This philosophical version has always been the most powerful to my thinking (although admittedly, what convices one individual person is subjective). When I was not a Christian and was following a type of "New Spirituality" the reality of time and the fact of the present moment haunted me and was used by God to help me see the logical need for God's existence. Thank you for these excellent resources as always.

@JamesKimSynergize

3 жыл бұрын

Thanks for sharing that brief testimony. It illustrates to me that it is not one thing that brings us to faith in God.

@terryhollifield9343

3 жыл бұрын

@@JamesKimSynergize Thank you. Yet, thankfully He knows what each one of us needs (if we are at least willing) and meets us where we are.

@JamesKimSynergize

3 жыл бұрын

@@terryhollifield9343 I share some of the same having been an agnostic.

@terryhollifield9343

3 жыл бұрын

@@JamesKimSynergize Glad to be in the family with you.

@aymanhalabi4536

3 жыл бұрын

Thank imam alghazali and kalam science

Can we appreciate al ghazali for his wisdom

@karlmuud

2 жыл бұрын

No. He was Muslim. 😁🤣😁

@bonar1211

2 жыл бұрын

@@karlmuud I mean come on bruh, even tho I m as a muslim definitely. At least in here we are agree there s a God.

@suzaneoriordan4366

2 жыл бұрын

He made islam a pretty oppressive religion and is a reason for the horror today. So he has negative as well

@ykn08001

2 жыл бұрын

@@suzaneoriordan4366 how did Ghazali do that?

@suzaneoriordan4366

2 жыл бұрын

@@ykn08001 he made a division of religion and philosophy and disregarded Aristotle's work, which is probably a reason for the violence for in islam today

Makes sense. Actual infinities would lead to contradictions. For example, an infinitely dense planet would be condensed into a sphere with a radius zero, i.e. it would not exist.

@les2997

3 жыл бұрын

@@pauls464 Zero volume means thing doesn't exist. Otherwise, there is no infinite density. Black holes don't have infinite density at the center.

@laosi4278

3 жыл бұрын

@@pauls464 black holes only have a super highly density, yet it cannot reach the realm of infinity

@hsingh5650

2 жыл бұрын

In the drcraig video on the Leibniz' Contingency Argument, it says numbers exist necessarily. However, in this video it says numbers don't exist. I am confused.

@les2997

2 жыл бұрын

@@hsingh5650 Provide times in both videos where he says what you claim. Nobody is going to re-watch both videos again.

@hsingh5650

2 жыл бұрын

@@les2997 kzread.info/dash/bejne/eIR33KeJYNKqZ6w.html Go to 2 mins 22 seconds

Nice video. Fortunately, I have an infinite number of points built up in the Hilbert Hotel Rewards Program, in case an infinite number of guests show up, I still get an upgrade.

0:08 So glad she said, "raises the question" instead of "begs the question."

@friendly_user1233

3 жыл бұрын

Why?

@BlisterBang

3 жыл бұрын

@@friendly_user1233 Eristic atheists nitpick Christians with the argument that there's nothing conscious there doing any 'begging'. Atheism is wrong, and they'll look for ANYTHING to hurl back at us.

@yourfutureself3392

3 жыл бұрын

Are u suggesting the argument begs the question? Why? In order for something to beg the question it should presoppouse it's conclusion in it's premises, but the argument doesn't do that: p1 is based on a priori intuitions wich don't presoppouse the idea that the universe has a cause in the slightest and p2 is based on scientific evidence and finitist philosophical arguments wich also don't presoppouse the universe has a cause.

@allstar4065

3 жыл бұрын

@@yourfutureself3392 It doesn't have to be used as a fallacy term all the time.

@yourfutureself3392

2 жыл бұрын

@@allstar4065 if he's saying the argument begs the question, but he's not using the term "beg the question" in its actual definition and as a logical fallacy then there's nothing wrong with begging the question. It's like accusing someone if special pleading and then claiming that you're not using the term "special pleading" as a logical fallacy. It's useless, misleading, wrong (as that's not the word's actual definition), makes no actual criticism of the argument and doesn't provide anything substancial

I'm not afraid to admit that I wept when I viewed this video. Such an eloquent explanation. This also helps me defend my faith against an increasing amount of people who want to tear it down.

@MrAlamri123456789

3 жыл бұрын

Thank to al gazali and wiliam l craige

@matswessling6600

8 ай бұрын

eloquency doesnt prove anything. logic and observation does.

@Johnny-mz9ot

4 ай бұрын

​@@matswessling6600Can you justify materialism or atheism in the face of the Kalam Cosmological Argument? (Which you didn't attempt to refute.)

