Kalam Cosmological Argument 2.Physicists and Philosophers strike back

[@sahb8091]

An exceptional and worthy undertaking which offered a significant, accessible and highly academic response to cosmological arguments which often are revered by believers and go unchallenged. I believe in God, I am a Muslim, but I feel apologetics that try to use philosophy to pontificate upon things which defy our evolved intuitions prevents us from fully appreciating and enjoying what only science has, and can, uncover. The answers are out there, not within. Incredible work, Phil.

[@PhilHalper1]

thanks so much for your comment, it is much appreciated.

[@Carlos-fl6ch]

Wow. I know how much intellectual honestly is needed to be able to escape doctrine and admit such. Moreover I think it's hard for people to combine science and religion. You made it sound easy

[@aidos6127]

I too am a Muslim, not deeply religious, but I do believe in God, after years and years of denying that, when I thought I knew everything, and I have 2 things to say: Firstly, that Al Gazali's Kalam argument is absolutely brilliant, and, in my opinion uncrackable! Secondly, if by saying that the ANSWER is out there not within, you mean that just as our senses are limited and we cannot hear everything and our eyes cannot see all colors, our brains too have limits, then I totally agree. Humans just like all other species evolved to meet the need for survival and preservation of the specie, and contemplation in existence was not a matter of interest, biologically.

[@Carlos-fl6ch]

@@aidos6127 are you sure it is uncrackable. Do you actually understand the argument or do you just have a feeling. The first premise is creation ex materia the second premise is creation ex nihilo. As result the argument is not only unsound it's also a non sequitur. Moreover. No one can demonstrate that the universe has a beginning. The argument is strong because it resonates with theistic presuppositions but it's not a good argument in any possible way. It fails..it's purpose.

[@aidos6127]

@@Carlos-fl6ch Wow! You know lots of big words! You must be right.

[@Datokah]

The amount of effort it takes to refute Craig's rhetoric (often dripping with an unwarranted smugness and certitude) in a debate is vast, which is why he usually appears to do so well, but here skydivephil et al do all that heavy lifting and firmly remind him what intellectual honesty looks like. Brilliant.

[@PhilHalper1]

thanks thats very kind of you

[@odinallfarther6038]

He always Struck me as a bloviating grifter I could never understand how he had such standing and was never really challenged intellectually or philosophically by his peers of the time .

[@thecloudtherapist]

But surely you cannot claim any different motivation was behind the intent of the first (heavily-biased) docu and this second?

[@angelmendez-rivera351]

@@thecloudtherapist How are these heavily biased? The guests are all expert speakers with different background and different belief systems. This is far from biased as it is possible to get on anything. The only thing critics ñike you know how to do is to try to poison the well, because they know they cannot debunk the actual counterarguments presented in these. It says a lot about not only you as people, but about how indefensible your belief system and conclusions are.

[@angelmendez-rivera351]

@@odinallfarther6038 Most serious philosophers would never waste time with WLC, because that is the equivalent of a physicist wasting time with a flat Earther. Serious philosophers have much better things to do than debunk arguments from a charlatan.

[@johnwick2018]

One thing I noticed from all these exceptional physicists is that every single one of them admits that there are all kinds of models and theories and they are not sure about which one is the correct one. Then there is WLC.

[@maujo2009]

I know right? All these scientist thread lightly on everything they say because they admit the possibility of being wrong. Meanwhile, i have *NEVER* heard or seen WLC admit he's wrong on anything! If you know of an instance when he did, please let me know.

[@PhilHalper1]

wow that sums it up very nicely

[@caiomateus4194]

Craig never claimed that he knew which model was the correct one, only that whichever one is correct is likely to contain an absolute beginning. This he can say, because he has shown that models that do not satisfy this condition are unfeasible. Given this fact, those who previously dismiss the idea that science can prove theism, such as Carroll and Rovelli, would be dishonest not to claim that they do not know whether the universe began or not. Of course, the question of causality, for them, would not be in dispute, insofar as their own interpretations of physics are based on a dirty philosophy (logical positivism, already buried).

[@caiomateus4194]

@@maujo2009 Admitting that "could be wrong" in these contexts is not a good thing. To claim that "perhaps temporal becoming does not exist" or that "perhaps there are events without causes" (which, by the way, have been alleged with considerable conviction, to say the least) is worse than thinking that we cannot know that there is something outside of my own mind, as modern idealists thought. It's just cheap skepticism, and of the worst kind. In fact, given the state of the evidence, the only thing they could say after using extreme epistemic rigor (unapplied in other scientific contexts) would be that they "don't know", anyway.

[@johnwick2018]

@@caiomateus4194 "Craig never claimed that he knew which model..." First of all, none of those physicists were sure about whether the universe had a beginning. Also, Dude just listen to yourself. "Universe must have had a beginning because beginningless models are unfeasible". This is not science. This is ignorance at its best. "Universe must have had a beginning because models which have a beginning are and could be the only feasible models." Now this is science. This is what you should prove for the beginning of universe. Not the other way around. Beginningless models are unfeasible does not imply models with begining is feasible.

[@silverwolfmonastery]

It's interesting that according to WLC the very physicists who created the theories he uses as "proof" for his ideas are wrong about the physics that he is using as "evidence".

[@PhilHalper1]

yep thats it

[@caiomateus4194]

What Craig used for support from the physicists featured in the video is in full accordance with their respective views. The fact that they are disagreeing with him in general does not mean that they disagree on the relevant points in particular. Malpass and Morriston, for example, would never agree that modern physics has refuted presenteeism at any level, as was later suggested. Priest would never agree that the existence or absence of contradictions serves as a criterion for determining the legitimacy of a position, concept or idea, as has been suggested by others in the video. Regarding the BGV theorem, for example, only an untrained person would be distracted by the conceptual imprecision of Vilenkin and Guth. The fact is that the theorem proves the beginning of the universe, if its conditions are met. Vilenkin and Guth interpreted the question as "does the mere EXISTENCE of the theorem prove the beginning of the universe?", in which case the answer would be an obvious "no", even for Craig.

[@Smayor75]

@@caiomateus4194 sorry but no. What Guth and Vilenkin clearly state is that the theorem only talks about the beginning of the expansion, not the absolute beginning of the universe. Craig is the one that is imprecise.

[@caiomateus4194]

@@Smayor75 The mere existence of the theorem proves the beginning of the expansion. The truth of the theorem as such (that is, the satisfaction of its conditions) proves the beginning of the universe, since the condition is exactly that the universe is always expanding. Maybe I wasn't correct, even... the imprecision was due to the interviewers not clarifying the ambiguity, since they supposedly already know the dialectic of the debate. Vilenkin and Guth have no such obligation, which is exactly why you will find Vilenkin's claims where he explicitly states that the theorem indicates the absolute beginning of the universe.

[@Carlos-fl6ch]

@@caiomateus4194 Wow I thought apologists only interpreted the bible to meat their favorite conclusion. But I seem to be completely mistaken. The BGV simply presupposes anything needed for the universe to expand to exist prior to inflation.

[@CosmoPhiloPharmaco]

Craig doesn't stand a chance against this (that is, when physicists themselves explicitly and clearly reject his premises). I know he won't admit it, but this is really bad for his apologetical project.

[@PhilHalper1]

thanks, thats what we like to hear.

[@CosmoPhiloPharmaco]

@@PhilHalper1 No, _we_ should thank you and Monica (for the hard work)! :)

[@PhilHalper1]

@@CosmoPhiloPharmaco you are welcome

[@nemrodx2185]

Really, with this weak response...? Only fanatics would think like that.

[@CosmoPhiloPharmaco]

@@nemrodx2185 Only fanatics would think this is a weak response! ;)

[@fred_2021]

Scientists tend to go wherever the science leads them. WLC tends to lead the science wherever he wants to go.

[@G_Singh222]

Then why don’t scientists accept the fact that consciousness isn’t being generated by the brain ? Why don’t scientists adopt the view of idealism ?

[@fred_2021]

@@G_Singh222 Accepting 'the fact' requires the establishment of the fact. Perhaps you have established the fact, and can provide the evidence.

[@G_Singh222]

@@fred_2021 Yes, first I’ll explain the evidence then I’ll send the source. Near Death Experiences, people have experience with zero brain activity, can your reductionists explain this ? And psychedelics, experience with extremely low brain activity, again can your reductionists explain this ?

[@fred_2021]

​@@G_Singh222 Allow me to correct you: reductionists don't belong to me :) Seriously though, I agree that much of our experienced reality is beyond the remit of reductionism. On the other hand, whilst anecdotal evidence alone is insufficient, it raises speculative possibilities which may be grounds for further research. One's personal beliefs and/or faith aside, there appears to be no conclusive evidence - nor indeed, any scientific understanding at all - regarding the fundamental nature of consciousness.

[@G_Singh222]

@@fred_2021 Except we do have understanding of consciousness, we know for a fact that people have intense conscious experiences with zero brain activity (NDE) and extremely low brain activity (psychedelics) so if we take the materialistic reductionism rout we end up with a dilemma, if the brain generates consciousness shouldn’t the brain have intense activity ? At least some activity ? But we don’t see this, we see experience/ intense experience with zero brain activity, so this heavily points towards idealism which says that brain doesn’t generate consciousness.

[@hank_says_things]

Thanks to all involved for this stellar effort. I’ve long considered Craig’s argumentation to be naive, self-serving and based entirely on - and made entirely in support of - his unwarranted religious presuppositions. Not only that but his responses to criticisms are all too often glib misrepresentations or misunderstandings (punctuated with incredulous giggling), and his cherry-picked cosmological models often rule out his preferred conclusions. He’s better educated and more polished than most other Christian apologists, but Craig is as much working toward a predetermined conclusion as a common used-god salesman like Ray Comfort.

[@PhilHalper1]

you are welcome,

[@patricksee10]

The presenters here are free of the dreaded preferred conclusion? You believe that? I don’t. Their presuppositions: That naturalism and physicalism must be true. That mathematics and physics provide a comprehensive complete account of reality?

[@PhilHalper1]

@@patricksee10 did you actually watch the film. one of the main speakers isn't even a naturalist. Our whole argument is that we dont understand the Big bang, not the we do understand it

[@patricksee10]

@@PhilHalper1 why don’t you address my criticism rather than changing the subject? It’s true that all these presenters are shot through with pre suppositions, naturalism, hubris and prejudice. Do you want me to prove that?

[@eddsson]

@@patricksee10 Even if you were right it still wouldn't change how wrong Craig *is* in his reasoning. You either misunderstood the video or you didn't watch it.

[@pesilaratnayake162]

A great follow-up. Covers a great deal of my issues with Craig's approach. My impression is that he is quick to assert knowledge of the nature of the universe based on his own intuition, despite that many people who study it empirically would not reach that conclusion because they do not believe there is enough information to warrant it. I think he is working backwards to support his conclusions, trying to use deductive reason (the only way is... somehow imagining and eliminating all other possibilities) to try and determine the nature of reality, which seems more reliably understood via inductive reasoning. If Craig actually cared about being taken seriously, it would be wise for him to demonstrate a model, and publish in reputable peer-reviewed physics journals, that 1) satisfies the vast majority of most reliable empirical data, 2) has specific, testable falsification criteria, 3) generates predictions that can be tested, either through simulation or empirically, and 4) has successfully predicted phenomena that were not implicit in the model. However, since I think Craig's ambition is not to gain credibility among publishing physicists but rather to proselytise for his religious convictions, his approach of asserting knowledge beyond that of careful researchers and dismissing objections as irrelevant or as a misunderstanding of the concepts, is probably the best he can do. Personally, I think if someone could convince the world's foremost scientists that a creator God was necessary for the universe to exist, it would go a long way towards bringing millions of people to believe it as well. I guess he doesn't care about salvation as much as I thought...

[@joegeorge3889]

Yes that's true a Christians goal is to covert everyone into their pernicious delusional cult

[@thetannernation]

This is silly. A theologian or a philosopher shouldn’t have to write a peer reviewed physics journal. None, literally none of Craig’s statements were refuted in this slop of a video

[@pesilaratnayake162]

@thetannernation he doesn't have to do anything, but if he wants to be taken seriously about his claims regarding the physical world, he should at least be consistent with the experts in the area. And if he's trying to present new models of physical reality, that kind of work belongs in publications that are peer-reviewed by experts in the field. But feel free to elaborate on which claims are addressed in the video and why the way they addressed them are insufficient or irrelevant. Then, we can have a meaningful discussion about your specific objections. 😉

[@thetannernation]

@@pesilaratnayake162 according to you. I take Craig seriously and I don’t think he needs to write a physics peer reviewed journal

[@pesilaratnayake162]

@thetannernation hmm okay I was actually hoping for a meaningful discussion of the arguments, but okay. Let me know if you change your mind.

[@verafleck]

These discussions are so important and interesting. Thank you all.

