Episode 16, Wes Morriston & Landon Hedrick, on the Craig-Malpass Discussion

[@claytonweaver2684]

Dr. Malpass, I'm a Christian and I can confidently say that we have a lot to learn from the way that you approach people who disagree with you. I've greatly enjoyed your discussions. Please keep it up. You deserve a much wider audience.

[@RagingBlast2Fan]

1:02:30 "I think you can hear someone make an argument and then cook up a formalization of it that's invalid. You can be uncharitable and just say someone's making a fallacy here. But what you've gotta do is actually think about whether that's the strongest way of stating the argument [the other person's making]." Summed up here is why as a Christian I really appreciate your work and how you interact with other philosophers in dialogues. You're really concerned with the truth. It's really evident when you hear a conversation like the ones you've had with Josh. You help one another out to try to understand the merits of what is being discussed even if you're antithetical to the conclusion. It's so refreshing to see someone like you, Alex. I'm not trying to flatter you. It's been my experience that both sides are cluttered with people who just want to defend their predetermined views, even if they find that the other side are giving substantive reasons to question some things, or that their own positions are problematic. It's more about perceptions than reality. I feel unshackled with your approach, and I really appreciate that you take part in these discussions. I for one have been convinced that there really isn't any problem with an infinite past. Not to say that I'm certain that it did happen, only that there aren't any problems involved that you could only solve by positing God. Another thing I think of sometimes is, what if matter has existed in some form before time, and it only gave rise to time as a kind of emergent property once matter became complex enough, such that the past is not infinite, but matter is, in the way that Aristotle understood it. Much love Alex. Keep yourself safe.

[@RagingBlast2Fan]

Trolltician Can you help me understand that? Why would that be assuming the existence of time? Perhaps I used some loaded words but is the idea itself wrong? Couldn't we say that matter before the Big Bang was eternal and that time emerged from it? Isn't that the same thing the theist says, except God, an agent, is the eternal catalyst that brought forth space-time rather than some non personal reality.

[@sasilik]

@@RagingBlast2Fan he has his own opinions but he can not put them in any reasonable form or justify logically but just - it is so because I say so and if you don't understand that then you are the stupid one.

[@alexlarsen6413]

Your second hypothesis is interesting and I find myself thinking about it as well. Energy cannot be created or destroyed, so it could've existed in some fundamental, timeless form e.g. as a quantum field holding the potential energy of the entire universe, prior to the inflation and the hot big bang. I don't think Craig is an honest interlocutor. He cherrypicks science and often misrepresents it in order to support his cosmological argument's second claim. The big bang theory doesn't say the universe began to exist, it merely makes some claims about the early state of the universe, which ultimately you can take to mean; the initial singularity. And here we come back around to that initial state potentially existing timelessly (not eternally in the past). Now, after the big bang, once the arrow of time is established, time symmetry becomes important, but Craig just dismisses it, he simply hand waves it away. This is important though because space and time are intertwined into this relative spacetime continuum which is simultaneously expanding in all directions, and so theoretically it doesn't matter which direction the arrow of time is pointing. Therefore, whether you're counting events into the future or into the past, it comes down to the same thing. The oldest part of the universe is farthest away from us and getting farther every day. I think this is what Alex tried to explain to Craig and I also think Craig is smart enough to understand it. Ultimately, therein lies the problem. I've never seen Craig granting even possibility, much less plausibility to anything going against his argument, even when it is clearly demonstrated logically and clearly communicated. At any rate, I reject his second premise. And I see him more as a standard religious apologist, less as a philosopher.

[@VACatholic]

Dr. Malpass thank you so much for your kind disposition and willingness to engage with people. I asked you a question during the debate about if this was your best argument against the beginning of the universe. I see now that my question is not what you were discussing. Thank you so much for opening my eyes, and I'm supremely humbled after having watched this, and would like to apologize to you for the snarkiness of my comment. You absolutely did not deserve that. After listening to this I know fully understand your position, and agree with you on some things. However that has awoken in me an idea that I hope to develop a bit, but that is to be seen. Regardless, I hope that you are well, and please accept my humble apology. Thank you for your work, I appreciate it very much.

