would be able to create or destroy energy by performing the appropriate operation on Hilbert hotel). So it seems physically impossible.

[@zsoltnagy5654]

That is an incorrect analysis here. Yes, the law of energy conservation constitutes, that neither energy can be created from nothing nor energy can be destroyed into nothing. Energy always comes from somewhere, it might change its form and "shape" and then it might go somewhere else. (In that regard there are no "energy generators" - there are only *energy transformators.)* So then if there is an infinite amount of energy or an infinite number of energy units somewhere, then why wouldn't the Hilbert Hotel be physically possible according to this law of energy conservation again?!? It appears to me, that you are rather wanting to state and claim, that an infinite number of things is metaphysically impossible, because an infinite number of energy units is metaphysically impossible while hiding this specific premise of yours behind the law of energy conservation. You are just begging the question by this insufficient but nicely packaged "explanation" of yours for the impossibility of an infinite number of things.

[@STAR0SS]

Even if you would grant that it doesn't apply to an infinite past. There's no issue w.r.t. conservation of energy with e.g. an eternal electron at rest.

[@HeyHeyHarmonicaLuke]

Perhaps performing the operation is what would be physically impossible then.

[@jessec4443]

Good discussion. Seems like Trent was kinda out of his depth here. Which is strange, since they didn’t really get beyond pretty basic logical fundamentals.

[@johndimiceli5733]

The first premise is really: Whatever begins to exist Ex Nihilo has a cause. Or Whatever begins to exist Ex Materia has a cause. I do not accept the first premise of the KCA which is, ultimately for the theist, “Whatever begins to exist Ex Nihilo has a cause”, so the KCA as part one of a two part proof of God’s existence fails.

[@anitkythera4125]

Modus Pwnage! 🤣🤣

[@ceceroxy2227]

You also have to traverse and finish an actual infinite number of infinite number of events to get to now with an infinite past.

[@zsoltnagy5654]

Or it might be the case, that an infinite number of events have already taken place and the current moment will eventually take place.

[@Cato229]

Right, which would be impossible if moments take time to pass. They try to dodge into b-theory to avoid this, but that is like arguing you didn't steal the cookie because the past isn't real. It asks us to ignore the first things we know about the world to defend an idea that leads to many other contradictions.

[@ceceroxy2227]

@@Cato229 Atheists will do anythin they can to avoid God from my experience, doesnt matter the argument.

[@ceceroxy2227]

@@zsoltnagy5654 Nope that cant be the case, because it is impossible to have an infinite number of events, because infinity is not a numerical achievable quantity, I think I have told you that about 10 times. Even your atheist colleagues Matt Dillahunty and JMike have stated this, Jmike said its an unachievable quantity, Matt Dilahunty said its a concept not a number. And as I said the greatest mathmetican of the 20th century said infinity is nowhere to be found in reality. Gonna have to destroy hilbert first.

[@zsoltnagy5654]

@@Cato229 Hahahahahah..... You are conflating B-Theory of Time with A-Theory of Time. Under A-Theory of Time you might argue, that you didn't steal the cookie, because the past isn't real, since according to A-Theory of Time only the current/present moment in time is real and the rest - past and future - is not real. Also under A-Theory of Time you might argue, that a "traversion" of moments from a definitive beginning in time is necessary in order to "reach" the current/present, the only real moment in time. And yes, WLC is a proclaimer and proponent of A-Theory of Time and this specific argument for whatever reason. I guess for the reasons of special pleading and begging the question for the existence of a definitive beginning in time. Look at my profile picture closely. That is supposed to be the first thing, which we should know about the world, and that thing requires the B-Theory of Time and not the A-Theory of Time. So yes, the evidence is pointing to something different here than, what WLC is proclaiming. That is only leading to many contradictions, if you are not careful with it and you are not actually careful with it. So no wonder about you getting those *falsidical or veridical paradoxes,* which have all been resolved a long, long time ago. Duh.

[@davidgloe719]

I think a prime number would be a better prime minister than many actual prime ministers. But seriously, why can't that happen? We have dog and cat mayors.

[@introvertedchristian5219]

Dogs and cats are concrete things, though. Prime numbers are abstract things. An abstract thing can't be a concrete thing. That's why a prime number can't be a prime minister. Prime numbers are abstract, and prime ministers are concrete.

[@HeyHeyHarmonicaLuke]

@@introvertedchristian5219 Things are only prime minister by stipulation though, aren't they? And prime numbers seem to be suitable for that. Consider when a country stipulates that its national animal is the kangaroo. I find it coherent that a country could stipulate its national number as 7, and I wouldn't be compelled otherwise if you said that kangaroos are concrete and the number 7 isn't.

[@miguelcastro3019]

Trent, this is where I think your statement regarding the impossibility of infinities via Hilbert's Hotel misses the point. You seem to be conflating some properties of infinite sets with those of finite sets. All the natural numbers larger than 3 constitute an infinite set. The even numbers are also an infinite set. You then claim something to the effect that subtracting these sets from the natural numbers gives, respectively, different answers, a finite set in one case (the numbers 1,2,3) and an infinite set in the other case (the odd numbers). This is correct, the answers are different and have different cardinalities. But then you claim that this means that subtracting "infinity" from the same set gives different answers, this must be a "contradiction" and therefore "infinity" cannot exist. Presumably, you reach the "contradiction" because subtracting the same (finite) number from another (finite) number should always give the same answer. Yes, but "infinity" is not a number. It is a property (cardinality) of certain sets. You are not subtracting the same set, you are subtracting sets that are different and that's why you get different answers, even though both sets being subtracted have infinite cardinality. There are many (in fact infinitely many) subsets of the natural numbers that are different yet are themselves infinite sets. Examples: All numbers greater than n where n = 1, 2, 3,... All numbers divisible by n where n = 1, 2, 3,... etc. etc... Subtracting any of these different but infinite subsets from other sets may well lead to different answers including sets with different cardinalities. But you're not subtracting "infinity" every time, you're subtracting different sets with infinite cardinalities, so it is not surprising to get different answers with possibly different cardinalities. There's no "paradox" or "contradiction" here, only (possibly) a conflation of sets with their cardinality. Here's an analogy. Compare subtracting 2 from 7 and 4 from 7. You get different answers (5 and 3, respectively). Both numbers being subtracted (2 and 4) are finite, so they have the property of "finitude." Suppose I claim that subtracting "finitude" from the same number gives different answers, this must be a "contradiction" and therefore "finitude" cannot exist???? Of course, this is absurd because I'm not subtracting "finitude," I'm subtracting two different numbers that possess the property of "finitude." I think when Alex says that "he's not bothered" (by the alleged Hilbert Hotel "paradoxes"), he's right (because there's no "paradox" or "contradiction" anywhere that could possibly be used to deny the existence of sets with infinite cardinality). But his "not bothered by this" answer is admittedly unsatisfying because it doesn't quite explain exactly where your disagreement goes wrong. One thing that I'm always surprised about is how Craig, who is generally thoughtful and careful, can miss these points.