[@PhilHalper1]

thanks

[@hyperduality2838]

God is a dual concept. The observed is dual to the observer -- David Bohm. The future is dual to the past -- time duality. We predict the future (syntropy) and remember the past -- time asymmetry. Absolute nothing is dual to relative nothing. Lacking is dual to non lacking. Being is dual to non being creates becoming -- Plato's cat. Alive is dual to not alive -- the Schrodinger's cat superposition (duality). Thesis (alive, being) is dual to anti-thesis (not alive, non being) creates the converging thesis or synthesis -- Hegel's cat or Fichte's cat, the time independent Hegelian dialectic. Schrodinger's cat is based upon Hegel's cat and Hegel stole it from Plato (and Socrates). Everything (all things) is dual to nothing. The one is defined in terms of the other. Antinomy (duality) is two truths that contradict each other -- Immanuel Kant. If you choose nothing then this implies that something or everything already exists! The concept of nothing is inherently dual, nothing requires something to already exist in the first place. Concepts are dual to percepts -- the mind duality of Immanuel Kant. Brahman (creator god, thesis) is dual to Shiva (destroyer god, anti-thesis) synthesizes Vishnu (preserver god) -- Hinduism or the Hegelian dialectic. You can derive the Hegelian dialectic from the Hindu religion. Action is dual to reaction -- Sir Isaac Newton (the duality of force). Cause is dual to effect -- forces are correlated. Forces are a by product of conserving the duality or correlation of cause & effect. Attraction is dual to repulsion, push is dual to pull (forces and hence energy are dual). "Always two there are" -- Yoda. Absolute truth is dual to relative truth -- Hume's fork.

[@romanbesel4759]

Hoped you would make a response. Really cool to see Sean Carroll and Wes Morriston also featuring in the video!

[@PhilHalper1]

thanks

[@Grinsekatze113]

they are not fetured. their material was ripped and lawyers are on it

[@bensmithoriginals3413]

This is fantastic! So many of my favorite academics in one place 👏🏻 great work, great sound and photography... thanks for creating this!

[@PhilHalper1]

you are welcome

[@hyperduality2838]

God is a dual concept. The observed is dual to the observer -- David Bohm. The future is dual to the past -- time duality. We predict the future (syntropy) and remember the past -- time asymmetry. Absolute nothing is dual to relative nothing. Lacking is dual to non lacking. Being is dual to non being creates becoming -- Plato's cat. Alive is dual to not alive -- the Schrodinger's cat superposition (duality). Thesis (alive, being) is dual to anti-thesis (not alive, non being) creates the converging thesis or synthesis -- Hegel's cat or Fichte's cat, the time independent Hegelian dialectic. Schrodinger's cat is based upon Hegel's cat and Hegel stole it from Plato (and Socrates). Everything (all things) is dual to nothing. The one is defined in terms of the other. Antinomy (duality) is two truths that contradict each other -- Immanuel Kant. If you choose nothing then this implies that something or everything already exists! The concept of nothing is inherently dual, nothing requires something to already exist in the first place. Concepts are dual to percepts -- the mind duality of Immanuel Kant. Brahman (creator god, thesis) is dual to Shiva (destroyer god, anti-thesis) synthesizes Vishnu (preserver god) -- Hinduism or the Hegelian dialectic. You can derive the Hegelian dialectic from the Hindu religion. Action is dual to reaction -- Sir Isaac Newton (the duality of force). Cause is dual to effect -- forces are correlated. Forces are a by product of conserving the duality or correlation of cause & effect. Attraction is dual to repulsion, push is dual to pull (forces and hence energy are dual). "Always two there are" -- Yoda. Absolute truth is dual to relative truth -- Hume's fork.

[@ronarprefect7709]

From your post, I take it that you must believe in an afterlife rather than the materialistic idea that we all become wormfood and nothing more.

[@bensmithoriginals3413]

@@ronarprefect7709 worm food either way, right?

[@kamilgregor]

"That's just hand-waving, an appeal to the unknown." Well, there goes skeptical theism.

[@PhilHalper1]

lol

[@thephilosophynerd7292]

The funny thing is Craig in response to the POE advocates for skeptical theism (e.g., his debate with Daniel Came)-albeit, he doesn't like the term "skeptical theism".

[@kamilgregor]

@@thephilosophynerd7292 I know

[@angelmendez-rivera351]

@@kamilgregor There's no such a thing as skeptical theism. This is a contradiction in words.

[@kamilgregor]

@@angelmendez-rivera351 I guess there are no Christian atheists either. Oh wait...

[@atheologica]

Keep up the great work, Phil! Can't express my appreciation enough!

[@PhilHalper1]

thanks so much

[@donnievance1942]

@@PhilHalper1 Phil, I'm shocked to hear it claimed that "we don't need cats to describe fundamental nature." This cannot stand.

[@PhilHalper1]

@@donnievance1942 fair point

[@elihaitov1849]

Regarding the claims of some physicists in the video that there are quantum events without causes: The issue that is constantly being confused is determinism and causality. The pre-existence of quantum field (for example) would be a causally necessary condition for quantum fluctuation while the pre-existence of atomic nuclei and the so-called weak nuclear force would be causally necessary conditions for beta-decay, in the absence of which the beta-decay would not occur (Bussey 2013, p. 20). The difference between supposed quantum indeterminism and (say) the supposed uncaused beginning of the universe(1) is that the former lacks a causally sufficient condition whereas the latter lacks a causally necessary condition. The kalam proponent claims there has to be a causally necessary condition for an event. He is not claiming that there must be sufficient conditions for its beginning (which is consistent with quantum indeterminacy).

[@kiralight6661]

in order for an event to take place it needs its sufficient reasons to be present.( necessary but not sufficient reasons ) are by definition not enough or not " sufficient " for the event to take place. if god is a causally necessary condition for the beginning of the universe but not a causally sufficient condition then the beginning of the universe will not happen. ___________ this is a quote from a website that explains the difference between necessary and sufficient reasons " A causal fallacy you commit this fallacy when you assume that a necessary condition of an event is sufficient for the event to occur. A necessary condition is a condition that must be present for an event to occur. A sufficient condition is a condition or set of conditions that will produce the event. A necessary condition must be there, but it alone does not provide sufficient cause for the occurrence of the event. Only the sufficient grounds can do this. In other words, all of the necessary elements must be there. " ___________ so saying that "there were not sufficient conditions for the beginning of the universe" is simply another way of saying that "the beginning of the universe didn't happen"

[@libere1001]

Actually, you've confused some of the issues at play. You are right that we need to distinguish determinism and causality. But, as pointed out in the video, we need to go further. We need to distinguish at least two kinds of determinism: nomological determinism, the view that all physical events are necessitated by the laws of physics, and causal determinism, the view that all physical events are necessitated or determined by prior causes. Regardless of whether we should accept an indeterministic interpretation of quantum mechanics, several philosophers and physicists who participated in the video argued that we should think that quantum mechanics does not involve causation. We also need to distinguish different kinds of necessary conditions. In your example, the pre-existence of atomic nuclei is a necessary, but not sufficient, condition for the nucleus decaying. And that's right: without the nucleus, there will be no decay process. But that doesn't tell us whether the decay process had a cause; all that tells us is that there are conditions that must obtain in order for there to be a decay process. Perhaps the presence of the nucleus is -- as you claim -- a causally necessary condition, but you haven't actually shown that to be true. All you've shown is that the presence of the nucleus is a necessary condition for decay. The distinction between nomological determinism and causal determinism is helpful here. Suppose that nomological determinism is true and that causal determinism is false. In that case, the nucleus decays only if some set of necessary conditions obtain. Nonetheless, the nucleus's decay is uncaused. Of course, this might also be true if no version of determinism were true. Consider the following analogy. Suppose that someone steals money from my bank account. The fact that I have a bank account is a necessary, but not sufficient, condition for money to be stolen from my bank account. After all, without a bank account, no one could have stolen from my bank account. Nonetheless, the fact that I have a bank account is not the cause of money being stolen from my bank account. Thus, in general, the conditions that are necessary for an event to obtain are not necessarily the cause of the event, so we cannot identify those conditions as the cause.

[@caiomateus4194]

@@libere1001 Causes are nothing more than things or events/states that serve as conditions and according to some predictability factor (it can be a specific probability, or an intention). Your distinction between "cause" and "necessary condition" in this case is simply meaningless. Your bank account is indeed one of the causes of the effect you mentioned, although it's not the only one and although it's not enough.

[@libere1001]

@@caiomateus4194 "Causes are nothing more than things or events/states that serve as conditions and according to some predictability factor (it can be a specific probability, or an intention)." That's not true. For example, I can use the length of the shadow cast by a flag pole to predict the height of the flag pole. But the shadow is not the cause of the flag pole or of the flag pole's height. (This is a famous example, originally due, I think, to Wesley Salmon.) In fact, if the cause of x were merely anything that allowed us to predict x, then there would be nothing that distinguishes correlation from causation. Whenever two variables are correlated, I can use one to predict the other. But we know that correlation is distinct from causation. So, the fact that one variable allows us to predict another variable does not make the first a cause of the second. Philosophers have developed various theories of what causation is. For example, according to Aristotle, efficient causation involves the actualization of a potential, whereas, according to David Lewis, efficient causation is reduced to a specific kind of counterfactual dependence relation. Neither Aristotle nor Lewis would agree with you about what causation is. "Your distinction between 'cause' and 'necessary condition' in this case is simply meaningless." Causes are distinct from necessary conditions. For example, if abstract objects, such as numbers, sets, or properties, existed, then causation would be inapplicable to abstract objects. As philosophers say, abstract objects are causally inefficacious. But there would still be necessary conditions that apply to abstract objects. Given that there is a distinction between necessary conditions and causation, we cannot conclude that x was the cause of y merely on the grounds that x is a necessary condition for y. It might the case that x did cause y, but, in order to conclusively show that x was the cause of y, you have to do more than simply show that x was a necessary condition for y.

[@caiomateus4194]

@@libere1001 Lengths and heights are not things or events, so they cannot be involved in causal relationships (of course you can causally associate the event of the shadow having a certain length with the event of the mast having a certain height, but this relationship - when considered in all its terms - would have logical necessity. That is, one property would follow analytically from the other. Causality does not involve logical necessity. A better example would be the event that a body has a certain mass with the event that the same body has a certain attraction gravity. In that case there would plausibly be a causal relationship, yes). Aristotle, in turn, might say that there is causality between the two things (formal causality). Anyway, I'm not defining causality (I don't think this is possible. Passive potency update, for example, is not definition, just analysis). I am giving intrinsic grades that will also serve as criteria for their recognition, which we use daily. Causality also involves potency actualization, but this is not a definition and in particular is not useful for identifying any causality. I find Lewis's idea useful, but not as a characterization, for causality is one level above the intensionality of counterfactuality. It is a hyperintensional notion, as is Kit Fine's reasoning. If abstract things existed, the logical relationships between them would be causal, yes. I consider this a reductio ad absurdum of the position.

[@bendavis2234]

Thanks for the amount of effort you put into these videos and getting interviews with so many great minds. These videos do so much more than disproving Craig’s argument because they’re incredibly informational in the process. I honestly learned some new scientific knowledge here, unrelated to the argument itself. It’s really cool to see so many diverse minds talk about such deep topics like infinity and theoretical cosmology. Looking forward to part 3!!

[@PhilHalper1]

thanks , glad you liked it Have you seen our other cosmology videos? kzbin.info/www/bejne/nJbQqX18qN-VpZo

[@anonymoushuman3657]

I enjoyed hearing the experts’ criticisms and loved the music and animations. I think it’s very important to remember that if the kalam’s conclusion is false it’s either because the universe began to exist without a cause or the universe has existed forever.

[@PhilHalper1]

Yes that seems right or maybe the notion of time is too classical and we dont have the language to describe what's really going on.

[@hyperduality2838]

God is a dual concept. The observed is dual to the observer -- David Bohm. The future is dual to the past -- time duality. We predict the future (syntropy) and remember the past -- time asymmetry. Absolute nothing is dual to relative nothing. Lacking is dual to non lacking. Being is dual to non being creates becoming -- Plato's cat. Alive is dual to not alive -- the Schrodinger's cat superposition (duality). Thesis (alive, being) is dual to anti-thesis (not alive, non being) creates the converging thesis or synthesis -- Hegel's cat or Fichte's cat, the time independent Hegelian dialectic. Schrodinger's cat is based upon Hegel's cat and Hegel stole it from Plato (and Socrates). Everything (all things) is dual to nothing. The one is defined in terms of the other. Antinomy (duality) is two truths that contradict each other -- Immanuel Kant. If you choose nothing then this implies that something or everything already exists! The concept of nothing is inherently dual, nothing requires something to already exist in the first place. Concepts are dual to percepts -- the mind duality of Immanuel Kant. Brahman (creator god, thesis) is dual to Shiva (destroyer god, anti-thesis) synthesizes Vishnu (preserver god) -- Hinduism or the Hegelian dialectic. You can derive the Hegelian dialectic from the Hindu religion. Action is dual to reaction -- Sir Isaac Newton (the duality of force). Cause is dual to effect -- forces are correlated. Forces are a by product of conserving the duality or correlation of cause & effect. Attraction is dual to repulsion, push is dual to pull (forces and hence energy are dual). "Always two there are" -- Yoda. Absolute truth is dual to relative truth -- Hume's fork.

