Episode 4, Wes Morriston; On the Kalam Cosmological Argument

[@jamesnelson227]

This is the best discussion on the Kalam I've ever seen. Thank you so much for these excellent podcasts!

[@thoughtology7732]

James Nelson Glad you liked it. Thanks for listening.

[@2020-b4j]

Brilliant video, good job Alex.

[@noahadam2045]

FANTASTIC discussion.

[@tylerwest719]

Hi Alex. Thanks for your videos. I've learned so much from them. Dr. Lawrence Krauss explained to WLC that we don't know if the universe has a beginning because we don't have a theory for quantum gravity. Without it you never get back to T=0. This doesn't stop Dr Craig from continuing to say the universe had a beginning.

[@JerryPenna]

When evidence and religious belief collide, evidence loses. Craig just seems to be using god of the gap: lack of scientific knowledge therefore Christian god. Recently, I’ve noticed many creationists take the opportunity to insert their god into the lack of definitive evidence for the origins of dna and assert its the Christian god who “designed” it. When in reality life origins (abiogenesis) has several possible hypothesis, including RNA world and others.

[@valthiriansunstrider2540]

The Big Bang hasn't been definitively proven either, because it is a conjecture based on the assumption that redshift indicates expansion. Redshift only indicates light losing energy.

[@valthiriansunstrider2540]

@@JerryPenna Intelligent Design theorists don't postulate any particular God, or God at all; only a designer, and they're right to infer it. Intelligent design is required for DNA formation relevant to life, because the sequence in DNA is arbitrary and the number of possible sequences is enormous. Yet only a very few are relevant for life. There is no known process that can create functionally specific information in a structure without a designer. Saying that DNA could've come about naturally only means you don't understand basic informatics. Fine tuning of cosmological constants and cosmic habitat, DNA information, irreducibly complex biomolecular machines, and impossibility of abiogenesis (it's never been shown how life can arise from non-life and RNA world is a joke) are just some of the problems that a materialist worldview faces. Materialism and atheism, or "anti-theism" is just as religious as Christianity in that they're devoted to a naturalistic account for EVERYTHING despite the enormous evidence demonstrating that's not the case. But devoted Materialists can't accept any evidence that contradicts their philosophy because that assumption is prior to any investigation, and many well-known atheists have admitted this fact. I believe Richard Dawkins said that naturalism MUST be assumed before evidence can be considered. Utter nonsense and 100% faith-based. There is no god of the gap here, only inference to the best explanation. Calling these people "creationists" as if that discredits their arguments is only to say that they aren't of your faith and therefore they're wrong.

[@JerryPenna]

@@valthiriansunstrider2540 prove that intelligent design is required for the formation of dna? That’s a claim - back that up biochemically. Are you a biochemist? I reject your claim until this is confirmed by biochemists and abio researchers.

[@JerryPenna]

@@valthiriansunstrider2540 explain how we could exist in a universe that was suitable for human life? Of course we exist in a universe that supports life. You have is ass backwards, we evolved through chemical and physical processes to fit into a universe. That’s it. Bty, fine tuned for what? This is so silly.

[@0gods]

Highly enjoyable discussion. :)

[@friendlybanjoatheist5464]

Is that a bottle of Pliny the Elder on Alex’s bookshelf? Excellent beer, just made up the highway from where I live.

[@thomastaylor1254]

Fantastic video, thank you very much.

[@Adiusa0874]

13:32 WES is corect. Ex-Nihilo is not plausible. It was forced-in to avoid pantheism. However, pan-en-theism does not have that problem. The Essence-Energies distinction in Palamite theology allows for creation Ex-Energies.

[@InefficientCustard]

1:15:33 I think Craig is conflating the claim there have been an infinite number of events with the claim there is an event in the past which is separated from the present by an infinite number of events. These are not the same.