[@nemrodx2185]

Hablas español Miguel Castro?

[@miguelcastro3019]

@@nemrodx2185 Si. Es mi lengua nativa. ¿Y tú?

[@miguelcastro3019]

@@nemrodx2185 Yes, it's my native language. You?

[@nemrodx2185]

I don't understand how Malpass's objection to Hibert's Hotel is supposed to work. -If you say that the hotel is full and not full, you have a contradiction. -If you try to avoid it by saying that the hotel can always accommodate more guests and therefore is "never full", it means that there can only be a potential infinity, since an actual infinity should be able to accommodate a guest in each room and you would again have the problem of the contradiction of a hotel that is full and not full, or to put it in Malpass's phrase, a hotel that can and cannot accommodate more guests at the same time. The problem is that people who defend the existence of an actual infinity always have to first assume its existence and then say that all absurdities are possible when the real question is whether... in view of these absurdities, and probable contradictions ... which is more likely? ... and the answer seems obvious.

[@nemrodx2185]

@Oners82 Ok but then you have to elaborate why...not just state it

[@nemrodx2185]

@Oners82 Sorry but those empty "ad hominem" attacks are just a confession of defeat. You are right, it is a waste of time.

[@bigbrointhesky]

I think Malpass' point was that, even if you could prove that Hilbert's Hotel is self-contradicting, that does not prove that infinities cannot exist. Notice that he is not assuming that "actual infinities" exist. It is his interlocutor who is claiming that he can _prove_ that infinities cannot exist. The burden is on Trent to prove his statement, not on Malpass to disprove it. Trent has not met this burden by resorting to Hilbert's Hotel or any of the other examples he gave, like subtracting different infinite sets from the set of natural numbers and coming up with different answers, etc. If you assert that the past is finite (not boundless in the past) you have to come up with a reason why we couldn't always go one second further back. You have to demonstrate that there is a stopping point, otherwise you have not demonstrated that the past cannot be boundless.

[@nemrodx2185]

@@bigbrointhesky "I think Malpass' point was that, even if you could prove that Hilbert's Hotel is self-contradicting, that does not prove that infinities cannot exist. Notice that he is not assuming that "actual infinities" exist. It is his interlocutor of him who is claiming that he can prove that infinities cannot exist. The burden is on Trent to provide his statement from him, not on Malpass to disprove it" No not at all. That is a typical rhetoric used by many atheists to flee from the argument. You have 2 hypotheses, one where there are only potential infinities and another where there are actual infinities. The finitalist has in his favor not only Hilberth's hotel but many other paradoxes and arguments, the infinitist only the claim that infinities can exist (begging the question). And if the position is going to be "I don't know", then Hilbert's hotel may or may not be possible and we are left with nothing relevant. "Trent has not met this burden by resorting to Hilbert's Hotel or any of the other examples he gave, like subtracting different infinite sets from the set of natural numbers and coming up with different answers, etc" I really don't understand how appealing to sets is going to save the infinitist. I can make sets of absolutely anything and it doesn't mean that such sets exist. No one (not even Craig) is against the mathematical concept of infinity, the problem is its existence in reality. "If you assert that the past is finite (not boundless in the past) you have to come up with a reason why we couldn't always go one second further back" The example you give would be a potential infinity, and the finitist agrees with the existence of potential infinities. The problem for you would be to show that all the seconds back have already been counted. It's like saying you already counted all the numbers. And even worse, because in the case of the past the counting of numbers never started. "You have to demonstrate that there is a stopping point, otherwise you have not demonstrated that the past cannot be boundless" There is precisely no stopping point in any count of numbers because they are potential infinities and not actual ones.

[@bigbrointhesky]

@@nemrodx2185 _"That is a typical rhetoric used by many atheists to flee from the argument."_ This has nothing to do with "atheists," it has to do with the merits of the argument. I'm not even sure that the claimed nonexistence of ("actual") infinities supports theistic arguments, particularly for those theistic arguments that claim the existence of ("actual") gods with ("actual") infinite properties? Irrelevant. Let's stick with Hilbert's Hotel as an argument for past finitude. _"You have 2 hypotheses, one where there are only potential infinities and another where there are actual infinities."_ No. The 2 competing hypotheses are whether the past is finite (bounded) or infinite (boundless). The point being argued here is whether Hilbert's Hotel can decide between those two hypotheses. _"The [finitist] has in his favor not only Hilbert's hotel…"_ You are assuming your conclusion that Hilbert's Hotel settles the issue in favor of the "finitist." This is an unsubstantiated bold assertion and is question-begging because this is precisely the point being argued. _"…but [also] many other paradoxes and arguments, the infinitist only the claim that infinities can exist (begging the question). "_ No. It is the "finitist" who is making a claim that Hilbert's Hotel precludes past infinitude. The other side is saying that Hilbert's Hotel does not meet that burden. They are not even claiming that the past is infinite, but that it has not been demonstrated that it cannot be infinite, particularly by the Hilbert's Hotel example. What other "paradoxes and arguments" are you referring to? Again, an unsubstantiated assertion. Also, notice that a paradox is not necessarily a refutation of anything, since it is an _apparent_ contradiction that, upon further scrutiny, can be found to not be a contradiction at all. You still have to demonstrate that it instantiates an actual contradiction. _"And if the position is going to be "I don't know", then Hilbert's hotel may or may not be possible and we are left with nothing relevant."_ You are the one claiming that Hilbert’s Hotel settles the question of past finitude. The burden is on you to demonstrate that (1) it is relevant and (2) it proves past finitude (or disproves past infinitude). _"I really don't understand how appealing to sets is going to save the infinitist."_ This would be like asking how appealing to numbers helps someone who is counting. Sets are useful concepts when describing infinities just like natural numbers are useful concepts when counting. _"I can make sets of absolutely anything and it doesn't mean that such sets exist."_ Sure, we can conceive of sets that don’t exist. And those conceivable nonexistent sets can be finite. Yet that doesn’t mean that "finitude" cannot exist. We can also conceive of sets (collections of things) that do exist. This proves nothing and is neither here nor there. _"The example you give would be a potential infinity, and the finitist agrees with the existence of potential infinities."_ You (and the "finitist") are the ones proposing the "potential" vs. "actual" distinction while agreeing with the "existence" of one and disagreeing with the "existence" of the other. But this is incoherent. Either it is possible for something to exist, or it is not. If something can "potentially exist" then it can possibly exist. If it is impossible for something to "actually exist" then it cannot possibly exist, meaning that it cannot "potentially exist." Therefore, it is self-contradicting to say that it is possible for something to "potentially exist" while simultaneously claiming that that same something cannot "actually exist." Setting aside the incoherence of this distinction, the "finitists" are the ones who claim that the past is "actual" (while the future is not, so they can reconcile past finality with future infinitude). Are you now saying that the past is not "actual" and that therefore there is no restriction for it to be "potentially" infinite? That would be quite an admission for a "finitist."

