SPECIAL: A Case for God with Alex Malpass Muslims discussing with an Atheist Philosopher

[@asadullahsaaid3794]

*Timestamps for Chapters:* 0:00 - Intro 0:27 - Abdul,Alex and Jake join 0:41 - Information about the Guest 1:00 - Topics to be discussed 1:32 - What got Alex into Philosophy ? 5:20 - Is it rationally justified to be a Theist ? 8:48 - Relationship between Rationality and Coherence 10:51 - Theists and Atheists not being Ultra Rationalists 15:45 - Theists requiring more proof of being deductively sound than Atheists 17:28 - Theists and Atheists trying to convert each other 21:35 - The Kalam Cosmological Argument and its contentions 31:42 - Abdul's counter argument 32:43 - Alex's response 34:22 - Abdul's disagreement with Craig's Paper about Kalam 34:59 - Alex's response 37:26 - Jake's question about "Always counting but never beginning" ? 39:51 - Alex's answer 41:01 - Jake's counter argument 41:51 - Alex's response 43:34 - Non Metric system and different time frames of the thought experiment 54:07 - Alex's views on Causal Finitism 59:33 - Patchwork's Principle: definition, acceptance, rejection and restriction 1:07:40 - Grim Reaper existing in Aristotelian view of metaphysical modality 1:13:34 - Concievability, Finitists' solution and commitment 1:19:46 - Why an agent can't be placed at every moment of time in the past ? 1:25:14 - Königsberg Bridge Problem 1:30:11 - Causal Finitism vs Unsatisfiable Pair 1:33:42 - Contingency Argument 1:39:23 - Quranic position on Dawah and presenting arguments 1:44:15 - PSR (Principle of Sufficient Reason) & Argument of Contingency 1:46:28 - Alex's contention against the Contingency Argument 1:51:24 - Abdul's response and back & forth 1:57:10 - Hatem's question about Partial explanation of the 'cookie thought experiment' 2:01:43 - Abdul's argument on Modal Collapse of Partial Explanation 2:05:36 - Alex's response 2:07:11 - Abdul's counter Argument 2:08:51 - Alex's response and back & forth 2:14:11 - Abdul's argument about Metaphysics of Causation 2:15:40 - Alex's response and back & forth 2:19:25 - Determinism on Marco Level vs Quantum Level 2:22:07 - A rejection of a PSR leads to ultra skepticism 2:24:15 - Everything that is concrete is contingent 2:39:34 - Jake's counter argument and back & forth 2:57:43 - Alex concedes to a Necessary Existence 3:00:38 - Necessary truths don't have an explanation 3:03:09 - Abdul explains the similarity & difference between their and Alex's position on the explanatory power 3:05:38 - Alex's counter argument 3:07:32 - Abdul's Response 3:11:35 - What qualifies something to have necessary Existence & not require an explanation ? 3:13:26 - Abdul's argument 3:15:58 - Alex's response 3:18:13 - Abdul and Alex discuss "what accounts for the existence of contingent things ?" 3:25:45 - Closing Statements SUBHANALLAH ❤️🤍❤️ Brilliant Discussion _May Allah SWT bless you all and accept your efforts._

[@asadullahsaaid3794]

@Thought Adventure Podcast _Assalamualaikum brothers. You can pin the comment for the viewers._

[@ThoughtAdventurePodcast]

@@asadullahsaaid3794 JazakhAllahu khairan for the help.

[@Oneummahgeneration]

@@asadullahsaaid3794 amazing work bro. Jzk.

[@asadullahsaaid3794]

@@ThoughtAdventurePodcast Wa Iyyakum brothers. _May Allah ﷻ reward you all._

[@asadullahsaaid3794]

@@Oneummahgeneration Thanks bro ☺️😊

[@DBKAQ]

I've never watched a KZbin video where I've had to pause and Google terminology as much as this one. There's levels to this philosophy game!! Enjoyed it thoroughly! Learnt a lot and I honestly can't thank you guys enough for all of this great content done with amazing adab and akhlaq. Big kudos to Alex Malpass. Love the way he works through ideas and really attempts to steeleman your position. Hope to see him back, and may Allah guide him and all of us to the truth.

[@hanifsoul]

and now rewatch this video with chat gpt terminology learn mode.

[@ceceroxy2227]

This show is at so much a higher level than the atheist shows, both Jake and Abdul are super smart and make for great discussion.

[@Alexander_45]

I agree it is at an higher level than most atheists channels. But if it’s higher than most atheist channels that means it’s at an infinitely higher level than most Muslim channels.

[@nasrullahtoprak5461]

​@@Alexander_45 fool Just cry 😢😢😢

[@scottholder4431]

Well that's normal because atheists generally discuss "beliefs", not philosophy. People don't ask us if we have philosophy of god, people ask us if we belief in god. Two completely separate things. LMAO!

[@FootvolleySweden]

Do they also believe Muhammed flew on a creature to heaven called Buraq?

[@Oneummahgeneration]

I’m amazed that the tap brothers Abdul and jake got Alex to concede to a necessary existence. That’s certainly an interesting turn of events. Obviously he has his contentions on the nature of necessity and didn’t concede in belief in God but it’s certainly movement towards that direction.

[@fleetingblue4794]

That wasn't the point. We only need to posit one thing in our ontology that didn't choose its own attributes... Positing the existence of a second thing that also did not choose its own attributes is superfluous. God has no explanatory power, as was touched upon in the discussion.

[@Oneummahgeneration]

@@fleetingblue4794 so a necessary being without a mind explains reality better than a necessary being with a mind. Or are they equally explainable?

[@depicturesofficial]

@@Oneummahgeneration I was about to say the same thing. This guy has made many comments in the video comment section as if somehow they have the upper hand and explain reality with a cohesive non contradictory worldview.

[@Uzaair]

@@depicturesofficial i saw his comments in the live chat. He had exactly zero meaningful contributions to what was being discussed

[@bustinjieber7521]

Why do Muslims think it's a win if someone admits to a necessary being since it says nothing about a god?

[@PeteAtoms]

I really enjoyed the discussion gentlemen. This is the first video of yours that I've come across and if there is more content of this caliber, I'll keep watching. I would love to hear more discussions between yourselves and Alex. Have a good day!

[@silkydude]

Really need to take my time with this one. Some of the discussion is going over my head!

[@ceceroxy2227]

what explains the first contingent fact, seems like it must be something necessary. Abdul is really great, conducts himself great and argues and thinks amazingly. You will never convince someone who doesnt want to be.

[@gogo-su6hr]

Again not following the convo. If a necessary fact explains the contingent fact then we would get modal collapse if the explanation is entailment as pointed out by alex.

[@ceceroxy2227]

@@gogo-su6hr If all we have our contingent things, then we have an infinite regress of contingent things with no explanation for any of them. There must be one thing that is non contingent to explain contingent things.

[@gogo-su6hr]

@@ceceroxy2227 If the chain of explanations doesnt conclude and goes back ad infinitum, Then each contingent fact in the Set is explained by the previous contingent fact. An explanation of the Conjunction of all the propositions of the Serie is not required if each of the members have an explanation. Some wholes are adequately explained when their parts are explained. For example: Suppose I want to explain why the conjunction my Car is red & my car is expensive is true. It suffices to say that my car is red is true and that my car is expensive is true. Their being conjoined does not require a separate explanation. If you need an explanation for the infinite series, then that would be a Brute contingent Fact which is ironically not different from the Choice of God to create this world and not another different world.

[@ceceroxy2227]

@@gogo-su6hr If there is a brute contingent fact, that means it has an explanation outside itself. What could that fact be, if that fact is contingent, that leads to another contingent fact, and so on ad infinitum.

[@gogo-su6hr]

@@ceceroxy2227 no, The definiton of a brute contingency is that it is a fact that does not have an explanation.

[@thesun5323]

i think Alex has all the answers written on the ceiling

[@farkhkhan9495]

😂 and Abdul

[@ceceroxy2227]

I finally got that, he kept looking up when he was trying to answer the questions

[@JohnSmith-bq6nf]

It is actually common for people to look up when they are thinking hard.

[@nawki4200]

was a very good discussion!

[@anisse3387]

1:38:00 May Allah bless all the team. Jake nailed it very well. We present the argument you are sincere you take it Al HamdoulilAllah . You don't want it too bad we don't need to convince you to be sure of our belief.

[@drewdrake9130]

It appears you're saying that if someone is not convinced by your argument, this means that they are insincere. Are appearances correct?

[@ceceroxy2227]

@@drewdrake9130 Sometimes when people dont want something to be true, they can avoid the argument and where it leads no matter what, generally thats what atheists do

[@drewdrake9130]

@@ceceroxy2227 Desires have absolutely nothing to do with the things that I believe to be true, or the reasons why I believe things to be true. How many atheists do you know, to make such a general statement about the reason why they don't accept your arguments?

