The road to theism, a case for a creator (well not really)

[wilbert127]

Your argument against actual infinites fails. Hilbert's Hotel DOES NOT disprove an actual infinite at all, at best it disproves relationships between actual infinites. The absurdities of the hotel only arise in the context of two infinite sets: rooms and guests, and only then if the guests move rooms or leave or add more guests.

[migkillertwo]

So only one infinite set can exist at a time? Fine. So if there are an infinite amount of events, then there are two more infinite sets, namely of causes and effects. Causes cause effects, obviously. So these two infinite sets are related.

Nice try mr "wilbert"

[wilbert127]

@migkillertwo

that doesnt refute my criticism. Even if we grant infinite sets of causes and effects, this is not analogous to the absurdities of the Hilbert's Hotel example you cite. Hilbert's hotel is absurd because of the CHANGING relationship between guests and rooms. Unless you can make an analogy with causes and effects "moving" between events like guests between rooms, they are unrelated.

[evanmalmud]

how bout you talk not read for 9min straight....

and don't be liek don't watch my movie because i def barely got into it cause it sucked so bad

[ultradevon04]

this sounds more like a roud to deism.. . .how can you know anything beyond the universe was created by something. You have no idea what that something is and why would you trust the words or holy books when there are so many. Wouldn't a god that really gives a damn make sure we all got the same message.

[mafiagranny]

Did you even watch his video? You've basically distorted everything he's said.

[migkillertwo]

it's really because Knowntje almost incessantly contradicts himself.

[mafiagranny]

no he doesn't, he only seems to contradict himself becuase you didn't understand what he said.

[migkillertwo]

no, he contradicts himself.

in several videos he says "there was nothing before the big bang because time came into existence at the big bang. therefore "before the big bang" is logicall self contradictory".

however, in other, more recent videos he says that the big bang predicts no such thing.

[bibledisproven55]

no its not , really dude get a physics lesson i think i commented on how stupid your comments are 4x

[Knowntje]

Hey mig, I have made a video response to these two videos

[migkillertwo]

yes, and someday (perhaps sometime within the next month or 2, the subject of cosmology really has taken a backseat to christian origins) I will make a response

[robidogg]

Your analogy to Hilberts Hotel does not show that the infinite is self contradictory it simply shows that if we assume the infinite follows the same rules as the finite contraditions occur.

[tooltime9901]

space time did not come into existence, they "started".

actual infinites are impossible. god is an actual infinite...

no one says that the universe is an actual infinite, just that the pre-big bang universe was eternal, as there was no time.

[migkillertwo]

and of the self-contradictory nature of actual infinites?

and who said that god is an actual infinite?

"no one says that the universe is an actual infinite, just that the pre-big bang universe was eternal, as there was no time."

you missed my point. an eternally existing universe requires us to posit the existence of an actual infinite, in this case an infinite amount of time.

[tooltime9901]

god being an actual infinite was a bit of a joke.

that said, no infinite amount of time is required for there to have been a timeless state prior to the big bang.

[migkillertwo]

"timeless state prior to the big bang."

did you fail to catch the self-contradiction there?

[tooltime9901]

time and space were both packed into a singularity prior to their expansion. to say they began is to say that started to expand. as you already pointed out, Einstein showed time and space to be intertwined. a better way to say it might be that time an space were in an inactive state. for Kalam to work, there most have been a "before" that initial state.

[migkillertwo]

"for Kalam to work, there most have been a "before" that initial state. "

not quite. the kalam argument actually relies on the non-existence of time before the big bang.

[AmazingTheism]

"non-existence of time before the big bang."

self-contradiction?

[migkillertwo]

not really.

[njpalko314]

(continuing)

Assuming we are only talking of the current universe, we can continue. It simply is ridiculous that we can say everything that exists has a cause. By what judgment? I see a tree and as an atheist, do not believe that it came from a creator or has a cause valuable to anything but itself. However, a Christian could see it and come up with a totally different thing. This is my biggest objection to the argument: the apologist is using circular thinking to support their premise.

[migkillertwo]

the kalam argument is in no way a circular argument. the conclusion "the universe has a cause" is not contained within any of its 2 premises. secondly, was that a typo, or did you say that everything that exists has a cause? if this is not a typo, then I will counter this by saying that there are contingent entities, and necessary entities. necessary entities are entities which must exist due to the fact that anything at all contingent exists.