[@articlesbyaphysicist]

Trent is getting frustrated at 50:00 because he's wondering how come *math* isn't working when discussing Hilbert's hotel. The answer is that it's not *math* as a whole that's not working, just specifically simple arithmetic. There are other types of math that do work on it. Trent asks for another field where the math seems not to work, but we just ignore the problem? Well *simple arithmetic* breaks down all the time: imagine walking 3km north, then 3km south. Does that mean that you're back at your starting point? Not necessarily if you start in the right place on the globe ---- an example of where things just get a little bit more complicated than simple arithmetic and you have to fall back on something slightly more complicated. It's the same with Hilbert's hotel. You take away all the people except 3 and then you've subtracted infinity from infinity, but you end up with 3 --- it seems wrong, but what's happened is that simple arithmetic has broken down and instead you have to use a more complicated type of math that can cope with the problem and correctly answer that if you take away all the people except 3, you end up with 3 people. It's not really complicated, it's just a failure of *simple arithmetic*. And why does simple arithmetic break down? In the case of walking round the globe because movements round a globe are not identical with the real numbers. In the case of the hilbert hotel because neither the set of people in the hotel nor the changes in that set are identical with the real numbers. Arithmetic works when the domain can be mapped to the real numbers and the operations on the domain match the arithmetic operations. In this case, they do not.

[@Jack-z1z]

I would first say that your globe walking example isn't comparable to the problems we see with infinity, since the issue of not ending up where you started doesn't have anything to do with math, it has everything to do with the spatial relationship between a person and the north pole. The second problem is that you say there can be a correct answer to the infinite math problem, but this simply isn't true. The reason why there is a serious problem here is because you end up violating the law of identity. Here are two equations: Aleph 0 - Aleph 0 = ??? Aleph 0 - Aleph 0 = ??? These two equations are identical, meaning they are the same equation. The law of identity therefore dictates that the answer to one equation must be identical to the other equation. It is logically impossible for the answers to the two equations to not be identical, as that violates the law of identity. To say that you can end up with non-identical results when running the same equation reveals that the scenario you are supposing is impossible, since it can result in a violation of logic.

[@articlesbyaphysicist]

​@@Jack-z1z I don't think your argument makes sense. The closest I can do to make sense of your argument is to convert it into something like the following: (A) If aleph 0 is "possible", then every expression involving it must have a unique value. (B) Here's an expression involving Aleph 0 which has a non-unique value. (Conclusion) Therefore, aleph 0 is not "possible". Your premise (A) is just nonsense though, so I don't think your argument has any weight at all. Do you think that my syllogism captures what you're trying to say? If not, can you make a similar syllogism that *does* capture what you're trying to say please. I think a great deal of incorrect fuzzy thinking can be resolved by just trying to convert it to a syllogism.

[@Jack-z1z]

@@articlesbyaphysicist That isn't my argument. I very clearly explained what the problem is. Your attempt at reconstructing my argument doesn't say anything about the law of identity, which is strange, since that is what my argument is based on. The law of identity, in brief, states that if A and B are identical then they are the same thing. As such, what is true of A is also true of B, and vice versa. Aleph 0 is identical to Aleph 0. That much is obvious. It is only one number. Likewise, the two equations: (A) Aleph 0 - Aleph 0 = ??? (B) Aleph 0 - Aleph 0 = ??? Are identical. They are the same equation. And as the law of identity dictates, if two things are identical, then what is true of one is true of the other. Hence, the answer to the first equation cannot be different from the answer to the second equation. If you want this put in a syllogism then I would construct it as follows: 1) If equation A and B are identical, then the answer to each equation must be identical. 2) Equation A and B are identical. 3) Therefore, the answer to each equation must be identical. Or to put it in negative terms: 1) If equation A and B are identical, then the answer to each equation cannot differ. 2) Equation A and B are identical. 3) Therefore, the answer to each equation cannot differ.

[@articlesbyaphysicist]

@@Jack-z1z Your A and B equations both have a left hand side that is undefined --- they cannot be evaluated to a definite number, and I think this unravels the rest of your argument.

[@Jack-z1z]

@@articlesbyaphysicist There is nothing undefined about my equations. There are only two aspects to each equation: 1) The numbers involved in the equations. 2) The fact that the equation is an instance of subtraction. So what is undefined about the equation? The numbers involved? Or subtraction? Presumably you won't say that subtraction is undefined, as that is a very well understood and basic mathematical function. But in what sense is Aleph 0 undefined? It is the first infinite number (and yes, it is a number, it is not a potential infinity) and is pretty well understood in trans finite arithmetic. And, if Aleph 0 itself is undefined, then the very notion of an actual infinity is undefined, and therefore unintelligible. What I also find very telling is that you say: "they cannot be evaluated to a definite number". It seems as though you are acknowledging that there cannot be a coherent answer to the equation "Aleph 0 - Aleph 0 = ???" since you can end up with contradictory results. That is the whole point! This is why you simply aren't allowed to do inverse operations involving infinite numbers. So even if your objection worked (which it doesn't), it would only serve to prove the point I am making. And again, there is no mention of the law of identity in your response to the argument, which is strange, since that is where the problem is arising from. You asked me to lay out my argument in a syllogism for clarity, but you haven't responded to my syllogism. You haven't told me which premise you think is false and why. A denial of premise 1 would be a denial of the law of identity, so presumably you don't want to deny that. But denying premise 2 is very problematic, since the equations are very clearly identical to each other. They contain identical quantities being subtracted from identical quantities. We could substitute the number "Aleph 0" for a placeholder, namely (A), and it becomes clear why the equations are identical: A - A = ??? A - A = ??? The answer to the equation "A - A" cannot be both "A" and "not A" since that violates the law of non-contradiction. Yet that is precisely the view you seem to be defending. It seems you are trying to claim that the answer IS both "A" and "not A". So why do you think your view is correct when it violates the law of non-contradiction?