@matswessling6600

4 ай бұрын

@@Johnny-mz9ot "materialism"? why bother with "materialism"? The important thing is to separate out what information that good evidence from the bad information. Khalam Cosmological argument doesnt provide any information so it is useless. And the argument in itself is faulty 1) everything that begins to exist has a cause. i say that nothing that really begins to exist has a cause. Why? because most things are just rearrangenets of atoms and doesnt really "begin to exist". only things that seems to "begin to exist" are virtual particles and they are notoriously uncaused. And it also fails in another way: everything we see are things that folliws the laws inside the universe. We know nothing about the laws outside the universe and they are the laws that guides how the universe began. so first statement of Kalam is not necessarily true and thus we dont have to care about the rest.

Very helpful. I have struggled to explain the Hilbert hotel and this makes it’s much easier.

@brando3342

3 жыл бұрын

@TallestPiper Yes, someone on Facebook pointed it out to me in support of an actual infinite past and not understanding it exactly, I felt I had to defend my point of view against it. Not knowing that it's meant to show the absurdity of actual infinities.

@abashedsanctimony154

3 жыл бұрын

This video disproves evolution. Not sure if that was the intended purpose. For anything infinite to exist. There would need to be a Creator of infinite solutions. When the proposed odd number of rooms appeared, most would hopefully ha e recognized, a negative solution is still a valid infinite possibility. Nothing created nothing destroyed. The empty rooms simply become a negative potential. God has a universe created by laws and mechanisms we can't see the design of the mechanisms, but we see the existence that it is built upon. For example, *evil* . We do not see evil beings, but we see the effects of evil doers.

@namapalsu2364

3 жыл бұрын

Been waiting for a video version of the phislosophical argument for premise 2 of Kalam Cosmological argument.

@MysteriousBeingOfLight

2 жыл бұрын

@@abashedsanctimony154 We see evil, these are the satanic pedofile demons that rules the media's.

Al Ghazali was a Legend 🔥💓

@Theonewhoknocks879

5 ай бұрын

He was a monster

I really love these animated videos. PLEASE KEEP IT UP!

الله يرحم مولانا الحجة الغزالي Thanks for giving us this great video. It gives better ideas to explain things.

Great video! To me, Ghazali's second argument is easier to understand and explain to people, so I generally go with that one

This is a really good quality video, the voice work and art work is very nice!

I teach apologetics and you came out with this video JUST IN TIME! Starting the cosmological argument next week!

@cnault3244

Жыл бұрын

The Kalam Cosmological Argument does not have a god/creator as it's conclusion. In it's entirety the argument is: 1) Everything that begins to exist has a cause. 2) The universe began to exist. 3) Therefore, the universe has a cause. The conclusion is the universe had a cause. Any use of the Kalam argument beyond the 2 premises and the conclusion presented here is NOT the Kalam Argument.

@djSevalFerrick

Жыл бұрын

@@cnault3244 bro what? 😂 the cause is God

@cnault3244

Жыл бұрын

@@djSevalFerrick It doesn't say that in the Kalam Argument.

@oussama-od3un

Жыл бұрын

​@@cnault3244 He doesn't say it, but you have to read between the lines, (the kalam is the logic in islamic way, as you mentionned "Everything that begins to exist has a cause" the first cause could not be created else we will be in a circle (infinite proposition) and logic don't accept that, so that means there is a first cause, which is god, each creation is a fantastic creation and very complex that means the creator master what he did and what he is doing, so god is an expert... ) I hope you understand what I mean

@cnault3244

Жыл бұрын

@@oussama-od3un " "Everything that begins to exist has a cause" Sure. Now, can you present evidence of something that exists but didn't begin to exist? "there is a first cause, which is god," That's a claim, not evidence. Our universe began to exist at the moment of the big bang. All we can examine is our universe. Whatever existed prior to the big bang is unknown.

Another great video. Thanks Dr. Craig. Greetings from the Philippines.

I LOVE THESE VIDEOS!! thank you Dr. Craig!

I enjoy the simplicity & depth of Dr.Craig's work.

@cnault3244

Жыл бұрын

The Kalam Cosmological Argument does not have a god/creator as it's conclusion. In it's entirety the argument is: 1) Everything that begins to exist has a cause. 2) The universe began to exist. 3) Therefore, the universe has a cause. The conclusion is the universe had a cause. Any use of the Kalam argument beyond the 2 premises and the conclusion presented here is NOT the Kalam Argument.

@TXLogic

Жыл бұрын

Simple, yes, deep, no. The reasoning is atrocious.