[@peterpetrelli9745]

@@drewdrake9130 That may be the case for you but in my experience when I speak to some atheists, they tend to gravitate towards their emotions and desires. If something sounds plausible or at least probable to some degree, would you be willing to give up some of the things you hold dear? Some people can't and don't value truth as much as they think they do. Ultimately you have one life in this world, you are going to face your own mortality inevitably at some point just like the rest of us, I'm not saying you should believe merely for the sake of hoping something is out there beyond death but that we all owe it to ourselves to find out what is the most probable truth and reality.

[@drewdrake9130]

@@peterpetrelli9745 All the things you mentioned aren't atheist problems, they're people problems, because theists do all of those things as well.

[@waheedali2429]

جزاك الله خيراً

[@halalhomer]

Awesome as usual ‼❤

[@ILoveLuhaidan]

Am I the only one who absolutely loves these discussions even though they understand next to nothing? 😂

[@heyyoitsyourboicovid1925]

Yes, i watched every video of tap but never understood anything except for miracles one

[@Hello-vz1md]

We 1st need to Read introduction of philosophy books to understand basic of this kind of things If you Google best philosophy books for beginners it may help you

[@ahmeda5110]

Will watch in full after work

[@homtanks7259]

The same, Inshallah

[@timgraf2399]

Whatever is subsistent to addition and subtraction cannot be Infinite. That applies to the impossibility of an infinite past, with the A-theory of time. And with the B- theory of time it also applies, because of the impossibility of an infinite number of distinct parts.

[@ishtiaqahmedratul6636]

in b theory we won't profess for ontologically distinct temporal parts. So eternal time is possible

[@logos8312]

9. 2:07:10 I see Malpass making the point I was making about Pandora's Box. Nice. To summarize the next 15 minutes of discussion, I think this was made more complicated than it needed to be. Agents act contingently in the world. Let's take that at face value for the sake of argument. We then have some kinds of contingent propositions that aren't fully in the scope of the PSR in the sense that they can be brute, or circular. The question isn't whether or not that's "fair" which is what Malpass seems to be asking. The question, ultimately, is "who else gets to do it?" 10. Based Malpass noting that everything concrete is contingent. 11. This discussion right here at 2:26:42 is exactly why I have the PSR that I do. Every fact in a world can be explained if it is explained by other facts in that world. You're not going to explain the whole of the world (i.e. the whole sequence) because there are no more facts in the world to be appealed to. And this cuts all ways. Suppose that God's choice to create this infinite timeline explains the timeline. But insofar as God could have made a particular choice, to create something else instead, or nothing else, then God's choice is causally "in the series" insofar as the cause and the effect are linked and so asking for an explanation of the whole thing would just be to ask for an explanation of God's choice. If the LFW proponent for God could deny that God's choice needs an explanation, anyone else could do it too, and for the same reason. 12. 2:58:07 this is a hang up I regularly see with modal logic. The propositions: A. There is a necessary concrete thing. B. Necessarily, there is at least one concrete thing. are very different propositions. One is ascribing necessity to the concrete thing itself. The other is allowing all concrete things to be contingent, but instead notes that some one or collection of them must necessarily exist (though which in particular are contingent). To put this in laymen's terms, let's use Warcraft lore. Consider two proposiitons: A. Arthas will always be the Lich King. B. There will always be a Lich King, and currently it is Arthas. The first is ascribing immortality and necessity in the role of Lich King to a single individual (Arthas). The second is saying that the role of Lich King is a fundamental force of the universe, and so someone always has to put on the crown, but who does it is a contingent fact of history. I'm going to have to agree with Malpass on this part of this discussion too (even though I'm really not a fan of this Aristotelian account of modality and so I'd vehemently disagree on those grounds).

[@Hello-vz1md]

Logos few people in this comment section and Especially the comment section of Review video of this Discussion saying that Alex is Playing games He is just avoiding God No matter what evidence tells us he just don't like God he is playing word games to Run from the one and Only conclusion that past is finite and eternal past is Impossible some people calling alex Very Dishonest and his all arguments nonsense Will you agree with them that Alex is playing games and avoiding God at any cost ?? If you like you can check out their 4 hours long review where they breakdown this discussion and try to Refute Alex More in details Thank you sir

[@logos8312]

@@Hello-vz1md Hmmm, I don't think I can spare time to watch a 4 hour review of a 3 hour discussion I just watched. But here's some comments. 1. There are two sense of "dishonest" one could use here in these discussions. One sense is that Alex doesn't actually believe what he says, and the other sense is that Alex is kind of making any ad hoc excuse he can to avoid a conclusion he doesn't like. I think Alex believes what he says, but I do see a tendency in Atheist literature / reasoning to find the very first and easiest way to dismiss an argument and run with it, rather than grappling with the full intuition behind the argument. So in the second sense, I think Malpass is being dishonest in a weak sense that he could do better to actually address intuitions rather than technical gotchas for some of his arguments. 2. Playing Games: This one is straightforward. To the naturalist, all these arguments boil down to a semantic game of model assumptions. The game they want to play is describe as much as you can while assuming as little as you can. That's definitely a game, and I think people are annoyed that the game Alex is playing is different than the game they want to play. Everyone in this discussion is playing games, people only notice when people are playing completely different games than they are. 3. The only conclusion is not that the past is finite. What a terrible conclusion to draw from any of this. Whoever says that after watching a discussion like this is probably an ideologue that no person could ever convince of anything. They're the type of person to see a conversation only as an opportunity to convince you of what they want to convince you of, rather than an opportunity to jointly investigate something. Avoid these people like the plague, they're just going to steal your time and you'll only wish you had it back as you get older.

[@Hello-vz1md]

@@logos8312 thank you for your reply❤

[@ibrahimx28]

More guests like this, less guests like Ridvan (AP) or Aron Ra, please.

[@homtanks7259]

Aron is OK but the other freak no thanks

[@ceceroxy2227]

@@homtanks7259 no Aron is not OK

[@homtanks7259]

@@ceceroxy2227 why?

[@ceceroxy2227]

he is not very smart

[@homtanks7259]

@@ceceroxy2227 what u mean he is not very smart? I try to understand.

[@BR-ms3pp]

Argument at 44:30 instead of never begun counting, I would say its always starting, so this idea of counting from infinite is abstract as the beginning keeps shifting. Like walking down the wrong escalator. Assumptions 1) This is a thought experiment so we assume it possible to be and/or start at the current infinity 2) That the infinity number is not static ie keeps growing n + 1, as n is not infinite. So that even if you start at -1000 from infinity you will always be at -1000 from infinity. I guess this is where the never started argument comes from where alternately I say its always starting. I am glad to see a fantastic conversation with the participants actually sincerely "listening" to each other.

[@AzamatBagatov413]

You guys are geniuses mashallah ❤️

[@PabloSensei]

Tap is amazing so is Alex malpass He is head and shoulders above Aron Ra and the 4 horsemen

[@ceceroxy2227]

My dog is head and shoulders above Aronra

[@ILoveLuhaidan]

4 horseman and Aron ra and anyone else who thinks they can engage in these discussions without understanding philosophy are out of luck.

[@khdmhd2947]

Aaron ra is a tool. He is a total poser. Can't expect anything meaningful from that guy

[@Edward-bm7vw]

Well Aron Ra and the rest are scientists not philosophers.

[@FootvolleySweden]

Hmm. Such great dialogue. But when it comes to the Quran no muslim want to be critical in thinking??

[@logos8312]