[@ShinMadero]

Yeah the past can be infinite. Why not? Who cares? Who can say anything about the universe anyway? Love and Respect to all,

[@richvestal767]

AFAIC the B-G-V theorem sort of settled the question of any claim of an infinite past. Even if the Kalam argument itself doesn't make a strong point, the atheistic claims of an infinite past in the face of the Theorem is at least AS weak.

[@probaskinnyman4960]

how does the BGV theorem settled the claim of an infinite past?

[@Cato229]

@@probaskinnyman4960 It used the expansion of the universe to prove that, without a boundary condition, there can't have been an infinite past. Basically, any equation run forever will either never change the output value or that output value will be infinite. Since the reverse of expansion would hit a limit where you can't squeeze any tighter, we know the current state of expansion is not infinite. Thus, we have change and that change is not infinite, proving whatever equation got us here was not running infinitely into the past. This doesn't just apply to our universe, but any physical cause of our universe (like the multiverse).

[@probaskinnyman4960]

@@Cato229 thanks for your input, but curious what your response would be to these videos: 1. kzbin.info/www/bejne/jXq8YpWZrrmnbKs 2. kzbin.info/www/bejne/nmLCkJ1jh8-NgNE 3. kzbin.info/www/bejne/qYeVYoitich4q8k

[@HeyHeyHarmonicaLuke]

@@Cato229 Is it like this? P1: If the universe was always expanding, it cannot have an infinite past. P2: The universe has always been expanding. C: Therefore the universe cannot have an infinite past. Can't I deny that P2, making the BGV only an argument that the expansion had to have a beginning, and not the universe itself?

[@Cato229]

@@HeyHeyHarmonicaLuke P2: Should be that the universe has had an overall positive average of expansion. Even systems that have periods or regions of collapse still lead to the implication of a beginning. The BGV then addresses why a system that expands would not be past eternal due to instability/stability. Any instability and it doesn't eternally sit without expansion. Complete stability and it never expands. The BGV itself doesn't argue what caused the universe, but only that the universe behaving as it does had a beginning and we can't explain that away with known physics. It doesn't just apply to our universe, but any system with a positive rate of expansion (like a multiverse that might create universes like ours) cannot be eternal in the past.

[@johnelliott5859]

Even if you accept the Kalam's premises, it only proves there is a cause. The Kalam proves nothing about that cause. Still left with a knowledge gap that some wish to fill with a god.

[@jD-je3ry]

nope

[@JohnSmith-bq6nf]

You don't have to end with one argument. You can use a group of arguments to get there. I find that kind of response to be very ad hoc.

[@johnelliott5859]

@@JohnSmith-bq6nf the cause can more easily argued to be an intelligent inactive uncaring cause since the universe is almost entirely devoid of life and life on earth is susceptible to suffering with no reason. Could be a machine, could be many other things. To say it is a being with the characteristics of the christian god seems to be self fulfilling.

[@therick363]

@@jD-je3ry nope?

[@paulkelly1162]

Metaphysical necessity is bound to causality. For example, water is necessarily H20 because the name "water" refers to the causal referent of *that* substance--but not "causal" in the physical sense, because words pick out natural kinds that may or may not survive reference, depending upon whether the word stands in the "right" kind of relationship to what it turns out the named item is (hence, rigid designation cannot guarantee reference). Similarly infinities are metaphysically problematic because they stand in problematic causal relations. They pick out and fail to pick out the meaning of referents uniquely.

[@Rosjier]

Your two first arguments have the same issue. “Full” in a finite hotel means both that all the rooms are occupied AND that the hotel can’t take on any more guests. For an infinite hotel this is not the case. In Hilbert’s hotel it can have every room occupied and yet it can take on more guests. This is not a contradiction, but just a semantic argument. If this is a contradiction then it can be used to argue against the trinity. (When Catholics argue like heretics) Every one we see and meet is a person and has one body and one soul, therefore God has one body, one soul, and is one person. However we know that God is three persons with one soul and no body. This seems like a contradiction, but infinite beings don’t have the same rules as finite beings, and infinite hotels don’t have the same rules for being full as infinite hotels. The second argument is also about semantics rather than logic: When you take two natural numbers and minus one from another you necessarily have a different natural number as the result, however infinity is not a natural number therefore: Infinity - infinity = 0 and infinity - infinity = 3 and infinity - infinity = infinity are not contradictions. Infinity is an adjective that describes some sets it is not a natural number and so the same rules don’t apply. As an example if you add all the odd numbers to all the even numbers you could say: “infinity + infinity = infinity” but more specifically it’s “all the odd numbers plus all the even numbers = all the numbers” even though “infinity” is an accurate describing word for each of those sets, and because the first infinite is half the amount of the last infinite, you can also say “Infinity > Infinity” I am glad though that you’ve developed the argument, as building one story on the hotel each year in the past is a good thought experiment 😊

[@WagesOfDestruction]

If I said “Full” in a finite hotel, it means that all the rooms are occupied. THEREFORE, the finite hotel can’t take on any more guests. This resolves the problem without making an infinite hotel, a different case as Hilbert’s hotel can have every room occupied and yet can take on more guests. I think then the semantic argument disappears.

[@ceceroxy2227]

I saw Homer Simpson eat an infinite number of doughnuts, case closed.

[@zsoltnagy5654]

1. If you have seen Homer Simpson eat an infinite number of doughnuts, then there is an actual infinite number of things. 2. You saw Homer Simpson eat an infinite number of doughnuts. 3. Therefore, there is an actual infinite number of things. (following from 1 and 2 by modus ponens)

[@jeremysmith7176]

Which episode. The one I am aware of has Homer in Hell given the ironic punishment of being forced to eat "all the donuts in the world". While that is a nearly inconceivable amount of donuts, it is not the same as an infinite number of donuts.

