You're getting absolutely fantastic philosophers on this channel and having some wonderfully stimulating discussions! Great job! Keep it up! There is a superb paper by the philosopher *Quentin Smith* on the Kalam Cosmological Argument where he actually co-opts the core syllogism of the Kalam and uses it to make an affirmative argument for the non-existence of God. It is hands down one of the best papers I have ever read in philosophy of religion. It's entitled *Causation and the Logical Impossibility of a Divine Cause Philosophical Topics 24 (1):169-191 (1996)* Give it a read! It is a game changer. As an aside, and thinking about future guests you may want to interview, it would be awesome if you could reach out to the Philosopher *Shelly Kagan* at Yale University. He's a brilliant philosopher specializing in ethical theory. He actually debated William Lane Craig on the grounding of morality and ethics a few years back. It would be great to see you have a discussion with him about the ontological foundations of morality and the construction of non-theistic ethical systems.

@GhostLightPhilosophy

3 жыл бұрын

Elephant Philosophy did a dissection of Smith’s argument and showed why it fails

@eronfas101

3 жыл бұрын

@@GhostLightPhilosophy Link to that video-dissection for my consideration please.

Argument against odd numbers. Sometimes when you subtract an odd number from another odd number you get 6. Like in the example 15-9. But sometimes you get 0, as in 15-15. Clearly this is inconsistent and means there can't be any actually odd numbers. That's how the argument from different results with ∞-∞ looks like to me.

Excuse the numerous times I accidentally say “greater than” when I meant “less than” or “infinite” when I meant “finite”. I waffle on enough that I basically say everything in at least two ways, so hopefully I say everything right at least once. But sorry for those times where I said slightly the wrong thing!

@JohnDeRosa1990

4 жыл бұрын

Is your paper available yet?

@New_Essay_6416

4 жыл бұрын

John DeRosa it’s on his blog useofreason.wordpress

@VACatholic

4 жыл бұрын

You also conflate "number" with "cardinality" incorrectly many times.

This is why I abandoned the Kalam Cosmological Argument and incorporate Dr. Joshua Rasmussen’s Contingency Argument (along with what David Bentley Hart says regarding the nature of Being following “The Experience of God”), as well as Feser’s Aristotelian proof into my Natural Theology. Plus Theistic Personalism is nonsense. I am enjoying the interview so far and am impressed with the quality of guests.

@JohnDeRosa1990

4 жыл бұрын

I don't think it needs to be abandoned. Check out what Dr. Koons has to say: www.classicaltheism.com/seminar

@anglozombie2485

4 жыл бұрын

Nah Kalam is still well defended. Craig showed that in his debate with Alex.

@YouTubeperson1337

3 жыл бұрын

@@anglozombie2485 yeah. I really don't think it is very well supported at all.

@logans.butler285

2 жыл бұрын

Does Josh Rasmussen deny the Kalām tho? If he doesn't then it must be for a good reason.

I’m in no way a philosopher - but could we perhaps see the “afterlife” as “temporal”, not linear like forward in time etc - but the experience seems the same if a infinite division in one place? I’m imagining a line with the past as negative numbers in sequence, the future as positive numbers and the afterlife as an infinitely diving center of zero between them?

Still watching the video. I see you are discussing the idea completion of an infinite task. As I have seen you two discuss elsewhere, assuming we cannot traverse infinite sets has implications for the continuous and discrete nature of time and space. So I think for now it is perhaps reasonable to assume that we can finish traversing an infinite set - granted that it tends to some temporal limit. To use in the case of counting to infinity, imagine it takes half a second to count 1, a quarter second to get to 2 etc. We would count all numbers within the fixed interval of one second. I think my question is rather can we finish traversing an infinite set that is temporally unbounded? To use the counting example. If I were to start now, and add one every second, would I ever reach a state in which I have finished and can do something else?

Awesome discussion. Almost an hour in. One of the examples I like to use of how an infinite number of events can be traversed is the tortoise and hare paradox. The hare is twice as fast as the tortoise, but the tortoise is given a 100 meter head start. The hare would need to cover 100m first, after which the tortoise would've covered 50m. Then the hare needs to cover 50m, by the time the tortoise covers 25, etc. It seems like there are an infinite number of steps the hare needs to take to overtake the tortoise. But since the amount of time it takes to cover each distance gets halved each time, the total amount of time it takes to overtake the tortoise is finite. Say 2s for the first 100, 1s for 50, etc, which would be 4s in total. So the hare does in fact complete all those infinite events in a finite amount of time, when we see him overtaking the tortoise, kind of like a super task.

@GhostLightPhilosophy

3 жыл бұрын

Planck length shows that these paradoxes dont work. Its like how Planck time shows the grim reaper paradox isnt really a paradox

Will you do something on his debate with craig on Capturing christianity

Where can we find the paper under discussion?

Have you guys ever thought that the idea of a "completed infinity" or "full infinite hotel" might just be straight foward contradictory? I mean, doesn't "completedness" or "fullnes" imply that nothing else (of it's essence maybe?) can be added to the set? And isn't the case that infinite means the exact oposite of that - a never ending adding or increasing system or set -?

Ed feser himself actually critiqued the Kalam in his blog. Basically, if you hold A-theory as true, only the present is real, which is what Craig holds. Because the past isn’t real anymore, how exactly could an actual infinite exist? This is just a gross simplification of what Feser said, but I hope people get the idea. Correct me if I got anything wrong though.

@logans.butler285

2 жыл бұрын

He criticized the Kalām BEFORE Andrew Loke wrote his defense for the Kalām publicly. Just wait till Feser reads it and he'll support the Kalām argument wholly. Loke created a new model that mixed both the Kalām AND Thomism (something that no philosopher of religion has ever done). Heck, Loke is the new St. Augustine.

Doesn’t seem to undermine the Kalam cosmological argument but at best reveal an inconsistency in certain eschatology.

@crusadeagainstignorance8309

4 жыл бұрын

speakbigtruth it’s not meaning to undermine the Kalam as a whole just showing that one of Craig’s justification for his second premise doesn’t work

@speakbigtruth9383

4 жыл бұрын

Crusade Against Ignorance one question I had is did you guys talk about the difference between an ACTUAL infinite in the past compared to a POSSIBLE infinite into the future. It seems to me that the after life would be a an infinite approach to an infinite series but never actually achieving an infinite series.

@crusadeagainstignorance8309

4 жыл бұрын

speakbigtruth yes that is discussed at some length!

@speakbigtruth9383

4 жыл бұрын

Crusade Against Ignorance do you have a time reference for this section or can you provide a summary

@speakbigtruth9383

4 жыл бұрын

Crusade Against Ignorance I like the video I just don’t have two hours in my schedule to listen