5. 55:00 "Even if causal finitism is true, it doesn't entail that time has a beginning." This is correct and where we get to more helpful levels of clarity. We need to distinguish between "the past" and "a past history". The past would just denote all previous moments in time to ours. Our past history denotes all the prior moments in time that have a causal relationship to all future moments in time (including our present). And "a" past history (from some time, t) is just a generalization of that notion. I think that causal finitism could say that every past history is finite, but could admit that there are an infinite collection of finite past histories into the past, if it treats all past histories as either: A. Effects caused by something else (i.e. God as Catholics do). B. Independent from one another completely, which is my preferred model when talking about the Kalam. 6. 57:50 any candidate way of dealing with Grim Reaper paradoxes (including Unsatisfiable Pair, which should actually be an Unsatisfiable Quadruple) is consistent with causal finitism. That is actually causal finitism's biggest evidence, to my mind, is that all roads seem to lead there once you think of things properly. To my mind, causal finitism is really talking about the edges of how we can model things with language more so than it makes some proclamations on "reality". Reality could be so fundamentally complicated / chaotic maybe we never perfectly model it. But to the degree that we can model it into any conversation worth having, it seems to me that our models are going to follow the rules of causal finitism. Note, because you guys get into this, the Unsatisfiable Pair doesn't actually avoid causal finitism one bit. If you assume a finite number of reapers with Benardete rule, that's a finitist solution which is consistent with causal finitism. If you remove one half the Benardete rule, or the whole thing, to get the reapers to "behave better" then this too is consistent with causal finitism. An infinite collection of reapers doing nothing just means no causes of anything over an infinite amount of time. All causal finitism says is no infinite causes producing a single effect, so 0 causes is fine there. Further if you modify the reapers some other way, like Fred is always dead, that's one singular effect (Fred always dead) that takes place over an infinite amount of time. There's no problem with one uncaused effect happening "forever", since uncaused is consistent with "never infinite causes". So again, causal finitism's biggest argument is that any solution Malpass is going to reach for is consistent with it anyway. There's just no avoiding it. Note that the patchwork principle doesn't do the work the Kalam proponent thinks it does, even on a pure conceivability account. An implicit rule in the patchwork principle is that: If you patch a conjunction into a possible world, then any associative / commutative order of the conjunctions should produce the same world. Equivalently if any order would produce an explicit conjunction, then every order, implicitly, produces that same contradiction. How is this rule relevant? Let's split the Benardete rules. 1 (if). If Fred is alive (no previous reaper kills Fred) then a Grim Reaper kills Fred. 2. (only if). If a grim reaper kills Fred, then Fred is alive (no previous reaper kills Fred). Then add: 3. Infinite number of reapers. We can split the patch into two intermediate patches: Poss(Infinite reapers and "if") and Poss(Infinite reapers and "only if") Before we try to patch all 3 of these into the same world, we patch the intermediate worlds to see what we add. Poss(Fred is always dead) and Poss(Fred is always alive). These two form an explicit contradiction over the same interval of time and therefore you cannot patch these worlds together. But via the equivalence rule, this means you could never have patched the 3 rules all together in the first place. So there's no need to reject the patchwork principle in this situation, we already know that it just doesn't apply to these 3 conjuncts. Note that this doesn't need any account of modality to work. I personally take a broad conceivability view, and note that you can't conceive of possible worlds that are explicit contradictions. This is really relevant to the question in 1:28:05. This is relevant because due to the Benardete rule actually being a conjunction of two rules, you're trying to imagine a place and time in which Fred is alive and dead at the same time, because the Benardete rule has two parts. The solution then is to use only one half of the rule at a time (with infinite reapers) or use the whole rule with a finite set of reapers. None of those situations end up with a problem. 7. 1:45:35 Here's what it seems to boil down to for me. Either ALL contingent facts have an explanation, or some don't. If what Malpass asked is begging the question against libertarian free will, then this just means that libertarian free will restricts the PSR such that some contingent facts either don't have explanations, or explain themselves (I've heard differing accounts on this). This is fine, the libertarian free will proponent can do this, however they open pandora's box. If some contingent facts can wiggle out of the PSR, what OTHER contingent facts can wiggle out of the PSR? If you say "none" then this seems ad hoc because I'm getting this "all facts but mine" are subject to the PSR vibe which isn't fair. What we need is a more general principle that admits a broad class of facts, that everyone can agree to independently of any particular argument, such as free will or God's existence. My personal version of the PSR that tries to do this just says that "Every contingent fact in world W, has an explanation if and only if its explanation is in terms of other facts about W." In the LFW case, my stomach being sore can be explained by my eating cake instead of coke, and my eating cake or coke comes down to my choice of cake or coke and all the reasons I could have been impressed by. But asking why one world happened over the other one doesn't have an explanation because you're appealing to facts outside the world that obtained to explain why it, and not some other world, obtained. That solves the free will case, and it also gives me a satisfying answer to the contingency argument. If you're asking why a possible world, in total, expressed by something like a BCCF or equivalent, exists rather than another (or none at all) then this is outside the scope of my PSR since you've exhausted all the facts in W, so this fact about W (its being the case in totality) can't be explained. 8. 1:55: 38, what Malpass is pointing to here is something in Economics that we call a "ceteris paribus" condition. In other words, since it's a condition that would have held in two scenarios, and so it's "cancelled out" before it can do any work in explaining why one scenario is different from another. (cont.)

[@RandomYTubeuser]

"any candidate way of dealing with Grim Reaper paradoxes (including Unsatisfiable Pair, which should actually be an Unsatisfiable Quadruple) is consistent with causal finitism" How about saying that there's an infinite number of Grim Reapers that have been passing down a paper with the name of their future victim and then the last one in that beginningless sequence kills the person whose name is written on the paper. This situations resolves the paradox and it's not consistent with causal finitism (because there's an infinite chain of causes leading to the person's death). There's no contradiction in this scenario and yet causal finitism says it's impossible. Unsatisfiable pair is better imo because it doesn't require you to say that these kind of non-contradictory scenarios involving infinity are impossible.

[@logos8312]

@@RandomYTubeuser "How about saying that there's an infinite number of Grim Reapers that have been passing down a paper with the name of their future victim and then the last one in that beginningless sequence kills the person whose name is written on the paper. This situations resolves the paradox and it's not consistent with causal finitism (because there's an infinite chain of causes leading to the person's death)." This is consistent with Causal Finitism because what you have is each reaper recursively getting the name of the victim from the reaper before it. One effect (name passed) from one cause (the singular preceding reaper). To violate causal finitism, you'd have to have some reaper getting a name only if an infinite number of things before it are satisfied "all at once" to produce the name. Here's a geometric example. Consider a robot that has been going in a circle for all eternity via the pattern: up, right, down, left, up, ... The robot's current trajectory in one sense is due to an infinite number of positions that came before it, true, but it's not due to an infinite number of trajectories that come before it all at once. So why is the robot currently moving down? Because before that it was moving right, and before that it was moving up, and so on. As long as the rules are representable via finite recursion then there's no worry, because each trajectory is caused by 2 things at most, time, and the previous trajectory(ies) of which there are finitely many. So circles, zig-zags, and other things are all perfectly valid under causal finitism (even a reaper seeing the name of a victim handed to it by the previous). The kinds of things that causal finitism doesn't like are infinite spirals. If a spiral has been going on forever, then the current trajectory being observed is caused by an infinite number of arcs before it, since the number of times a trajectory is followed is determined by the previous number of arcs. "There's no contradiction in this scenario and yet causal finitism says it's impossible. Unsatisfiable pair is better imo because it doesn't require you to say that these kind of non-contradictory scenarios involving infinity are impossible." Neither does causal finitism. A lot of people get what causal finitism does and doesn't say wrong, namely they confuse it with finitism. Finitism says that any scenarios involving infinites are impossible (even non contradictory ones like yours). All causal finitism says is that you need to be careful which rules you apply to infinites (since not all rules that work for finite things work for infinite things). Let's slightly modify your example. Instead of a bunch of reapers handing down a victims name until a reaper kills it in the present, suppose a reaper reads what was written before it, and writes an additional letter describing the victim, instructions for killing him, etc. This scenario works perfectly for finite scenarios because there are only a finite number of reapers / letters. But if there are an infinite number of reapers, you have an infinite number of letters and so no reaper on the chain would be able to read the whole message to see what their contribution would be (and a rule might say they must make a new contribution to the directions or something). That's a way the message would truly have an infinite number of causes (instead of 2 at most as in your case).

[@RandomYTubeuser]

@@logos8312 "no reaper on the chain would be able to read the whole message to see what their contribution would be". I don't think this is necessarily the case, sure it seems unintuitive but I don't think there's an actual logical contradiction in assuming the reaper has the ability of reading the whole message and acting in accordance to an infinite set of instructions.

[@logos8312]

@@RandomYTubeuser Wait, what? It's just basic tense symmetry as discussed by Malpass with Craig. In the same way that Malpass argues that if there's a finite past, then there's an infinite future (have been vs will be) the same is true of the message. If the message has always been being written by the infinite chain of reapers, then the message, by tense symmetry, will always be read by any reaper reading it. the reaper concludes reading the message if and only if it starts in the first place. And a reaper can never act on a set of instructions they haven't finished reading. The only way around this is to assume a B theory of time model in which all the infinite reapers wrote the message at once, and all of them read an infinitely long message at once (instead of one letter at a time, which is impossible). But if you make that change, this is consistent with causal finitism. Since any infinite set is cardinally equivalent to a proper subset, what you basically have is an infinite number of reapers (effects) reading a message that just has always been infinitely written. Nothing about any of the reaper's contributions is unique enough to make it a "distinct cause" causing the final effect (the message).

[@RandomYTubeuser]

@@logos8312 "If the message has always been being written by the infinite chain of reapers, then the message, by tense symmetry, will always be read by any reaper reading it. the reaper concludes reading the message if and only if it starts in the first place. And a reaper can never act on a set of instructions they haven't finished reading." I think there's some confusion, you seem to be assuming that the reading of the message will take an infinite amount of time. That is not the case in the scenario I'm thinking about, I instead posit that the reapers can read the whole message in an instant. The scenario is something like this: 1. There is a beginningless sequence of reapers that have been writing a message. 2. Each day, a reaper reads the whole message (instantly), then writes a single word and passes the message to the next reaper. 3. The final reaper reads the whole message (instantly) and kills Fred following the instructions of the message. You may think that it's weird or unintuitive for a reaper to read an infinite message instantly, but there is no contradiction there. If you think this scenario is contradictory feel free to derive a formal contradiction from the premises of the scenario.