[@zsoltnagy5654]

@@jeremysmith7176 Cecerxy's comment is refering to the same episode and scene, which you are refering to here. Cecerxy appears to suggest here that scene to be funny, because there isn't supposed to be an "infinite amount/number of doughnuts", but it is presented, as it could exist such a thing or such a quantity of things. Also Cecerxy appears to suggest here, that this scene would confirm our intutions about infinity of there being no such thing. That scene is funny, because that subverts our intuitive expectations - not particularly regarding our intuitions about infinity. But that scene subverts our intuitive expectations about a usual and average person only preferring and liking particular and specific things also in particular and specific amount of quantities usually in a finite and small amount, since everything tends to get be poisonous in large amount of quantities: _"The dose makes the poison."_ by Paracelsus So yes, Homer, a supposedly average and usual person, eating "all" and an infinite amount of doughnuts and after that still wanting more with that already large amount of eaten doughnuts is really hilarious. ; ) I already explained this to Cecerxy. Yet Cecerxy still keeps making these comments. It seems, that he thinks, these comments would proof his false position and false intuitions about infinity, even though these comments achieve nothing in that regard. I don't know, what supposed to be his problem.🤷‍♀

[@TheProdigalMeowMeowMeowReturns]

Zsolt Nagy The dose PLUS the host makes the poison.

[@ceceroxy2227]

@@jeremysmith7176 I went back to rewatch it, you are correct, now its not as funny.

[@LM-jz9vh]

The following quote from Stephen L. Harris, Professor Emeritus of Humanities and Religious Studies at California State University- Sacramento, completes this point with a devastating argument. *Jesus did not accomplish what Israel’s prophets said the Messiah was commissioned to do:* He did not deliver the covenant people from their Gentile enemies, reassemble those scattered in the Diaspora, restore the Davidic kingdom, or establish universal peace (cf.Isa. 9:6-7; 11:7-12:16, etc.). Instead of freeing Jews from oppressors and thereby fulfilling God’s ancient promises-for land, nationhood, kingship, and blessing- *Jesus died a “shameful” death, defeated by the very political powers the Messiah was prophesied to overcome.* Indeed, the Hebrew prophets did not foresee that Israel’s savior would be executed as a common criminal by Gentiles, *making Jesus’ crucifixion a “stumbling block” to scripturally literate Jews.* (1 Cor.1:23) ------------------------------------------------------------------ The end is near? *The Bible’s New Testament contains a drumbeat of promises that Jesus is ready to return any day now, implying that it will happen so soon that it would be wise to keep it in mind when making any kind of life decision. But it didn’t happen.* The following is a sample of verses professing this theme: Matt 10:23: [Jesus said to his disciples] *‘When they persecute you in one town, flee to the next;* ***for truly, I say to you, you will not have gone through all the towns of Israel, before the Son of man comes’.*** (They fled through the towns but the Son of Man never came) Matt 16:28: [Jesus said to the disciples], *‘Truly, I say to you,* ***there are some standing here*** *who will not taste death* before they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom’. Mark 9:1: And he [Jesus] said to them [the disciples], *‘Truly, I say to you,* ***there are some standing here*** *who will not taste death* before they see that the kingdom of God has come with power’. Mark 13:30: *[After detailing events up to end of world, Jesus says]* ‘Truly, I say to you, ***this generation will not pass away*** *before all these things take place’.* Mark 14:62: And Jesus said ***[to the high priest - died 1st cent. AD]*** ‘You will see the Son of man seated at the right hand of Power, and coming with the clouds of heaven’. (The high priest died and never saw the Son of Man) Rom 13:12: The day is *at hand.* 1 Cor 7:29: The appointed time has grown very short; from now on, *let those who have wives live as though they had none.* (Funny thing to say if you didn’t think the end was imminent) 1 Cor 7:31: For the form of this world is *passing away.* Phil 4:5: The Lord is *coming soon.* 1 Thess 4:15: *We who are alive, who are left* until the coming of the Lord. Hebrews 1:2: *In these last days* he has spoken to us by a Son. Hebrews 10:37: For yet a little while, and the coming one shall come and *shall not tarry.* James 5:8: The coming of the Lord is *at hand.* 1 Peter 1:20: He [Christ] was destined before the foundation of the world but was made manifest at the *end of the times.* 1 Peter 4:7: The end of all things is *at hand.* 1 John 2:18: *It is the last hour;* and as you have heard that antichrist is coming. Rev 1:1: The revelation of Jesus Christ (i.e., the end of the world)…to show to his servants what must *soon take place.* Rev 3:11: [Jesus said] ‘I am *coming soon’.* Rev 22:6: And the Lord…has sent his angel to show his servants what must *soon take place.* Rev 22:20: [Jesus said] ‘Surely I am *coming soon’.* *It is puzzling to understand why Christianity survived the failure of this prediction. It is not ambiguous.* This would be like a rich uncle who promises to give you $10,000 ‘very soon.’ Ten years pass and he still hasn’t given anything to you, but he still says he will do it very soon. Would you still believe that it will happen any day? No, you would realize that it is a false promise. *For some reason, Christians cannot comprehend that they have been scammed. Jesus is not coming back, not tomorrow, not next year, not ever. But they still think it will happen any day.* www.kyroot.com/ *Watch* Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet, Historical Lecture - Bart D. Ehrman on KZbin Google *"13x Jesus was wrong in the Bible - Life Lessons"* Google *"End Times - Evil Bible .com"* Google *"The End of All Things is At Hand - The Church Of Truth"* Google *"Resurrection - Fact or Myth - Omission Report"* Google *"What’s Missing from Codex Sinaiticus, the Oldest New Testament? - Biblical Archaeology Society"* Google *"The “Strange” Ending of the Gospel of Mark and Why It Makes All the Difference - Biblical Archaeology Society"* Google *"ex-apologist: On One of the Main Reasons Why I Think Christianity is False (Reposted)"* Google *"Why Jesus? Nontract (August 1999) - Freedom From Religion Foundation"* Google *"272: JESUS’S 5200 AUTHENTIC WORDS - zingcreed"* Google *"43: IS THE FOURTH GOSPEL FICTION? - zingcreed"* Google *"Jesus Predicted a First Century Return Which Did Not Occur - by Alex Beyman - Medium"* Google *"Jesus’ Failed Prophecy About His Return - Black Nonbelievers, Inc."*

[@bandie9101]

"infinite things do not exist" - evenmore, do finite things exist? what is even a thing? are 2 electrons 2 distinct things? hang on, Cantor in front of my door…

[@misterkittyandfriends1441]

If actual infinite is real, then where is it? If Hilberts Hotel is real, then where is it? Anything actual takes up space in time. Even a quark takes up space and exists in time. Anything infinite must take up unlimited space. So if somebody had infinite baseball cards then I should have their baseball cards flooded in my house. The only way to have an infinite actual thing that I would not be surrounded by is if it has no physical size, but then it is not actual.