[@Imrightyourewrong1]

Hi Alex. Awesome video. I searched and found this podcast on "podcast addict". However it only has one episode listed. Only one episode uploaded so far or should I find a new podcast player?

[@thoughtology7732]

I'm having some difficulty getting the show up as a podcast. The service I am using seems not to be able to 'see' the other episodes I've uploaded to Soundcloud. If you (or anyone) is able to help with making this into a podcast properly, I would be extremely grateful.

[@Imrightyourewrong1]

I'll ask around Alex. I'd love to be able to listen to all the episodes.

[@Imrightyourewrong1]

thepodcastersstudio.com/ lifehacker.com/the-best-hidden-features-of-vlc-1654434241

[@thoughtology7732]

Excellent. Thanks!

[@Imrightyourewrong1]

No problem. Johan Karlsson sent me those links. I hope it helps.

[@BabbleCacophony]

I would like to add that there is infinite fractions between 0 sec and 1 sec. Time is still able to pass. Does any one think this line of reasoning work for this conversation.

[@wireless849]

My way to attack the actual infinite premise that I haven’t come across elsewhere - Hilberts hotel and the past are disanalogous because past is not a series of discrete events (hotel rooms), but continuous and isomorphic to the real line. This is the way physics tends to consider both time and space. This means that any given arbitrary distance or period of time is infinitely divisible, including everyday metrics such as one metre or one second. Surely Craig isn’t denying that his drive to work is only a potential distance or the time he takes to make coffee in the morning a potential amount of time? Are these not examples of the actual infinite? If this is right, Isn’t the actual infinite all around us?

[@KamikazethecatII]

Wouldn’t this then make you more susceptible to grim reaper paradox, since time really would be infinitely divisible

[@ceceroxy2227]

There is no way to attack the past not being able to infinite. Because the past cant be infinite.

[@sapago4166]

The problem is that uncertainty prevents you from achieving the measurement accuracy necessary to prove this through experiment.

[@TechyBen]

Not quite. There are specific things that are and are not possible in Hilberts Hotel. We can rebuild our current assumed "reality" (time and space) from the Hilbert Hotel system, but doing so is nuanced and more difficult, not obviously apparent. So AFAIK the past is not infinitely divisible, and very much exists. The function applied to the past, that gets us to the present, is not simply derived though. From what I can tell, you have to assume the Hilbert Hotel exists and thus, as some people call it "God", some call it "nature" (or natural laws of physics in science). We have to admit, we are all trying to describe the same thing, even though we come to different conclusions on the properties of that thing (a thinking God, or a naturalistic process).

[@JerryPenna]

I’ve heard many Christians say there can’t be an infinite past because it would take infinite tine to get to now. But even with if there was an infinite past wouldnt there be a current time and couldnt it be this time?

[@jesserochon3103]

If there is an infinity number of years in the past, then it would take an infinity number of years to get to NOW. And because an infinity number of years never ends, therefor it would be impossible to get to NOW.

[@JerryPenna]

Jesse Rochon that’s dumb. There still would be a point in time which could correspond to our time. If you count infinitely long does that mean you never reach 1 or 2?🤦🏻‍♂️

[@frogandspanner]

@@jesserochon3103 Thank you Zeno.

[@Bhuyakasha]

Anything that exists in the colloquial sense is just an arrangement, all of physics is about the transformations of mass/energy and never about the creation, so we don't actually have any knowledge off of which to make an inference about the creation of any fundamental objects.

[@p00tis]

He's retired now. But what I wouldn't do to have office hours with him.

[@rickwittman8657]

Ales and Wes, Re Permise 1. "Everything that begins to exist has a cause." If 'Everything', as used in the first premise refers to a set if things that includes the Universe, then isn't the first premise merely an assertion of the conclusion, that the universe had a cause?

