Hilbert’s Hotel and William Lane Craig Exposed by Muslim Scholars | God's Cosmos Episode 9

We are launching a kalam program in January. You can learn more and save your spot here: whyislamistrue...
Learn more about the Why Islam is True Course here: whyislamistrue...
Learn more about Basira's Curriculum in Modern Context here:
www.basiraeduc...
Watch the God's Cosmos Episode "Atheist Science Defeats Christianity" here:
• How Christianity Gave ...
Watch the God's Cosmos Episode "Kalam Cosmological Argument Quranic Link" here:
• All God's Prophets Mad...
This video explores the Kalam Cosmological Argument and its philosophical significance in proving the existence of God. Originally popularized by William Lane Craig in 1979, the argument has sparked extensive debate in Western philosophy, particularly due to its connection to the Big Bang theory and its implications for the universe having a beginning. The video critiques Craig's use of examples like Hilbert's Hotel to demonstrate the impossibility of an infinite past and contrasts this with the responses of Muslim scholars who directly engaged Aristotelian philosophy. These scholars employed sophisticated proofs, including arguments by contradiction, to refute the notion of a beginningless universe, demonstrating instead that the universe must have had a starting point. This makes the Kalam Cosmological Argument a pivotal tool in reconciling science, philosophy, and theology.

[@BasiraEducation]

Learn more about our Kalam 3.0 Program➡ whyislamistrue.com/kalam

[@odeebob7826]

We understand from the noble verse that this universe has been continuously expanding from the beginning of its creation until this day. Allah Almighty said: " And the heaven We constructed with strength, and indeed, We are [its] expander. " Quran 51 : 47

[@amirnakh229]

People who try to argue on the comments section is pointless. People stop wasting time.

[@anthonykenny1320]

@@amirnakh229 too true There’s no point trying to change what people of faith believe because their beliefs are not rational

[@QudsHussain-quds]

SHEIK HAMZA. A GIFT FROM ALLAH TO THIS UMMAH AND WORLD 🌎♥🙏❤💖💕🌎

[@BasiraEducation]

The Prophet Muhammad ﷺ is the one who is the gift from Allah to the ummah and the world, not Hamza.

[@QudsHussain-quds]

@BasiraEducation yes prophet Muhammad is the best gift ever but sheik hamza and many other sheiks are a gift extension of the gift of sunnah

[@QudsHussain-quds]

Rasool perfected the deen for us but we would never understand if it wasn't for people like sheik hamza to learn it and teach us 💯

[@m7wgbh]

Alhamdulilah

[@tionarry]

William Lane Craig doesn't say "because the universe began to exist, therefore GOD exist"

[@BasiraEducation]

Good point. He says that because the universe began to exist, it has a cause for its existence, and then he goes on to argue that cause is God. I just released a video about that, and why his argument for that is flawed: kzbin.info/www/bejne/rKeuZXh8jtKsrKc

[@odeebob7826]

MashaAllah Tabarak Allah brother

[@danielparry7643]

The ordering of the real numbers is not the same as their cardinality. Please take a real analysis class (math) if you want details.

[@BasiraEducation]

You're right, but I'm not sure which part of this video are you are commenting on. I actually discuss set theory in the next video, not this one. You can watch it there and I'd love to hear your comments on it: kzbin.info/www/bejne/rKeuZXh8jtKsrKc

[@souverain1er]

@@BasiraEducation10:00 onwards. Incorrect

[@AliHussain-ou6gu]

JZK 🤲

[@BasiraEducation]

wa iyyakum

[@Ssn5556]

I'm sorry there are no Muslims scholars today that have the level of intellect to correct the past ones. William Craig is far ahead of the likes of Sheikh Hamza, the mohammed hijabs and tzortis's of the world. The argument by the likes of hamza and hijabs etc can be torn to shreds in minutes by anyone with thought. Philosophical arguments currently are weak. You must have faith

[@shark7698]

horrible horrible comment over here. William Craig obviously has studied philosophy well enough but that doesn't make his argument the best. I'd argue his kalam argument is low tier compared to the more prominent ones like contingency or transcendental that actually point to a necessary being. As for Mohammed Hijab and Hamza Tzortzis, they don't claim to be philosophers, but they are most definitely more than capable in critiquing william craig's argument (although they dont have any reason to because they are also theists), considering Mohammed Hijab already has in terms of the trinity if you watched the debate a few months back

[@BasiraEducation]

Thanks for your comment! I'd love to hear your specific critique of anything specific that was mentioned in the video.