[@ceceroxy2227]

Jake was spot on when he said its inconceivable that the past was infinite and never started.

[@nickmorris2250]

I think it depends what you mean be 'conceive of.' It's easy to think of a past series of events that if you followed back in a time machine you would never find a beginning to. Is something more than that required to conceive of an infinite past? I think where people get stuck is that they want to be able to be able to imagine the whole infinite set at once but of course that's impossible... because its infinite... you don't have enough brain cells to hold every member of an infinite set in your mind at once.

[@ffffoundit3198]

@@nickmorris2250 infinity can only be granted if your set is endless from one side or both sides. starting from 0 and counting to infinity... we can say you can reach an infinity as long as you never stop. there can never be enough brain cells to hold every number of an infinite set, because we can always add one more... there for only an infinite amount of brain cells can hold an infinite set. the moment Alex's countdown started at (n) to 0 as an end, we are no longer talking about an infinite set... you can head towards infinity but never come back from infinity.

[@nickmorris2250]

@@ffffoundit3198 The comment I was responding to was about conceivability. I'm suggesting that all you need to conceive of an infinity is that something (or a series) exists and it doesn't have a start and/or end. If that doesn't satisfy the criteria for making it conceivable then I'd like to know what the criteria is and who said that was the right criteria to use. "the moment Alex's countdown started at (n)" Alex's countdown doesn't 'start' so I don't think this comment is relevant.

[@ffffoundit3198]

@Oners82 i can conceive of a unicorn doesn't make it real.

[@ceceroxy2227]

@Oners82 I can conceive of a square circle too.

[@logos8312]

Interesting discussion. I'm going to take notes as I listen. 1. I think Alex is on to something when he distinguishes merely explaining what you believe vs trying to convince someone else. I'm a Pragmatist, and so if someone claims to have had a direct spiritual experience or immediate intuitions for a premise, I let them have it. What makes these arguments difficult is that the Christian is often trying to use them to convince someone to believe something else, but then they'll defend the premises by saying "I haven't been shown this premise is false" (see Craig's Blackwell Companion article where he responds to Morriston). But that's not going to work if Craig hopes to convince Morriston. To Abdul's point, if society is trying to pressure people in an Atheist direction, then I would agree that society has to meet a burden for the relevant arguments before they can strongarm someone's conscience. 2. 24:00 you're thinking of Wes Morriston's objection to the counting argument which can be found on his interview with Majesty of Reason I think. The terminus is only arbitrary in a grand unifying scale of time, i.e. a time with respect to which you would tell "when the present occurs" by some measure other than its own. But if a relational view of time is right, and the universe is all that exists, such a larger metric is impossible, and so the present happens whenever the present happens. An interesting dilemma by Morriston to make which pits Craig's relational view of time against his broader intuitions for a "when the present happens" (in a way that doesn't force him to beg the question for God). 3. I'm going to have to disagree with Alex here 30:00. Using Craig's argument with the past doesn't have a problem with "ending" a countdown, it has a problem with STARTING a countdown. Applying Alex's logic of "will be counting forever" to this problem, you "will be accounting the past forever". And if you're always accounting for the past, there's never a moment where the past is accounted for, and you can now start counting back to the present. Let's use a movie analogy here. Suppose that to understand the current events of a movie, you need to understand the events of a prequel. But to understand the events of a prequel, you need to understand the events of the prequel's prequel, and so on for infinity. Now the question is, can you ever understand the movie in the present? The answer is no because you will never have finished watching prequels, and so some events in the present movie will always be unaccounted for. You'll have to take something as "brute" or "magic" and just say "OK I've watched far enough, screw it" and then force yourself to watch the movie in the present, content with background knowledge not being sought. What "there's no room number aleph null in Hilbert's hotel" has to do with it, is that every event in the timeline is dependent on the cumulative facts of all its preceding events. We aren't really talking about some inert, arbitrary, set of points on a mathematical line, we're talking about events in TIME which shape events which come after them in the future, and reflexively explain why the present is "like this". Saying "we're never going to get to aleph null", when talking about time, is admitting that someone who has always been recording the past from the present would never "finish" and so there's always a gap (an infinitely large one) of preceding events which determine the present, which never get touched. 4. 50:00 here's the "contradiction" or "arbitrariness" argument that Malpass is looking for. i. Every moment in a past history is dependent on all the prior moments for its being the way it is. ii. Counting down from "infinity" to 10 isn't dependent on all its prior moments being the way it is, since you would have counted to 10 without any arbitrary finite number of events in the past. These are the two contradictory notions that have to be squared. We're either talking about a past history with robust temporal dependence of events, or we aren't. The Kalam, insofar as it's talking about a past, seems to be talking about the robust, temporally related, past history. Malpass insofar as him and Morriston are giving kind of these "cute" responses to these arguments do not seem to be talking about past histories and so they're having fundamentally different conversations than the Kalam proponent is trying to have, while pretending they're the same thing. Due to length I'll split up my notes.

[@Hello-vz1md]

Thanks Logos for your Time and effort i Hope Hosts of the channel Address your comments thank you

[@ceceroxy2227]

When I hear that Alex believes you can form an actual infinite by successive addition, that blows my mind. This guy has a PHD in philosophy, you cant count down from infinity, infinity minus 1 equals infinity, minus another 1 equals infinity, minus another 1 equals infiniity. Counting down from an infinity is like running forever but not moving an inch so you dont ever get closer to the finish.

[@mohammedyasin2087]

Yeah, it's like filling a basket with infinite space. It can never become full.

[@ceceroxy2227]

@@mohammedyasin2087 no only did it never become full, it never began so nothing was ever put it into it

[@shiroboo525]

@@erikgreen9899 Atheism doesnt make sense.

[@ceceroxy2227]

@@erikgreen9899 I have heard his arguments before in his discussions With WLC, andrew loke and with some others and here. I have heard many atheists say they have debunked the kalam here, I am just giving my critique of what I have heard. And his idea of counting down from infinity is absurd, because infinity is not a number so you cant count down from it, and also saying something has always been happening is the same as saying it never began as was Jake's criticism, it is so obviously true that the past can not be infinite, thats why I when I hear a smart guy like Alex say absurd thinks, just makes me shake my head. I respect him much more than other atheists but cant go with something which is nonsensical.

[@ceceroxy2227]

@@erikgreen9899 because its irrational

[@acceptedhunters]

He answered Jake question about counting down from infinity on how he can be at any number. He answered that with another infinite regression.

[@ceceroxy2227]

Amazing that a smart guy like Alex cant see the incoherence and nonsense this, Its like running forever but you dont move an inch because you cant count down from infinity, whats infinity minus one, infinity, minus another 1 infinity, minus another 1 infinity. So literally you cant move from infinity. Infinity is the same as squared circle, it doesnt exist and can not exist in any sort of numerical form. Alex just doesnt want God.

[@acceptedhunters]

@@ceceroxy2227 ya it’s so clear that their only response to it is not accepting it! But instead a linguistic gymnastic!

[@ffffoundit3198]

after watching the video a couple of times, this is what I came to concerning the countdown issue. - infinity can only be granted if your set is endless from one side or both sides. starting from 0 and counting to infinity... we can say you can reach an infinity as long as you never stop. - the issue of count down, is Alex already put a number on the start (n) & the end (0), so we are no longer talking about an infinite set... - same thing for the interruption example, from your starting point until being interrupted you have only traversed a limited set, that we can count using the same amount of time it took you to traverse it in the first place.

[@MuhammadHassan200]

Couldn't understand your comment correctly but what I think is that jake said if the counting has been always and have never begun that is a contradiction and the fact that he will never reach to any number .

[@anitkythera4125]

Alex Malpass is an amazing person who has committed his life to searching for truth and humble enough to avoid the pitfalls of apologetics.

[@MsAlishaan]

If he were actually humble, he would have conceded to the point that a person counting an infinite series of numbers backwards could never have started counting in the first place. It was only his arrogance that kept him from conceding that point. Or is he really that dumb as to not be able to see the fallacy?

[@VandalIO]

Tuwheed adventure podcast has awesome content

[@quranchannel4622]

You guys got the subscription and I want Jake to do what he promised: another video 😂

[@JohnSmith-bq6nf]

I would like to see a part 2.

[@Someone-ct2ck]

This podcast flew over my head. I need to contemplate and read more.

[@Oneummahgeneration]

I think tap will Be doing a review of the discussion inshallah

[@DePeaceHunter]

Same bro same

[@Oneummahgeneration]

Basically you had one of the top foremost atheist academics trying to critique the arguments of two Muslims. And in the end conceded that there would be a necessary thing just that it’s a brute contingency as opposed to a necessary being with a mind.