@jackplumbridge2704

9 ай бұрын

@@TXLogic I don't find his reasoning atrocious at all. Care to explain why you think it is?

May Allah bless Al Ghazali for writing the cosmological argument

@majukanumi9639

2 жыл бұрын

but your salafistes kafarouhou..

@cradle5456

2 жыл бұрын

@@majukanumi9639?

Superb! Well Done!

That was excellently explained. The philosophical implications of infinity does present logical difficulties for those who propose a universe that has always been in existence. God has offered rationality in the underpinnings of the creation that exists today and it is those who humbly and intellectually seek it find the wisdom and reason which holds the grounds of our existence. I hope more people would come to terms with this. And I pray that more Christians would be on a pursuit of the wonders of the cosmos in light of the Lord Himself. Great job here, Reasonable Faith! May God bless your ministry all the more for Godʼs glory and the good of His people.

Great job, does help explain the Hilberts Hotel which I have always struggled with as not noted by others, I love the philosophical evidences even if they are sometimes hard to get your head around.

Love the illustrations.

OUTSTANDING VIDEO! PLEASE MAKE MORE

awesome infographic video very illustrative

4:06 that sounded really cool

Me encantó. Muchas gracias Profesor Craig. 🙂❤✌

Great work Dr Craig. God bless you.

@MrAlamri123456789

3 жыл бұрын

Thank Dr Craig and thank al gazali

Amazing video!

Animated videos sure do help guys like me. Lord knows that's the only way I can understand things.

4:06 This one gave me a Transformers vibe, ngl. Thank you for making this video. God bless.

Excellent and informative video. The part where the vocal transitioned from the woman to the man was odd though. It sounded like a horror movie for a sec.

This is terrific!

great work, thank you

Excellent. I defend this argument in Christian Apologetics. See also J.P. Moreland's treatment in Scaling the Secular City. I am going to use this in my apologetic class.

@Romailjohn

3 жыл бұрын

amen

@vaskaventi6840

3 жыл бұрын

You should also check out Grim Reaper paradoxes, they are even more effective since they lead to direct contradictions. Compared to some of the other paradoxes we have, Hilbert’s Hotel is one of the weaker ones!

@interestingreligion5204

3 жыл бұрын

Rationality Rules gives some interesting talks on the Grim Reaper paradox in a video with CC.

@calebp6114

3 жыл бұрын

@@vaskaventi6840 See Methusaleh's Diary paradoxes and the problem of vicious circularity as well, as defended in Andrew Loke's new book. I think there are at least five sound philosophical arguments for premise 2, and that's not even getting into the scientific support :)

Awesome!

This indeed is a very strong argument for the presence/existence of a Divine Being.

@midlander4

3 жыл бұрын

🤣

@midlander4

2 жыл бұрын

@Michael Ellingsworth you'll be wanting to share some evidence of a divine being then. It's really not complicated.

@midlander4

2 жыл бұрын

@Michael Ellingsworth OK boomer

@cnault3244

Жыл бұрын

The Kalam Cosmological Argument does not have a god/creator as it's conclusion. In it's entirety the argument is: 1) Everything that begins to exist has a cause. 2) The universe began to exist. 3) Therefore, the universe has a cause. The conclusion is the universe had a cause. Any use of the Kalam argument beyond the 2 premises and the conclusion presented here is NOT the Kalam Argument.

i really love this channel, it gave me easier explanation on God, GBU from Indonesia

great video

Yeah thanks Dr. Craig!!!

Al ghazali is a gem in Islamic philosophy

So cool! Very cool! Thank you!😎👍👍💥🎉

May God bless this apologist . She is so smart ❤ i am amazed

Love this!!!!!!!!

Absolutely marvellous!!!👍🤓

I don't understand what actually number of past events mean? is it the movings of atoms? or the digits of time like second?

Excellent videos on the philosophical basis for God. No argument will convince those who don't want to consider it, but at least this prevents those undecided people, especially the young, for being so quick to decide that atheism is the only way.

Thanks Dr. Craig; I thought the world was ending at 6:03 because I had my subwoofer on LOL.

@imranharith8936

2 жыл бұрын

The temporal world would end, an eternal world would begin...