[@donnievance1942]

Actually, that is not a valid dichotomy. The Bord-Guth-Velenkin theorem states that given a universe that has been expanding on average throughout its history, the expansion must have a boundary in the past. But if that implies a singularity at the boundary, per General Relativity, it is still not clear that that can be called a "beginning" in any ordinary sense of the word. The singularity is a dimensionless condition of infinite mass/energy density, with time infinitely dilated. Can something be said to "have a beginning" when it emerges in some unfathomable way from a state of infinitely dilated time? That is to say, that it is emerging from a condition in which time is standing still. But such a condition can not be said to have a duration, as duration implies a measurable progression of time. The word "beginning" means the initial state in some progression. But there is no progression in a state of infinitely dilated time. Such a state has no correlates with any previous understanding of the word "beginning." And it is not a condition that can be understood to be an infinite progression of past time either. A state of infinite time dilation is not a progression with an infinite past or a progression with a beginning. It just is not a progression at all. An actual "Big Bang" singularity, if it existed, simply cannot be described in any formulation of classical semantics. That, in itself, renders the second premise of Craig's Kalam fantastically unsound and inapplicable.

[@elihaitov1849]

Carroll’s “quantum eternity theorem” doesn’t require any cosmological model to be past eternal. It only demonstrates that if an eternal universe existed, then Schrodinger’s equation would be able to calculate the wavefunction anywhere along an infinite timeline. But everyone working in QM knew that already.

[@donnievance1942]

I'm pretty sure Carroll didn't mean to imply that his statement did require any cosmological model to be past eternal. He was merely defeating the contrary assertion that said there was a basis for declaring eternality to be impossible.

[@elihaitov1849]

@@donnievance1942 If that was his claim then he was attacking a straw man. The impossibility is philosophical-metaphysical, not mathematical. So yes, possibly you could construct an eternal modal mathematically consistent. So what?

[@donnievance1942]

@@elihaitov1849 So then the assertion that a past eternal universe is impossible is defeated. Period.

[@elihaitov1849]

@@donnievance1942 wrong. because if it is metaphysically impossible then it will never be physically possible that the universe is eternal.

[@knyghtryder3599]

​@@elihaitov1849To make a bold claim like this you would need one scrap of evidence Currently 100% of empirical evidence shows an eternal infinite universe No matter how far back we look there is something and always has been

[@maujo2009]

As a physicist I can’t stop praising your excellent work on KZbin. 😄👍

[@PhilHalper1]

thanks so much , appreciate that . What kind of physics do you do?

[@maujo2009]

@@PhilHalper1 These days I’m a teacher but I’ve been teaching myself GR for nearly 5 years to begin to grasp the ideas discussed in your videos I totally agree with Sean Carroll btw. Also, I’ve collaborated with you in the past. I contributed with subtitles to some of your videos several years ago when KZbin allowed them. I’m sad I couldn’t contribute more but life happened. You guys work is excellent! No other KZbinr is doing this in the platform! Keep it up !

[@PhilHalper1]

@@maujo2009 ahh, of course yes, thanks for the encouragement

[@hyperduality2838]

@@PhilHalper1 The future is dual to the past -- time duality. We predict the future (syntropy) and remember the past -- time asymmetry. Absolute nothing is dual to relative nothing. Lacking is dual to non lacking. Being is dual to non being creates becoming -- Plato's cat. Alive is dual to not alive -- the Schrodinger's cat superposition (duality). Thesis (alive, being) is dual to anti-thesis (not alive, non being) creates the converging thesis or synthesis -- Hegel's cat or Fichte's cat, the time independent Hegelian dialectic. Schrodinger's cat is based upon Hegel's cat and Hegel stole it from Plato (and Socrates). Everything (all things) is dual to nothing. The one is defined in terms of the other. Antinomy (duality) is two truths that contradict each other -- Immanuel Kant. If you choose nothing then this implies that something or everything already exists! The concept of nothing is inherently dual, nothing requires something to already exist in the first place. Concepts are dual to percepts -- the mind duality of Immanuel Kant. Brahman (creator god, thesis) is dual to Shiva (destroyer god, anti-thesis) synthesizes Vishnu (preserver god) -- Hinduism or the Hegelian dialectic. You can derive the Hegelian dialectic from the Hindu religion. Action is dual to reaction -- Sir Isaac Newton (the duality of force). Cause is dual to effect -- forces are correlated. Forces are a by product of conserving the duality or correlation of cause & effect. Attraction is dual to repulsion, push is dual to pull (forces and hence energy are dual). "Always two there are" -- Yoda. Absolute truth is dual to relative truth -- Hume's fork.

[@donnievance1942]

@@hyperduality2838 Please don't copy/paste spam.

[@romanbesel4759]

Masterful work! Great thanks to Phil and crew for making this video and to all the scientists and philosophers for providing their expertise.

[@PhilHalper1]

thanks so much for your comment

[@wulphstein]

Who cares about Hilberts hotel? It won't create prosperity.

[@TBOTSS]

@@PhilHalper1 Wow even more crap than the first one.

[@PhilHalper1]

@@elorebenyame2016 we did reply, and we replied twice one in our own film and once in the 6 hour discussion we did that we mentioned in the beginning. Maybe watch the film before making these comments?

[@PhilHalper1]

@@elorebenyame2016 did you even watch the film,? we covered this issue, the critic of the argument doesn't have to prove the premises are false. They only have to show the evidence used to support them are shoddy. And we did do that.

[@angelmendez-rivera351]

The fact that there are so many theists and critics responding by attemptinh to poison the well, which is intellectually dishonest, rather than offering rebuttals to the counterarguments presented in the video, which shows that there they cannot find any, is an indicator of how good of a job you did presenting this. Clearly, you did something well, because the community is shaken enough that they all have to respond _something_ to try to make it seem like the video holds no weight, but I read almost all 632 comments in the comments section, and *none of them* have said anything that could even come close to amounting to a take down of the ideas presented in the video. Instead, they all engage in the same nonsense that WLC engages in: pretending they understand science and philosophy better than the experts, despite having absolutely no education on the matter. Props to you.

[@PhilHalper1]

thanks , that very kind of you to say and I agree most comments have nothing of substance to say

[@carlpeterson8182]

I have watched 15 minutes of the video and I am not very impressed by the rebuttals. I think some are okay but they all seem to have significant issues. For instance the revelation that the philosopher (maybe mathematician) said he had no view on the theory of time but then said that an infinity in the past must have the same issues as an infinity in the future. That showed me that he was not really seriously commenting on the argument. A theory of time would matter to the question. That is just one of the many issues I think this rebuttal video had in just the first 15 minutes. Some of the other issues or rebuttals were just not very important. Oh and the Kalam does not argue for a infinite life in the future. Thus to use that line of argument against the Kalam does not work. I do not believe in the Christian God because of arguments like the ones Dr. Craig uses. But I think being fair to his arguments would make the response video better.

[@angelmendez-rivera351]

@@carlpeterson8182 I don't believe you understand the context of the video. This video is a response to a 4-part response that WLC gave to the original video published by this channel. The responses are not meant to address the Kalam directly, but WLC's response. You aren't being fair to this video in the slightest either. None of the theists commenting to the video are, which proves my point entirely.

[@carlpeterson8182]

@@angelmendez-rivera351 I understand the context. It was the video that brought up future events. WKC even said it was not appropriate to the Kalam argument. It seems WLC's debators brought future events up first. The reason why they brought it up was to attack other beliefs WLC has. It also seems the main discussion was about the Kalam. How am I am not being fair. The point of the argument is about the Kalam. It seems that the people debating WLC brought up future events and they justify it by saying that it tackles other arguments besides the Kalam. Did I miss something or am I wrong on any of the assumptions? Was I wrong about what they said on any of the other points of the video? Are you being fair?

[@angelmendez-rivera351]

@@carlpeterson8182 You say you understand the context, but you aren't acknowledging it. You keep insisting that this video is a response to the Kalam cosmological argument. It isn't. It's a response to a response to a response to a response to the Kalam cosmological argument. Many of the things brought by WLC in the video being responded to don't even have much to do with the Kalam itself, but rather with arguments used to justify parts of the premises of the Kalam. For example, the infinity arguments from this video are response to WLC's argument from the impossibility of actual infinites, which by itself, doesn't actually have anything to do with the Kalam (and in fact, while WLC insists that this argument proves the premise "the universe had a beginning," it doesn't, there's no logical relationship between the claims). Your attitide is one where you're just not allowing the opponents to challenge the premises of the argument, because in order to challenge the premises, you have to challenge the arguments WLC presents for those arguments, but the moment they do challenge those arguments, you come in and say "well, that doesn't actually address the Kalam, so they aren't being fair to WLC." Frankly, it's bullshit. It's bald-faced sophistry. It's dishonest. How could I possibly think you're being fair? Explain that to me, please. You're not even actually addressing the arguments presented by the video, you're merely dismissing on the basis of some absurd criteria you made up: the criteria that if it isn't directly tackling the Kalam in some form, but is instead tackling a tangential argument presented by WLC in his previous response, then it isn't fair.

[@Smayor75]

For me, the most fascinating thing said here by Craig is that, he, the apologist, has no problem accusing everyone else here of refusing to reach his conclusions because of their refusal to believe in God.

[@PhilHalper1]

yes and he accuses us of Ad Hom!!

[@angelmendez-rivera351]

Which would be just plainly stupid, as many of the people cited here are theists. The only thing people like WLC and all the critics responding to this video know how to do is poison the well, because none of them actually have valid counterarguments to the objections presented in the video, because there _are_ none.

[@goldenalt3166]

It's one of the essential parts of the complete Kalam argument. You must dismiss anyone who questions the syllogism part of the argument because the remainder requires someone to be absolutely credulous to accept it. If you let someone that questions the syllogism get to "phase two" as some apologists call it, they'll tear the argument to pieces.

[@elihaitov1849]

Regarding Carroll’s claim that causation is absent in physics: Weaver observes that many great physicists past and present, including the discoverers of relativity and quantum mechanics, ‘adopted causal approaches to physics and conceived of their inquiry as a searching evaluation of the world that should *uncover causes’* (Weaver 2019, p. 71). The equations of fundamental physics do not specify causality because they do not provide an exhaustive description of reality. Consider the following example which illustrates that mathematical equations do not provide a complete account of the natural world and that an interpretative framework involving causal considerations is required: The quadratic equation x2 - 4 = 0 can have two mathematically consistent results for ‘x’: 2 or −2. Both answers are mathematically possible. However, if the question is ‘How many people carried the computer home?’, the answer cannot be ‘−2’, because in the concrete world it is metaphysically impossible that ‘−2 people’ carry a computer home, regardless of what the mathematical equation shows. The impossibility is metaphysical, not mathematical, and it illustrates that metaphysical issues are more fundamental than mathematics. The conclusion that ‘2 people’ rather than ‘−2 people’ carried the computer home is not derived from mathematical equations, but from causal considerations: ‘−2 people’ lack the causal powers to carry a computer home.

[@kiralight6661]

or because -2 people don't exist and it has nothing to do with causal power. anyway. the way I understood him is that in quantum physics there are cases where the same conditions yield different results with specific probabilities such as beta decay or the position of an observed electron. so, if our equations can describe these phenomena without attributing causes to why a specific result occurred then we don't need the notion of causality to understand the universe or even maybe the notion of causality is not fundamental to the universe.

[@caiomateus4194]

@@kiralight6661 It is equally true that the "objects" that the formalisms of fundamental physical theories describe do not exist. What exist are things with essences and causal powers, which are only palely described by contemporary physicists (who are, after all, more concerned with practice than with truth, which are not the same).

[@somodatmedia]

This should not be confused with something called a debate. Craig presents his argument, counter arguments are given by many who don't all agree with each other although the editor did his/her best to present a unified front and no rebuttal is afforded Craig to respond to their critique or for those "striking back" to disagree with each other, which I guarantee from listening to hours of these discussions, continuous disagreement among this group is a provable fact. Was he given the opportunity to rebut? If not, why not? One thing I believe is consistent when it comes to answers we seek from creation conclusions is that scientific theories of how time started on earth require faith in something that you may think makes sense and in some cases you WANT it to make sense conclusively, that unfortunately is based on your emotions, past anecdotal experiences, and the opinions of others. So whenever faith in theories from experts are in the equation, the variables are seemingly infinite, certainly too many to justify arrogance on any side. If people are considering the infinite regress and physical vs metaphysical to decide whether they believe in a "creator" that can control their current lives and eternal future, you first have to settle the question of whether or not you want something to be true if it was up to you and then keep that in mind when you are "objectively" looking for the logical answer. Nobody comes to this room. without their emotional and particularly limited observational baggage.

[@PhilHalper1]

Craig makes videos promoting the Kalam and does not give any voice to his critics. So why shouldn't we do the same?

[@JeffreyIsbell]

Phil’s reply is exactly correct. That not withstanding I just want to add you explicitly spelled out something very simple and that is nobody believes anything without a reason to believe it except William Lane Craig.