[migkillertwo]

contingent entities are entities which must have a cause for their existence due to the fact that they are not eternal. oh, and necessary entities to my knowledge must also be immaterial and timeless.

[njpalko314]

William Lane Craig.

:sigh:

[migkillertwo]

please tell me you're about to back up that ludicrous comment.

[njpalko314]

Craig seems to reiterate arguments that I have yet to see convince any atheist into becoming a Christian.

[migkillertwo]

and how exactly do you know that?

[njpalko314]

I've seen arguments in some of the clips available online from his lectures.

[migkillertwo]

he articulates his positive arguments a very well in his books, most especially in Reasonable Faith.

but what is your take on the Kalam argument?

[njpalko314]

Well, I will be reading that book as soon as I can get a copy then.

As for the Kalam argument, I believe it is the principle that everything that began has a cause, and the universe began.

(will be continued)

[njpalko314]

(continuing)

Well, first, we have to make it known that the current universe has began to exist. As for the universe being finite, what universe are we talking about? Infinity can only be measured according to how we as humans understand time. And it would be a bad motion to claim that we can conclude something out of our thinking.

(will be continued)

[migkillertwo]

njpalko, hilbert's hotel uses mathematics to prove that actual infinites (that is an infinite collection of independent, identical, and discrete units) cannot exist. By Hilbert's hotel analogy, we can know with mathematical certainty that the universe, if it actually exists, must have a beginning. now since every entity which begins to exist has a cause for its existence, as nothing begets nothing but nothing, it is only rational that we posit that the universe has a cause for its existence.

[migkillertwo]

and the analogy given by Al-Ghazali also uses mathematics to explain why an actually infinite amount of things cannot exist.

[TheAmazingCristian]

He actually covinced 42 atheists in the audience during a debate with Dr Frank Ziddler to become christian, while Frank Ziddler convinced no christians to become atheists.

[Omegawhat]

therefore wouldn't god be infinite, and unattainable. Yet the concept of god is as finite as any other concept based on everything being a concept which is infinitely finite- meaning one to one ratio, meaning god isn't just a concept but a reason/ justification of one.

[migkillertwo]

I didn't say that God was infinite. second, how can anything possibly be "infinitely finite?" that's like saying the can is so round it's square.

[Omegawhat]

it means there are so many infinities in things that its just finite

[contactmaclock]

I stopped watching when you said you were going to focus more on philosophy than science.

Facts should be argued, not ideas. Science is fact, therefore you would be focusing more on ideas than facts. Your arguments thus lose their basis.

Before you say otherwise, logic is a mechanic of science.

[facilisdescenus]

and how do you know logic is true , pray telll?

the only way you can come to a conclusion thzt logic is true is based on philosophy.

there are lots of things science can't prove

[contactmaclock]

Do you even know what logic is, pray tell?

Logic isn't an idea, logic is simply the process of declaring that because one thing is how it is, another must be. This is based on already known facts, which are encompassed by science.

[migkillertwo]

contactmaclock, science is a SLAVE to philosophy. you cannot conduct science without philosophy.

[contactmaclock]

Apparently the both of you don't understand what science is to begin with. Science is a collection of facts [as we know them] based off of the scientific method, which required concrete evidence, proof, and observations. Once something is considered a scientific fact, it is true until proven otherwise. There is no skepticism in science. You don't disagree with science unless you have evidence that states otherwise. Concrete evidence.

[migkillertwo]

you cannot state anything as fact without philosophy, which is why philosophy is inherently superior to science.

[contactmaclock]

What are you talking about? You apparently have no idea what facts are. Here's an example. The background of this webpage is predominately white [as of my viewing]. This is a fact. One could argue what "white" is, but the idea of the full presence of all color is true. No philosophy needed, just science.

I'm not stating that philosophy is unimportant or invalid, just that it is not above science, truer than science, more important than science. True philosophy should be an aspect of science.

[russjumps4fun]

Good vid mig, I am going to meet Craig soon actually. Yay.

Favorited.

[TETSUno1]

You could've saved time and just said that actual infinites don't exist in the universe.

It gets numbing listening infinite examples (or at least it feels like it listening to it) that pretty much say the same thing, especially since pretty much every single person in the world agrees that actual infinites don't exist.

Btw, both planets will have made infinite orbits, but with different cardinalities.

That "proved" nothing really, apart from lack of knowledge.

[migkillertwo]

yes, the script was written as I was watching knowntje's video, and you didn't actually address the concept that the number of orbits that the planets made is both identical and at the same time not identical.