This is awesome. Please translate this Part 2 into Spanish 😩

The Kalam Cosmological Argument is a philosophical argument for the existence of God. It originated in medieval Islamic theology and was developed by Muslim philosophers such as al-Ghazali and al-Farabi. The argument goes as follows: 1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause. 2. The universe began to exist. 3. Therefore, the universe has a cause. The cause is then argued to be a necessary, uncaused, timeless, and spaceless being, which is identified as God. The argument is based on the idea that the universe had a finite beginning and that everything that begins to exist must have a cause. Proponents of the Kalam Cosmological Argument argue that the cause of the universe must be an uncaused, eternal being, since it cannot be caused by something that came into existence after it. There are several criticisms of the Kalam Cosmological Argument, including the following: The first premise - that everything that begins to exist has a cause - has been challenged by some philosophers and scientists. They argue that the cause-and-effect relationship only applies to things within the universe, and that it is not necessarily applicable to the universe as a whole. The second premise - that the universe began to exist - is based on the standard Big Bang model of cosmology, which is still a matter of scientific debate and not a proven fact. Some philosophers and scientists argue that the Big Bang theory does not necessarily imply a beginning of the universe, and that alternative models, such as the cyclic model or the emergent model, are possible. The conclusion that the cause of the universe must be an uncaused, eternal being is not logically necessary. There could be other explanations for the cause of the universe, such as a natural cause or a multiverse. The identification of the cause of the universe as God is not logically necessary. The Kalam Cosmological Argument does not prove the existence of a personal deity with specific attributes, but only the existence of a necessary, uncaused being. In conclusion, the Kalam Cosmological Argument has faced numerous criticisms and objections, and its validity as a proof for the existence of God is still the subject of ongoing philosophical and scientific debate.

Legend says it took them 8 years to find that audio clip

Awesome as usual! I prefer the scientific version, though. I think it appeals to modern Americans better than the philosophical version. How about a video on how we got the Bible and why it is trustworthy?

@les2997

3 жыл бұрын

Science exists on top of philosophy.

@prime_time_youtube

3 жыл бұрын

@@les2997 But Tim is right, modern Americans prefer scientific videos to philosophical videos. OBviously, this philosophical defense is even better than the first video.

@Romailjohn

3 жыл бұрын

@@prime_time_youtube si

Al Kindi also used some of the arguments in this video. Al-Kindi also stated that the universe and time are created.

This video trains my brain

Great video! However i expected it to also show how this argument entails that the cause is personal. So i have typed it here The cause must be necessary but must it be personal or impersonal? Impersonal necessary entities (abstract objects) cannot cause anything due to their property of casual inertness (abstract objects don't have casual power). They do not cause events, actions, or changes in the physical world (ex- numbers don't cause anything) therefore they are ruled out. The only way for a necessary entity to have casual power is it being personal as a personal agent has the capacity for intentional action, meaning it initiate a chain of event. Even if abstract objects could cause something (which we have seen earlier is impossible) it would go against the temporal existence of universe since timeless impersonal cause can't initiate a temporal event. Impersonal cause would create the universe out of necessity (since an impersonal cause would operate according to deterministic laws or conditions) so if the cause ought to be there permanently the effect ought to be there permanently and thus universe and the cause would have been co-eternal. But the universe began to exist. The only way for a timeless cause to create a temporal effect is if the cause is personal as a personal agent with free will can initiate a chain of events without antecedent predetermining conditions unlike impersonal cause. Thus the cause must be personal.

great philospher

1. We don’t know if something can from nothing 2. We don’t know if the universe always existed 3. We don’t know what it means to say a mind can think outside of time

@clarencecausey7473

3 жыл бұрын

Those are good questions; one way to arrive at an answer would be to employ one of several standards, including a "high degree of certainty", or "beyond a reasonable doubt"; notice that I'm not asking for s standard of evidence that is or even approaches 100%. With this in mind, it appears one can reasonably state "something cannot come from nothing". On #2, I think it's a safe argument to say the universe, at least in it's present form, cannot have always existed..

People say there can't be an infinite, but if the athiestic worldview is correct, how long does death last?

@ceceroxy2227

2 жыл бұрын

potentially forever, but you will never reach forever

Is this a reupload? The Argument from Intelligent Design is IMO a more powerful argument then the Kalam

Al Ghazali is very genius

Is a black hole a potential infinite or an actual infinite?

And so the intellectual argument demands the question of who created God [i.e.The creator of the Universe--which according to this argument must have had a beginning] And then we are led to who created the God who created the God? And then we have no choice but to struggle with who created the creator of God. And so on. Intellectual honesty.

@drcraigvideos

2 жыл бұрын

The Kalam argument itself only asserts that whatever has a beginning has a cause. If time began at the creation of the universe, then the cause would transcend time and therefore lack a beginning. See our video on the Leibnizian Argument from Contingency for an argument concluding that the cause of the universe is itself uncaused.

Where is part 1 pls?