[@CosmoPhiloPharmaco]

Oh man! That's brilliant. I can't wait to see this one!

[@PhilHalper1]

thanks

[@hyperduality2838]

God is a dual concept. The observed is dual to the observer -- David Bohm. The future is dual to the past -- time duality. We predict the future (syntropy) and remember the past -- time asymmetry. Absolute nothing is dual to relative nothing. Lacking is dual to non lacking. Being is dual to non being creates becoming -- Plato's cat. Alive is dual to not alive -- the Schrodinger's cat superposition (duality). Thesis (alive, being) is dual to anti-thesis (not alive, non being) creates the converging thesis or synthesis -- Hegel's cat or Fichte's cat, the time independent Hegelian dialectic. Schrodinger's cat is based upon Hegel's cat and Hegel stole it from Plato (and Socrates). Everything (all things) is dual to nothing. The one is defined in terms of the other. Antinomy (duality) is two truths that contradict each other -- Immanuel Kant. If you choose nothing then this implies that something or everything already exists! The concept of nothing is inherently dual, nothing requires something to already exist in the first place. Concepts are dual to percepts -- the mind duality of Immanuel Kant. Brahman (creator god, thesis) is dual to Shiva (destroyer god, anti-thesis) synthesizes Vishnu (preserver god) -- Hinduism or the Hegelian dialectic. You can derive the Hegelian dialectic from the Hindu religion. Action is dual to reaction -- Sir Isaac Newton (the duality of force). Cause is dual to effect -- forces are correlated. Forces are a by product of conserving the duality or correlation of cause & effect. Attraction is dual to repulsion, push is dual to pull (forces and hence energy are dual). "Always two there are" -- Yoda. Absolute truth is dual to relative truth -- Hume's fork.

[@diegog1853]

1:11:12 notice that Craig here is begging the question. The argument proposes that "everything that begins to exist has a cause" seems to be as intuitive as saying "everything that begins to exist has a material cause". They all apply to the same objects we observe in our universe, they seem to be equally powerful, but the conclusions are different. One would conclude that the universe has a cause while the other would conclude that the universe has a material cause. But Craig is arguing that this premise gets defeated because the universe cannot have a material cause. The problem is that we are precisely trying to infer how the universe was created based on how everything else works. But he is already assuming that the universe doesn't have a material cause before trying to solve the problem of whether or not it has any based on a kalam-like argumentation. The original argument relies on the intuition that everything behaves in a certain way "everything has a cause" but If he is already accepting that the universe is somehow a special exeption to everything that exists so that the parody argument is false, then why cannot the universe be a special exeption so that the original argument is also false. He is not being consistent with his argumentation, he tries to appeal to intuition in asserting there are certain universal properties that everything that begins to exist has... but at the same time he is willing to grant the universe a special exception if the presented argument doesn't agree with his presupposed conclusion. Hence he is begging the question, he is presupposing his own conclusion.

[@jamesbentonticer4706]

How do you get these top shelf intellects to do these interviews? I love that your touching on deeper physics. Deeper than almost everything else on youtube.

[@PhilHalper1]

It's my charm

[@Grinsekatze113]

he didnt. it was ripped off another interview.

[@angelmendez-rivera351]

@@Grinsekatze113 citation needed.

[@Grinsekatze113]

@@angelmendez-rivera351 He has so much content on the internet it would take me a long time to do so. instead i contacted sean. Im sure he can handle it himself

[@hyperduality2838]

God is a dual concept. The observed is dual to the observer -- David Bohm. The future is dual to the past -- time duality. We predict the future (syntropy) and remember the past -- time asymmetry. Absolute nothing is dual to relative nothing. Lacking is dual to non lacking. Being is dual to non being creates becoming -- Plato's cat. Alive is dual to not alive -- the Schrodinger's cat superposition (duality). Thesis (alive, being) is dual to anti-thesis (not alive, non being) creates the converging thesis or synthesis -- Hegel's cat or Fichte's cat, the time independent Hegelian dialectic. Schrodinger's cat is based upon Hegel's cat and Hegel stole it from Plato (and Socrates). Everything (all things) is dual to nothing. The one is defined in terms of the other. Antinomy (duality) is two truths that contradict each other -- Immanuel Kant. If you choose nothing then this implies that something or everything already exists! The concept of nothing is inherently dual, nothing requires something to already exist in the first place. Concepts are dual to percepts -- the mind duality of Immanuel Kant. Brahman (creator god, thesis) is dual to Shiva (destroyer god, anti-thesis) synthesizes Vishnu (preserver god) -- Hinduism or the Hegelian dialectic. You can derive the Hegelian dialectic from the Hindu religion. Action is dual to reaction -- Sir Isaac Newton (the duality of force). Cause is dual to effect -- forces are correlated. Forces are a by product of conserving the duality or correlation of cause & effect. Attraction is dual to repulsion, push is dual to pull (forces and hence energy are dual). "Always two there are" -- Yoda. Absolute truth is dual to relative truth -- Hume's fork.

[@ddavidjeremy]

The most absurd thing about Craig's argument is that it becomes clear that his God has clearly only meant for Dr. Craig to understand it.

[@letsomethingshine]

Correction: meant for Theological Philosophy Dr. Craig to merely claim to understand and content himself and his in-groups with.

[@calebp6114]

Although I’m a fan of the Kalam, this series is very welcome! Thank you for it.

[@PhilHalper1]

thanks , appreciate the comment

[@knyghtryder3599]

The kalam is the dumbest argument ever postulated

[@charlescarter2072]

@@knyghtryder3599why

[@ronarprefect7709]

"If the universe is eternal"--did he really just say that? Didn't scientists already prove the universe isn't eternal?

[@knyghtryder3599]

No , quite the contrary We have zero empirical evidence for creation, we have zero empirical evidence for a time before the known universe, we have zero empirical evidence for philosophical nothingness or any alternative to the known universe 100% of all the data we have shows an eternal infinite dynamic universe No matter how far back we look there is something and always has been

[@donnievance1942]

No. That's a popular misunderstanding of Big Bang cosmology. All we know is that we can back-track General Relativity to a hot, dense state from which the universe rapidly expanded, and no further. Whether there was some state that was antecedent to the Big Bang is utterly unknown and almost no physicist is willing to make any assertions to that issue.

[@monkerud2108]

Also, Shaun is just correct, the ultimate answer to wether the past is eternal or not is.. we don’t know. Because arguing wether it’s logically possible or impossible is silly, it is the way it is in the universe, and cannot be any other way, for reasons that it is so, and until we know exactly what “so” means we won't know the proper “reason” or construction that explains the answer to us.

[@HarryNicNicholas]

something that popped into my head about 35:00 and radioactive decay. say you take a point in time, then every time the geiger counter clicks you make a note, then somehow you rewind the universe to the start of the experiment, will particles emit at "different times" than the first pass, or will "history repeat" and the graph be the same? is this what we mean by "truly random", on a quantum level time would never repeat?

[@donnievance1942]

In QM there is no principle that would cause the specific sequence of decay events to repeat. Decay is only stochastically predictable and would not be expected to repeat in detail. Since the specific events are viewed as random in QM, repetition in detail would be fantastically improbable. Even the overall process of decay would be indeterminate and variable within certain deviation limits.

[@mikehrabar7999]

This is amazing. Well done! Very informative! For years I wished to hear opinions from the actual scholars working on the science cited by Craig. When confronted by the actual science, Craig presents like a fish flapping out of water.

[@PhilHalper1]

thanks

[@cba4389]

You sound unaware of the distinction between natural science and philosophy.

[@oldpossum57]

@@cba4389 So does Craig. No amount of metaphysics that explain how a realm outside the universe would behave. If Craig wants to invent gods into existence by word play, he can go ahead. I point out that his understanding of the universe is a representation in an ape mind.

[@leoe.r.7338]

Wow. Just, amazing! Incredible work. So complete. There is no way Craig survives this.

[@PhilHalper1]

thanks very much

[@keithf9985]

... and yet he'll just pretend his position still stands. The fact that he has the audacity to question the integrity of scientists rather than accept that they have a point tells us a lot about his determination to stick with his preferred outcome. He's not interested in the discussion; he's only interested in trying to support what he already believes.

[@leoe.r.7338]

@@keithf9985 I agree. Apologists really don't care about the truth, they just want to have "intelligent" excuses for their beliefs.

[@dangin8811]

"There's no way Craig survives this." You sound like a hater. If you were convinced by this, you must be very credulous.

[@pabloandres06183]

@@leoe.r.7338goes both ways . I dislike apologists for how weak they are in terms of defending their faith. Atheists are bias also so dont be a prick ( i am agnostic/atheist btw) Look at Inspiring Philosophy video “are atheists bias”

[@chipperhippo]

I just can’t even imagine the time and money that went into this.

[@PhilHalper1]

yeah it was a big effort, thanks

[@ashhempsall9803]

In that case, imagine what is being said🙏

[@stein1919]

then it has to be a miracle

[@chipperhippo]

@@stein1919 well played

[@DigitalGnosis]

Craig accuses other of ad hominem, then goes on to say people who disagree with him are just trying to avoid Theism. I guess it's fine for him to do it though?

[@PhilHalper1]

yeah at one point in the edit, we had a bit about this but it got cut for timing.

[@MarkSheeres]

22:55 the guy says “I’m losing my grip on this concept.” That made my laugh because that’s pretty much how I felt the whole time.

[@PhilHalper1]

lol

[@ThatsABadMrKitteh]

Thank you for taking the time to make this. The Kalam is an easy intuition to reach on one's own and I've realized that I can't argue against it without a higher understanding of physics and metaphysics. Obviously I can only follow so much of this but the knowledge that models of the universe can exist that don't have a t = 0 or the notion that quantum mechanics doesn't inherently have causality in the intuitive sense is very helpful

[@PhilHalper1]

glad you liked our film , thanks for your comment

[@oldpossum57]

I too am a layman, yet I noticed a number of problems with the Kalām in WLCs formulation. Above all he assumes that the realm outside the Universe works the same as the the realm inside. This makes no sense to me.

[@atmanbrahman1872]

Lol. These folks dealing with the grim-reaper paradox is a sight to see... grasping at straws, and not even doing it elegantly...

[@goldenalt3166]

The proposal of the "grim reaper paradox" was a grasping at straws to begin with. Nothing about the proposal makes sense physically and when you boil it down logically the conclusion that the subject would be killed involves evaluating an undecidable function and therefore no paradox exists.

[@atmanbrahman1872]

@@goldenalt3166 lol. no.

[@goldenalt3166]

@@atmanbrahman1872 Exactly how do you think a reaper makes physical sense?

[@user-pn8ke3kf5f]

Probably a long shot but Capturing Christianity has a call in show scheduled for this Friday with Frank Turek. It would be highly entertaining for any of you guys to call in and ask him some questions on his Kalam argument.

[@HolyKoolaid]

I'm so excited for this!!!

[@PhilHalper1]

cool, please let us know what you think when you watch it.

[@vokuh]

How wonderful! just the other day i was wondering if you made new videos - i devoured all your previous work. Thank you so much!

[@PhilHalper1]

you are welcome, thanks for your comment

[@Carlos-fl6ch]

Hi Phil, First thing I notice is the remarkable quality of the video both the can work and the storyline. The funny thing is that almost simultaneously closer to truth released their interview with WLC where again he misrepresent science deliberately. I enjoyed this video with one of my favorite scientist and of course I've been with you and linford as guest of Nathan and James. I think those two are amongst the best work you and your team have produced. It is the go-to project to understand the science that is so often being deliberately misrepresented by WLC. It is therefore a necessary and comprehensive piece of work. Unfortunately WLC will not learn from it at all. He has to much invested in it and to many people cannot see through his agenda. It's quite clear William Lane Craig is disingenuous.

[@PhilHalper1]

thanks very much for your support, much appreciated.

[@Carlos-fl6ch]

@@PhilHalper1 Allways

[@CosmoPhiloPharmaco]

37:48 Well, but to be fair, some physicists proposed that the scalar field is the Higgs field. So, if this possibility is viable, we don't need to introduce a new kind of scalar field -- we simply use one we already have. See for instance, _Quantum Higgs Inflation_ (2020) by Martin Bojowald.

[@elihaitov1849]

At 1:09:05 Daniel Linford says “if The entity is changeless, if it is essentially such that it cannot enter into change well then it couldn’t act with libertarian free will because to do so is to undergo a change” Linford has confused changelessness with unchangeability.

[@kiralight6661]

yeah, I noticed that one too.

[@Hello-vz1md]

What's the difference?

[@elihaitov1849]

@@Hello-vz1md Changeability is a modal claim, changelessness is a factual claim. The claim is not that a first cause cannot change, the claim is he didint change factually sans (without) the universe.