[@romanbesel4759]

Great Video! Cleared up many of the questions I had after your conversation with Craig. You three make a good team explaining these things (each one of you was great and so all were great :D)! Although I enjoyed your conversation with Craig very much, I had the same feeling of you two only getting at the surface of the argument. It also baffled me that Craig didnt get the simple future/future perfect difference, think you made that in your paper perfectly clear by using the two formulas. Thanks for uploading and keep up the good work!

[@miguelcastro3019]

Nice discussion and clarification of the debate. I was especially intrigued by Alex's discussion on the Modal Operator Switch Fallacy and his analysis in terms of collective vs. distributed predication and how a modal operator switch is not in-and-of-itself a fallacy. Really enjoyed Wes Morriston's incisive interjections also.

[@New_Essay_6416]

Really enjoyed this, Alex 👍🏻

[@armadyl1212]

As a philosophical layman, I will absolutely have to rewatch the debate and this review lol

[@New_Essay_6416]

Armadyl lol I do that all the time, and feel like I grasp a bit more every time

[@RebornLegacy]

@@New_Essay_6416 Same.

[@Punibaba1]

Great conversation. Have you considered having Michael Huemer on your show to talk about his book Approaching Infinity? Seems like it would be interesting and relevant as he does believe in an infinite past but has an original view of how infinities work.

[@HeyHeyHarmonicaLuke]

Wow! Seeing this pop up made me race to search for a Malpass vs. Craig video. Omg it's real! This is going to be a great morning. I'll be back here after the debate.

[@thoughtology7732]

HeyHeyHarmonicaLuke The link is in the video description ;)

[@TBOTSS]

@@thoughtology7732 This is pathetic you had both the same guys on this channel about the Kalaam. Wes has made a living arguing against Craig and always loses. Craig, politely, frayed Alex and here they are licking their wounds. Sad.

[@vincentiormetti3048]

@@TBOTSS You don't sound very Christian.

[@BatmanArkham8592]

@@TBOTSS lol

[@retravoh]

It appeared to me, and I am by no means an expert, that Craig’s modal operator fallacy (1:04:00 on this video) was just his way of drawing a distinction between his Potential Infinite and his Actual Infinite. He was objecting by saying something like - just because Cameron can potentially count all the numbers doesn’t mean he actually count all the numbers.

[@TBOTSS]

Craig is absolutely right here. For example in the elementary algebra of real numbers, with addition and multiplication and every individual natural number, but without the general notion of a natural number is consistent, negation-complete, decidable. This means that you can count to every number in the future but you cannot count all the numbers. This is basic undergraduate stuff. I am surprised that Malpass is digging himself into a bigger hole. If Malpass just meant elementary number theory with addition but without multiplication which is proved consistent, negation-complete, decidable he may have a point. However all constructed infinities must contain some form of multiplication if physically realised and the full concept of natural number.

[@TBOTSS]

1:10. Here is Alex making the same undergraduate mistake. You can have every natural numbers without the concept of natural number but you can't have all natural numbers with the concept of natural number. Think of the distinction between Vw in set theory in which you can an infinite numbers of items but you need to go to Vw+1 to have an infinite set (collection). Both men are arguing that from Vw you can get the set of natural numbers which is completely FALSE.

[@ceilingspirits1592]

Don’t forget Craig believes in a god who sees events in time as a sort of frozen tapestry. Knowing what WILL happen with perfect certainty. For him to claim that these future events cannot be referred to is to defeat the omniscience claims he makes for his god.

[@TheProdigalMeowMeowMeowReturns]

Craig does NOT have that view, and he has also addressed the issue of freedom and omniscience.

[@paulkelly1162]

@@TheProdigalMeowMeowMeowReturns Unfortunately, Craig does believe the facts about the future are settled. While he also believes they aren't settled by God and so are compatible with free will, there are still an infinite set of true future facts/divine beliefs that are true NOW. Craig's response that God's knowledge is "wholistic" in some way strikes me as last ditch obfuscation. That said, this Kalam argument bc is perfectly compatible with open theism, as the above commenter notes.