@drcraigvideos

3 ай бұрын

Here you go: kzread.info/dash/bejne/aHepzqSufaayl5M.htmlsi=whqndO_mZ_ArJk3w. - RF Admin

I’m confused how the number of past events being finite automatically means the universe began to exist? I can understand how a finite past points to the beginning of matter and energy since they are constantly changing, but how does a finite past point to the beginning of space and time?

@Classical_doom

2 жыл бұрын

Didnt you read the cosmo arguments everythings has a cause

@anonymoushuman3657

2 жыл бұрын

The causal principle is not “everything has a cause.” It’s “everything that begins to exist has a cause.” Indeed, if the universe (all of space, time, matter, and energy) began to exist, it has a cause, but I’m asking how does the number of past events being finite imply that space and time began to exist?

@Classical_doom

2 жыл бұрын

@@anonymoushuman3657 well if time always existed the universe would need to be eternal which is not the cause since eternal past would mean today could never be reached. Its like this dominos fall forever and u expect the last to fall

@AIContentx

Жыл бұрын

@@anonymoushuman3657 are you hearing yourself

@jackplumbridge2704

9 ай бұрын

"I’m confused how the number of past events being finite automatically means the universe began to exist?" - This is necessarily entailed. Since the universe is a temporal object, and since time had a beginning, the universe must have had a beginning too.

My brain is steaming.

The Hilbert hotel is a great example of how maths and reality are not the same thing. Things that work in maths do not always work in real life.

I do need to understand better this argument. Do anyone know any book that explain easily this argument? For example, if an actual infinity can't exist, what about God existing infinitely in time? I don't understand a lot about this.

@mmachuenemaloba5594

3 жыл бұрын

That is exactly my concern. What's the infinite standout of God.

@Supermariobroszx

3 жыл бұрын

@@mmachuenemaloba5594Well, God can be an actual infinity, but not a material infinity. Just an object that can change is inside time. Because it has potentials. A universe, can't exist forever, because it should be changing infinitely an so on. But God is unchangeable, there is no other potential for Him. So If there is no chance, there is not an infinite amount of changes in Him, nor seconds, because time is not a thing for unchangeable beings.

@yourfutureself3392

3 жыл бұрын

According to this vid, the Kalam leads to a timeless God. God, as proved by this argument (if sound) isn't temporally infinite. He doesn't exist for an actually infinite amount of time. In fact, he exists for no time at all. He doesn't exist for any amount of time. The arguments in support of p2 (if sound) rule out the possibility of God existing for an actually infinite amount of time, because the arguments try to prove an infinitely long amount of time is logically impossible. Even temporalist conceptions of God can reject that God exists for an infinite amount of time.

@EternalVoice11

15 күн бұрын

God being outside the limits of space and time makes him infinite and limitless.

This video will help me to make PowerPoint slides😜

Billy is like, "Wow, the only thing stranger than all these believers making such a commotion over something so obvious as this little two premise syllogism is the non-believers who deny it."

@philosophyforum4668

3 жыл бұрын

@Paul Dubya So, you are actually saying that the whole universe literally came from absolute nothing? You're not even talking about little known types of reality like the quantum vacuum, quantum gravity, the no boundary proposal, etc?

@philosophyforum4668

3 жыл бұрын

@Paul Dubya Well, I don't see the error, but what's the loop model? Is that like Hawking's no boundary proposal? Is it a pre-big-bang, pre-time model?

Alhamdulillah....

Let's talk about the Bible next and why it is one of the most historically accurate texts in existence. There are so many reasons it would be hard to put it in a 6 minute video.

@Romailjohn

3 жыл бұрын

simpatico ideale Dio vi benedica

@JuggsMCPvP

3 жыл бұрын

Yeah, he should do one on the Pauline epistles, one on the gospels, and maybe get a colleague to help him with the major prophets, psalms, proverbs.

@brethrenjc.3606

3 жыл бұрын

Perfectly said Christian Brother

@mangolassi5273

3 жыл бұрын

Quran is tbf

@anotherpointofview222

2 жыл бұрын

What do you mean by "historically accurate?" No historical errors regarding historical dates, places, people, events, etc? Please explain, I'm not understanding how you would make/support such a claim. Not saying it can't be true. Just why do you believe that.?

"knowing" something intuitively is not actually "knowing", it is a feeling. Intuitively. "Adverb. by means of direct perception, an instinctive inner sense, or gut feeling rather than rational thought:They've been married so long, they know intuitively how best to support each other." We still don't "know" the universe began to exist, at best, we can say it might have begun as we know it at some point in the past. But even if we fully accept it had a creator, all we have done regarding infinity, is kick the can down the road, because what created the creator, or the creators creator? And none of this can point to a god until we have evidence for gods.