[@thoughtology7732]

The 'everything' in the first premise does quantify over all things, including the universe itself. That has to be the case for the inference to be valid, which it is. Crucially, the first premise is a conditional. So it isn't asserting either proposition outright. It isn't the same as saying 'the universe has a cause'. Rather it is asserting the relationship between two propositions. So it goes like this: 1. For all things x, if x begins to exist, then x has a cause. Another, logically equivalent way of putting the first premise would be like this: Everything is in one of two groups: either the things which do not begin to exist, or those things with causes. So the alternative first premise is: 1. For all things x, either x does not begin to exist, or x has a cause. 'The universe' is one of the things that our universal quantifier is ranging over, thus, our second premise would be: 2. The universe begins to exist. The first premise says that everything is in one of two groups, and premise 2 tells us that the universe is not in the first of the two groups. From that, it follows that the universe is in the second group. So the inference is definitely valid and isn't question begging.

[@rickwittman8657]

Hmmm, thanks Alex. Your rephrasing of 1 is clearer, and I get the two groups that are premise 1. I may be missing something because I'm thinking acceptance of only those two possible groups in #1, i.e. a thing with no beginning or a thing with a cause, requires that a third group, things that begin without a cause, be excluded as a possibility. Excluding that third possibility within premise #1 is in effect, assuming a 'fact' about the universe (if it began it had a cause) which is necessary for the conclusion 'universe had a cause' to follow premise #2 'Universe began'. Cheers Rick. PS keep up the good work. You showed a great temperament and technique in your discussion with Matt Slick, it disarmed him and brought out some genuine curiosity in him that is rarely seen from him in public (youtube).

[@daviddevereaux7786]

get this fixed so I can listen as a podcast I am subscribed on my pod catcher but only has 1 episode

[@thoughtology7732]

Ok, I think I have figured it out. You can now get all the episodes here: thoughtology.podbean.com Once iTunes has reviewed it, then you should be able to get it there too.

[@MaximilienDanton]

What if time is circular? If you travel in a circle you could travel an infinite distance. maybe a silly thought

[@Gumikrukon]

Cannot believe my LUCK!!! :D :D Wes is my favourite theist! :) ;)

[@Gumikrukon]

Turns out - he is not a theist any longer :) So CORRECTION - Wes is one of my favorite people ;)

[@Overonator]

Was he philosophied out of his theism?

[@MaximilienDanton]

I'm curious. where did you see that he is an atheist now?

[@Gumikrukon]

Check his latest interview on the Real Atheology channel. There the issue comes up :)

[@MaximilienDanton]

thanks. It's actually next after this video and Im subbed there. I'll definitely give it a watch

[@Never-mind1960]

Creationism - The belief that a magic invisible man of unknown origin, existing in nowhere-land, created everything out of nothing, using materials that didn't exist.

[@drawn2myattention641]

I regard WLC as something of a grotesque: he's consecrated his first rate intellect to rationally defending what he admits to knowing on non-rational grounds supplied by the inner witness of the Holy Spirit. Reason is just there to "show" he was right all along. Such well educated true believers, like the PhDs who supported Hitler or Stalin, always make the hair on the back of my neck stand up.

[@ceceroxy2227]

If WLC is grotesque, I dont know what you are, pondscum I guess.

[@drawn2myattention641]

@@ceceroxy2227 Dominus Vobiscum!

[@ceceroxy2227]

@@drawn2myattention641 habiscus flagellum

[@JruGeo]

What about the distinctions between propositions, things, and events? Propositions are true or false, things exist or fail to exist, events occur or fail to occur. (After the first hour of the video). ... edited

[@thoughtology7732]

We obviously are aware of that distinction. Sorry if we were unclear in the video though.

[@thoughtology7732]

I actually just listened back to the first 35 mins, and I don't see an example of what you are referring to. Do you have a timestamp for one? Maybe I'm missing something obvious.