[@pablomunoz3624]

This guy should read Cantor’s works on cardinality and sets and shut his mouth up. This is EMBARRASING

[@anthonykenny1320]

William Craig is not a philosopher he cooks his arguments to support his belief in the white make god of the bible which gives him power by association

[@BasiraEducation]

I think even atheist philosophers who refute William Lane Craig would call him a philosopher! If he wasn't, then they wouldn't bother refuting him.

[@anthonykenny1320]

@ philosophy is the dispassionate examination of reality and accepting wherever it ends William Craig starts off with an irrationally arrived belief system he wants to protect and argue from the goal posts That is not philosophy it is propaganda He is dishonest and manipulative and cannot be taken seriously

[@anthonykenny1320]

Isn’t “Islamic scholar” an oxymoron? Scholarship is supposed to be objective

[@Abukarali114]

Define Objective.

[@anthonykenny1320]

@ not influenced by personal belief or prejudice So when a “ person of faith” constructs an argument that very conveniently arrives at the conclusion they were trying to prove such as “ QED god does exist after all” their objectivity can be called into question by rational sceptics like myself None of the supposed philosophical somersaults by Augustine Averro or Aquinas prove anything except how duplicitous and fundamentally lacking in integrity they all were Being rational intelligent people they were desperate to create a rational argument to support their gullible belief in the worst theory of creation, the GOD delusion

[@althea_is_smokin_hot]

Sirs,muslim scholars have been correcting scientists since ages. But incorrigibles can never be corrected no matter how hard they try.

[@anthonykenny1320]

I’m proud to be incorrigible and if Allah doesn’t like me that s his problem

[@nuhashahmed7692]

​@@anthonykenny1320Oh he'll make it your problem don't worry.

[@karimb972]

​​@@anthonykenny1320that's very much yours. It's called stubbornness and it's born out of ego. Allah the Most Majestic does not have problems

[@muslamicknight9621]

One muslim scholar will hold one opinion and another will hold a different one. Such is the game of God.

[@Leo4Earth]

Your lack of knowledge of modern mathematics makes you think that your opinion is relevant. Please take a course of mathematics about infinity and learn the real knowledge, then make videos about it. You are showing how ignorant are the muslim about the modern science and mathematics.

[@ammadkour]

@@Leo4Earth this is just ad hominem, do you have an actual argument?

[@Leo4Earth]

@@ammadkour well, you misunderstood the concept of infinity. There are infinities which are listable, and there are some which are not listable. there are infinities which are bigger than others. for example, the set of even numbers have infinite members in it, all even numbers, but they are half of the set of numbers which has both even and odd numbers. The set of Real number is not listable. the set of complex numbers are also not listable, but obviously it is bigger than the set of Real numbers. We use Hilbert hotel as an example for dummies. the mathematical argument is much richer.

[@ammadkour]

@@Leo4Earth 1. You still haven’t argued for where the error is, you’ve just stated that it’s wrong. That’s not how an argument is formulated and I sincerely doubt you know how to do that. 2. I haven’t made any claim about infinity, so directing this at me also makes little sense. It’s apparent that you’re committed to an ideological position and are not interested in actual dialogue, so I’m not wasting my time

[@Leo4Earth]

@@ammadkour That is my argument. "Your understanding of the concept infinity is wrong or incomplete at best". I gave you some examples, like the infinity made from even numbers (2,4,6,8,...) is smaller than infinity made from both odd and even numbers (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,...). Infinities are not the same size. So, infinity minus infinity could be anything. Here is a homework for you: what is the infinite sum of " 1-1+1-1+1-1+1-1+1-1+..." (3 dots means continue for ever) the answer to this question will shock you. the answer is 0.5 (half) . it is neither zero nor one. and there is a simple proof for that. Regarding the Kalam argument: Kalam argument is about the first cause. it has nothing to do with time. Time is a human construct based on variations we measure, like the length of a day (two crossing of the meridian by sun), or oscillations of an atom. We defined it. it is not an absolute quantity and nor space. Space can be contracted or stretched. Kalam argument is about cause and effect. it says "if something comes to exist, thus it needs a cause" then he jumps to the first cause (prime cause, or cause without a cause) and it call it God. By the way, please do not use Aristatol's arguments anymore. We (modern science) have proved in science that Aristotle has been wrong in all his arguments. (proved by observational experiments). No one except for the Fundamental Christian uses the Aristotle's arguments. Muslim should not follow the Christian. Fundamental Christians are anti-science.