Surprised they're allowing comments! Hello to Nel the narrator. :)

3:32 reminded me of "Doctor Who." Anyone else?

To all the atheist youtubers who will respond and nitpick at this video, keep this in mind: This video is a broad summary of a variety of arguments that attempts to express them in layman’s terms. It is meant to get the idea across to someone who is at the level of a high school student or so. There are much more rigorous and precise defenses of these arguments, so if you want to respond to the arguments for premise 2, please address some of the more advanced defenses, since they generally address the issues one has with the broad video summary.

@interestingreligion5204

3 жыл бұрын

You can't have your cake and eat it. You shouldnt produce a video if you are going to shut out people. Unless you don't want people to respond unless it's 'praise' 🤦

@steelcarnivore8390

3 жыл бұрын

@@interestingreligion5204 He is not shutting out people, but only giving a heads-up to this and there is nothing wrong with that.

@interestingreligion5204

3 жыл бұрын

@@steelcarnivore8390 the tone and texture of a message can be easily miscommunicated. I'm easily fooled into the wrong assumption.

@heartfeltteaching

3 жыл бұрын

@@interestingreligion5204 Then smarten up and don't be easily fooled bruv ;)

@interestingreligion5204

3 жыл бұрын

@@heartfeltteaching I can't and I am unsure if this is a serious post or a tongue in cheek response. 😜

Causes can be temporally prior to their effects and if this is true, then the kalam argument fails as an infinite past is generated. The statement for every event there is an temporally prior event that is its cause is logically consistent so an infinite past is logically posssible and metaphysically possible so long as it is metaphysically possible for causes to always be prior to their effects.

Hasn't been disproved in a 1000 years.

@piage84

3 жыл бұрын

I'll do it now. We don't have any example of something coming into existence. Therefore we cannot tell whether something that come into existence must have a cause or not. Done.

@JamesKimSynergize

3 жыл бұрын

This comment came into existence.

@BlisterBang

3 жыл бұрын

@@piage84 Surely this in not intended to be a serious argument. At least try to keep your arguments within context. He is talking about objects that weren't there before and now they are. Things that meet this definition happen thousands, maybe millions of times per day right here on Earth. Cars, coney dogs, microprocessors - ALL of these things alone come into existence and have a cause. So much for '[nothing has come] into existence'. "I'll do it now" - no you won't. "Done" - hardly.

So, if I am to understand this correctly, you're saying that God and the big bang are one in the same? I'm trying to wrap my head around this.

@jackplumbridge2704

9 ай бұрын

No, the argument is that God is the cause of the Universe. The big bang is a theory to explain the past history of the universe up to its beginning (or back to its beginning if you like). The big bang theory says nothing about what caused the universe to begin to exist, only that it did begin to exist.

Alhamdulillah

Awesome video! It very succinctly gives us the meat of these arguments. Thank you for all of your hard work! I will say though, it spurs me on to do more reading and thinking, because this whole video begs the question: isn't God infinite? 🤔🤯

@luisr5577

3 жыл бұрын

When theologians speak of the infinity of God, they are not using the word in a mathematical sense to refer to an aggregate of an infinite number of elements. God's infinity is, as it were, *qualitative,* not quantitative. It means that God is metaphysically necessary, morally perfect, omnipotent, omniscient, eternal, and so on. Taken from reasonablefaith DOT com Q&A: *#106 Is God Actually Infinite?*

@yourfutureself3392

3 жыл бұрын

Even if God were infinite, this wouldn't mean the argument begs the question. An argument begs the question if it presupposes the conclusion in one of its premises. The argument rulling out an infinite God as the cause of the universe wouldn't make it beg the question. However, when it is saud that God is infinite, it is not meant that he's an actual infinite, that is, that he is composed by an actually infinite amount of components. It refers to the fact that he's omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, omnibenevolent, begginingless, maximally virtuous, etc. It's a cualitative infinity.

Numbers arent infinite because they have a beginning. Even if you start counting backwards in a negative sense, how can you remove from something that doesn't exist? Even if you owe, you owe what?

When a philosopher meets a video creator

Filipino version please! for better understanding.

The fact we can conceive of eternity as an idea, yet have always lived and known finite as creatures in a finite universe, means eternity exists, but not inside this realm, and yet, we somehow were able to conceive of it, which means we experienced it, or interacted with it. The blind cannot conceive of sight, or colour. Likewise, we cannot think of new colours, only what we have already seen. We are ontological receivers, not projectors. Living in a finite universe, should by all means, cause us to be "blind" to the notion or idea of eternity. So eternity has somehow been "experienced" by us, or has been informed to us by something that in itself cannot be finite. Much like a sighted man telling a blind man about sight. A finite Universe that births men who can conceive of infinity reveals his infinite origins or cause.

can someone explain this to me even more simpler?