[@elihaitov1849]

Some philosophers in the video object to the argument against traversing an actual infinite that the argument begs the question by assuming a starting point, for if there is a beginningless series with an actual infinite number of earlier events, then an actually infinite sequence has already been traversed (for instance Morriston 2013, pp. 26-27). In reply, the argument against traversing an actual infinite is based on the nature of a one-by-one process, that is, finite + finite = finite, it is not based on starting at a point and therefore does not beg the question. In other words, Morriston is thinking in terms of adding a finite element to the series of events which already exists. This does not answer the more fundamental question of how the series is constituted by its individual elements in the first place (and one must be careful not to beg the question by assuming that a beginningless series can exist). Whereas I am thinking of the more fundamental question of how any series of events is constituted by its elements. I am thinking in terms of what is being added (i.e. one finite element followed by one finite element) to constitute the series (that is the meaning of the phrase ‘the accumulation of a series of strokes by a one-by-one process’). Finite + finite = finite thus refers to the (finite) elements that constitute the series; it is more foundational than the series which they metaphysically ground. The series of events is constituted by one (finite) element being added followed by one (finite) element being added. The essential feature of this one-by-one sequential process is that the series of strokes is supposed to have been made up by each stroke; none of the strokes existed beginninglessly. Each of them was added at some finite point earlier in time, one by one.

[@elihaitov1849]

@Chris Taylor You have to be careful not to beg the question yourself since the question is how the infinity itself is formed. It is formed by the same process of one member after another. That is finite plus finite. So you can never form an actual infinite.

[@elihaitov1849]

@Chris Taylor actually infinite number of elements is not supposed to have been added all at once, but one after another. To repeat, a process actual infinite number of times, one needs to first proceed one time after another, but the problem is that the result of that process is always finite at any time, because ‘one time’ (‘finite’) after ‘another’ (‘finite’) implies finite + finite which is equal finite. Therefore, one cannot have been adding from an actual infinite past since this entails the impossible consequence that finite + finite can be infinite. This reply does not beg the question because there is an independent proof that natural (finite) number + natural (finite) number = natural (finite) number using mathematical induction

[@elihaitov1849]

Again this objection is circular because it presupposes that an actually infinite sequence of events has been traversed to try to show that an actually infinite sequence of events can be traversed. Hence, the objection amounts to saying that an actually infinite past can be traversed if it has been traversed! It is important to remember that we are dealing with a sequence of congruent events, whose members do not come into being or occur all at once, but occur one at a time with equal duration. In addition, because the set of events that must occur before the present event can occur is actually infinite, the process of events occurring before the present moment never ends. Therefore, the present moment can never be reached.

[@elihaitov1849]

@Chris Taylor Your whole argument rests on the notion that if the past is infinite it has never been actualized or traversed. This logically entails that you think the past doesnt consist of events being added one after another, if so, no event ever was added to another, which logically entails no events ever existed, unless you think that they all have been added at once which you seem to deny. You cannot just say the “past” is just there. Since at any point you go back you have another event being added to another. This is the whole point of saying there is an infinite past, that is, there is no first event, events always precede one another.

[@elihaitov1849]

@Chris Taylor So you say the past consists of events on the one hand (events that are being added) but the past is just there. Again, you miss the problem- if the past itself consists of events, that is the past is a collection of the events themselves, and if the events themselves have been added one after another then you have a problem- an infinite amount is too large to be constituted by a one-after-another process.

[@feynmanaruda8063]

Craig sometimes seems very desonest.

[@PhilHalper1]

there are cases where it seems that way. Particularly re Vilenkins tunnelling from Nothing, he either doesn't know this is VIlenkins model or he is deeply ignorant of Quantum Cosmology

[@SnakeWasRight]

It's definitely possible, but cognitive dissonance and lying looks the same to an outsider. I think these people are just ignorant of how problematic their beliefs are because they belief it regardless of the evidence, so it literally doesn't matter what evidence is presented to them, and so any excuse that pops up MUST be a fine excuse because they CANNOT be wrong!

[@PhilHalper1]

@@offense53 Vilenkin did say the BGv proved a beginning , he doesn't anymore. same with Guth and the lcicm is nowhere to be found in the paper. Simple really.

[@jmike2039]

​​@@PhilHalper1 Christian first. Philosopher second. Science third. He has to take on such fringe views just to defend the kalam.

[@PhilHalper1]

@@jmike2039 yes neo lorentizian is extremely fringe, nothing wrong with entertaining fringe views but relying on home for a deductive argument, thats different.

[@anitkythera4125]

You got Wes on to comment that’s so incredibly responsible of you given how thoroughly he’s crushed Craig in the academic literature e.g. unsatisfiable pair diagnosis with Alex Malpass who you also interviewed! Wow I’m subscribing and visiting your patreon page. If this quality is a persistent feature of this channel then please enjoy my money lol!

[@PhilHalper1]

thanks so much but i dont have a pattern page

[@anitkythera4125]

@@PhilHalper1 whew! ;-)

[@Roper122]

You guys are still making great videos... how many years later? Well done.

[@PhilHalper1]

thanks

[@BertrandLeRoy]

I am as excited about this as I am annoyed by the silliness of the Kalam. (A lot)

[@PhilHalper1]

thanks

[@knyghtryder3599]

Agree 👍👍

[@shaccooper]

“Why is he so sure?” But why are you so sure that only the physical exists?

[@PhilHalper1]

this film inst about naturalism .At least one of the interviewees is not a naturalist and maybe others.

[@martinwilliams9866]

Physicalism, the Philosophy that only the physical exists, includes matter, energy, space-time & information, it has falsified materialism, & doesn't mean that certain things ie God, the soul etc can't exist even though many use it in that way, what I call elimative Physicalism, all it means that if those "things" do exist, they must be physical, whatever that means.

[@donnievance1942]

Nobody in this video made an assertion that only the physical exists. This film was a debunking of Craig's version of the Kalam cosmological argument for God. Most people, including atheists, admit to certain non-physical realities, like ideas, fictions, logic, mathematics, and other non-physical entities. Most of them believe that all such non-physical items have a fundamental instantiation as states of the brain, but they recognize that they also have conformal representations in spoken words, writing, etc. The formal, abstracted features of such phenomena constitute non-physical realities. The god you may believe in shares this same character. He is a non-physical idea. He is not a thing. He's like Tinkerbell. If people stop believing in him, he will cease to exist.

[@ickymouth]

I think this makes for a most interesting case study on how an obviously intelligent and driven person will engage in a most disturbing display of religious argumentative contortionalism in order to validate evidence that is dubious at best. What if he was born with parents preaching the gospel of the flying spaghetti monster, all praise! wouldn't that be something!

[@farmerjohn6526]

You cannot subtract infinity from infinity since infinity is not a number..its a concept describing never ending

[@danielpaulson8838]

I’m frankly surprised that Craig elicits this much attention.

[@reedclippings8991]

Looking forward to this! But...You've already won. You've undercut his premises. Craig is highly invested and committed. All he needs to do is present something, confidently, that's good enough to convince others who are similarly biased. He's more than talented enough a sophist to do this. He isn't held accountable by his audience in the same ways that physicists are. There is no possible universe in which he says "Oh, I understand, this does undercut my premises!" This isn't about evidence for them. It's about belief.

[@PhilHalper1]

thanks

[@andrewwells6323]

Just because someone doesn’t agree with you does not make them dishonest. I wish some people would learn the difference.

[@bryandraughn9830]

In the past, I've attempted to see Craig's views, but his view aren't self consistent. When presented with a point, he becomes solely focused on refuting that individual point regardless of his other statements. It certainly seems like you're correct that he abides by his own set of rules. I know people who aren't even famous that can hold a more consistent argument during a discussion. He makes so many inaccurate assumptions about how scientists think. One can only tolerate so much until it's no longer productive to consider his views. In that respect, he's only working against his own cause.

[@andrewwells6323]

@@bryandraughn9830 Can you give an example?

[@andrewwells6323]

@@glowing571 Are you talking about the BGV theorem?

[@shodan6401]

I can say this with confidence: Wes Morriston has a pair of really fine stereo monitors. I don't recognize the brand, but I recognize quality when I see it. He is obviously the type of person with whom I would enjoy spending the day. That is an undeniable fact.

[@PhilHalper1]

thanks for pointing this out , very well observed.

[@andydonnelly8677]

I'm not a philosopher or a scientist and this was hard going at times but I'm glad I watched it to the end. 👍

[@PhilHalper1]

glad you did to

[@PhilHalper1]

@@thotslayer9914 yes but there is a difficulty on how to define naturalism , so Im not always sure I should be using the term .

[@robotaholic]

Sean Carroll destroyed fine tuning and WLC position in their debate. He has the official best most comprehensive destruction and annihilation of Fine Tuning I've ever seen anywhere lol

[@PhilHalper1]

have you seen our video on the topic ? Sean is in it. But there are other who arguably have even more devastating things to say about the argument kzbin.info/www/bejne/oHuQl51podZ9bK8

[@christianidealism7868]

What I like about this the most is how near the end you made it clear that the criticisms of the Kalam don't just come from atheist or agnostics but come even from religious believers such as the great Richard Swinburne (probably the best living theistic philosopher today) and the mention of saint Thomas Aquinas who would also given his writings not be persuaded by the Kalam. Also the large number of cosmologist who are theist and write models of cosmology that propose an eternal universe/multiverse. I think what this shows is that these criticisms are to be taken seriously given that it is not just one side who is criticizing the argument and that you can reject the Kalam without rejecting one's deep religious commitments. Great work!

[@jaskitstepkit7153]

There are better arguments out there but the Kalām is popular and understood somewhat easily by lay people. Ultimately theists should not put all their eggs in one basket.

[@nemrodx2185]

@@jaskitstepkit7153 I still don't see anything to worry about in this answer. Not even regarding the Kalam.

[@PhilHalper1]

thanks for your comment. Yes there are many theists who reject the Kalam . In fact I dont know of even one professional cosmologist that is a theist and thinks the Kalam is a compelling argument.

[@badtaco14]

@@PhilHalper1 Aron wall.

[@angelmendez-rivera351]

@@nemrodx2185 Of course you don't. People like you and WLC will never accept that you're wrong, no matter how many times over the argument is thoroughly debunked.

[@jursamaj]

Regarding the whole 'Hilbert Hotel' issue, Craig treats "infinity" is a single specific number. It's not. There are many infinities. This is shown even by his own example. The Hotel is full? There are 'infinity' guests. Everybody in an odd room leaves? 'Infinity' left. The even rooms are still full? That's also 'infinity'. So he thinks A-A=A. If you thought 'infinity' meant a specific number, it would have to be 0: 0 minus 0 *is* 0. But that's just not how infinity works.

[@PhilHalper1]

yep

[@bakedalaska6875]

Craig is almost too polite in butting these non-sequiturs. It's really not too difficult to understand the difference between 1) a mathematical infinite and 2) an actual infinite that is substantiated in the real world. What possible proof, other than one based on reason/intuition/metaphysics, can someone provide that an actual infinite is not realizable?

[@knyghtryder3599]

So you can't walk a metre because you could divide a metre into infinite parts? The kalam-ity is the dumbest argument ever All empirical evidence points to an infinite eternal universe

[@WaxPaper]

I wish you could get more reach with your content. There's a whole space of viewers out there who would subscribe to your channel in a second, if they were exposed to it. Normally, you'd suggest something like collaborations with other KZbinrs to get exposure, but your content is kind of unique in that it's really dense. It doesn't really lend itself to that sort of shorter, off-the-cuff style. There's also the issue that your channel isn't an exclusive repository for your physics content alone. I dunno, I just feel like your stuff deserves a bigger audience. Particularly your Before the Big Bang series; that thing is a masterwork, as far as KZbin content goes. I give people a link to the playlist whenever I can. Wish I could do more. Thanks for the effort you put into this.

[@PhilHalper1]

thanks I think we release content so infrequently that may be the issue.

[@dftknight]

I feel like there's several misunderstanding. For example, Vilenkin says QM decay is indeterministic. Dr Craig says that is only true under the Copenhagen interpretation, but then you say that Vilenkin holds to Everett many Worlds interepretation of QM. But the Everett interpretation of QM is deterministic! You undercut your own point about QM indeterminism.

[@PhilHalper1]

no we dont and it is explained why in the video. Maybe watch the section of causality again?

[@dftknight]

@@PhilHalper1 I watched it again. Under the Everett many Worlds interpretation radioactive decay is deterministic.

[@PhilHalper1]

@@dftknight then you didn't pay attention

[@stefanheinzmann7319]

If several different interpretations are equally valid, they're both equivalent, and that means that they end up yielding exactly the same observable effects. They are the same for practical purposes. If one is deterministic and the other isn't, this determinism does not make any difference for you and me. And, indeed, since it is acausal, which of the universes you end up in, given the multiverse interpretation, you have no practical benefit of the alleged determinism. You still haven't got a situation where you can identify or even presume a cause. Craig seems to think that the Everett actually helps him for postulating his causal argument, but in reality it doesn't. In his hands it amounts to an intellectual shell game where he tries to make a problem vanish by shifting around interpretations of a theory that just doesn't yield what Craig would like it to yield.