[@monzurrahman8307]

​@@ammadkour his proof by contradiction is incorrect. There's no contradiction that (-inf, 2024] and (-inf, 1478] have the same cardinality. This is a well known fact in mathematics. Also, one sided infinities can exist. For example, the natural numbers which has a least element but no largest element.

[@victoremman4639]

In philosophy, when we start from a postulate that is false, all the reasoning is false, or turns on itself, circular. This is what we hear in this discussion. The postulate "the universe exists"; what is the universe? before saying if it is a reality. Are the stars the universe? Is the Quanta the universe? The postulate does not hold on anything. We can say just as much that the universe has neither beginning nor end, it is the identifiable objects that have a beginning and an end. If we return to the Islamic and non-philosophical concepts foreign to Islam, the heavens and the earth appeared, detached themselves from each other, no notion of universe in there. Introducing the concept of universe is inviting a Greek with his own things. In Islam, the past is a fossil, it exists, the present is what we see with the eye, it exists, and the future is a potentilaity , it exists. Past Present and Futur, can be resum in one concept ثُمَّ اسْتَوَىٰ عَلَى الْعَرْشِ it's the act of regulating all the matter. Ok, I'm not allowed to answer to the following comment of mohammed , so here my answer : This is the Western ideology of the early 20th century. You simply mean that Space-Time is put in a bag called Universe, and in this bag you add matter, and eject Dark Matter and Quanta which are outside of time and which is without energy. Not only does your definition not correspond to reality known in the 21th century, but essentially, it is not Islamic and is not the Arabic representation of reality. A language is a representation of reality. Let us return to Quranic science and its language, its representation of reality. The term A'lamin does not mean Universe, a Greco-Latin term and concept, and it is a replacement of the meaning that imposes the meaning of Universe on it. A'lamin means everything that can be identified, perceived. The extract from the verse of the throne that I posted opens another track of thought, a self-regulated and spreading system. And it acts on Water, which is the basic material, and which is not directly the fluid that we identify, but something that is a space-time, two notions that are only one. If space expands, then time also. So it is only 1 concept, Space-Time. The M is an affix in Arabic, to designate things, a thing. So in Arabic, the M would be synonymous with "universe" and ماء would be a separate and fixed unit, a discriminated part of a whole, which is the M without dressing. The Arabic language carries semantic unity. What I am telling you here is not philosophy, nor a scientific theory from the Middle Ages or the beginning of the 20th century. Come back to Qur'an, and not western ideology and theories. Don't change the meaning of arabic words to fit with greek and roman ones.

[@mohammedhanif6780]

the universe is the totality of space-time and matter-energy that we are a part of.

[@victoremman4639]

@@mohammedhanif6780 This is the Western ideology of the early 20th century. You simply mean that Space-Time is put in a bag called Universe, and in this bag you add matter, and eject Dark Matter and Quanta which are outside of time and which is without energy. Not only does your definition not correspond to reality known in the 2th century, but essentially, it is not Islamic and is not the Arabic representation of reality. A language is a representation of reality. Let us return to Quranic science and its language, its representation of reality. The term A'lamin does not mean Universe, a Greco-Latin term and concept, and it is a replacement of the meaning that imposes the meaning of Universe on it. A'lamin means everything that can be identified, perceived. The extract from the verse of the throne that I posted opens another track of thought, a self-regulated and spreading system. And it acts on Water, which is the basic material, and which is not directly the fluid that we identify, but something that is a space-time, two notions that are only one. If space expands, then time also. So it is only 1 concept, Space-Time. The M is an affix in Arabic, to designate things, a thing. So in Arabic, the M would be synonymous with "universe" and ماء would be a separate and fixed unit, a discriminated part of a whole, which is the M without dressing. The Arabic language carries semantic unity. What I am telling you here is not philosophy, nor a scientific theory from the Middle Ages or the beginning of the 20th century. Come back to Qur'an, and not western ideology and theories. Don't change the meaning of arabic words to fit with greek and roman ones.