[@psyseraphim]

@Oners82 TBH I don't fully understand the concepts and being discussed but I understand enough to know that a lot of people in this comment section haven't remotely understood Dr Malpass arguments.

[@misterkittyandfriends1441]

@Oners82 I think you often make the mistake that just because somebody hears the same arguments you do and winds up finding them unconvincing, that this is *really* because that person simply doesn't "understand" the argument being made because of some flaw like confirmation bias. The flaw is never that the arguments are weak (because you agree with the premise) and the arguments should be strengthened (because you are already convinced). Maybe at root the argument just isn't very convincing for a lot of people who genuinely understand the argument, and you might get further acknowledging that.

[@bigbrointhesky]

The question is whether the past is boundless, it doesn't have to be anywhere specifically. Also, notice that your arguments could be used to refute the Christian god's alleged "infinite" properties.

[@Joker22593]

Reject Cantor and Embrace Conway! Surreal Numbers are far more sensible for talking about infinity.

[@Joker22593]

ω is the surreal number that immediately succeeds all natural numbers. You can perform both ω/2 and ω-(ω-3) just fine. The infinite magnitude number is defined as the number that succeeds itself. It's called ON.

[@nickmorris2250]

~ 52:00 - It's easy to see why Christians would 'worry' about this because they want to use that worry to justify spending their entire lives in service of a God that may not exist

[@marcellheureux7681]

I like oranges.

[@Subeffulgent]

Maybe I'm oversimplifying this with my simple mind. If Infinity exists then Infinity had a cause therefore the Kalam argument if false/not accurate, because the definition of infinity is causeless and endless. And no I'm not an atheist I'm actually a Catholic. Keep up the good work and may God bless you and your family ✝✝✝

[@Qwerty-jy9mj]

Infinity is a property so if it exists it does so either in the being that is actually infinite or in the mind of the being that imagined it, so the issue goes back to the actual/potential distinction of infinites. I think 🤔

[@Subeffulgent]

@@Qwerty-jy9mj excellent! Thank you.

[@mistermkultra3114]

God : The Kalam is inevitable !!!

[@pedrogonzalez9934]

Porque cada vez que alguien habla del Kalam tú estas allí? Pregunto

[@bigbrointhesky]

Inevitably wrong?

[@VACatholic]

Gah, trent, that's not where "pwnage" comes from. That's such an old term, more than 20 years old, and it has nothing to do with "hitting the wrong key"!

[@Qwerty-jy9mj]

It's true, that's where it comes from

[@TheProdigalMeowMeowMeowReturns]

Trent is right

[@VACatholic]

@@Qwerty-jy9mj It's 1337. Having lived through it, that's just not correct.

[@Real_LiamOBryan]

@@VACatholic I lived through it too, and Qwerty is correct. The root word, or verb stem, own was originally changed to "pwn" by frequency of fat-finger typo. 1337 only contributed the addition of the suffix '-age' to "pwn", because 1337 allows the addition of the suffixes '-age', '-ed', etc., to almost any verb stem, in a way similar to a gerund, in order to derive a noun from it. Therefore, pwnage originally owes its existence to a typo and only secondarily to 1337. Basically, all verb stems are 13374813, but pwnage is only a verb stem because of the typo.

[@Cato229]

This isn't as deep as it sounds. Actual infinites of finite sets aren't real. We have several thought experiments that prove treating this like a finite thing causes logical contradictions which is why it would never be defined. When Trent brings any example up, Alex talks about how he isn't worried or interested. He sometimes tries to change the example or bring up another one, never actually arguing against the implications of the given example. The main point: Missing the point for two hours can look like academic rigor if you drop enough names, add enough qualifiers, and ultimately fail to offer a response to the points given.

[@zsoltnagy5654]

Oh, so we just have to accept these examples with “counterintuitive results” of yours by its face value and then make with it maybe a fallacious and false *hasty generalization* for the case, that there are no actual infinities?!? It is like you are saying, that _"Look here is a White Swan and look here is another White Swan. So of course Every Swan is White."_ Besides, I suppose, that Alex is not wondering about your "counterintuitive results”, since you are treating infinite sets as if they were finite sets. It's like you are suggesting and proposing eating soup only with a fork and wondering about only gaining "counterintuitive results" from it. Did you ever try eating soup with a spoon or treating infinite sets properly?!? I don't think so. So yeah, in that case I would also concern myself with your suggestions and propositions as much as Alex is doing here, namely by not that very much.

[@Cato229]

@@zsoltnagy5654 A logical contradiction isn't merely a counter-intuitive result. It is proof your claims or rules of inference must be wrong. Producing a logical contradiction is the best way to show an idea is logically false. It certainly isn't as though I am forming an inductive argument from a series to make a general rule. I am not sure where you got that idea and it shows you probably don't really understand what we're discussing here. If I claim you saw a swan that is always totally invisible and always totally purple in the same way, I know you are wrong. I can point out that your claim that it is totally invisible means it can never have color. It wouldn’t be an appropriate rebuttal for you to argue, “Well, you’re just reasoning from the visible things you’ve seen. Wait until you see an invisible purple thing.” You may not understand the discussion, but treating infinites as something that could actually exist is attempting to treat it as a finite value that just always has a higher level, which is a contradiction. A theoretical infinite refers to a lack of limit and is merely used for values too high to calculate. The physical world doesn’t need us to calculate it and so there is no such actual limitation. In the real world, there are no numbers of objects too high to count because what is simply is. We can show that treating infinite series like actual things leads to obvious contradictions. That isn’t exciting. That isn’t an example from which to build a series that supports a rule. It is deductive proof that the story we were trying to tell with our words didn’t actually make sense. If your speech or arguments don’t make sense, you aren’t reasoning or communicating properly.

