Bad Philosophical Arguments about the Universe's Beginning

CounterApologist's video on how Craig misunderstands infinity:

My video about why Craig rejects relativity:

Yes, I do have a Patreon account, thank you for asking:

My Twitter:

My facebook:

Here’s my society6 store if you’re interested in my pretentious minimalist poster designs:

[AntiCitizenX]

The really sad part to all of this is that no one disagrees with Craig's ultimate conclusion. The universe had a definite beginning. Our observable four-dimensional spacetime manifold is most definitely 13.7 billions years old. All Craig has to say is "cosmologists all agree that the universe has a finite age." It's like he's going out of his way to terribly justify a trivial conclusion.

[timhaines]

Craig knows less about math than he does about physics, and he knows nothing about physics.

"An actual infinite is a completed infinite."
I have no idea what that means, and neither does he. I think he needs to take a vacation at Hilbert's Hotel.

[laurencewills]

Always excited to see when you have a new video. Keep up the good work.

[newtonphile]

If he discounts the ideas of infinity as logically impossible how does he conclude that 'god' could be real?

[anomalapithecus]

craig’s complete lack of understanding of infinity was enough for me to completely lose respect for him when i was still a christian. it’s patently ignorant.

[pauligrossinoz]

I'm pretty sure that Craig would admit one exception for his claim that infinity can't exist: _His favorite god._

Self contradiction is built into Craig's absurd philosophy.

[ChipArgyle]

Oh, I hate to see WLC refuting the existence of infinity in any way. That means his personally preferred version of a deity cannot be infinitely-powerful or everlasting.

[crowbro]

WLC is just Ray Comfort with a thesaurus.

[donsample]

You know another number that gives inconsistent results when used in some mathematical operations? 0. The result of dividing by 0 is undefined. Doesn't that mean that Craig thinks that 0 doesn't really exist, either?

[Cratoz]

Philosophy can be a great tool for epistemology BUT! In order to prove something you still need evidence. Especially with something as the beginning of the universe.
Philosophy can't get past evidence and things we just.. philosoph about.
William Lane Craig is a bad philosopher in my opinion because he is agenda driven. As Sean Carroll said, he is "not even wrong".

[maingun]

Craig acknowledges that his arguments are predicated on the A theory of time. His response from his own website:

_Kevin Harris: Where do you stand on that? Are you an A man or a B man?_

_Dr. Craig: I am a pretty ardent A-Theorist. I think that the B-Theory has formidable philosophical objections against it. I think it also has some very serious theological objections. I find it very difficult to understand how a Christian could be a B-Theorist of time for a number of reasons. I also think that the A-Theory simply accords with our experience of time. We all experience the present-ness of time and I see absolutely no reason to think that this is a gigantic delusion that has been foisted upon us. I see no reason to think this is illusory._

In other words, B Theory is counter intuitive and scientists are wrong. Plus it presents a fundamental problem for the Kalam, so it must be wrong somehow.

In short, "Nuh Uh!"

[username]

Am I missing something? Because if Craig's proving infinite is impossible then he just proved an infinite God is also

[plasmaballin]

Craig's argument at 2:30 is unsound because he completely fails to understand how an infinite sequence of past events would work. An infinite sequence going into the past has no starting point, so there is no point in time where you start counting with "infinity" and then count down until you get to 0. All of these arguments against an actual infinity just amount to a complete inability to comprehend simple math.

[Voidsworn]

Title should be "Here is William Lane Craig being William Lane Craig, commence snickering."

[Tylerthety]

Coincidentally, I am currently reading the chapter of "godless" by Dan Barker that deals with Craig's cosmological arguments. I highly recommend this book, by the way.

[biostemm]

I tried to explain to a friend how there is a difference in the "types" of infinities - such as explaining the difference between the infinity of all integers vs the infinite number of, real numbers between 1 and 2...

[chrissidiras]

In supertasks (check numberphile) you can count to infinity in a non-infinite amount of time.

[piesho]

Infinity: a dog chasing its own tail. It has a beginning, but it doesn't have an end.

[DumpPhysicist]

I disagree that Craig is correct about infinite steps apply to the A-theory of time. The argument presume that there is a beginning that is infinitely far away; hence, the present can never be reached. The absurdness demonstrated in argument is only true if you assume a beginning infinitely far away is valid. However, an infinite regression from the present argument rejects a beginning on its face. It is not a question of how far away the beginning is, but whether it exist.

[letstrytouserealscienceoka]

An eternal past does not require an infinite number of events to have already occurred. Just because time, space, and the quantum fields have never not existed does not necessarily mean that an infinite number of universes already exist or have existed. Of course, even if an infinite number of universes do already exist, that should not present a logical problem. It would not prevent even more universes from forming.