[@dftknight]

@@stefanheinzmann7319 Could you explain what you mean "acausal" under the Everett interpretation? There's many counterparts of me in the different Everett worlds and reality as a whole evolves deterministically, even though I can't observe my counterparts in the Everett world. Did you follow the argument: Craig: Everything that begins to exist has a cause Phil, quoting Vilenkin: In QM radioactive decay is indeterministic Craig (responding): That is only true of the Copenhagen interpretation. Other interpretations are deterministic Phil: Vilenkin holds to the Everett interpretation (which is a deterministic interpretation of QM) I think there's some equivocation between "acausal" and 'indeterministic" here too.

[@TheMemesofDestruction]

11:50 - I thought an ad hominem was when one attacks ones character, not there argument?

[@PhilHalper1]

it can mean that but not necessarily

[@TheMemesofDestruction]

@@PhilHalper1 Learn something new every day! Thank you.

[@valkyrievision]

Oh, thank you! I have found my next rabbit hole :-) I know I’ll have to listen to this several times but the philosophy is just magnificent.

[@PhilHalper1]

you are welcome

[@scienceexplains302]

*WLC refuted Kalam* by saying that _”The principal that everything that comes into existence had a material cause, if it has a cause at all, is indeed powerfully supported by inductive evidence. But it gets defeated by the evidence for the beginning of the universe, which cannot have a material cause.”_ So 1. Everything that we are aware of that came into existence due to a cause, has a material cause (most likely, according to WLC) 2. The universe came into existence (per WLC) 3. The universe has a cause (per WLC) 4. Therefore, the universe most likely had a material cause And yet WLC _“The universe cannot have a material cause.”_ Starting at 1:11:12 in this video.

[@Fundamental_Islam.]

How can it have a material cause when the material was not even there? Allah created universe out of nothing! Allah (God) is the infinite, ultimate reality. It’s called creation x nihilo. Only He has the power to do that!

[@scienceexplains302]

@@Fundamental_Islam. The simplest of sub-atomic particles coming into existence without a discernible cause seems infinitely more likely than an omniscient, omnipotent god “just existing”.

[@Fundamental_Islam.]

@@scienceexplains302 I would have believed you slightly, even tho I believe nothing happens or pops out of nothing without some conscious or intelligent entity causing it, if I was living in a reality full of chaos and randomness. But the reality I live in is governed by highly accurate physical and mathematical laws, and seems intelligently designed from atoms to galaxies

[@scienceexplains302]

@@Fundamental_Islam. solar systems aren’t working like a clock. Parts of them are smashing into each other. And that is not how our bodies work, either. We are the animal most likely to choke on our food because our voice box is so low. That is not an issue in evolution - changes that result in a higher number of viable offspring are passed on, even if they sometimes cause death. Which world is more likely to be run by a god? a)The world where things work by laws of physics, or b) an unpredictable one where, for example, sometimes two hydrogen atoms and an oxygen atom might form iron instead of water? Such a world would be unsustainable without somebody fixing it all the time so we could live… a world where miracles happen. You seem to be saying that a predictable world that *doesn’t allow for miracles* is more likely run or created by a god. That makes no sense to me.

[@Fundamental_Islam.]

@@scienceexplains302 planetary collisions are rare and even when that happens, just because you see them and doesn’t know the reason behind their collision doesn’t mean their is no useful outcome. “Choke on our food” yet billions upon billions enjoy their meals without choking. Isn’t that ‘miraculous’? And why is it so hard for an atheist to understand that God created the world to work on certain principles. What unpredictable, ‘miraculous’ world would make you believe in a creator? Just because you see a machine and learn how each part works harmoniously doesn’t mean it got created itself! This world is already miraculous if you ponder deeply. Reason why most of the humanity doesn’t see it because ppl are used to of it and preoccupied with worldly stuff that they don’t have time to ponder. See some miracles Allah want us to ponder on; “Do the disbelievers not see that the heavens and the earth were one joined-entity, then We parted them? And We made from water every living thing. Will they not then believe?” (Quran 21:30) “We built the universe with might, and We are certainly expanding ˹it˺.” (Quran 51:47) “Does man thinks he will be left without purpose? Was he not an ejaculated drop (sperm) of semen? Then he was a clinging substance (clinging to the wall of womb), and [Allāh] created [his form] and proportioned [him]. And made of him a pair, the male and female. Is such ˹a Creator˺ unable to bring the dead back to life (for accountability)? (Quran 75:36-40) “Did We not create you from a worthless fluid? Placing it in a secure place (womb) for a known period? We ˹perfectly˺ ordained ˹its development˺. How excellent are We in doing so!”(Quran 77:20-23) ✨isn’t this miraculous how He grow us into a dignified humans from someone’s body’s dirty fluid that ppl feel embarrassed if it’s on their cloth and wash it off? How He takes care of a little fragile invisible cell in womb growing it into a human being capable of constructing huge skyscrapers, flying huge planes, going into space? ✨ “It is Allah Who created you in a state of weakness, then developed ˹your˺ weakness into strength, then developed ˹your˺ strength into weakness and old age. He creates whatever He wills. For He is the All-Knowing, Most Capable.” Quran 30:54 “And We have placed firm mountains upon the earth so it does not shake with them, and made in it broad pathways so they may find their way.” Quran 21:31 “And on the earth there are ˹different˺ neighbouring tracts, gardens of grapevines, ˹various˺ crops, palm trees-some stemming from the same root, others standing alone. They are all irrigated with the same water, yet We make some taste better than others. Surely in this are signs for those who understand.” Quran 13:4 And [He has subjected] whatever He multiplied for you on the earth of varying colors. Indeed in that is a sign for a people who remember. (Quran 16:13) “One of His signs is that He created you from dust, then-behold!-you are human beings spreading over ˹the earth˺.” 30:20 ✨Isn’t this miraculous how a fireball turned into a planet carrying delicate, well-designed, beautiful, colourful life? Some creatures walking, some flying some swimming✨ “Say, ˹O Prophet,˺ “I advise you to do ˹only˺ one thing: stand up for ˹the sake of˺ Allah-individually or in pairs-then *REFLECT* . Your fellow man (messenger) is not insane. He is only a warner to you before ˹the coming of˺ a severe punishment.” Quran 34:46

[@thecloudtherapist]

23m20s "You don't get this kind of situation in physical reality". I think you just made Craig's point for him.

[@PhilHalper1]

not at all, you can believe in an infinite past without believing in a Grim Reaper that can kill someone in an arbitrarily small amount of time.

[@grantgooch5834]

@@PhilHalper1 You're arguing against the analogy and not the principle. The point of the paradox is to show that an actual infinite past leads to an absurd conclusion. Denying the possibility of the Grim Reaper Paradox IS denying the possibility of an infinite past. By simply hand-waving away the Grim Reaper, you concede the premise of the paradox: it's not actually possible for an actual infinite to exist.

[@donnievance1942]

Craig contradicts himself when he says that according to his "tensed" theory of time, the past is "actual" while the future is only "potential." In fact, according to Craig's own description of "tensed" time, the past is no longer existent. Only the present is "real" or "actual." If he were consistent, he would recognize that in the past only one specific moment at a time was ever actual, with its finite collection of objects. Hence, an infinite past does not entail an "actual infinite." All the non-existent moments of the past are entirely parallel with his unrealized potential moments of the future. There is no essential asymmetry between an infinite past and an infinite future, even in Craig's "tensed time." Neither one entails the necessary existence of an actually infinite object or collection of objects. Therefore, this objection to an infinite past has no substance.

[@anflas7200]

The question to Craig is: How many responses Will there be?

[@PhilHalper1]

indeed, another four part?

[@bananabreadman55]

@@PhilHalper1 does that mean you’ll go back on dg to respond to his response again?

[@PhilHalper1]

@@bananabreadman55 maybe

[@keithmcgarrigle2653]

Just a thought in the beginning there was a perfect vacuum no energy, and no magnetic or electrial waves? A perfect vacuum has potential energy? Temperature was also absolute 0 Kelvin. The Bose Einstein condenstate though Quantum fluctuations Could be produced in many parts of the Universe. That condenstate could be neutrons and anti neutrons being produced? If a small fluctuation allowed some neutron and anti neutrons to decay into protons and anti protons, then they could anililate each other starting of energy? Time is not the problem?

[@fffaclo7280]

Great video! I hope there are more episodes for the before the big bang series are in the works, those are also amazing

[@PhilHalper1]

Thanks I went to the USA in April to film a whole bunch of different projects. A new episode fo Before the Big Bang being one of them but dont hold your breath, these films take a lot of time to edit.

[@fffaclo7280]

@@PhilHalper1 Sorry! I didn’t know how to word that without sounding demanding. Really appreciate your hard work my friend

[@PhilHalper1]

@@fffaclo7280 thanks I appreciate it

[@chrismathis4162]

Craig exemplifies the Dunning Krueger effect.

[@Implementing0Failure]

What a great saturday morning treat to wake up to! Vielen Dank!

[@PhilHalper1]

hope you like it, let me know what you think

[@paulmakinson1965]

Talking about what caused the beginning of the universe does not make sense if causality is the defining attribute of the universe itself and cannot exist out of it, before the universe existed. Causality is the defining attribute of the universe because it defines space/time. The maximum speed of causality is c. Distance in space/time is defined by the minimum distance (in space and time) between a cause and an effect. The cause coming before the consequence defines the direction of the arrow of time. The more common idea among cosmologists is that the geodesics lines of the universe converge at the big bang. It is as absurd to say "before the beginning of the universe" as to say "south of the south pole", which is where all the longitudes converge.

[@NeedSomeNuance]

Just so you know Phil - this is a bombshell for evangelical Christianity right now. They’re contorted these experts’ words for so long it is absolutely demolishing to them now to have the actual experts speak out against them. Thanks so much for your work.

[@PhilHalper1]

you are welcome

[@Adiusa0874]

The bombshell is non existent. None of these argument are detrimental to Theism. Theism claims that the Consciousness is Primordial/Fundamental and not Emergent. Materialism and Atheism claims that Energy is Primordial/Fundamental and Consciousness is emergent. Both of these Primordial states were in an eternal state prior to this Universe. The debate over the eternal state is meaningless. Consciousness is where the debate should take place. Theism has an edge, given that the Emergence of life, all reality looks like a Computer Simulation - Simulation Theory and the E8 Crystal Theory indicate that A Conscious Entity must be behind all. Consciousness is the given. Not Energy.

[@NeedSomeNuance]

@@Adiusa0874 I’m not trying to be rude, but I believe you missed the point of my comment. I agree this video does not disprove theism, not even close. But it discredits one of its current foremost arguments - the kalam.

[@Adiusa0874]

@@NeedSomeNuance Still not a bombshell and not demolishing. This universe had a begining 15 bilion years ago.

[@NeedSomeNuance]

@@Adiusa0874 I think it clearly is. If evangelicals saw this video and how many actual scientists think WLC is being shifty in his science, then I don’t think nearly as many evangelicals would use it as “proof” of gods existence

[@RobRoss]

I don’t agree that the “infinite density” of a singularity is an example of an actual infinity. Density is a mathematical definition, mass per unit volume, i.e. M/V. In a singularity, we (kinda sorta) believe all the mass is concentrated in a place in space with no dimension. This results in a ratio with 0 in the denominator. This is an illegal ratio in math. So we *define* the meaning in this context to be “infinite density.” But unless there is actually INFINITE mass (or energy) in the singularity, then it’s not an “actual infinity” as defined by people that use that term.

[@kenandzafic3948]

When you replace the density with a function, indeed as you approach the singularity and the volume becomes smaller, the function increases, at zero volume it reaches infinity, these are the equations of the theory of relativity, and this is real differentiated infinity.

[@HebaruSan]

Thanks, I laughed when WLC cited Plantinga as if either of them had a shred of credibility

[@carlpeterson8182]

If you do not think Alvin Plantinga has a shred of credibility then I think you have kept up with Philosophy. He could be wrong but not having a shred of credibility?

Have you read any Plantinga's work before?

[@carlpeterson8182]

@ Not a complete text but I have read articles, listened to him speak, and read some of his philosophical arguments before. I cannot see how that would change the cogency of the arguments here. Especially if we are discussing credibility which he from others in his field.

@@carlpeterson8182 I was talking to Hebaru :) I think Plantinga is a respected philosopher especially in epistemology and logics.

[@NA-ee8mt]

What kinda physicists are these? I’ve seen Sabine Hossenfelder break down in a video why infinity cannot exist in reality, only in potential. These physicists are saying the opposite, but none of them actually back up this stance with anything tangible. Sabine Hossenfelders take on infinity makes a lot more sense to me, and she actually backs it up.

[@PhilHalper1]

we back ours us up too

[@NA-ee8mt]

@@PhilHalper1 Yes, you're right, my bad. This video is direct responses to Craig's specific arguments, which ARE backed up. But I am only focused in on the possibility/impossibility of infinity (especially in the context of time), and I don't see anyone back up the idea that it can be possible in reality (of course in theory it can be possible, we use infinity in math all the time). If I missed it, please let me know where. As far as I understand, if the universe is 13.7 billion years old that means we have to first wait for 13.7 billion years to elapse before reaching today. And so if the universe is infinity years old, then we would have to first wait for infinity years to elapse before reaching today, meaning we would never reach today. Yet here we are. This seems to be quite straight forward to me, it is not possible for infinity years to have elapsed before today. I didn't see anyone in the video challenge this concept of the impossibility of an infinitely regressing past.