@olorinmartinez

3 жыл бұрын

Lololololololol

@yourfutureself3392

3 жыл бұрын

If the past were infinite the present wouldn't have arrived because it would be preceded by infinite events. Then space, matter and time began to exist and their cause must be beyond space, matter and time and extremely powerful. Did that help?

@truthtvproductions9947

3 жыл бұрын

@@yourfutureself3392 yes thank you

@EternalVoice11

15 күн бұрын

Cause of anything is beyond it.

This infinite hotel thought experiment only shows that anything countable must be finite. But who claims that an infinite time has countable events? It is not an ad absurdum as the proposition of infinite events does not also state that the events are countable. If you can imagine an infinite number of events in the future, i.e. Uncountable events in the future, and that is not absurd, the same holds for the past. As for the domino analogy: it is begging the question.

@notnpc7965

3 жыл бұрын

That thing you said about the infinite events in the future isn't true. There is a difference between potential infinites and actual infinites. You should watch the talk Lane craig had with cosmic skeptic. They talked about that

@yourfutureself3392

3 жыл бұрын

The vid actually adresses your first argument. If the past is infinite, then there was enough time to make an infinite hotel if a room per year was added and all those contradictions would be possible. That's the response given in the vid.

If there are an infinite number of rooms, they can never all be full, because an infinite number or other rooms are available an infinite number of times.

Is it possible that as humans we are extremely limited in our abilities despite our grandiose concept of self? Isn't it possible that all of everything we will ever conceive of all sits within our capacity to conceive of things. And all of excistence actually goes far beyond our ability to concive. What is actually being proposed here is humans' infinite ability to understand, and that seems like a pretty faulty premise to build an argument on.

Honest question I have is: if God is imaterial, hence it has no matter, no format, no substance, or one can say it simply didn come to be, how could he have created man "on his own image", since he had to image?

@EternalVoice11

15 күн бұрын

He is not an image in His absolute being. But the whole creation containing His virtues. Man is a collection of those virtues at one point.

My neighbour has an explanation for the origin of the universe. He is a Hindu. Should I love him ?

Truth is beautiful; especially the truth about God.

Lol, the God of the Gaps is strong with this one.

If you claim that numbers (infinite including) don't exist, what do you use for counting or measurements?

@yourfutureself3392

3 жыл бұрын

He's claiming that numbers don't exist independantly of minds and that they aren't actual timeless inmaterial entities.

That hotel must be booming!!! For sure it wasn’t affected by the pandemic

@EternalVoice11

15 күн бұрын

😂😂

Isn't an argument against infitinity the best argument against god? An argument against infinite would mean that god can't be infinite and therefore the first cause argument also falls apart since god is not infinite himself. Also what about set theory?

Ghazali was a hyper/super genius

I love al gazali

The arguments concerning the infinite in this video are so deeply confused and so profoundly misleading that I’m inclined to call them immoral, as I believe Craig himself knows better. They exploit *obvious* ambiguities (e.g., on what “full” means) to generate bogus “contradictions”. There is absolutely nothing contradictory about Hilbert’s Hotel and the “contradictions” the video claims are inherent in the infinite are easily explained by anyone with a basic knowledge of transfinite arithmetic.