[@victoremman4639]

@@mohammedhanif6780 This is the Western ideology of the early 20th century. You simply mean that Space-Time is put in a bag called Universe, and in this bag you add matter, and eject Dark Matter and Quanta which are outside of time and which is without energy. Not only does your definition not correspond to reality known in the 2th century, but essentially, it is not Islamic and is not the Arabic representation of reality. A language is a representation of reality. Let us return to Quranic science and its language, its representation of reality. The term A'lamin does not mean Universe, a Greco-Latin term and concept, and it is a replacement of the meaning that imposes the meaning of Universe on it. A'lamin means everything that can be identified, perceived. The extract from the verse of the throne that I posted opens another track of thought, a self-regulated and spreading system. And it acts on Water, which is the basic material, and which is not directly the fluid that we identify, but something that is a space-time, two notions that are only one. If space expands, then time also. So it is only 1 concept, Space-Time. The M is an affix in Arabic, to designate things, a thing. So in Arabic, the M would be synonymous with "universe" and ماء would be a separate and fixed unit, a discriminated part of a whole, which is the M without dressing. The Arabic language carries semantic unity. What I am telling you here is not philosophy, nor a scientific theory from the Middle Ages or the beginning of the 20th century. Come back to Qur'an, and not western ideology and theories. Don't change the meaning of arabic words to fit with greek and roman ones.

[@victoremman4639]

@@mohammedhanif6780 This is the Western ideology of the early 20th century. You simply mean that Space-Time is put in a bag called Universe, and in this bag you add matter, and eject Dark Matter and Quanta which are outside of time and which is without energy. Not only does your definition not correspond to reality known in the 2th century, but essentially, it is not Islamic and is not the Arabic representation of reality. A language is a representation of reality. Let us return to Quranic science and its language, its representation of reality. The term A'lamin does not mean Universe, a Greco-Latin term and concept, and it is a replacement of the meaning that imposes the meaning of Universe on it. A'lamin means everything that can be identified, perceived. The extract from the verse of the throne that I posted opens another track of thought, a self-regulated and spreading system. And it acts on Water, which is the basic material, and which is not directly the fluid that we identify, but something that is a space-time, two notions that are only one. If space expands, then time also. So it is only 1 concept, Space-Time. The M is an affix in Arabic, to designate things, a thing. So in Arabic, the M would be synonymous with "universe" and ماء would be a separate and fixed unit, a discriminated part of a whole, which is the M without dressing. The Arabic language carries semantic unity. What I am telling you here is not philosophy, nor a scientific theory from the Middle Ages or the beginning of the 20th century. Come back to Qur'an, and not western ideology and theories. Don't change the meaning of arabic words to fit with greek and roman ones.

[@amirulafiq4371]

Not related to the video but I would like to warn the brothers and sisters to stay away from the so-called revert Nur Mellany. She's doesn't hold the Sunnah to be authoritative. She's beginning to accept pantheism/panentheism

[@homopolemicus3449]

There is a problem with this position. 1. Time may not be a flowing entity. The concept of past/present/future is most likely a human conception. According General relativity there is no such thing as a time. All events exist all the time. And there is evidence for this is Islamic theology. 2. The idea that the existence of God can be proven is problematic. From an epistemological perspective God cannot be proven by logical deduction as we do not have predicates that deal with a Devine entity. Our predicates are bound by the parameters of the physical world and by the language we can employ to describe them. Also logic relies on a series of assumptions which will themselves be unjustified when dealing with a Devine entity. 2. You will never be able to find empirical evidence of God as God is not open to the scientific method. As the scientific method relies on an involuntary reveal of an entity through an actual or surrogate observation. As God is beyond the veil of such observation we can never achieve this. 3. Only through arbitrary and selective revelation does anyone know of Gods existence. That is an essential tenet of belief in God. Therefore Philosophical musings are pretty much a waste of mental effort as the exercise will bear no fruit. And one could argue that any attempt beyond blind faith based on circumstantial evidence and trust in a prophet, is bordering on heresy if not worse.