[@RS-hg6ny]

why agree to the premise that mirroring counting up i.e., counting down from infinity is possible in the first place? counting down from infinity is a fallacious statement as counting down an infinitely increasing series is tantamount to eternally floating on a tip of that series whose tip is constantly increasing, and it doesn’t matter whether you can imagine a beginning of that series, which is zero, or no, that beginning will never be reached as someone who’s always been counting down an infinite series is trapped at an eternally increasing tip of that series

[@1001011011010]

If there is no start to the counting, then there is no starting number. As such, this means there is no first number. And it thus follows there is no second number, third number, etc ad infinitum. I feel like this is an easy-to-understand way to explain what Jake was getting at in the first hour.

[@ceceroxy2227]

There has to be one thing that is self explanatory which has no explanation beyond itself. Thats why there is something rather than nothing

[@Edward-bm7vw]

Nope. That's a god of the gaps fallacy.

[@MZD15]

​@@Edward-bm7vw he didn't even Bring in God. But looks like Atheists just plug it without even understanding what it is

[@homtanks7259]

Jazakallahu khairan

[@dadush4]

Using this: "(4) It is possible that George starts counting now and will never stop; " To rebuke this: "A collection formed by successive addition cannot be an actual infinite;" and eventually this: "The universe began to exist" makes me chuckle.. But I agree with Abdul, I don't see how this undermines the argument.. It's a coherent thought-process, but it doesn't take away from the actual point made by William Lane Craig. And it feels like it banks on the ambiguity of infinity to reach a conclusion. Or rather a rhetoric to avoid saying "you are counting to infinity".

[@dadush4]

@Roger then you re arguing from the abstract, and unless you can justify why he would never stop, it s just a circular argument. Infinity is justified because I can count and not stop, i.e. because I could count to infinity. That s circular or am I missing something?

[@dadush4]

@Roger yeah but you need some justificatio why he could do that. Nothing we know justifies that. You have hidden assumptions which are unjustified, like George living forever, being self-sufficient etc. Basically characteristics which contain infinity in and of themselves. So the argument is basically, infinity is logically possible because a few infinities combines can lead to infinity. I dont see a reason to accept this and it seems circular imho. Unless some external justification that doesnt require infinity to explain why George counts to infinity can be given.

[@dadush4]

​@Roger Yeah but George and God are not the same in the example because God is the infinite Being, so it would make sense for Him to output something infinite as long as it's logically possible. Much like how George would be able to output something infinite if he had an infinite property, which he doesnt unless assumed. So it's not really an analogy. As for how I arrive at God's necessary and infinite Being, I use reason outside of infinity and the mere definition of infinity. (kalam + contingency combo) The concern I have may be restated as how can something finite ever amount to infinite? This is what the example of George needs to address. How can something contingent or finite, achieve the infinite? I'm puzzled because it just seems to me infinity is simply assumed and then inferred.

[@dadush4]

@Roger Yes the example works for God because God is by definition infinite, so a logical possible infinite emanating from Him makes sense. However, what that entails or what it means is still a mystery to me to be quite honest, because the true nature of God eludes me. I'm only speaking in terms of logical inferences and the abstract (possible infinite). I cant make head or tails of it in a concrete context. (actual infinite) Just as how I can imagine there being an infinite amount of numbers between 1 and 2, but not between 2 objects in space. There is no other example where this counting works and that's where my problem comes in, because there can only be 1 necessary infinite being. Everything else is finite or contingent, which is why I said how do you bridge the gap between something finite and contingent to an infinite count? That's what the thought experiment lacks imho and where I find issues..

[@jackplumbridge2704]

@roger5442 "If George starts counting and will never stop then he's in an actual infinite sequence." - This isn't a refutation of Craig's argument. Craig argues that an actually infinite number of things cannot be instantiated in the real world. If a person starts counting and never stops, they will never count an infinite number of numbers, and so no infinite collection is instantiated in reality.

[@mohammedhanif6780]

counting down from infinity: s/o counts down from 10 to 0 but does not start. what number will he be at at any time? NONE because he hasn't started. I think that's Jake's problem. The point being that any sequence must have a beginning. If the is no beginning then there is no first member and all subsequent ones necessarily are indexed to it. So without a beginning there cannot be any member of a sequence. Example: s/o can't be 20 yrs old if they haven't been 1 year old.

[@ceceroxy2227]

@Chris Taylor No Alex claims it is beginningless, so you arent starting anywhere, not 10, not anywhere. Why must there a be a start, what are you talking about, imagine saying I finished a race, nut never started the race. Or Imagine writing that paragraph but you never started it, how did you write it if you never started it. Its such nonsense.

[@abutalsafuba2179]

@Chris Taylor The being that exists without a start is called aa necessary being. Contingent things cannot go ad infinitum. Eg. P1: Before today happened there were infinite days before it. P2: Infinite days before it will have to end at some point for to today to occur. C: p2 is a logical contradiction there cannot have an infinite regress.

[@abutalsafuba2179]

@Chris Taylor I guess using the term NB has caused confusion. I accept that in philosophical terms it means as you have said, can't fail to exist. What I meant to say is that NB in terms of being independent and not requiring an explanation outside of itself. Your entity B is contingent in the sense that it has an explanation external to it I.e entity A. So I'm using NB in the latter sense. Therefore the independent NB cannot have a beginning. Unless you believe in magic and things can pop into existence from absolute nothingness. As for P1. We can call it days or events or explanations. Lets just call it x. P1: You have infinite preceding x before today. P2: For today to occur infinite x must end. C: P2 is a logical contradiction as it's the same as saying infinite, but not infinite. Or married bachelors.

[@abutalsafuba2179]

@Chris Taylor As I said I'm talking about it in a different sense and not just specific to mean can't fail to exist. Entity B is Contingent to entity A. I said nothing about your entity A. I'm using Contingent in the actual dictionary definition sense and it does literally mean dependent on or existing only if. Infinite X exists excluding today. Today is not part of the series of X. So infinite X has to end for today to occur. Infinite needs to end is the same as saying Infinite but not Infinite. A and not A. As material things are dependent. You cannot have an infinite regress of dependencies as per logical contradiction stated. Therefore the first cause must be other than material otherwise you will be special pleading for the first material being. (Edit Additional text) We don't know how Allah did something. The mechanics are unknown. That's why Allah belongs in a category by Himself. No special pleading required.

[@abutalsafuba2179]

@Chris Taylor You are using the word NB to only mean can't fail to exist, I've already accepted your usage. But when we bring the term contingent in versus NB. We are now saying dependent v independent. The word contingent literally means dependent. Entity B can never NB as it is contingent on entity A. But I guess we agree in general. I agree Entity A and B can't fail to exist in your example. So from this point forward I will use independent being (IB) v contingent being (cb). I don't think you understand my syllogism yet, so I'm going to break it down further to see if we get any traction. Those who posit infinite regress is possible must agree that before today exists there can be an infinite events, days or explanations(x) excluding today. If you say No, then you have already denied an infinite regress. Now when I said the infinite must end, I mean today is contingent on infinite amount of X. Until infinite amount of X can be accounted for or explained today can never happen. If you are working your way backwards from yesterday to account for each X in infinite you will never account for it. Therefore the accounting of infinite X has to end (remember we are working backwords) for today to occur. To put it in a simple example, if a movie's storyline doesn't make sense until you watch the prequel and the prequel to its prequel ad infinitum, the present day movie will never make sense. In order for today's movie to make sense the infinite prequels will have to end or shall we say have a beginning. Therefore infinite but not Infinite as a logical contradiction still stands. As for Allah needing an explanation, we'll He doesn't. He is an IB. If I have a red triangle. I can search externally why the triangle is red and say not blue, but why it has 3 sides is internally explained. Or an IB. Special pleading comes in when all material things we know about are contingent or dependent on other things. But the 1st material thing is independent for an arbitrary reason. Unless you are utilising infinite regress argument then obviously you avoid the special pleading. It's like a bad Kalam argument. The theist mistakenly says everything has a cause. (As opposed to what begins to exist). The athiest will reply then God has a cause.The theist will say well God is an exception utilising special pleading.

[@anitkythera4125]

Abdul & Jake are making a fundamental error which Malpass goes over in detail in his paper. They are requiring two things which are incompatible (e.g.t he unsatisfiable pair): 1) an infinite past (without a beginning) & 2) That someone begin counting this beginning-less thing. The error is then in concluding that because you can't begin counting something that has no beginning that you are then justified in saying "Well then the past can't be infinite". But Malpass points out that this conclusion is no more justified than if you concluded "Well then I can't ever have begun counting." There's no justified reason to pick one vs. the other. Indeed, it's incoherent yo require someone to begin counting something which has no beginning. The Hypothetical is starting with the assumption that someone *has* been counting down for an infinite amount of time...and so we have to try to derive a contradiction from what follows from that...not just attack it by saying well that's impossible because you can't ever start. Yeah no kidding you can't start, that's what makes it infinite...it's just the case that the person has been counting from past infinite so yeah it's weird but you don't demonstrate it's impossible by just requiring something that it can't, by definition, accommodate...namely that something beginning-less must have a begining and if it doesn't then you win.