@grantjepson1735

2 күн бұрын

Can you explain

0:00 - 0:06 This is a false dichotomy. It is entirely possible that spacetime itself has only existed for a finite amount of time, but that the rest of the universe has existed for all time. In other words, it is entirely possible that the time axis is itself finite in length. So it could be the case that the universe has existed for a finite amount of time, but did not have a beginning. There is no contradiction here. One claim is about which time coordinates the universe has existed for, the other claim is about the length of the axis of which the time coordinates are elements of. 0:06 - 0:17 No. In part 1, you pretended to use science to support your claims, but completely misrepresented it and made false and baseless claims and tried to pass them off as scientific. I wrote an entire comment thread deconstructing the video and explaining how the science was misrepresented. 0:27 - 0:36 Yes, but he was wrong. He failed to account for the possibility above that I already explained: that if time itself is a set of points with finite length, then it is possible that the universe had no beginning, yet is finitely old. Something having a beginning has nothing to do with whether it has existed for a finite amount of time or a finite amount of time. It has to do with whether there existed a point in time prior to which the thing did not exist, and after which the thing did exist. If yes, then the thing in question has a beginning. If there is no point in time during which the thing did not exist, then it did not have a beginning, and this is true regardless of how long it has existed for. Al Ghazali did not realize this, because he made his arguments during a time when set theory and order theory were not well-understood. 0:36 - 0:45 It does not, and it is not. 0:46 - 1:28 There is no contradiction here. What does it mean for a hotel to be full? It means that that there is no room that is unoccupied. When you shift the guests of the hotal one room forward, the hotel becomes not full, because exactly one room is unoccupied. When the new guest fills the room, the hotel becomes full again. There is no logical contradiction here, because there is no point in time during which the hotel is full and not full at the same time. Nothing about the situation is absurd. The video fails to recognize that moving the guests to different rooms means that the hotel stopped being full. 1:29 - 2:09 Again, this objection makes the same mistake as in the previous situation: the video is assuming that the hotel stays full when you move the guests around the hotel. That is not the case. By moving the guests, the hotel becomes unfull. The fact that it can thus be filled with new guests is not an absurdity, just a mundane fact. If you start with a false assumption, then you get a false conclusion. Nothing surprising there. 2:09 - 2:25 What is absurd about that? There is nothing absurd about this. This is called Cantor's property. Cantor's property is the property that every infinite set has at least one proper subset that has the same cardinality as the original infinite set. In fact, we can know exactly how many subsets of a set have a given cardinality, and this includes the cardinality of the original set itself. The number is given by the generalized binomial coefficients, defined for cardinal numbers, finite and transfinite alike. 2:09 - 2:43 No. There is no logical contradiction here. The number of guests that left the hotel is the same for both scenarios, but the configuration of the rooms they occupied is different. Changing the configuration of the occupied rooms by moving guests in the hotel changes the properties of the hotel. To be continued in the replies.

@patricksnoring4739

2 жыл бұрын

I agree with a lot of what you stated above, but it’s breath wasted here. The community around these videos won’t listen to anything unless it confirms what they already believe.

There is no limit of crazy models to show what infinity is

@lexithompson7426

3 жыл бұрын

Nice comment dear..... where you you from ?

@BlisterBang

3 жыл бұрын

Hmmmm...so there are an infinite number of crazy models? 8^O

According to Roger Penrose the universe started with the Big Bang, and there was actually a universe already existing before it and the Big Bang was merely the end of that universe.

@F4CTZV

3 жыл бұрын

Who defined all the interactions, and the parameters, and who set that thing up? Also as said in the video, if the universe was in an endless cycle, we would have never gotten here.

@Romailjohn

3 жыл бұрын

@@F4CTZV si roger penrose just repeats the past eternal universe stuff in another manner

@SPQR7117

3 жыл бұрын

@@Romailjohn What was the genesis of _those_ interactions, actions, parameters, etc...? How far back are we going here?

@BlisterBang

3 жыл бұрын

Scientist themselves have already shot down that argument. They determined that the universe does not have enough mass to ever contract, so there is no cyclical Big Bang. The Big Bang we see is, therefore, the only one - which means it had a beginning.

@calebp6114

3 жыл бұрын

@@BlisterBang A further problem with cyclic universe scenarios is entropy. How come we are in a state of high entropy if the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics applies across the chain of universes, as we would expect?

So the common atheist rebuttal is to say that "but then how is God infinite in existence". I understand god was the supposed first cause that didn't begin exist to exist but he still had to exist eternally which faces the infinity paradox

@labsquadmedia176

3 жыл бұрын

I don't think that's a problem: "infinity" relates to time/space/matter as in "infinite number...of seconds, rooms/marshmallows, etc. "Eternity" is not time-bound. This is why God's timelessness is essential to his being. (e.g. Genesis 1:1, John 1:1-3, Col. 1:15-17). Short answer: Eternity is not the same thing as Infinity. As the video mentioned, God's non-space/time/matter existence is necessary exactly BECAUSE the Universe that we know exists requires a cause outside of its boundaries.

@BlisterBang

3 жыл бұрын

God is certainly difficult to understand. One of the big problems for us is when we try to define God using the rules of our universe. The definition of 'Eternal' absolutely depends on time. But since God created time, He's certainly not bound it. God does not have to exist 'eternally'; it is wrong to force Him into any universe rule that He, Himself, created.

@jean1785

3 жыл бұрын

The infinity this argument is facing is a quantitive infinite and the infinity that is part of God's attribute is a qualitative.

@bkhan19

3 жыл бұрын

@@jean1785 The claim suggests not to think of God as what came before him or how long he exists. We are using space-time in that case which is a thing within our universe and not beyond it.