[@badvibes2568]

1 this isn’t a defeater to the position. Relativity agrees that time and space began. 2 this is false. We don’t need predicates that deal with divinity to reason that god exists. Why would we need that? Have you heard of induction? If I see a broken window do I need to see a cat to reason that it’s the best explanation of the broken window? No I don’t so this is also irrelevant. God is the necessary mind that grounds all transcendental categories that include the LOL. These axioms are justified on a foundationalist epistemology. 2 again? lol you’re correct god is not physical so he’s not subject to empirical evaluation. This doesn’t mean he doesn’t exist it just means you’re using the wrong tools for the job. We can prove his existence through deductive arguments like the Kalam, the contingency argument, the Bayesian fine tuning argument and many more. You can’t prove consciousness exists empirically yet denying it would lead to absurdity. Just like consciousness is metaphysical and not subject to empirical evaluation so is god 3 that’s just an unsubstantiated assertion. We have lots of good reason to believe in revelation like the prophecies of Islam, the inimitability of the Quran, the testimony of his companions and the character of the prophet himself who even western orientalist recognise as one of if not the greatest leaders of all time. Reflecting on the existence of god is not a waste of time it’s a way to increase your faith and argue for the truth of Islam on rational grounds from first principles. We don’t rely on circumstantial evidence we rely on the culmination of all the arguments and infer the best explanation using induction. I hope you engage with my points fruitfully and admit where you are wrong. May Allah guide us all.

[@victoremman4639]

In one sentence, we can break down all your assumptions. The science is not design to meet God, but to study how He acts. Exemple, God doesn't exist and it's vain to look for Him in a corner : He makes to exist القَيوّم linguisticly and semanticaly explicite, He makes to exist you, the sun, ect., using gravity, pressure, spacing, speed of the light, energy and power ect. Science is not design to give 1 Name to all actions dwelling the matter in the universe. Do you have some best assumption than this one ? The main purpose of Judaism and Islam, it's the concept of 1 God, gathering to himself all actions in the universe, no partner. You are probably a normal philosopher now, an agnostic.

[@ammadkour]

If a one sided infinity is impossible, what makes our existence in the afterlife possible? Isn’t that another one-sided infinity, but in the other direction?

[@HiriHM]

What do you mean

[@gtwenty3]

Salam alaikum, I am not an Islamic scholar but I have a math and philosophy background. My understanding of this is at no point in the afterlife will we be like "ah yes, been living for an infinite amount of time" so we never actually realize the infinite time, it's just another day after another day etc

[@abrarhameem1000]

I think that's the dimension outside our Universe, so it doesn't have to work rationally to us always. The whole point is to proof that infinity is impossible for this universe. Whatever thinking and reasoning we do, all of this is because we are thinking in terms of this universe, and it is limited to this universe and our limited thinking capacity that deals with things of this universe. That's my initial thoughts, and somebody else can have a different and better answer, I don't mean to speak on behalf of anyone or any religion or philosophical tradition. Allah knows best!

[@zenastronomy]

the rejection of infinity is with regards to science and creation. aka this observable universe we live in. science says infinity cannot exist in creation, only in thought. as science is based on the principle of causation and reality. every action has to have a cause and an explanation. and reality cannot be infinite. as that is the observable nature of reality. the mathematics of physics and observation says that. and science has to conform to what we observe and calculate. so if we do not observe infinity and cannot mathematically create cause and effect with infinity, or see an act without a cause. the only explanation is that they don't exist in the created world. have you ever tried dividing by infinity, timesing bh infinity, subtracting by infinity? it just doesn't work. mathematics breaks down. and the science of the universe is built on mathematics. that leaves the only explanation for infinity, being an infinite being. you can only explain infinity with infinity. so if you have god an infinite being, you can have an explanation for infinity existing, and actions without infinite causes existing. so you can have infinite afterlife only if an infinite being like god exists and makes it happen.

[@mohammedhanif6780]

our existence in the afterlife isn't a one-sided infinite. it's a finite period at any one moment and is a potential infinite only. that is if time is the same in the afterlife as in the dunya.

[@anthonykenny1320]

An inexplicable explanation is no explanation at all And since no one can explained how god came into being nor why when or how it created the universe it is no better than saying X created the universe It is no explanation at all but actually creates more questions than it answers

[@karimb972]

It's a logical fallacy. You want to know how the Being that is beyond time and space can be accounted for. You cannot measure ultimate reality. But if you cannot accept the idea of a being that is greater than you and transcends you , you will remain stuck in the mud until death.

