Infinity Wars with Danny (Atheist) 

You can climb down or sideways. It all depends on the reference point as well. So what I was saying wasn’t false.

​@@dannyfiltalk Don't worry. I understand the point you were trying to make. I don't believe that the way you view infinity is wrong, since, as finite beings, we aren't really meant to even understand concepts such as infinity. They exist outside of our nature, and, ultimately, we have no way of being certain of any theories we come up about it. However, I would like to point out that Rumzi's argument on climbing wasn't necesseraly forcing the upwards direction. It was rather trying to make you assume a change anywhere (no matter the direction). Obviously, climbing should implicate a change of position, and you have seemed to agree with that later on, so no issue there. Lastly, in regards to the infinitely long line of dominos, I think viewing it from the opposite way would be a good way to describe things. As you know, you are supposed to be a man waiting for a domino to fall at your feet. To simplify things, let me call the domino at our feets, domino A, and domino B, the domino that is "infinitely" far away from us. Now, domino A, in order to end up falling, had to be provoked "firstly" by a domino B. According to you, domino A could end up falling. However, looking at domino B, we see that we need to travel an "infinitely" large distance in order to get to domino A, ultimately meaning that domino B will never be able to provoke domino A. In the end, we are left with a problem where if we try to look at the infinitely long distance from point B, we see that we get an infinite answer, while looking at domino A gives us a finite answer. I would argue that this is similar to the concept of limits in mathematics. If the two sides of the limit gets two different answers, then the limit doesn't exist.

​@@dannyfiltalk Danny can you answer my question, what is a woman? The word woman, define it from dictionary.. Go

even in the real world they are wrong, i like roger penrose joke about this argument, he said "how can i reach this chair in my office if the universe is infinite" meaning, if you start near any point in time you are close to another point in time, and it makes no difference if there is an infinite past or infinite future, your guys don't seem to understand reality or logic.

@@HarryNicNicholas But here is the thing, to keep in mind. If infinity existed in the real world, we'd be able to preform an experiment that yields an infinite result, and that has yet to happen. In other words, talking about abstract mathematics exists in our rational mind, it has no implications on the real world.

Ez

But the argument made by him is flawed in his own sentence. Bce he says "a world" meaning the thing is already bound by a world. so it's automatically dependant. God on the other hand doesn't revolve around anything when we say anything we mean literally anything.

I never said that.

@@soldier552 I'm talking about 'world' as philosophers use the term when they talk about possibility.

@@dannyfiltalk philosophers are flawed anyway. An example is reine descartes.

He was waffling by being unable to provide citations for the empirical claim that most contemporary philosophers use the term “contingent” as “dependent”. That’s just not true, especially with respect to modern formulations of the contingency argument.

​@@dannyfiltalk I was waffling? you sure? Is that why you couldn't provide to me a plausible explanation of how to distinguish between the revolutions of earth and the moon? Is that why you couldn't provide to me a plausible explanation for how you'd end up back at the present moment if you were to travel back in time if you keep going back in the past and there is no stopping point? Was I still waffling when I asked you how you made the blunder of calling "metaphysics" (a branch of philosophy / abstract theory) a "fact"? Stay in your lane kid...you have lots of growing to do. Finish your college degree, and then we'll talk. lol. And here is your reference you asked for (as I said at that time...I don't have the scholars to quote in front of me, but that doesn't mean I couldn't get them): Alexander Pruss, William Lane Craig, Richard Swinburne, Timothy O'Connor.

​​@@dannyfiltalk in that case, just work with his definition of contingent.

@@RenderingUser I did at the beginning - I said that there might be things that are unexplained. I think that's how the conversation progressed.

@@dannyfiltalk what unexplained things? Everything has an explanation

Why?