[@JruGeo]

I noticed it around the 1 hour mark on the 'infinite praises' argument. An infinite set of statements may have mathematical legitimacy, but thrust that into reality and you obtain all the Zenonian paradoxes like the Grim Reaper paradox, Hilbert's hotel and so on. Here Morriston conflates potential infinity with actual infinity. Actual infinity is broadly logically impossible. He mixes the distinction between propositions and things when he argues for the mathematical legitimacy of the infinite, then by 'one-to-one' correspondence, concludes that there may be an actually infinite set of events or things. Propositions have truth value, but things exist or not.

[@JruGeo]

I mean it's extremely subtle so easily missed in an informal discussion like this so I probably shouldn't have been so harsh. But the point is just because there's can be an actually infinite set of propositions, doesn't imply that there can be a one to one correspondence of events fixed to those propositions.

[@thoughtology7732]

"An infinite set of statements may have mathematical legitimacy, but thrust that into reality and you obtain all the Zenonian paradoxes like the Grim Reaper paradox, Hilbert's hotel and so on." So, I think you may have missed the point of that particular argument a bit. Wes is saying that if all those paradoxes make such an infinite series of utterances (which are supposed to be concrete actual events, btw) 'metaphysically impossible', then it rules out a future series just as much as a past one. Yet, various proponents of the Kalam (such as Craig) also believe in an endless future in the afterlife, and don't think that the Kalam arguments rule this out. But the question is: why? The point is that if you accept the absurdity of an infinite series, but you think there is an infinite future, then you have to explain how it avoids being impossible. We were talking about the attempts by Craig to justify treating the future series differently to the past series.

[@copernicus99]

WL Craig confuses a series with no beginning and a series with a beginning that occurred an infinite time ago.

[@Adiusa0874]

Nice face-palm here (my EMPHASIS for clarity): 08:17 ALEX: "Craig THINKS that this (CAUSALITY) is a fundamental principle of science. WHY 'does he think that'? ('UNCLEAR SOUND')" WES: "Because THE SCIENTIST (NOT THE THEOLOGIAN - LOL) looks for causes. I don't think it amounts to any more than that. You know something remarkable happens the scientist doesn't say oh well that's just one of those rare cases where is something happened without any cause. THE SCIENTIST takes that as a problem to be investigated so they look for causes." :O 08:52 ALEX tries to give an example of event without cause - decay of a radioactive nucleus. 10:02 WES points out that it is not a knockdown example. At least in one interpretation of the science (that Craig claims), those are events without a SUFFICIENT CAUSE. Further: 12:41 "it's not clear that we're justified in making that leap (EVERYTHING HAS A CAUSE)" Why not, after all wasn't the Science that said there must be a cause? That is what I heard @ 08:22.... At least we can't blame THE THEOLOGIAN for that. :)

[@imaxus1128]

There is a difference between causal connections and concluding something using the laws of logic. Making a leap doesn't imply that everything has a cause, but simply that the laws of logic that are agreed upon were not applied properly. I hope I have understood you correctly.

[@NN-wc7dl]

Excellent!

[@MaximilienDanton]

So if only the present exists, could god know the future?

[@MaximilienDanton]

So five minutes after I posted this question Alex brought it up. Fun :)

[@TBOTSS]

WLC lives rent free in Morriston's head.

[@SanjeevSharma-vk1yo]

I don't quite buy this notion of nothingness- how would one know whether absolute nothingness is even possible - that such a state is let us say unstable, and by itself decays into something-ness Positing that nothingness is even possible sounds to me like an extravagant claim.

[@jezah8142]

I've always thought "nothing" is more of an abstract notion rather than something that ever was in reality. I've never heard a scientist say there was ever nothing "before ' the big bang

[@glutinousmaximus]

Well, this is WLC's principal argument - now rather old and tired rests on the apparent "Law" that effect follows cause. This is obvious to our human logic; but perhaps _wrong!_ Richard Feynman for instance, showed that at the micro scale, certain particle interactions can have interchangeable mathematical solutions in terma of 'cause and effect'! (see QED or Quantum Electro-Dynamics) This has been known for years. Our problem is that we live in a very human 'macro' world. I suppose WLC is irrevocably stuck with his model and with his way of life - even if he no longer believes it any more!