[@robertsimonuy9743]

I think he would say, God refers to present facts that are about the future. Thus, presentism (present day facts) is maintained.

[@MrMcwesbrook]

I would be interested to get Alex's thoughts on what time is exactly. To me time isn't it's own thing. It is a reflection of movement. If everything stopped moving would time exist? How could we tell?

[@MyMusics101]

I'd love to hear it, too! I don't yet have set views on the nature of time, but I think your latter question is not really relevant here. It talks about epistemology, whereas the former is about the mechanism of time and its passing themselves.

[@nickmorris2250]

Regarding the 'hilbert's loaf' of bread; the thought that I had was that if you were eating the slices of the loaf in order then you will have finished eating the entire loaf once you eat the crust on the end. But since you will never finish eating the entire loaf then you can't have finished eating the crust on the end and therefore you won't eat each slice. So, in order to make it work, you either need to be eating a loaf that has no crust pieces on each end, or you start off by eating the crust pieces first then eat the middle pieces.

[@RagingBlast2Fan]

Thank you for blessing us with this content!

[@FlencerMcflensington]

Ok I'm about 2/3 of the way in and it's super fun and I'm wondering what the probability is that WLC and his academic friends spent any amount of time trying to make sense of your arguments by steelmanning them. I'd love to see that...but some intuition of mine indicates that I'd be waiting an infinite amount of time.

[@TBOTSS]

@Joshua Shrode WLC has debated both of this men, and in the case of Morriston in print has well. Craig always exposes them. Personally I think it is both sad and pathetic that two adults feel the need to engage in some ridiculous ad homs and compile a list of Craig's intellectual failure. but seem unable to do this when in dialogue with Craig. I very much doubt that Craig gives either man or their ideas very much thought due to the shallowness of their arguments. Elsewhere you can also see Malpass doing the same exercise with Graham Oppy. Talk about butthurt.

[@FlencerMcflensington]

@@TBOTSS ah since my comment I found the discussions and watched them. Unsurprisingly, I found that WLC show that he understood the objection Alex had around needing a legitimate symmetry breaker to rule out past-eternal/future-finite possible worlds but include past-finite/future-eternal brought up. Tensor Logic is Alex's specialty. Yet even in this domain he remained very humble and didnt press the issue after it was clear WLC just wasn't engaging. I think it was due to cognitive dissonance like we saw with Darth Dawkins though I have much more respect for WLC. But maybe Alex didn't understand and needs to go study up on that field andaybe do another dissertation on it. Or something else. The issue seemed fairly straightforward. If you rewind a lot and step it through. I mean there's no discussion of de sitter space or anything. There was nothing I said that was meant to attack him as a person. I don't think WLC is dumb. He's super smart. Which made their inability to connect on that fundamental disagreement, specifically WLCs inability to demonstrate he understood the objection and reply to the objection. He kept skittering off into areas Alex never went or agreed with WLC. My comment, while rhetorical for sure, was in relation to this point by point examination of the debate from several angles. They demonstrate they are earnestly trying to understand the strongest version of WLCs argument. Not just the argument they *think* WLC is making but even if they don't agree with that they try to see if there's a way WLCs idea could work. This is what I mean by "steelmanning". Whereas in the original debate, WLC engaged in strawmanning. My comment was meant to commend this video and also express a likely assymetry. I doubt WLC and his associates go through the debate *and attempt to make Alex's argument as strong as possible and then work against that* then we could try to move from just defending our beliefs no matter what to actually approaching truth a little more closely. For reference, the strawmanning comes around the 36 minute mark and Alex corrects him at around 37:18 mark

[@TBOTSS]