@@dannyfiltalk the man himself has replied to my comment lol 🤣

you need to understand how infinities work cos although it seems to make no sense there is NO REASON why this doesn't work. let's say the universe is infinite, how can you reach your keyboard if that's the case? your guys have completely misunderstood how infinities work, danny tried to explain but they just carry on misunderstanding cos for some reason muslims seem to have an inferiority complex that won't allow them to admit they are wrong.

@@CodedonRoblox answer why

@@pavld335 you cant have an infinite line of dominoes mate, everything has a beginning and an end.

Was it some Iranian or Turkish secularist?

Is he christian?

Pointing out that the claimed conclusion doesn't follow from the premises or questioning the truth of the premises is not "muddying the water" as you put it. It is legitimate reasoning and philosophy. Also it is not upon Danny to prove that an infinite past is logically possible, but upon the theist to prove that it isn't because that is what he claims. You are illegitimately trying to shift the burden of proof, because you don't have proof for your claim.

And rather just listing names, I’ll actually provide sources, which is something that you did NOT do. You just gave a bunch of names without any citations in hopes of deceiving people that (1) I didn't know what I was talking about and (2) that you knew anything about the topic. Contingent proposition/fact: Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy (Simon Blackburn) Pg. 324, “A contingent fact is a fact that is true, but could have been false” Metaphysics (Loux, Crisp) Routledge Introduction Pg. 123 “But there are other propositions which, while essentially the bearer of some truth value, have the truth value they do merely contingently…Thus, some propositions…are contingently true. They are true, Butfbut their falsehood is possible.” Metaphysics: the Key Concepts (Beebee, Effingham, Goff) Pg. 52 “A contingent truth is a sentence of proposition that is (a) true and (b) not necessarily true. For example, “Barack Obama won the 2023 USA presidential election” is true, but not necessarily - it might have been false. Metaphyiscs (Van Inwagen) p.122 “Beings that are not necessary are called contingent. That is, a contingent being is simply a being that exists in some but not all possible worlds. You and I and every object of our experience are, no doubt, contingent beings. You, for example, do not exist in any possible world in which you were never conceived (and this would cer- tainly seem to be a possible state of affairs). “ William Craig and Moreland FFCW p. 208 (pdf version) “one cannot define proper functioning in terms of evolutionary theory and survival value because even if evolution is true, it is a contingent truth (evolution could have been false; indeed it most likely is false) and there could have been proper functioning faculties even if evolution had been false.” Graham Oppy BAAG Pg. 13 “Suppose we say that something is ‘contingent’ just in case it might have been some other way, and that it is ‘necessary’ if it could not have been any other way.” I could go on and on. You haven’t put any effort here to see what philosophers mean by ‘contingent’. Why don’t you go read a book or something and stop being ignorant and then projecting that on me. And by the way, Aquinas, who ran cosmological arguments, didn’t think there was a logical problem with an infinite temporal succession. Go read a book. Lastly, I actually agree with you on this - PLEASE pin this comment thread.

most of those scholars you listed define contingency wrt modality, so Danny is correct. did you just google philosophers of religion without actually reading what they say? think about it (I know it's hard for you, but try), why would they have words like "brute contingency" (eg Oppy uses this term a lot re Kalam), meaning a contingent thing sans explanation, if contingency already negates the bruteness?