[@bonar1211]

@Chris Taylor as a Muslim yes, I agree there is a missunderstanding into audience.

[@bonar1211]

so temporale things not necessary to have begining?

[@bonar1211]

@Chris Taylor what do you mean time in your question? i mean define it, to me to understand.

[@bonar1211]

@Chris Taylor okay, if you definition time is like that. would it be imposible to moment B for happening if A are infinity moments? Keyword here is "Succession". Infinity is endless, but for moment B from happening infinity moments on A need to be end. Do you see the problem here?

[@bonar1211]

@Chris Taylor Dude really! "The endless thing ended". Do you really dont see any problem here?

[@ceceroxy2227]

Saying there is a beginningless series of events is like saying the universe has always been infinitely old, but how can something be infinitely old if it was never 1 year old. Its like saying someone died but they were never born.

[@isawilraen9816]

He has several discussions about infinite pasts on KZbin. It's surely a contentious point, but there's no obvious logical contradiction in infinite pasts.

[@muhammadshahedkhanshawon3785]

That was brilliant 💥🖤 Mash'Allah brothers

[@erTalhaKhan]

These are the type of people whose hearts have been sealed. They will accept any position but God. He himself is very unclear in his thoughts & explanation yet has dismissed God. May Allah increase him in wisdom and guide him.

[@VandalIO]

He’s scared 😱 of believing in god

[@ceceroxy2227]

Alex is obviously a smart guy, but Abdul and Jake to me made way more sense in this discussion. Abdul is very impressive and so is Jake,

[@Edward-bm7vw]

"made way more sense" - in other words they said things you agree with therefore that's good enough for you.

[@soiq7542]

How did the person get there to be counting up or down?

[@peacenow6618]

Please can you upload this to your Podcasts Channel, like Apple Podcasts etc?

[@ThoughtAdventurePodcast]

It's already uploaded.

[@ceceroxy2227]

I generally think atheists will avoid God at all costs, no matter what the evidence is.

[@fleetingblue4794]

That's a pretty dumb but popular opinion amongst the kids on social media.

[@Uzaair]

@@fleetingblue4794 so is atheism

[@abyrahman6610]

It's called the ABG syndrome (Anything But God)

[@commandar88]

@@fleetingblue4794 wrong, the popular opinion is "existence came from nothing" BS

[@ceceroxy2227]

@@abyrahman6610 part of ABG syndrome is being in denial of having it

[@VandalIO]

Who won ?

[@BusinessAnalystKz]

Please tell me who won this debate? Because my english level is insufficient to completly understand what's going on. Im a Muslim Alhamdulillah. Its seems like it was draw, isn it?

[@ceceroxy2227]

I have heard Alex discuss with andrew Loke and now here, he is a smart guy obviously but just seems he does everything he can to avoid the probability that God exists, which is where the philosophical arguments lead.

[@iswallbanoo9843]

Salaam only one God and it's Allah SWT love here from South Africa Johannesburg pray 5 time a day

[@PaulQuantumWales]

I came in having watched an episode of "Hamza's Den" and boy was I blown away by the difference in the level of thoughtfulness and analysis. The wheels kinda fell off Abdul's wagon in the last 10 minutes but the overall level of interaction was excellent. Abdul has read a lot of high-level Christian Philosophers.

[@Oneummahgeneration]

I’m not sure where Abdul’s wheels fell off. Alex concedes to the point that something necessary exists as a genus. However he claims it could be an infinite chain of contingent things that always exists. The problem is Alex already concedes to causal finitism so it would reduce to a necessary being. What Alex attempts to do is claim that a necessary being with a mind and without one are both equivalent in their explanatory power. However they are not equivalent because a necessary being that free chooses to cause the contingent world is best explained by a mind than a mechanical force. Because exactly how Abdul discussed the concept of libertarian free will would be the manner by which we understand minds in the first place. Ie an agent causing its own decisions. I personally think Alex was exposed in this discussion albeit in a subtle way.

[@HeyHeyHarmonicaLuke]

​@@Oneummahgeneration *"Alex concedes to the point that something necessary exists as a genus."* --- That was specifically for the Aristotelian view of metaphysical possibility, where (I think) all the possible worlds branch off the actual world, sharing some history with it. Alex wasn't saying he holds that view himself. He also made the point that the argument may fail for what it's intended unless it rebuts every horn of a dilemma, not just the one a person holds. Otherwise it could dissuade someone from their current position, but not justify the desired conclusion. 3:00:00 paraphrasing: 'You were saying that within your Aristotelian view,' 'if I'm going to play the game of defending that view,' 'right right, when you are representing that view,' *"However he claims it could be an infinite chain of contingent things that always exists. The problem is Alex already concedes to causal finitism so it would reduce to a necessary being."* -- He said it that if any concrete things exist, then it would be necessary that some concrete thing exists, but that doesn't commit someone to there being a necessary being, rather you can take the view that every concrete thing is contingent, and it's just necessary that something concrete exists at any one time. It can be different things over time. *"What Alex attempts to do is claim that a necessary being with a mind and without one are both equivalent in their explanatory power."* -- I think his claim was stronger than that, going as far as saying the infinite regress explanation is better, because every individual thing is explained. You can only get unexplained (necessary) things by grouping stuff together, and when doing that you shouldn't expect the group to have an independent explanation. (My ear, your toe, and the Eiffel Tower are individually explained, but don't need an extra group explanation just because I grouped them together.) Infinite regress = every concrete thing is explained, just not groups of things. Finite regress with necessary beginning = something concrete is unexplained. He additionally argued for the infinite regress being a better explanation with the 'modal collapse' argument, that a necessary truth cannot explain a contingent one without making it necessary too. :)

[@RayOfHope8]

❤️❤️❤️

[@rijadhadzic3396]

Really wish Alex would have answered my question as to how infinite time helps you get to the present moment. It only makes it harder actually. It just means you need and infinite more amount of time. Doesnt help at all.

[@abhaysreekanth]

Alex looks like a philosopher from ancient Greece 😀

[@ffffoundit3198]

2:54:00 Malpass is treating the necessary as a contingent, giving an explanation to the necessary being makes him contingent 🤔

[@fleetingblue4794]

One 'thing' that didn't choose its own attributes is enough. God is an additional thing that didn't choose its own attributes. Superfluous.

[@ffffoundit3198]

​@@fleetingblue4794 how did you reach this "God is an additional thing that didn't choose its own attributes." ?

[@fleetingblue4794]

@@ffffoundit3198 Necessitism

[@ceceroxy2227]

right, there must be something with no explanation beyond itself, if it had an explanation it would be contingent. A necessary being is the only reason there is something rather than nothing.

[@muhammadshahedkhanshawon3785]

Basically he's saying necessarily something Exists which is contingent...means Contingently necessary

[@lexusolution]

to count you have to start , and to start means point 0 and it can ever reach infinity

[@jacobleith6369]

Just to people in the comments section saying that Alex is just doing everything he can not to believe in God, a few things to note: Firstly, that's just an ad hominem attempting to speak to the psychological state of your interlocutor. Secondly, it shows an ignorance of the depth in the philosophical literature on metaphysical foundations. Thirdly, and most importantly, one can accept a necessary being and not accept it is God. In fact I am one such person, I can argue for a necessary being and provide argumentation why it can not be, say a conscious being.

[@ceceroxy2227]

great point by Jake, I have thought that, saying always counting is the same as saying it never began.

[@ceceroxy2227]

The only possible explanation for why something exists rather than nothing is that there is something with no explanation beyond itself, Thats literally the only possible explanation for why anything exists. Alex has no explanation for why there is something rather than nothing, but they have an answer, and that answer logically must have no explanation, otherwise you run back into an infinite regress of explanations.

[@Alexander_45]

Sure they may be or even have to be something with no explanation beyond it self. An atheist can accept that. But a God, especially the childish, petty, tribal personal God of religions is not it. It’s most unlikely and the worst hypothesis. A naturalistic ‘something beyond itself’ will always win as the best hypothesis with the most theoretical virtues and explanatory power.

[@nasrullahtoprak5461]

​@@Alexander_45 you look like crying😢😢😢😢😢😢😢😢😢😢

[@MZD15]

​@@Alexander_45 so you're rejecting God because he doesn't do things according to your desire

[@theonepurpose3968]

what was the response to the rock in every possible world?

[@HappyBloke81]

@Chris Taylor If Jake and Abdul accepted the rock in every possible world to be necessary then they are mistaken.

[@ghas4151]

Infinity is an abstract definition of an inconceivable concept. It cannot be applied to the real world, and anything that can be measured will always have a beginning. An example being a line that starts at point A and extends in one direction travelling at a finite speed forever. This line can never be infinite in length and will always be measurable. This example can be applied to anything in our physical existence. Another problem with this concept is that if we have an infinite past, how are we able to add on to it from this point going forward. The fact that time is moving forward is proof that time is not infinite and must have had a beginning.