[@glutinousmaximus]

As far as the universe emerging from "nothing" is concerned, Lawrence Krauss is a good source for the scientific approach. A philosophical 'nothing' is _NOT_ a science 'nothing'. Lawrence means that if some singularity was involved, then (if the natural laws applied at that time) then gravity existed - but (maybe) nothing else.

[@glutinousmaximus]

And finally (!) 'Hilbert's Hotel' with 'infinite' rooms is absurd. The obvious solution is merely to use _the next available room!_ If you need more on this, look up Georg Cantor's life (fascinating!) and Kurt Godel on the "Incompleteness Theory" which took the mathematical world (and allied logics) by storm in the 1930's! Russell and Hilbert were both VERY upset! Wonderful stuff!

[@plasticvision6355]

Oners82 Whereas philosophical nothing is a incoherent notion as it argues that no thing at all exists (how does something that dies not exist, exist?).and in doing so commits the fallacy of reification.

[@rogbec01]

Great discussion, but am I fair in saying that you seem to move away from the test of truth, anyone can postulate anything, but truth needs to correspond with our reality and I would argue that, given the empirical evidence that the universe had a beginning , prior to that , nothing existed. The discussion on infinity being perceived or real is interesting, but as we live in a finite world , any discussion about whether or not infinite time can exist is interesting but not reasonable , given that we know that time, space and matter all had a finite beginning. When it comes to what is more reasonable, given the level of evidence of the beginning of the universe, Craigs claim that what existed before this event is immaterial, intelligent, causal , powerful and personal , characteristics that we would expect in a theistic worldview, it is required for you to at least come up with alternative explanations of the cause of the Big Bang and the evidence that your explanation is more reasonable than Craigs. I did not hear of a valid alternative theory so on the basis of what is most reasonable based on our current empirical evidence , theism wins this round. You don’t have to be a physicist, we are dealing with metaphysics, this is the realm of philosophers.

[@rogbec01]

@Roger I agree, anyone can make up a theory , particularly in the metaphysical realm. The laws of rationality can be used in this space ( as they are also metaphysical ) to determine which hypothesis is most reasonable / rational. Penrose unfortunately shoots himself in the foot by complicating his theories to provide some kind of causal agent that is unconscious and preexistant, such as chance and time , both time didn’t exist prior to the Big Bang and chance is just a word and cannot cause anything , so his materialistic framework makes his theories illogical. He is fully aware of the fine tuning of the universe, yet provides complicated theories violating Occam’s razor to steer clear of the obvious conclusion , “A commonsense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question.” Fred Hoyle

[@rogbec01]

@Roger it is simply a case of what is more reasonable, despite it challenging our metaphysical worldview, rather than try and fit the evidence or come up with theories to fit our own world view. When we see a computer code we never would consider it rational to say it came together by random forces. Yet given a strand of dna, infinitely more complex, and we say it must have assembled itself at some point from chemical reactions! It is a belief that has no evidence and in fact is illogical due to the impossibility of it ever occurring once and somehow surviving and reproducing . Same goes for the impossibility of the specific design of the universe, if there was no intelligent mind behind the Big Bang , we have to come up with some other causal agent that is extremely powerful, causal, spaceless, timeless and eternal , materialists do not even get to sit at the table because there was no material pre big bang , so by studying what could exist that has the properties of causality, eternal, powerful , and I would argue , due to the fine tuning of the universe , super intelligent , as Fred Hoyle stated. ( most scientists Hoyle included believes in Aristotle’s eternal universe) His comment was in response to the discovery of the fine tuning of the forces hundreds of constants that were produced in the big bang that made it possible for the universe to exist.