@shousa Graham Oppy has no problem admitting that infinite regression isnt logical ...he even admitted to the contingency argument as commonly known. He just doesnt think there is enough proof to call that necessary being as "God". Watch his latest debates. Danny boy quoted William Lane Craig...Craig adheres to the kalam cosmological argument where its in the first premise that everything contingent has a cause...hence cant have an infinite regression by default. U need to read my comment to him abt Alexander Pruss...he holds the same belief. Additionally merriam webster dictionary defines contingency as following: "dependent on or conditioned by something else." Here are the quotes: William Lane Craig (on his website reasonable faith): "The theist could maintain that for any contingently existing thing, there is an explanation why that thing exists. Or again, he could assert that everything that exists has an explanation of its existence, either in the necessity of its own nature or in an external cause...there are more modest, non-paradoxical and seemingly plausible versions of the PSR. Thus, the objection raised by Van Inwagen misses the target, or more accurately, is aimed at another target." Quote from Alexander Pruss - "The Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology" (pg 54): "When I talk of the PSR, by "sufficient reason" I mean reasons that are sufficient to explain the explanandum. Leibniz may have erroneously thought that a reason is only sufficient to explan something that it entails, but we do not need to follow him in his error, and should not, since that route leads to modal fatalism. But if the reader is not convinced, I can just rename the prince I am defending the "Principle of Good-Enough Explanation." In response to "Alexander Vilenkin" (Book: Many Worlds in One): "One day we might be able to explain the world in scientific terms.", Alexander Pruss responds: (Blackwell's Companion to Natural Theology pg 79) "A Principle cannot by itself pull beings into existence out of a metaphysical magic hat, since a principle itself must be true of something and true in virtue of something." Additionally, Danny wasnt able to answer how he can distinguish between the revolutions of earth and moon once u adhere to infinite regression and have no starting point to measure it from. And lastly calling metaphysics (an abstract theory and philosophy) a fact..is when i stopped taking the little miniom seriously. btw here is another one: Alvin Plantinga: "Sets of contingent objects, perhaps, are as contingent as their members; but properties, propositions, numbers and states of affairs, it seems, are objects whose non-existence is quite impossible." Brian Leftow: "Most analytic philosophers hold that if God exists, He exists with broad logical necessity. Richard Swinburne denies the distinction between narrow and broad logical necessity, and argues that if God exists, His existence is narrow-logically contingent. A defender of divine broad logical necessity could grant the latter claim. I argue, however, that not only is God's existence broad-logically necessary, but on a certain understanding of God's relation to modality, it comes out narrow-logically necessary. This piece argues against Swinburne's overall account of modality and rebuts his argument for narrow-logical contingency."

You already lost when you called him idiot , you idiot , from a theist ;)

@@dannyfiltalk Here is one more, from arguably one of the leading philosophers of religion and one of the most important text on God's existence in history. ‘Contingency,’ as used today in philosophy and logic, does not mean dependency. Contingent beings contrast with necessary beings in contemporary terms in that, while a necessary being exists in every possible world, a contingent being exists in some but not every world. A contingent existent exists in the actual world, but not in every world. It is not settled by definition that every contingent existent depends on some other existent that is its cause or reason. This contemporary usage in philosophy and logic is reflected in the second sense mentioned in the entry, “contingent ... dependent on something else: liable but not certain to happen: accidental” (Chambers Twentieth Century: New Edition). J.H. Sobel, _Logic and Theism_, pg. 568

4- finitely regressing into infinity

​@@Seeping. 🤣🤣🤣🤣

lol, how? i see three muslims demonstrating how ignorant they are of how infinities work and not even listening to the explanations. and infinity of not listening.

How soon the orders received is irrelevant to the point. Danny said sniper can't take a shot if he needed permission infinite past BUT he said if permission is always granted (from infinite past) then he could take the shot. The problem lies that if indeed the permission is always been granted (for the sake of the argument) then the sniper still couldn't make the shot cause it's been given permission infinitely from the past by infinite superiors. Hence, the penrose joke

​@@tylerthebeliever9080 I like Wes Morriston's reply to infinite regress. Suppose an infinite line of snipers, that is every sniper must fire if the sniper before him also fired. Morriston agrees yes it will never end, but every sniper "will have" shot because of infinity. It's inevitable every sniper will have shot at some point of time. Thus, there's no contradiction. Pick any sniper and he will have shot his gun at some point. To summarize, it's not about ending an infinite line (which is the mistake of infinite regress), it's about completing every single instance on that infinite line which is possible.