[@anthonykenny1320]

I do accept there are beings greater than me for instance the Wizard of Oz who actually lives in a rainbow Now prove me wrong

[@anthonykenny1320]

@ if this being is “beyond” time and space then nothing can be known of it since knowledge can only be about time and space But that is far too philosophical for a” person of faith” to grasp

[@zeven341]

Read Cantor and then start over again. Infinity is not a number. Infinity is often used in describing the cardinality of a set or other object (such as a list or sequence of terms) that does not have a finite number of elements. Care must be used to avoid confusion, as nonintuitive results often present themselves: for example, the set of integers and the set of even integers have the same size, despite one being contained within another. That is NOT a contradiction Infinity is used to describe the limiting behavior of some functions, where a function "approaching infinity" means that it grows without bound. It is math not an argument in physics. It can’t be mixed with cosmology.

[@karimb972]

The Brother says that exactly in another video: infinity is not a number.

[@zeven341]

That’s not my main argument. According to the work of George Cantor infinity as an abstract mathematical concept is used in the theory of infinite sets of numbers. The difference between sets of numbers and sets of objects, things and events (in the past) is that a set of numbers can be infinite, just meaning that there is always a number bigger then the biggest number in a set. Infinite sets of numbers are NOT different in the number of elements in the set but their cardinality is different. Which is obviously not the case with material things or in his case historical events. The man makes what is called a categorical error. He could just have said that there is no proof that a set of all events in the physical world is infinite. But that also doesn’t proof that the universe can’t be infinite because there are no data of a non-existent universe. So every preposition about that is metaphysical speculation.and don’t make the mistake that a causal effect is necessary because causal effects have only meaning in a existent universe because for a cause with an effect you need time, and again, we have no data about a situation where there is no time.

[@BasiraEducation]

@@zeven341 We just released a video on this: Transfinite Numbers, 1-to-1 Correspondence, and Infinite Time are Full of Contradictions: kzbin.info/www/bejne/rKeuZXh8jtKsrKc

[@zeven341]

@ sets of numbers have nothing to do with time. Again don’t mix the math of Cantor with physics. It’s nonsense.

[@babaali7050]

If universe began go exist, it is by no mean direct logical conclusion that God exist. Learn some basic logic.

[@DeathByDrone-ORmk84]

You ever hear about the law of contingency?

[@sparephone8228]

Kalam cosmological arguement is just a way of explaining Surah 112 of the Qur'an. As the Qur'an puts it, God is the only being who is uncaused, so nothing can compare to Him. Otherwise you have to believe in infinite regress.

[@khayalie_pulao]

P1: An eternal cause must have an eternal effect. P2: Therefore If God is eternal his creation must also be eternal. P3: God is eternal C: Hence creation is eternal. Let me elaborate why P1 is true. If you assert that an eternal entity G created A finite time ago (prior to which A did not exist). Since G is eternal, this creation A must have been preceeded by an eternity in which A did not exist. But that would mean G will never be able to arrive the point where He would create A (An eternity must pass afterwhich A will be created, however an eternity can never pass due it svery nature)

[@jaketwigg1065]

Cause and effect are in themselves a process made by the Creator. God chose cause and effect as a means for us to understand him. Creation is not inherently eternal, everything will be rolled up like a scroll in the end.

[@khayalie_pulao]

@jaketwigg1065 If you believe that the concept of cause and effect are not absolute truths about reality rather are creations of the first cause. Then you should not use such concepts/rules to prove God either and therefore should disagree with the approach used in this video to utilize our reasoning to prove existence of God

[@mohammedhanif6780]

@@jaketwigg1065 your reply doesn't rationally address his argument.

[@mohammedhanif6780]

Your argument does not require P2. Your justification for P1 is false because you assume there is time before time comes into existence with the creation of the universe ("A must have been preceded by an eternity in which A did not exist.") You need to prove this claim you make. God in the KCA is timelessly eternal and not sempiternal. He acts timelessly.

[@mohammedhanif6780]

Another fallacy is that you assume that effects have the properties of their cause but we know this is not true. A tree (effect) is large but it transformed from a seed (cause) which is small. Causes and effects may differ in frorm, function or many other properties.

[@TingTong2568]

Pfffftt