@@FlencerMcflensington “Unsurprisingly, I found that WLC show that he understood the objection…….” Makes no sense. “Tensor Logic is Alex's specialty” No such area of scientific or philosophical research. What is tensor logic? I think you mean that Alex has done some work on the philosophical foundations of fundamental physics - which includes manifolds and the mathematical operations on them. Clearly nothing on the philosophy of time. “Yet even in this domain he remained very humble and didnt press the issue after it was clear WLC just wasn't engaging” Craig did fully engage with Alex on this, refuted him and Alex went on to dig a deeper and deeper hole. “He kept skittering off into areas Alex never went or agreed with WLC” Really? I think that Craig went to great lengths to show where Alex had gone wrong. “maybe Alex didn't understand and needs to go study up on that field andaybe do another dissertation on it.” Agreed. “specifically WLCs inability to demonstrate he understood the objection and reply to the objection.” Craig not only replied but also refuted Alex. Alex came over increasingly as a defence lawyer who knows his client is guilty and will say anything to save face. “They demonstrate they are earnestly trying to understand the strongest version of WLCs argument. Not just the argument they think WLC is making but even if they don't agree with that they try to see if there's a way WLCs idea could work.” I saw nothing of the kind. By the way if you attempt to steelman an argument you should at least understand it. “Whereas in the original debate, WLC engaged in strawmanning.” Alex could have called him out on it but clearly did not. This is nothing new, many people who engage with Craig accuse him of not understanding or misrepresenting X AFTER the engagement and with Craig not present. I think that you are confusing strawmanning with refuting “we could try to move from just defending our beliefs no matter what to actually approaching truth a little more closely” Does this apply only to Craig? Does Alex get a pass? Do atheists in general? “Alex corrects him at around 37:18 mark” Correct who? Is Alex suggesting that Craig does not understand what potential infinite means in the case of set theory. The same craig who has a 500 page peer-reviewed book on the foundations of mathematics and Aseity. In the original debate Craig was pointing out that Alex was culpable of a modal error. In this case, Alex was switching between structures that contain the natural number without the concept of natural number with structures that contain the natural numbers with the concept of natural numbers - you can’t have it both ways. Anyone thanks for your polite response.

[@jesserochon3103]

@@TBOTSS Why Graham Oppy is probably my favorite naturalist is because he has openly admitted the arguments for origins on theism have about equal explanatory power as the arguments for origins on naturalism. In other words, he actually claims theism is just as plausible or likely as naturalism. The only reason he's still a naturalist is because he thinks the arguments on naturalism are a bit simpler. Graham Oppy is the real deal. And this is coming from a Christian theist.

[@chad969]

In order for the set of marbles that will go into the jar to fit Craig’s definition of a potential infinite, it would need to be finite but always growing. I would love to see Craig try to explain how the set of marbles that will go into the jar could be growing. This becomes especially difficult to explain on presentism, where the marbles that will go into the jar don’t even exist. If they don’t exist then how can they be approaching infinity?

[@BertPoole]

Nice!

[@kingpin3000]

Were you able to continue your conversation with Craig via email? If so how has that gone?

[@thoughtology7732]

Peter Allan No, we talked about it briefly after, but he said he was focusing too much on his current project, something about the historical Adam and Eve, to get into it.

[@ethanm.2411]

@Oners82 That's quite a lazy way of look at the issue. Did you entertain the notion that Craig has studied the topic more than you have, as both a professional philosopher and theologian?

[@ethanm.2411]

​@Oners82 You pretty much straw-manned me, then patted yourself on the back for doing so. **I don't care about his degrees in theology or philosophy, the relevant expertise required to analyse this claim is evolutionary biology and in this field Craig has precisely NONE.** That is not true. The question of Adam and Eve is largely a theological one, and though it is necessary to acquire a comprehensive understanding of evolutionary biology (which, if you follow Craig's work, he is doing just that), you definitely require theological training, which Craig definitely possesses. **Anybody who thinks that the entire species emerged from two individuals a few thousand years ago is not just wrong, but utterly cluess about how population genetics works. ** And you seem to be utterly clueless about the fact that that is not necessarily the view one must be committed to. Again, this is where it is important to have theological training. **And I love how your entire argument is, "Craig has two PhDs and you don't",** Did I say that? I don't see that anywhere in my comment. All I said is that Craig knows quite a bit more about the subject than you do. If I'm wrong, do correct me. **and after such an obviously fallacious argument have the audacity to say that I am the one doing the lazy thinking... ** Which you are. **Unbelievable.** Not really - most modern internet atheists are not rational in the slightest. That's why I so appreciate the work of atheists like Graham Oppy and Alex Malpass, who I hope will restore reason to the largely intellectually bankrupt movement that is New Atheism.