[@NA-ee8mt]

@Physics Dude 1. From what I gathered, she basically made the argument that infinity has no place in science, as it will never be observed or measured as a characteristic of reality, and so based on this she made the point that when constructing theoretical models in physics or cosmology, scientists shouldn't just assume an infinite universe in their math. 2. Well I should first state that I don't necessarily buy Craigs argument in full, because I don't necessarily even understand it in full. He seems to speak from a philosophical viewpoint, whereas my mind thinks more from a scientific view point. For example, when he says everything which begins to exist must have a cause, I don't really even know what that means, but translated into science he essentially seems to be pointing out the law of conservation of energy, which I completely understand. Having said that, I do believe the argument of actual infinity vs potential infinity is legit. 3. This makes no sense, how could an infinite number of events already exists? The only way that could be possible is if the number of events already taken place is continually growing (in a regressive manner). But that's just not how the past works, the past is set in stone. And even if time were moving in two directions, that would still imply a start point.

[@NA-ee8mt]

@Physics Dude 1. She says infinity exists in math, but not in science. Which seems to allude to what I said, it exists in concept but not in reality. She says in reality it can only exist as a limit (or potential). Its in her video called "is infinity real" on youtube. 2. I don't understand how conservation of energy can be DERIVED FROM Noether's theorem given that a) Noether's theorem requires the law of conservation of energy to have already been realized since it makes a claim built upon the claim of conservation of energy and b) this theorem came to be in the early 1900's and the conservation of energy came to be in the mid 1800's. 3. I never mentioned anything about a countdown, I'm not sure what you mean regarding that. If the number of past events exists as a set/static number at any given point in time, then that directly tells us that the number of past events cannot be infinity, as infinity is not a set/static number. Its a number which is continuously changing. If I hit pause right now, how is it possible for the number of past events to continuously change?

[@NA-ee8mt]

@Physics Dude 1) I see, I'm not sure I agree with you. What's an example of something else which exists in reality, but not in physics? 2)a/b) Ok, so if I am understanding this correctly, you are saying the expansion of the universe violates the law of conservation of energy? Is this due to the change of the universes shape with time, or is it due to actual changes in physical laws? 2)c) Regarding what came before space and time, it is hard to say, because we as humans cannot actually comprehend this as space and time are the two bounds of our intellectual capacity. Referring to something as timeless is beyond the grasp of the human mind, which is precisely why god is so often described as such. 3) Well, I refer to infinity as a changing number because again, if we push pause today, then a set number of events has taken place already. This set number of events is less than the number of events which will precede tomorrow. If this is the case, how could the former number be infinity?

[@hm5142]

I am always concerned when a "researcher" has a preferred answer rather than the truth.

[@glennsimonsen8421]

When Dr. Peter Atkins (of chemistry textbook fame) was asked what incontrovertible evidence he would need to believe in God he answered, none at all, because if he encountered such evidence he would only believe that he had gone mad. So I think your comment is key, and probably applies to many or perhaps most of the researchers in this video.

[@hm5142]

I see no reason to expect human intuition to inform us about the "actual infinite" at all. We did not develop the intuition in such a context, so there is absolutely no reason for it to be helpful. Intuition is basically a sophisticated model based on experience and internal processing. No one has good intuition about something he knows nothing about.

[@PhilHalper1]

spot on

[@copernicus99]

What is truly supernatural is the patience of these physicists with WLC's arguments

[@donnievance1942]

The only reason that WLC merits any critical review is that he has bamboozled so many people. His actual arguments cannot be viewed as intellectually respectable enough to deserve anyone's time and attention on their own.

[@goobytron2888]

Don’t these people realize they are in the presence of the person that KNOWS everything?

[@PhilHalper1]

lol

[@خالد_الشيباني]

This is really going nowhere. They are looping around the main issue. The main issue that have existed since Aristotle between atheists and theists is basically what is infinite: the universe or god. Kalam argument purpose is to show that the universe is not infinite but finite as it must have been caused by something and that something is infinite, by definition, and we call it god.

[@خالد_الشيباني]

@Chris Taylor Yes, but what I am saying is that this is the general sentiment among atheists who argue against the Kalam argument or the Prime mover argument (the same thing really) since ancient time.

[@treyquattro]

how do we explain -1/12 as the sum to infinity of all integers?! (Requires subtraction)

[@CosmoPhiloPharmaco]

I'm glad Linford appeared (much) more times in this one!

[@PhilHalper1]

me too , hes brilliant

[@thetannernation]

“With the proof now in place, cosmologists can no longer hide behind the possibility of a past eternal universe. There is no escape. They have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning.” - Vilenkin

[@PhilHalper1]

an old quote from a paperback book he wrote that he no longer stands by , see my interview with him in this very film

[@thetannernation]

@@PhilHalper1time stamp?

[@PhilHalper1]

@@thetannernation your commenting on a video you haven't seen? 29:37

[@thetannernation]

@@PhilHalper1 no no, I just wanted to make sure that was in fact the moment you’re referring to. He does not say in your clip that the universe does not have a beginning. And elsewhere, more times than I care to count, he has said that the universe has a beginning. “If someone asks me whether or not the theorem I proved with Borde and Guth implies that the universe had a beginning, I would say that the short answer is yes.” - Alexander Vilenkin (letter to Stenger) “If indeed all past-directed geodesics encounter a quantum spacetime region where the notions of time and causality no longer apply, I would characterize such a region as the beginning of the universe.” -Alexander Vilenkin (he said this directly to WLC in 2013). I’m curious why he hasn’t written any new books or peer reviewed journals about this change of mind that you claim he’s made

[@PhilHalper1]

@@thetannernation I never claimed that Veilbnkin says the universe did not have a beginning. What I said was that, when I sat in his office and asked if the BGV theorem proved that the universe had a beginning, he said no, it did not, only that inflation has a beginning.

[@drasticmeasuresislam]

Love your work Phil. Looking forward to this.

[@PhilHalper1]

thanks

[@irlc1254]

Thank you so much for this very thought provoking video. I really appreciated learning from these great mathematicians and scientists. On reflection, I do think Craig is actually correct, at least when it comes to an eternal universe - or rather the incoherence thereof. I think he’s perfectly correct to say that if we have an (actual) infinite past, we can’t ever get to the present; it’s incoherent. Whereas an infinite (potential) future is not incoherent. The present, with an infinite past, is really like the topmost room in the Hilbert Hotel. Let’s make it simple and have just a single room per floor in the Hilbert Hotel. If we imagine ourselves checking out, and the clerk asks us for our room number, we’d say infinity. The clerk then replies, “Can’t write that number down, it’s too large”. Imagine we reply, “OK, what if you write the number half way down instead then”. He replies, “Nope, still too large”. We reply, “OK, understood, how about writing room number half way down from that still?”. He replies, “No can do, still way too large”. We can repeat this back-and-forth ad infinitum and it would still be impossible for the clerk to write an actual integer as opposed to infinity - we simply cannot get to the present if we have an infinite past, it seems to me. However, a future POTENTIAL infinity is NOT a problem, and maps perfectly fine to a physical reality, and is therefore NOT incoherent. I think it’s because there has been a misunderstanding or category-error. When the Bible says, “He [God] will wipe every tear from their eyes. There will be no more death or mourning or crying or pain, for the old order of things has passed away.”” All God is saying is that he promises them that there will ALWAYS be another day; another joyous day where they will not taste death, or see a loved one die, or even see them (or themselves) suffer pain or sorrow. The first day of heaven is, for them, the edge of eternity as much as the billionth or trillionth day. It’s never ending, because God guarantees them no matter how big a number of days past (a writable integer), there will always be (an actual integer number for) a following day. Hence, it seems incorrect to claim if an infinite past is incoherent/impossible then so is an infinite future. It’s a category mistake, because a future POTENTIAL infinite is clearly possible. Therefore, it seems a very reasonable and rational thing to say that the universe had a beginning - far more reasonable and rational than to say that the universe is eternal and has an infinite past.

[@PhilHalper1]

your whole argument assume that the universe began at some point infinitely far in the past , but as Carrol pointed out thats just the wrong way to think about it. The universe is not on a journey from that point to now, there is no starting point in eternal universe. Simialry there is no largest room number in Hilbert Hotel, it goes on forever. So i fell you are missing the point entirely.

[@sugarat5555]

1) there is no "room number infinity." All rooms are a finite number of rooms away from any other room. Your room number would just depend on where you start counting from. If you can accept a hotel that is infinity floors high, why not one that also has a basement infinity floors down? 2) as the video points out: if this is a paradox, then Craig himself makes the same mistake when he states that, at some finite point in the past, the universe was in a state of infinite density and has since then reduced in density to the state it is presently. In other words, it has counted down from infinity. How would it have ever had enough time to expand to any finite density at all?

[@irlc1254]

Thanks Skydive and sugarat. Yes, I’m happy to accept you can claim an infinite past. I’m just not sure that it is coherent, that’s all. I guess for someone looking along this infinite line, we look as though we are the infinite future to them, just as to us, they look like the infinite past to us. As sugarat pointed out, the infinite hotel extends in both directions; top floor as well as basement. I guess, if we can add to the infinite future (we can certainly have a next day), then we can add to the infinite past as well - I think it’s right to say that nothing excludes that mathematical possibility? I’m guess I’m just not finding it very coherent, that’s all. Whereas, the notion of a potential future infinite is not incoherent at all - I can easily map that to a physical reality, just as I can easily map a finite past to a physical reality. Both present a coherent physical reality to me. I guess that’s why I don’t have a problem with the Kalam Cosmological Argument. I’m not sure about the infinite density issue that sugarat pointed out. All I know is that Hawkins, et al says the big bang occurred about 13.8 billion years ago out of a singularity. Since it was them who presented this finite number to us then I guess they must know what they are talking about. If indeed the density was infinite at the beginning, then I suspect, as you say, there really is an issue here. Could it be they just mean a number they can’t calculate at the time? Or could it be that it really was ex-nihilo?

[@sugarat5555]

@@irlc1254 personally, I don't think an infinite past seems very intuitive. Yet neither does the idea of a finite past. I can't help but wonder "what came before the past, then? What caused time to start?" Even though I know that there can be nothing "before" the past. However, out of the two ideas, I think an infinite past seems more coherent because it negates the objections that intuitively arise. It seems impossible because there would have to be an infinite space between me and the beginning of the universe. So how can it be that enough time has past for it to now be "my" time? But if the past is infinite then it never really began in the first place. Also any point in time, no matter how far back, would also have an infinite number of past events preceding it so it would seem impossible for time to catch up to ANY point on the line at all. But, if time exists, then it always has to be SOME time and, like I said, between any two points on an infinite line there is a finite distance. As to the infinite density, most explanations of the early universe that I have heard describe it as being extremely dense or even near infinite density (whatever that means) perhaps simply to avoid such a zenonian paradox. It could also be that I just have a really poor understanding of the matter. I pointed it out because it seems that WLC is being inconsistent with his objection to counting down from infinity, and I think that's suspect.

[@PhilHalper1]

@@irlc1254 When you say you dont find it coherent , do you mean its not intuitive to you or you find a logical flaw? If if the latter you should punish becuase even Craig says ( depending on which audience he's speaking to) there is no logical contradiction. If its just unintuitive, Id like to know why you think you should have reliable intuitions about the infinite? The problem with saying that infinity is potential infinite is that this is defined by Craig as something growing without limit , but did you not watch the film? Wes Morriston answered this point. It isn't the future thats growing, its the past. Re the singularity , you say "Since it was them who presented this finite number to us then I guess they must know what they are talking about. " It was never presented as a finite number, the singularity was always presented as infinite density , infinite pressure, infinite curvature, infinite temperature I've discussed this with Penrose and Hawking myself and you can look it up in any text book or just check the wikipedia page en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penrose-Hawking_singularity_theorems . Note it says "Hawking's singularity theorem is for the whole universe, and works backwards in time: it guarantees that the (classical) Big Bang has infinite density" Why Kalam supporters are happy to embrace four infinities rather than one beats me.

[@kimwol9885]

Excellent documentary. Next time consider inviting Graham Oppy. He makes very good cases and WLC and others are afraid of him.

[@PhilHalper1]

thanks for your suggestion

[@Andrew-pp2ql]

How do you know WLC is afraid of him? Has he ever stated anything to that effect or is just an opinion?

[@plasticvision6355]

@@Andrew-pp2ql Craig is on record saying that Oppy is one of the most capable atheist philosophers he knows. If I remember rightly his words, were something like ‘[Oppy] is frighteningly intelligent/ capable”.