[@abdullahahmad9300]

How does something which has limited size beginning to end mean the object came into existence?

[@ghas4151]

@@abdullahahmad9300 I didn’t say that it does. To prove that we came into existence you just have to examine time. Time is the measure of the rate of change. There cannot be an infinite set of moments of change going into the past as we would never reach the present, therefore there was a beginning of time. If something is truly infinite then is must be unbound by time, ie. It doesn’t change.

[@ceceroxy2227]

The concept of an infinite number of anything is the same as squared circle. It doesnt exist.

[@abdullahahmad9300]

@@ghas4151 Why cannot space matter exist without time ?

[@rafique1539]

I don’t understand the title pwnage master class. What does it mean?

[@homtanks7259]

No clue

[@fleetingblue4794]

@@homtanks7259 You can watch their confidence slowly diminish from start to finish. They both thought they had good arguments until the end.

[@AtheismLeadsToIrrationality]

@@fleetingblue4794 Alex's arguments r not new for them , you did not pay attention but Abdul Rahman said he follows Alex's work

[@fleetingblue4794]

@@AtheismLeadsToIrrationality I followed just fine 🤣 Perhaps you could offer your own explanation as to where the 'pwnage' was located?

[@YusufPonders]

@@fleetingblue4794 You seem to have misunderstood what was going on here. The title was something Alex Malpass jokingly suggested as a title in private messages while arranging the discussion with Abdul, and it was done as tongue in cheek in relation to this private conversation. It was supposed to be quite clearly a hyperbolic joke when contrasted with the civility of the discussion, but you seem to have taken it very seriously lol. Apologies for the misunderstanding.

[@lexusolution]

if you are at infinity you cannot count down or up. you can never finish

[@modnar3510]

"Infinite number" doesn't exist. It's a self-contradictory term. Infinity is the exact opposite of number.

[@Exposing21]

It’s not. It’s simply explaining what is “infinite” like infinite water, infinite trees, infinite rocks. Here we are just saying “infinite number”

[@modnar3510]

It really is. Infinity has no beginning nor end, by definition it cannot be a number. It's the absence of quantity and is a pure affirmation of quality. Infinity is not particular, whereas number, by definition, has to be They are metaphysically direct opposites of each other

[@DePeaceHunter]

If you put it that way then the universe can't be infinite

[@modnar3510]

@@DePeaceHunter Yes, that's actually correct. The universe can't be Infinite, it's literally logically impossible. The universe is finite. Infinity is a quality of God. Mathematical infinity is just an abstract, but Infinity in actual reality does exist, and it is an aspect of God

[@abdulkader7104]

min 51:00

[@bananaman7638]

Why not 'possibly P & possibly Q'?

[@bananaman7638]

And why can't we have possibly (P & Q), instead of possibly P & possibly Q?

[@anonymousperson1904]

It seems like the discussion revolves around concepts such as necessity and contingency, understood in modal terms. And the fundamental question is why is there something rather than nothing. It seems like Alex was saying, well, it can just be a necessary fact that there is something rather than nothing. And Jake was like, there must be a necessary being that exists in all possible worlds. But, when Alex asked Jake what explains the existence of that necessary being, Jake said nothing. So, really, there is no explanation for why something exists rather than nothing, because you guys said that the answer is because of a necessary being, but that necessary being itself does not have an explanation for why it exists, so, the question of why does something exist rather than nothing is ultimately unanswered. It seems like Abdul Rahman was the closest to solving this issue when he said something on the lines of, there is something about the necessary being's nature in virtue of which it doesn't require an external explanation. My question to you guys is: what is it about the necessary being's nature in virtue of which it does not require an external explanation. In other words, you guys are saying that there is a necessary being that must exist, my question is: what is it about this being's nature in virtue of which it must exist. Without this relevant difference, Alex is well within his rights to just tell you guys that your theory doesn't really answer the question of why something rather than nothing.

[@najaaa6747]

No, because if the necessary being has an explanation, then it wouldn't be a necessary being, but a contingent being - remember only contingent things have an explanation. To demand explanation for the necessary being is to posit the absurd proposition that infinite regress holds!

[@Oneummahgeneration]

Initially Alex said there were no concrete necessary things but later concedes that under his model there are concrete necessary thing as a category. So he moved from one position to another. His initial argument is that there can’t be a concrete necessary thing because it would result in modal collapse. However claiming that necessary concrete things between his model and the tap brothers model goes down to mind. Ie the necessary being chose to create as opposed to necessitate contingent beings. By the NB choosing would mean that we’d be affirming libertarian free will and solving the problem of modal collapse.

[@ceceroxy2227]

Alex had no reason for why anything exists, now the muslims have an explanation for why something exists rather than nothing. Now this explanation must not have an explanation otherwise it wouldnt be the explanation, something else would be. There has to be one thing that has no explanation outside itself. That makes it necessary. Alex has no reason why anything exists, a necessary entity is the only rational reason even if it itself has no explanation.

[@VandalIO]

Man advertisements are annoying in a 3 hour long video :/ I’m playing it at 1.5x but advertisements play at 1x gaaah

[@Oneummahgeneration]

I think the issue has been fixed. There shouldn’t be any ads except at the beginning

[@VandalIO]

@@Oneummahgeneration thank you :) this is the best solution at it will not distract us from understanding complexities

[@blindspot9097]

@@VandalIO this is the solution. slide it till the end then replay it. simple and effective.

[@Ha-Elyon]

How does Jake not understand the objection? I'm sorry ibn taqiyyah got destroyed but you had the same issues with Dr. Branson. Seems you are not as adept as you think.

[@John-lf3xf]

An infinite set really a priori need not have any order. The ordering and the natural metric idea both emerge from the imposed uniqueness conditions and the need to define base cases for recursive definitions, but it is then, an artifact of how we define infinite sets in PA. Let S be the set s.t. there exists a map r:S->S, such that for every s in S, there exists s’ in S, such that r(s)=s’ and s=!s’. (For every element, there is a ‘successor’ element in the set which is not identical to the element itself). Moreover, it is the case if s, s’ are in S, and s=!s’, then r(s)=!r(s’). (The successors of an element is distinct from itself. It is noticed that this condition can be weakened.) Observe two things. (1) There is not necessarily anything in S unless there is defined to be at least 1 initial element in A. This is the recursive base case. (2) The recursive definition needs to be made to first simply finitely express the idea of infinite as always having something come after every particular element. This definition is then conditionalized to ensure that the successors of elements a,b if the elements a,b are not identical to each other are themselves distinct. (We have to somehow well-define what it means for a,b to be distinct.) It is our convention that we hold that s < r(s) for every s (which is really arbitrary).

[@AdrianMuslim]

I think there is a jinn in Jakes house. I see light orbs flying behind him. Many times 🤔😅

[@acceptedhunters]

So since we agree that a contingent thing need a non contingent thing (a necessary). But, that have consequences and entailment which is contradictory as you claim (the contingent is contingent and necessary - A and not A) and we would agree. So since the necessary thing is necessary for the contingent thing. Therefore, thanks for proving will for the necessary thing. taking it to its conclusions. Therefore, the contingent thing requires not only a necessary thing but a necessary thing with a will :D

[@acceptedhunters]

The explanation is the will. Thats what will means. But, why this world over the other? and that needs an explanation. The explanation should be within that necessary thing. Whatever is that you would say what explains that explanation wether it's within the necessary thing or outside of it. It's the necessary thing attributes. Why his attributes is this way and not any other way (begging for explanation again)? Infinite regression. again and again. So again, that strengthen the argument more. The contingent thing requires a necessary thing that have well that makes decision explained by it attributes which is fundamental, conceptual, intrinsic and unlimited (un-contingent) therefore they don't require an explanation. That's not the assumption that is the entailed conclusion.

[@acceptedhunters]

And I don't see partial explanation here.

[@acceptedhunters]

You need the choice, or whatever it is based on, to not have an explanation to be able to explain the reality. (The attributes of the necessary thing are by necessity fundamentals for the contingent thing to have an explanation). So the only logical explanation for the contingent is the fundamental/unlimited attributes of a necessary thing that have a will.

[@mohammedhanif6780]

@@acceptedhunters so the NE's contingent will does not require an explanation? That contradicts your general rule.

[@acceptedhunters]

@@mohammedhanif6780 What is the NE’s contingent? Thats A and not A!

[@abutalsafuba2179]

If today is 0 and all subsequent events before it is -1, - 2, -3 ad infinitum and which 0 is contingent upon. To have an infinite regress of contingent things would mean counting down from -∞ to 0. Which is impossible therefore infinite regress of contingent things doesn't exist.

[@abutalsafuba2179]

@Roger My point exactly

[@abutalsafuba2179]

@Roger There's no start that the point. If there's no start there's no end of contingent things to account for before you explain today or 0. Therefore event 0 can never have an explanation for it existence/cause.