[@ethanm.2411]

​@Oners82 ​ **Nonsense from start to finish. ** 😂😂 I'm not even kidding, I actually found that funny. 1. Yes...you responded to a strawman of my argument. This isn't difficult, good sir. 2. That, good sir, is a non-argument. It's a baseless assertion, and a false one at that. 3. That's the whole point of studying the theological aspect. Joshua Swamidass, for instance, has a completely different view of the historical Adam and Eve then Craig does - he _doesn't_ believe that the whole human race originated from Adam and Eve, but unless I'm mistaken, he believes that they existed. He wrote a book on it. In fact, Francis Collins has a different view to Craig as well. These issues deserve far more intellectual engagement than the facile treatment you gave them. 4. No, it's not. This is another bald assertion. 5. Really? I just gave an entire comment of justification. 6. Not really. I carefully worded my statement - I used words like "most" and "largely," because my comment was not meant to apply to all. But I am happy to include you in that number if you give me a reason to. **If your next response is just more of this vacuous I'll waste no more time with you.** I myself am wondering why I bothered responding to you.

[@ethanm.2411]

@Oners82 *Tips fedora.*

[@FlencerMcflensington]

Where can we read your paper? Is it Journal access only?

[@FlencerMcflensington]

I'm not your "buddy" friend.

[@FlencerMcflensington]

I'm not your friend, pal!

[@nickmorris2250]

Does it make a difference whether we're talking about; (a) an actual infinite, or (b) a collection/series so large that no one has ever got to the end/beginning of it, or (c) a collection/series so large or so constructed that it was impossible for anyone (including a maximally powerful being) to get to the end/beginning of it It seems to me like they're pretty much indistinguishable from our perspective and yet its only (a) that faces all the problems. None of the arguments seem to work to show that b or c are impossible. It also suggests an alternative meaning of 'potential infinite' which is something that might already be/have been infinite but we have no way to find out.

[@ziyaaddhorat]

Sorry for replying 2 years later, but I think this is wrong. The first and third seem identical to me, given the nature of omnipotence, and the second set constitutes neither a potential or actual infinite. I can expand if you'd like.

[@nickmorris2250]

@@ziyaaddhorat Depends how you define God's power I guess. Some people say his power is 'unlimited' and some say 'maximally great.' I took 'maximally great' to mean that there's still thing/s he can't do and one of those things could be getting to the end of a very large series/collection. Yes, I know that the second set isn't a potential of actual infinite but given that we can't find the end/beginning of it, from our perspective isn't the same?

[@ziyaaddhorat]

@@nickmorris2250 So it would depend right. Let's define omnipotence here as the ability to do all logically possible things. Now, if this is true, why can this being not get to the start or end of this series? The only thing that would be stopping him is if the series is actually infinite, since it constituting an actual infinite means that it has no beginning or end. With respect to your second point I think it does matter. If it isn't actually infinite, it does not have any of the counter intuitive properties that make subscribing to concrete infinite sets counter-intuitive or problematic in the first place. (The set doesn't have cantors property)

[@nickmorris2250]

@@ziyaaddhorat Yeh, if you define it that way then I agree with you. My point was about a definition where the god is 'maximally powerful' and that that leaves room for some logically possible thing that it can't do. On the second point I also agree that it wouldn't have the same counter intuitive properties but my point is how would we know? If we can't ever get to the end of it then from our perspective both the actual infinite and the very large non infinite are the same. Although, I will concede that if it were an infinite hotel vs a very large hotel and someone else was doing the room and guest rearranging then we'd have the opportunity to find out if its a real infinite.

[@Jockito]

A question I would really love to ask Craig is: When God consults his foreknowledge and gazes into the future, what does he see? I think the answer should be: an *actually* infinite series of events.

[@TBOTSS]

@Windows 95 No. You are real dumb. Find out what Craig actually said, rather than the listen to the group therapy of Craig's defeated debate opponents.