[@Andrew-pp2ql]

@@plasticvision6355 thanks for that. That seems quite plausible as many people will speak highly of others they don’t agree with but respecting their intellect or debating skills etc. Of course respecting one’s ability not the same as being afraid of him. I never heard Oppy talk on issues so that would be enjoyable though I don’t know much of WLC actually outside his use of the Kalam which I assume which made him a household name in respect to defending Christianity.

[@plasticvision6355]

@@Andrew-pp2ql Here is Craig commenting on Oppy where he describes Oppy as ‘scary smart’ Watch Andrew Loke, reckoned to be Craig’s protégé on the Kalam trying to defend the claim he argues which is that god uses freewill, and all this acting in timeless nonsense. Unusually, Oppy gets cross with Loke - the first time I’ve seen this - because Loke tries to redefine a brute contingency. What’s interesting and very telling in this exchange though is how Loke tries to misrepresent Oppy on a discussion he had with Craig where he argued the case that the initial conditions of the universe was not god but a brute contingency. Oppy stands unshakable against Craig’s and Loke’s profoundly misguided attempt to show god as a cause as opposed to brute contingency. That is Oppy corrects both Loke and Craig on how they fail to address his objection, which is almost identical to one of the arguments made in this film, namely the universe just is what it is and does what it does in ways that are perfectly explicable. kzbin.info/www/bejne/nnuWnmxqZsxriKc

[@aem4670]

Probably one of the best videos I have ever watched on youtub... If it's not the best Thank you!

[@PhilHalper1]

Thanks so much

[@frogandspanner]

20:15 Brilliant summary.

[@PhilHalper1]

I agree, Alex is brilliant.

[@Only1INDRAJIT]

Amazing and exceptionally well put up arguments. By the way who is the physicist at around 24:41? I could recognize the rest but not him.

[@PhilHalper1]

Daniel Linford hes a phislopher of physics

[@Only1INDRAJIT]

@@PhilHalper1 ok thank you for the information

[@HarryNicNicholas]

i think the statement at the end is important and ought to be obvious, science is doing science and trying to get it right, so we can utilise it for our benefit, it's a lovely instance of paranoia from craig that he thinks science is out to get him. i continue to wonder at the religious, they pick fights where there is no need, plenty of believers are okay with current cosmology, evolution, the whole nine yards, why craig has to stick to his aldulterer stoning god instead of a telescope using god i have no notion, it makes his position worse. still, not a bad thing, he's driving folks away, just annoying to have to keep arguing things that should be fixed. another great vid, keep em coming.

[@PhilHalper1]

and one thing we didn't mention, is that this bit at the end that he claims shows the real motive of of the atheists is an ad hom.

[@hyperduality2838]

God is a dual concept. The observed is dual to the observer -- David Bohm. The future is dual to the past -- time duality. We predict the future (syntropy) and remember the past -- time asymmetry. Absolute nothing is dual to relative nothing. Lacking is dual to non lacking. Being is dual to non being creates becoming -- Plato's cat. Alive is dual to not alive -- the Schrodinger's cat superposition (duality). Thesis (alive, being) is dual to anti-thesis (not alive, non being) creates the converging thesis or synthesis -- Hegel's cat or Fichte's cat, the time independent Hegelian dialectic. Schrodinger's cat is based upon Hegel's cat and Hegel stole it from Plato (and Socrates). Everything (all things) is dual to nothing. The one is defined in terms of the other. Antinomy (duality) is two truths that contradict each other -- Immanuel Kant. If you choose nothing then this implies that something or everything already exists! The concept of nothing is inherently dual, nothing requires something to already exist in the first place. Concepts are dual to percepts -- the mind duality of Immanuel Kant. Brahman (creator god, thesis) is dual to Shiva (destroyer god, anti-thesis) synthesizes Vishnu (preserver god) -- Hinduism or the Hegelian dialectic. You can derive the Hegelian dialectic from the Hindu religion. Action is dual to reaction -- Sir Isaac Newton (the duality of force). Cause is dual to effect -- forces are correlated. Forces are a by product of conserving the duality or correlation of cause & effect. Attraction is dual to repulsion, push is dual to pull (forces and hence energy are dual). "Always two there are" -- Yoda. Absolute truth is dual to relative truth -- Hume's fork.

[@HarryNicNicholas]

@@hyperduality2838 i wonderr what you're talking about.

[@hyperduality2838]

@@HarryNicNicholas Reducing the number of dimensions or states is a syntropic process -- teleological. In homology hypervolumes become volumes, volumes become surfaces or planes, planes become lines and lines are reduced to points, 4D (D= number of dimensions), 3D, 2D, 1D, points are zero dimensional. Co-homology is a dual process to homology so that the number of dimensions is increased, points become lines, lines become surfaces, surfaces become volumes and volumes become hypervolumes -- increasing the number of dimensions or states is an entropic process! Points are dual to lines -- the principle of duality in geometry. Homology (convergence, syntropy) is dual to co-homology (divergence, entropy) -- topology. Syntropy (prediction) is dual to increasing entropy -- the 4th law of thermodynamics. Teleological physics (syntropy) is dual to non-teleological physics (entropy). "Always two there are" -- Yoda. Dimension reduction is a syntropic process. There are patterns of duality hardwired into physics, mathematics and philosophy. Noumenal (rational, analytic, mathematics) is dual to phenomenal (empirical, synthetic, physics) -- Immanuel Kant. Mathematics (deductive inference) is dual to physics (inductive inference). Inference or making predictions is therefore dual (a priori, a posteriori).

[@hyperduality2838]

@@HarryNicNicholas Thesis (God) is dual to anti-thesis (the Christ consciousness) synthesizes the holy spirit or the mind/soul -- the time independent Hegelian dialectic. The concept of God is therefore dual according to the Hegelian dialectic. Duality creates reality!

[@natmanprime4295]

Infinity consumes what it numerates. The quality of "countable infinity" is different, it's indefinite, not infinite. True infinity is just a characterless grey area

[@Bill_Garthright]

Excellent! This was superb, just like the previous video. Thanks! IMHO, Craig's problem is that he starts with his desired conclusion. And now he's spent his adult life trying to find a way to justify it. But that's backwards. He needs to follow the evidence to a conclusion. And right now, there are clearly lots of possibilities - including, most likely, possibilities that we haven't even thought of, yet, don't you think? At least, that's what I get from this, as a complete layman. :)

[@PhilHalper1]

Thanks and I agree with your analysis

[@patricksee10]

This is very shaky logic and inconsistent. Where or where has any person observed an infinite series? Not on earth, not in a microscope, not through a telescope. Perhaps a person has seen it in their minds eye. If an infinite exists, it is only in the intellect, not through physical perception. Yet the smug presenter condescending tells us that the infinite is a surety. Come on Phil, lift your game, WLC is easy meat. Don’t be so smug with all the comments telling you how wonderful this video is . My opinion is that it is trite and superficial. The learned presenters not actually grappling with the issues about the infinite

[@angelmendez-rivera351]

@@patricksee10 Your level of ignorant smug arrogance makes for very comedic content on your part. Let me answer your question concerning the infinite: everytime you observe the motion of an object with respect to a chosen reference frame, you are observing a traversal of an uncountable infinite set of poinnts, since between any two distinct points in spacetime, there is an uncountably infinite amount of points. Such motion can be observed on Earth, through a microscope, or through a telescope, but it can also be observed without any instruments other than your eyes.

[@patricksee10]

@@angelmendez-rivera351 how do you know there is an infinite set of points between any two points. That is a theory, a creation of your intellect. It is not something you can perceive with your senses or measure with a machine. Get it? I is a construct of your mind. It does not exist in observation. So the question is what to make of this problem. The silly attacks in this video jump over this scientific issue. By the way, I don’t agree with the Kalam so calm down on the sensitivity to criticism.

[@angelmendez-rivera351]

@@patricksee10 *how do you know there is an infinite set of points between any two points.* The distance between between any two points in space, even if you ignore time, has a midpoint. That distance between any of two points and that midpoint also has a midpoint. Switching one of the endpoints to be one of the midpoints results in a line segment that always has a midpoint. As such, there are infinitely many such points. *That is a theory, a creation of your intellect.* No, it is a scientific fact that can be and has been tested. There is no scientific evidence that there is a limit to how far space can be subdivided. Several theories of quantum gravity hypothesize that such a limit does exist, but none of them have sufficient evidence. *It is not something you can perceive with your senses or measure with a machine.* Just above, I provided one of many algorithms to measure it. *Get it? I is a construct of your mind. It does not exist in observation. So the question is what to make of this problem.* Pulling a denial without counterarguments does not make the denial true. *The silly attacks in this video jump over this scientific issue.* They do not, and your comments reveal that you lack an understanding of what the arguments in the video are or imply. *By the way, I don’t agree with the Kalam so calm down on the sensitivity to criticism.* I never said you agree with the Kalam. As for sensitivity for criticism, what you are offering is not criticism, just baseless comedic drivel.

[@biffedya]

the real point is that infinity is a concept of the mind and has no basis in reality even math dismisses it as a phantom with no proofs ever being resolved for such an imagined non existent thing.

[@PhilHalper1]

maths does no such thing, where on earth did you get such a notion?

[@biffedya]

@@PhilHalper1 mathematical infinities are not measurable in reality they are simply loops that dismiss nature

[@donnievance1942]

@@biffedya They are not loops, and they don't dismiss nature. Constructions of infinity are necessary to many of the mathematical functions that elucidate aspects of nature. Maybe you should take a class in calculus or analytic geometry.

[@glennsimonsen8421]

You can see how much the atheists are running scared when they need to assemble this many top scientists to counter one William Lane Craig. The use of short, carefully edited clips of WLC feigning to fairly represent his views is like a gang of bullies who have tied their opponent's hands behind his back. A smackdown, this ain't.

[@goldenalt3166]

I suppose you think the same of the flat earth truthers? If so many people disagree with their claims, they must be true? What point did WLC make that you think wasn't addressed?

[@toreoft]

Suggestion: The empty (as quantum theory permits) and chaotic space does nothing by itself, had it done so it would not have been empty and chaotic (tautology). When something happens in the empty chaotic space, something rather than something else in one of all possible directions, then it is not a result of randomness, (random is just what we call that we do not understand why or how) but a result of Free Will. A law of some physical process (physical law) is reflected as a description of what happened. The law was not the first cause (empty, chaotic space do not generate gravity). The first cause was Free Will. So then we are left with the 2 extreme opposites; The empty and chaotic space - and - Free Will. And any structure in that space is formed by Free Will ALONE, working. Not someone who has it or something that uses it; only: Free Will.

[@moesypittounikos]

Craig must have hit a nerve somewhere with this admittedly amazing documentary. Go on William Lane Craig! I'm always for the underdog in any fight.

[@radishpineapple74]

What happens if the underdogs happen to be white supremacists or other unsavory individuals?

[@thetannernation]

@@radishpineapple74 shut the hell up. “White supremacy”

[@BrettCoryell]

Say you want to dig a well. Some nut with a forked stick comes out and says there is water under your driveway and it's impossible there is water anywhere else on your property. Then, a dozen trained and experienced civil engineers come out to your property and agree you could put it at one spot in your backyard. They also explain why you can't use a divining rod to find water. Do you say to yourself, 'Hey, that guy wiggling a stick really struck a nerve. I'll dig up my driveway and put the well there?' Root for the underdogs in sports if you want. It's not a reliable way to learn the truth about really. In fact, it's the opposite.

[@knyghtryder3599]

The kalam-ity is the worst argument of all time , false and pointless

[@Raydensheraj]

Gamow had a incredibly interesting life and was such a charismatic personality with many great ideas in cosmology and Biology...

[@PhilHalper1]

he certainly did .

[@reasonandsciencecatsboardcom]

Are they successfully striking back? I think, that would only be the case, if someone could demonstrate that the universe most probably did not have a beginning.

[@Andrew-pp2ql]

Would not matter….I once heard WLC reply when asked what of the Kalam if the perhaps the universe had no beginning….or more correctly what if Penrose cyclic model was correct what then of the Kalam? WLC said Kalam would still be valid but would require some modifications. It took place on the show unbelievable if you want to look it up…as I can’t require his exact words but it was something to this effect. Either way the Kalam would still be valid is the important point.

[@reasonandsciencecatsboardcom]

@@Andrew-pp2ql Did Craig elucidate how it would still be valid, somewhere ?

[@Andrew-pp2ql]

He said something to the effect it would need some modification to it but stated nothing explicit as to what that would be. WLC and Penrose two years ago met on the show unbelievable….during the discussion the host asked WLC what if Penrose model proved to be true would that mean the Kalam was no longer valid in case your interested.

[@PhilHalper1]

the critic of an argument does not have to show the premises are false, only that the evidence in favour of them is no good. If your left with an argument that no evidence for its premises your left with nothing.

[@reasonandsciencecatsboardcom]

@@PhilHalper1 Right. Unless Craig can provide reasons as to how the Kalaam would still stand even if the universe could be evidenced to be eternal, I think the Kalam would break down as soon as such a claim could be substantiated. I don't understand Penrose's model, so I cannot comment on it, but I think, so far, the evidence points strongly to the beginning of the universe, and consequently, a cause is needed.