[@zsoltnagy5654]

​@@Cato229 What are you talking about?!? _"If I_ [, Nicolas Cato Strode,] _claim you_ [, Zsolt Nagy,] _saw a swan that is always totally invisible and always totally purple in the same way, I_ [, Nicolas Cato Strode,] _know you_ [, Zsolt Nagy,] _are wrong. I_ [, Nicolas Cato Strode,] _can point out that your_ [, Zsolt Nagy's,] _claim that it is totally invisible means it can never have color. It wouldn’t be an appropriate rebuttal for you_ [, Zsolt Nagy,] _to argue, “Well, you_ [, ?!?,] _’re just reasoning from the visible things you_ [, ?!?,] _’ve seen. Wait until you_ [, ?!?,] _see an invisible purple thing.”_ I mean, who is claiming what?!? Would you please be so kind as to make a cohesive and comprehensible explanation and example of, what you are meaning and trying to convey to me with that? If "we can" show, that treating infinite series like actual things leads us to obvious contradictions, then please be my guest and explain to me, how does this specific and particular infinite causal chain of eggs and chickens: infinite past (-∞) → ... → previous egg → previous chicken → egg → chicken → next egg → next chicken → ... → infinite future (+∞) is leading us to obvious contradictions, since that is not obvious at all - at least not for me. This should be a peace of cake by the way, since infinity has already been _"properly shown and deduced"_ to be a logical contradiction in a very brought and general sense, such that infinity is also a logical contradiction in any considered particular and specific case and scenario, hasn't that been? Thank you very much.

[@Cato229]

@@zsoltnagy5654 You seem to have really confused yourself by adding in proper nouns. When someone is speaking and says “I,” most people familiar with the language aren’t confused that the speaker is referring to themself. I don't know what your issue is, but let me state it even clearer. 1. Object X is always pink. 2. Object X is always invisible. 3. Claims 1 and 2 cannot be true because invisible things do not have color. Color is a visual trait and invisible things lack all visual traits. Your chicken-egg example is confusing a potential infinite chain, which will never actually reach an infinite number of chicken or eggs, with an actual infinite. If such an infinite chain did actually exist, it would lead to all the same contradictions of any other actual infinite. For instance, when checking our chicken farm, we would see more eggs and chickens being made, but the number of chickens and eggs that had ever been on the farm never increasing. We could give away 3 chickens or 2 chickens and still have the same number of chickens left over. That would make it seem like 3 and 2 are equal to 0. But if we took all but 2 or 3 chickens away, we would clearly see 3 and 2 are different values.

[@zsoltnagy5654]

​@@Cato229 I know, what "I" is supposed to mean. What I didn't know, according to your proposition which person supposed to claim what exactly. And how that is supposed to be relevant to this discussion here, whether or not infinity is possible? Here another time _"If_ person A _claims_ person B _saw a swan that is always totally invisible and always totally purple in the same way,_ person A _knows_ person B _is wrong._ Person A _can point out that_ person B's _claim that it is totally invisible means it can never have color. It wouldn’t be an appropriate rebuttal for_ person B _to argue, “Well,_ person A, _you’re just reasoning from the visible things you’ve seen. Wait until you see an invisible purple thing.”_ with person A = Niclas Cato Strode and person B = Zsolt Nagy. I mean, you start with _"If person A claims person B bla, bla, bla..."_ and then _"Person A can point out that person B's claim bla, bla, bla..."_ . This is such a messed up proposition. *Who cares about which person* said what? *What has been said and the proposition themselves supposed to be more important* than who said what. Such a confusion. By the way, premise 1 _"Object X is always pink."_ and premise 2 _"Object X is always invisible."_ can be true at the same time. Never heard of the invisible spectrums of light "infrared" and "ultraviolet" and about what lies beyond those invisible spectrums of light? Maybe there is an "infrapink" or an "ultrapink" light somewhere on those to the human eye invisible spectrums of light. And again how is this seemingly "red herring" supposed to be relevant here to the discussion of whether or not infinity is metaphysically possible?!? Oh, and you are apparently not understanding my infinite causal chain example. _infinite past (-∞) → ... → previous egg → previous chicken → egg → chicken → next egg → next chicken → ... → infinite future (+∞)_ The above infinite causal chain is supposed to mean, that there is a current "chicken", which came previously from an "egg", and will leave behind another egg - the "next egg". That from that "next egg" the "next chicken will emerge and this cycle goes on _ad infnitum_ into the future. Also the "egg", from which the current "chicken" came, came from the "previous chicken", which came from the "previous egg". Also this goes on _ad infnitum_ into the past. There supposed to be either an egg or a chicken at a time and moment causing the next chicken or the next egg and were caused by a previous chicken or by a previous egg. Where is the contradiction exactly here? Is it even possible to take away from the past or from the future? Maybe some could take away something from the future. But how is that supposed to be possible for the past? The past doesn't appear to be changeable, after it has been done. Besides, even if we were freely capable of taking away individual eggs or chickens from such an infinite causal chain and that leads to supposedly "fewer" links in this infinite causal chain, then so what? That's your wrong intuition about infinite causal chains supposedly being reduced by such an action. You are expecting such an infinite causal chain to behave like a finite causal chain, when an infinite causal chain is not a finite causal chain. Duh. Why assume such an absurdity? Why assume those things to behave similarly, when they are not exactly similar to each other? I don't expect them to behave similarly, since they are not the same thing or to each other similar things.

[@WagesOfDestruction]

The time travel paradox problem could be solved here by saying when someone travels back in time and changes the past, it does not alter the original timeline they came from but instead creates a new timeline that branches off from the old one. The changed events happen in the new timeline, not their original one.

[@drlegendre]

I'm confused.. how is it that an idea as weak as the Kalam could ever inspire this level and depth of analysis? Because the Kalam, if it succeeds in every way possible, gets you no further than "the universe had a first cause". That's it. No mind, no intent, no god and certainly no YHWH. It's a dead end. Of course the believers immediately leap to a GotG / argument from ignorance and declare "YOU can't point to that cause, THEREFORE (MY) GOD". But so what else is new, they do this all the time?

[@ceceroxy2227]

Not sure why William Lane Craig and Trent horn have not talked about this or something else.

[@John_Fisher]

I don't know if there's a particular reason that these two haven't, but Jimmy Akin and William Lane Craig have. It is worth the watch.

[@ceceroxy2227]

@@John_Fisher I have seen it, I have no doubt Jimmy is a smart guy, but I dont think he is a match for WLC. Trent I almost look at as young WLC, and find his philosophical thoughts comparable with WLC.

[@VACatholic]

@@ceceroxy2227 tbh Jimmy really flustered wlc and kind of dominated him. Wlc had no answers.

[@ceceroxy2227]

@@VACatholic I missed that part. You dont sound too bias.

[@ceceroxy2227]

I still dont understand why we need these thought experiments to see why an actual infinite is impossible. Its so obviously impossible to have an actual infinite number of things because infinity is not a number.

[@generalguy6211]

But it can be a quantity.

[@ceceroxy2227]

@@generalguy6211 not a numerical quantity

[@zsoltnagy5654]

@@ceceroxy2227 And why can infinity be not a numerical quantity? Would you please be so kind as to substantiate such a nonobvioius claim?