[@Jockito]

@@TBOTSS Are you naturally this unpleasant? I think he would probably say a potentially infinite number of events. But this doesn't seem right at all, as it implies uncertainty - but if the future really is eternal, there is no potentiality to God's foreknowledge. He doesn't need to wait for each event to come into existence in order to see it. He can view an eternal future instantaneously.

[@Overonator]

Do other philosophers engage with Craig? I know Alex has but do other philosophers engage with him? I know he's big in Christian philosophy but outside of that? Now that you guys have published your paper, do you think he will respond in a paper?

[@thoughtology7732]

Overonator Yes, Craig is obviously much better known in philosophy of religion than in other circles, but that’s true for most philosophers and their field. He isn’t a top tier philosopher in the sense of a Kripke, or Quine, or Russell, in terms of fame. But he is the top of his field, which is a remarkable feat in its own right. And in that field he attracts the attention of the very best; Oppy, Draper, van Inwagen, Morriston, etc.

[@Overonator]

@@thoughtology7732 I see. Do you expect Craig to write a paper addressing your paper?

[@Sazi_de_Afrikan]

@Kripke Strike Plantinga from that. Read his books on Warrant; looks pretty presuppy to me.

[@Sazi_de_Afrikan]

@Kripke Only works if you agree him about cognitive function and all that. I dont, so the argument isnt motivating to me. Plus, due to my Pragmatist (Dewey on Warranted Assertibility as what is reached at the end of inquiry, fallibilism, and Peirce on Abductive Inference in science) commitments, I find his views on epistemology to be lacking and stuck in an old tradition.

[@jolssoni2499]

@Kripke How is EAAN good when Plantinga fucks up elementary probability calculus? From 'Naturalism and Religion' by Graham Oppy: "Plantinga also defends a similar argument against naturalism with weaker premises (EAAN*). R’: Our cognitive faculties that produce our metaphysical beliefs are reliable. N: Naturalism (is true). E: We and our cognitive faculties have come to be in the way proposed by contemporary evolutionary theory. (1) Pr (R’/N&E) is low. (2) Anyone who accepts N&E and sees that Pr (R’/N&E) is low has a defeater for R’. (3) Anyone who has a defeater for R’ has a defeater for any other metaphysical belief she thinks she has, including N&E itself. (4) If one who accepts N&E thereby acquires a defeater for N&E, then N&E is self-defeating and can’t rationally be accepted. (5) (Hence) N&E cannot be rationally accepted. Here is an argument for the conclusion that (EAAN*) cannot be a good argument for a theist to make. Let T be theism. Suppose that Pr (R’/T) is not very low. Clearly, Pr (R’) is very low. If the cognitive faculties that produce our metaphysical beliefs were reliable, then - on Plantinga’s account of reliability - those cognitive faculties would produce a preponderance of true beliefs over false beliefs. But there is simply no agreement - among philosophical experts or among the broader public - on a wide range of metaphysical beliefs. Indeed, in many cases in which there is division of opinion among the philosophical experts, there is no metaphysical belief that is accepted by anywhere near as much as half of those experts. Moreover, this pattern of division of opinion repeats among those who agree on some metaphysical matters: there is enormous division of opinion about metaphysical matters among theists; and there is enormous division of opinion about metaphysical matters among Protestant theists; and there is enormous division of opinion about metaphysical matters among Evangelical Protestant theists; and so on. However, if Pr (R’) is very low, then Pr (R’ & T) is very low, because the probability of a conjunction is less than or equal to the probability of either conjunct. But, since Pr (R’/T) = Pr (R’ & T) / Pr (T), Pr (R’ & T) = Pr (R’/T) x Pr (T). Hence, given that Pr (R’ & T) is very low, if Pr (R’/T) is not very low, then Pr (T) is very low. But theists cannot suppose that Pr (T) is very low. So, in fact, theists must suppose that Pr (R’/T) is very low. But, if theists suppose that Pr (R’/T) is very low, then, by the very same reasoning that Plantinga adopts to show that N&E is self-defeating if Pr (R’/ N&E) is very low, it follows that T is self-defeating. I take this last argument to establish that theists must suppose that there is something wrong with the reasoning in EAAN*; and, since the reasoning in EAAN* is the same as the reasoning in EAAN, I also take this last argument to establish that theists must suppose that there is something wrong with the reasoning in EAAN. Since Plantinga is a theist, he cannot suppose that the reasoning in EAAN* and EAAN is good."