[@abutalsafuba2179]

@Roger Counting ♾️ is impossible as it doesn't have a beginning. That's the point. 0 is explained by -1, but -1 needs to be explained by -2 and so on and so on. You have to work from ♾️ to 0, not just jump to -1 then 0. Which is impossible. Infinite mean without end. That's the definition. I don't need to prove a premise as it's not a premise it's just by definition true.

[@abutalsafuba2179]

@Roger End meaning there's no end to the quantity of contingent things. Event 0 isn't the end of infinite quantity of events as an infinite can't end. As I've explained earlier, infinite regress of contingent things could never be accounted for as the accounting of an infinite quantity of events can't end.

[@abutalsafuba2179]

@Roger How can I confuse something I've never used in the way you're employing the word end. Any way I think we're talking past each other and would just be repetition at this point. So take care.

[@phillwithskill1364]

Do most Muslim theologians believe that humans have libertarian free will? Or do most muslim theologians hold to some form of compatibilism or hard determinism (given their Occasionalism)? Does Allah have libertarian free will in Islamic theology?

[@mohammedhanif6780]

Sunnis are 'officially' compatibilists. Shia are libertarians. God has libertarian free will. Those who are inclined to neoplatonism and the Iranian philosophical traditions of Mulla Sadra dont believe God chooses from a range of options but actualised all possibles.

[@phillwithskill1364]

@@mohammedhanif6780 Thanks that’s helpful. So Sunni Muslims must also be predestinarians with regards to salvation? Another way of saying that is that those inclined to Neoplatonism and the traditions of Mulla Sadra are modal realists or even multiverse proponents.

[@mohammedhanif6780]

@@phillwithskill1364 I believe so

[@Fahad-gf1wx]

@@phillwithskill1364 that's a generalisation, not all shias believe tyat there r different shia sects

[@phillwithskill1364]

@@Fahad-gf1wx Not all Shias believe what? And where did I make a statement claiming that all Shias believe “X”?

[@Gel01243]

Lol jake is a polytheists he believes in multiple distinction independent attributes lol. Sunni theology is incoherent

[@drewdrake9130]

@Extreme. We can talk here if you want

[@zackhalilovic4753]

Who is extreme

[@drewdrake9130]

@@zackhalilovic4753 I was talking to him in the live chat He said he couldn't present his argument there, and wanted to continue our conversation.

[@ibrahimx28]

@@drewdrake9130 what was the argument?

[@drewdrake9130]

@@ibrahimx28 A contingency argument

[@ceceroxy2227]

The irony is that Alex is the irrational one for defending this argument about counting down from infinity, it is so obviously impossible and illogical, he is defending an undefendable position.

[@gogo-su6hr]

The irony is that you assume that it is irrational and impossible without pointing out any contradiction.

[@ceceroxy2227]

@@gogo-su6hr how can you count down from a number that doesnt exist, infinity minus one is infinity, minus another one is infinity, is still infinity, you cant count down from infinity, doing something that is impossible is a contradiction

[@gogo-su6hr]

@@ceceroxy2227 1-You dont count down from a number that does not exist, that is the whole point of the infinite past, it is that there is no beginning. So trying to posite a beginning (or a first number to start the count down) is missing the point. in an infinite past the countdown was always happening. 2- In Transfinite arithmetics there are no substractions from infinity. 3- You still have not shown a logical contradiction in counting down from infinity. To prove that something is impossible you need to show a formal logical contradiction , something like P and not P (example: the sky is blue and the sky is not blue)

[@ceceroxy2227]

@@gogo-su6hr If there is no beginning, then how did any of the events occur. How can you be in the middle of a race than never began. Let me ask you this hypothetical scenario, if you are in line to order food and you go to Mcdonalds and you see there are an infinite(unlimited) number of people in line in front of you, and one by one they order, would you ever get to order food. And yes the logical contradiction would be possibly doing something which is impossible, You cant count down from a number that doesnt exist, and if you are counting down from infinity like you said, what would be the number that precedes infinity to count down from. It would be also be infinity, and counting down from that would also be infinity, do you see the problem of counting down from infinity, You wont arrive at anything besides infinity, so you tell me how you can arrive at the present if there are an infinite number of past events.

[@gogo-su6hr]

1-"How can you be in the middle of a race than never began." There is no middle to an infinite set. 2-" And yes the logical contradiction would be possibly doing something which is impossible." Still you havent sown a logical contradiction. A logical contradiction is a conjunction of a proposition and its negation P and not P. 3-"if you are in line to order food and you go to Mcdonalds and you see there are an infinite(unlimited) number of people in line in front of you, and one by one they order, would you ever get to order food" This analogy is similar to counting up to infnity which is not the case in the infinite past. In the infinite past the count down was always happening to reach a end point which is today. *This is an infinite future scenario: Today ----------------------------------------------------------------> ∞ Future [there is a beginning but no end] Counting up to reach a number that does not exist is impossible. The logical Contradiction is this :(There exists and doesnt exist a number to reach. P and not P) *This is an infinite past scenario: ∞ Past ----------------------------------------------------------------> Today [There is no beginning but there is an end] Counting down to reach a number that exists is possible , because there is no clear logical contradiction. 4-" if you are counting down from infinity like you said, what would be the number that precedes infinity to count down from. It would be also be infinity" Again you are positing that there is a number to count down from, its like you are trying to start the count in an infinite past scenario. Of yourse you will not start the count cause there is no first number, but it is possible to reach the end because in a infinite past scenario there is an end which is today.

[@ceceroxy2227]

That there is a necessary being is literally the only thing that explains why there is something rather than nothing.

[@whydontyoustfu]

not necessary process,mechanism but being?

[@ceceroxy2227]

@@whydontyoustfu yep being

[@ceceroxy2227]

Alex is just a much more educated version of the online atheist, he runs away from any sort of argument which may lead to a necessary being or God.

[@AdrianMuslim]

That is the agenda of most atheists. They *don't want to* accept anything that leads to God.

[@Alexander_45]

@ceceroxy @@AdrianMuslim TAP are just a more educated version on the online Muslim. They run and hide behind philosophy from any sort of argument which may refute Islam. They just talk about the genetic philosophical necessary being or God.

[@Alexander_45]

TAP are just a more educated version on the online Muslim. They run and hide behind philosophy from any sort of argument which may refute Islam. They just talk about the genetic philosophical necessary being or God.

[@AdrianMuslim]

@@Alexander_45 Religion comes later. First one has to establish that there is a creator. And there's nothing that refutes Islam. No religion has more rational foundation, concept of God and preserved book than Islam.

[@Carl007Jr]

Vaccine denial is highly rational, logical, and scientific.

[@bustinjieber7521]

I really don't get the significants of this notion of a necessary being. It doesn't say anything about a god, doesn't prove a god etc.

[@ceceroxy2227]

You dont get the significance, why not, it shows that there is something which everything originated from. It has to exist and is responsible for contingent entities.

[@ceceroxy2227]

@GuruTruthSpeak Something which has to exist, contingent things get there being form something else

[@ceceroxy2227]

@GuruTruthSpeak oh I thought you were seriously looking for the answers to these questions, not testing the atheists, next time just say the question for jusitn bieber, and i wont respond

[@ceceroxy2227]

@GuruTruthSpeak Please accept my most gracious apology, i am so sorry for ruining your question

[@mohamedluqman6187]

Exactly, it doesn't prove gods existence.

[@ceceroxy2227]

Its not like this is the only argument that leads to God, design, free will, morality, human value,order, teleology arguments from desire, immaterial entities, and the fact atheism makes no sense trying to explain reality.

[@Edward-bm7vw]

Those arguments are fallacious.

[@MsAlishaan]

I'm amazed this Melpas guy is considered smart!How can he NOT understand how a person CANNOT count an infinite series backwards if he never began! Since there is no end in an infinite series! Seems like maybe he started smart & then lost even his common sense sometime along the way🤔

[@heenazainab1706]

seems alex failed lol.

[@sawmaniac12]

Bruh I’m in hour in and they haven’t talked about anything this is useless can someone tag me when the arguments start

[@AdrianMuslim]

You can skip ahead. And pressing forward or double tapping right side of video helps

[@PabloSensei]

ni

[@lexusolution]

Abdul maybe speak slower

[@ceceroxy2227]

Alex doesnt see it because he doesnt want to see it, how can you get to the end of a beginningless series of events, you will always be infinitely far away from right now, makes no sense.

[@HappyBloke81]

Who knows how atheist minds work or if they work at all.

[@alcubz2622]

So basically they can't prove the existence of Allah.

[@mooseyzed]

Great summary, bro.

[@mooseyzed]

@TAP: someone pin this comment for those who don’t have time to watch the whole thing.

[@bonar1211]

@@mooseyzed LOL

[@ceceroxy2227]

@@mooseyzed they have their answer already planned out before they even see it

[@drewdrake9130]

They also seemed to have a hard time understanding that they can't explain something, by offering an explanation that they can't explain.