[@ceceroxy2227]

@@zsoltnagy5654 Because there is no number that precedes it or is after it.

[@zsoltnagy5654]

@@ceceroxy2227 The ontological status of an actual infinity doesn't hinge on the ontological status of a preceding number of such. It's like stating and claiming there to be three chickens, only if there are two chickens. The ontological status of chickens or a particular number of chickens doesn't hinge on the ontological status of a preceding number of chickens. To state otherwise to be the case is absurd.

[@ceceroxy2227]

How can a beginningless past exist, if something never temporally began it doesnt exist. The only thing that could exist forever is something non-temporal

[@zsoltnagy5654]

_How can a beginning less past exist, if something never temporally began, then that thing doesn't exist?_ It is not necessary for a thing to begin to exist in order for itself to exist given the example of a supposedly existing necessary being like God. So if a thing/something never temporally began, then that thing/something might have existed for ever, for eternity and for the infinite past. Answers that your question?

[@ceceroxy2227]

@@zsoltnagy5654 nope, you are going to have substantiate your claim you made in the first sentence for me to agree with you, you will have to prove it is not necessary, otherwise I have no reason to believe what you have claimed.

[@zsoltnagy5654]

@@ceceroxy2227 I already substantiated my claim by the very same sentence with _"given the example of a supposedly existing necessary being like God"._ Are you disagreeing with that or are you lacking the capabilities of grasping and understanding my substantiations? I guess, that the latter is the case here.

[@ceceroxy2227]

@@zsoltnagy5654 no you have not, not to my satisfaction, you must make a better case if you are going substantiante your claims as true, until then they are just fallacious reasoning on your part, I need a better argument.

[@zsoltnagy5654]

@@ceceroxy2227 I will further substantiate my claim if and only if you are first substantiate your claim _"only non-temporal things being capable of existing forever"._

[@LM-jz9vh]

"When we say…Jesus Christ…was produced without sexual union, and was crucified and died, and rose again, and ascended to heaven, ***we propound nothing new or different*** *from what you believe regarding those whom you call Sons of God. [In fact]…if anybody objects that [Jesus] was crucified, this is in* ***common*** *with the sons of Zeus (as you call them) who suffered, as previously listed [he listed Dionysus, Hercules, and Asclepius].* Since their fatal sufferings are all narrated as not similar but different, so his unique passion should not seem to be any worse." *Note how Justin (Martyr) is less of a fool than modern Christian apologists. He admits that differences don’t matter.* Since each and every one of the suffering and dying gods are slain by different means, one cannot argue the mytheme requires exactly the same means of death. “But Osiris can’t have inspired the Jesus myth because Osiris wasn’t nailed to a cross” is a stupid argument. The mytheme is simply death. Being killed. Suffering and dying. The exact mode of death can vary freely. It makes no difference to the existence and influence of the mytheme. It’s simply the particular instantiation of a generic abstraction. *And Justin’s argument (that Satan invented these fake religions to confuse people) entails Justin agreed the mytheme existed: indeed, it was demonically promulgated, multiple times. Intentionally.* *Likewise, Justin notices the mytheme is not virgin birth, but sexless conception. Of which many examples had already been popularized in pagan mythology (there just happens to also have been examples of actual virgin born gods as well). And by his argument (that the Devil was deliberately emulating the Jesus mytheme, in advance), Justin clearly accepted the same principle for “rising again” after death:* the particular exact metaphysics of the resurrection could, like the exact method of death or conception, vary freely. The mytheme consists solely of the abstraction: returning to life. Somehow. Some way. We will say bodily, at the very least. But what sort of body (the same one, a new one, a mortal one, an immortal one), didn’t matter. *If it had, Justin would have made the argument that “those gods” weren’t really resurrected. But that argument, never occurs to him. Nor did it to any other apologist of the first three centuries.* *Ancient Christians well knew there was nothing new about their dying-and-rising god. Not in respect to the mytheme.* Their claims were solely that his particular instantiation of it was better, and the only one that actually happened. *They didn’t make up the stupid modern arguments that dying-and-rising god myths didn’t exist or weren’t part of a common mytheme everyone knew about. For example, in the same century, Tertullian, in Prescription against Heretics 40, makes exactly the same argument as Justin. Funny that. They had better access to the evidence than we do. They knew what was really and widely the case. We should listen to them.* Google *"Dying-and-Rising Gods: It's Pagan, Guys. Get Over It. • Richard Carrier"* ------------------------------------------------------------------ Google *"Ehrman Errs: Yes, Bart, There Were Dying & Rising Gods - atheologica"* Watch *"Dying & Rising Gods: A Response to William Lane Craig"* by Derreck Bennett at Atheologica. Watch *"Asclepius: The Pre-Christian Healer & Savior"* by Derreck Bennett at Atheologica Google *"Virgin Birth: It's Pagan, Guys. Get Over It. • Richard Carrier"* Google *"5 Pagan Parallels to Jesus That Actually Aren’t Bullshit - Atheomedy"* Google *"Christian Apologetics: The Art of Deceit - Atheomedy"* Google *"Defending the Resurrection: It’s Easy if You Lie! - Atheomedy"* Google *"Majority of Scholars agree: The Gospels were not written by Eyewitnesses - Escaping Christian Fundamentalism"* A good site written by an actual Biblical scholar. Google *"Contradictions in the Bible | Identified verse by verse and explained using the most up-to-date scholarly information about the Bible, its texts, and the men who wrote them -- by Dr. Steven DiMattei"* Google *"How do we know that the biblical writers were* ***not*** *writing history? -- by Dr Steven DiMattei"* Also: Google *"How Did The Gospel Writers Know? - The Doston Jones Blog"* Google *"Yes, the Four Gospels Were Originally Anonymous: Part 1 - The Doston Jones Blog"* Google *"Gospels Not Written By Matthew, Mark, Luke or John - The Church Of Truth"*

[@aaronmueller5802]

Dude, I get you want to look smart by citing a bunch of sources, but maybe you should actually read them. "like a total Jew, Jesus reproduced it and took all the credit." Antisemitism is cool if it owns the Christians I guess.

[@LM-jz9vh]

@Aaron Mueller I've read them all. Have you? That's *why* I posted them. And the guy who wrote the article is a former Christian. It's not anti-semitism. Jesus *was* Jewish. He's just stating a fact and trying to be humorous.

[@aaronmueller5802]

@@LM-jz9vh What's funny about saying Jews are greedy liars?