[@qqqmyes4509]

Maybe it would be an overload of philosophy of religion, but it would be cool to hear you converse with Ed Feser, including his A-T metaphysics

[@TheProdigalMeowMeowMeowReturns]

Yes please! Feser been quiet lately. And IMO he needs to say more about Oppy’s arguments on existential inertia beyond that old paper

[@kenamis]

Not being a philosopher, I am at a lose at understanding why Craig is allowed to get away with redefining the infinity that someone else presents to him. Just like the infinity of negative numbers is less than the infinity of all integers, why does Craig get to decide which infinity should be talked about. If D.r Malpass says Cameron finishes counting to infinity "now", Dr. Craig responds with "if the past were infinite and you were counting you would have already had enough time to finish so you couldn't be finishing now or the past is not infinite. It seems like Dr. C is talking about either 1) the infinity of "past moments" (and assuming a 1:1 relationship with counting) or 2) the infinity of "actual counting" (and assuming a 1:1 relationship with past moments of time). But Dr M's infinity can be, and I think is, different in either cases. Dr. M's infinity, with reference to Dr. C's 1st infinity, is actually the infinity of past time PLUS present time and would thus include the current moment and the counting that happens (it could also be the infinity of past time, present time and 1 hour from now so that someone could finish counting an hour from now). This preserved the presumed 1:1 relationship with counting. Or, Dr. M's infinity, with reference to Dr. C's 2nd infinity, is actually the infinity of "actual counting" which would include the last count irrespective of when that happens (this could be a bigger infinity than past time infinity) If past time moments are counted in negative numbers (thus bound at one end by 0) but the "actual counting" infinity includes positive numbers it would be bigger than the "actual count" infinity that Dr. C is talking about. Sorry if this has a simple rebuttal that I just don't see, but it kept bothering me given that everyone agrees that not all infinities are equal. If someone can help me see the light I'd appreciate it. Thanks.

[@vincentiormetti3048]

So in Craig's countdown paradox, what creates the paradox is the moment the man finishes his countdown and arrives at 0, so both are talking about completed infinities.

[@TBOTSS]

Just like the infinity of negative numbers is less than the infinity of all integers, No, there are the same size.

[@Jockito]

Alex, when you and Craig were discussing the marble in the jar analogy for an actually infinite future, and Craig says "but those marbles don't exist yet, so it's only a potential infinite", how does that square with Craig believing that his God knows the future - and that future is eternal. Doesn't that mean that God's foreknowledge is equivalent to someone conceptualising that actually infinite jar of marbles? Otherwise how can God have foreknowledge of merely a "potentially" infinite future? as if God doesn't know if the future is eternal or not.

[@qqqmyes4509]

For Andrew Loke’s argument, if I accept the assumption that a Hilbert’s Hotel is impossible, I’m not sure which of these inconsistent claims I should accept: 1) It is possible that every day a hotel room spawns/is created ex nihilo without any vanishing/being destroyed 2) It is possible that the past has no beginning (is infinite) In favor of 1): When there are finitely many days, this event will not produce a HH. In favor of 2): Given that a HH has been ruled impossible despite it seemingly being logically possible, perhaps creation ex nihilo should be similarly deemed impossible. Even if 1) is true on a finite time scale, the intuition that it is true when dealing with only finitely many days may be untrustworthy when considering infinitely many days. For all I know 1) is true and 2) is false, but I don’t think the argument gives much reason to choose 1) over 2)

[@thoughtology7732]

Qqq Myes yes, for the argument to work you have to make several additional metaphysical assumptions. Creatio ex nihilo being one of them. Also that infinite creatio ex nihilo isn’t possible (that a Hilbert’s hotel cannot be created all in one go). Interestingly, the the mirror image destruction argument, I currently don’t think that destructio ad nihilum is required. It doesn’t seem to matter for that version if God leaves behind piles of rubble when he destroys rooms. Maybe it does but I don’t see it yet.

[@TheProdigalMeowMeowMeowReturns]

Why didn’t you guys bring on Craig?

[@JesusRodeADino]

For the same reason that Craig doesn't bring his opponents when he shamelessly rips on them in "post debate discussions."

[@TheProdigalMeowMeowMeowReturns]

Excellent profile picture lol

[@danglingondivineladders3994]

Everybody calm down. Read Grundlagen. Completed infinities are not only possible but necessary. Without them we cannot have geometry, set theory, or even simple division. You cannot "count your way" to them.

[@JnWayn]

In my opinion, Craig isn't much arguing with the opponent in front of him. He's playing to people that already believe, bogging the issue down in more confusion. Theism needs numbers, so once you have them, you don't want them to start thinking rationally about it because you worry they'll give it up. When atheists and Theists debate, it seems the sides have different interests. Atheists want clarity and Theists want more mud

[@Imrightyourewrong1]

How sad is it that the Kalam is considered one the best evidence for the existence of god. Wouldn't a god who presumably wants a personal relationship us existence be obvious?

[@JohnSmith-bq6nf]

Divine hiddness is the argument you are relating to and it has been addressed.

[@rumraket38]

@@JohnSmith-bq6nf Sure it's been addressed in the sense of someone has given it a response. Many of us find that response lacking. Or perhaps stated a better way, all the responses I've come across have been poor.

[@ethanm.2411]

@@rumraket38 What responses have you heard?

[@bigtombowski]

Imagine any of these fellas arguing with their wives lol

[@paulkelly1162]

There is no more deeper explanation required why the infinite past has brought us to this moment, than the explanation Kalam defenders offer why we are at the present moment--there are local explanations in terms of prior causes, but no ultimate explanation why we are at this moment in the series rather than another (lest modal collapse follow). ...But aren't these two position inverse logical twins? Must we make recourse to Kant?

[@paulkelly1162]

Alex, you are so darned close to seeing Kant's conclusion! Every argument either you or Craig makes can be exactly paralleled by a counterargument. Those two positions are mirror images: if not Kant, it is time to try something else or be agnostic.

[@eskilwadsholt4289]

Countably many marbles or thinking of actual humans uttering countably many words confuse the issue, I think. That seems counter intuitive. Ressources are limited and humans eventually die. Instead, take the collection of future days and label them by their distance from today. Tomorrow will be 1 day from now, the day after will be 2 days from now etc. How many of the natural numbers are used labeling this collection of future days? Finitely many or countably many?

[@dylansevitt]

Now that you have vanquished the great William Lane Craig, will you buy a better camera?

[@TheProdigalMeowMeowMeowReturns]

Alex, if you were frustrated by Cameron’s time management then you should haven firmly (but still politely) said so. I agree that Cameron really does sometimes move on too quickly. I’m confident that most of his (and your) fans would have been happy to watch a 3-4 hour discussion given the fame that WLC has in this area and the importance of his work to his fans. Also, both this channel AND also Cameron’s pro-Christianity channel are disappointing echo chambers. Craig is wrong that the success of your arguments would entail that “there is no possible world in which the past series is finite but the future series is endless.” Craig is wrong here. That said, IMO he seeems to have the upper ground on the paradoxes situation, though I’m not 100%. Really wish you two had delved in deeper. I wish you two had spent some time on, well, time... I’d love to see a debate between you two on tensed vs tenseless

[@TBOTSS]

@ meow meow meow "both this channel AND also Cameron’s pro-Christianity channel are disappointing echo chambers." Really? Cameron has debates - this channel does not.

[@TheProdigalMeowMeowMeowReturns]

(A) Cameron is very selective on which issues he’ll cover (eg no debates with top proponents of Christ-mediated universalism such as talbott, Parry, Reitan etc, among other examples), (b) has follow up debate “reviews” where the Christian gets to say the last word and the skeptic isn’t there to reply, (c) had Eric Wielenberg on to defend moral realism but then didn’t let him articulate and defend his own (non-theistic) account... More can be said, but I still actually really like his channel.