@@jigsaw2248 Maybe you could help me understand that argument cause here’s why I still think it doesn’t make sense: Using the same example, suppose every sniper must fire if the sniper before him also fired. But how could any sniper fire (at any point of time) if the one before any of them still relies on the snipers infinitely past? Basically no one fires if no one started firing

@@tylerthebeliever9080 Take this example. Say you have infinite time and you need to watch an infinite video tape. Now, will you ever finish it? No. It's impossible. However, assume you have infinite time, will you have watch every video tape at some point in the future? Yes, because of infinite time. Every video tape must be watched by you at some point. It logically follows and becomes necessary. It's actually common sense. Given infinite time and infinite chain and infinite movement, you'll arrive at some point eventually (any point works). However, this doesn't mean infinity has ended, since there is still the infinite future ahead of us. It just means infinite has paused. You can't end infinity, you can however pause or take a break on some random point. So going back to the sniper analogy. Let's choose one sniper, A. First, we must hold there is still an infinite number of snipers after A i.e. in the future and before him i.e. in the past. This means our sniper, A is not the "present", since there's no such thing as the present in infinity. Rather, he is just a "pause" or "break" in a never ending line. Thus, given infinite time and infinite shots before him, we'll reach A at some point (it may take a million or even a billion years, the point is we will eventually reach him given infinity). But that just means we've reached a "pause" or "break" on our line. It's not the end, rather it's just one arbitrary sniper we've chosen for an experiment. The point is given infinite time, any point can be reached at some time in the future. That's just a consequence of having infinite time. If we allow infinite time for infinite snipers to shoot, then it's necessary every sniper will shoot at some point. Choose any random sniper and he will have shoot his rifle. Basically, there's no concept of "starting" an infinite line. It's absurd to even add such a concept. Rather, infinity has been continually moving. Think like numbers. There are infinite numbers as far as we know. There's no "beginning" of the number line, zero isn't a beginning since there's negatives. There's only artificial beginnings we humans chose to make life easier. Does that mean one and twos can't exist since there's infinite negative numbers before them?

@@jigsaw2248 using your new example, even if we have infinite time, the videotape will never be watched if we never play the video, that's the point of the sniper example. If in that supposed infinite time no video tape is being played, we will never watch any single video tape

You would never reach the present moment if you are approaching it from a moment before it and there are infinite moments before it.

@@4ozking858 do you know what a contradiction is?

@@dr.shousa Sure.

@@4ozking858 clearly not.

@@dr.shousa great argument

I paused the video at 32:04 and wrote this out, and its funny how you go on to say the exact same thing 😂😂

Now that i think about it, maybe there is no "smallest size", and the further back you go in time, the smaller the universe was. Even if lets say 5 billion years ago the universe was the size of an atom, if you go further back then it gets smaller than an atom. So he kinda has a point to be honest. Although then the argument would be, how did we get here? Thats because time moves forward. If there was no beginning, and we know that time moves forward, then we would never get here.

There needs to be a starting point but not necesarily an endpoint. Moving forward in time requires a starting point. Moving backwards in time as well. His analogy of a sniper requesting to shoot is him STARTING at the sniper and going back infinitely. But then under it, he drew the sniper recieving approval from an infinite amount of commands and that doesnt make sense because there is no first commander. He threw out his own logic. First he correctly used a starting point and went to infinity, but then for some odd reason he refused to add a starting point but had an endpoint instead. That doesnt make sense. You need to have a starting point.

@@josemou6172I wanted to add on something, you cant have an end, if it has no start in the first place.

@@JabirZakaria not just that, if you dont start somewhere, you cant move anywhere lol.

You mean Danny destroyed them?

Well most scientists refer to it as "Law" which can be expressed mathematically. But I know what I mean...a better example would have been strictly from mathematics. However my point was that he used the word "fact" for metaphysics, which is an abstract / theoretical / philosophical discussion.

Fawad's attitude rubbed me the wrong way. I mean if you know you're wrong then just take the L, no need to be arrogant and call your opponent an idiot. He even admitted later that he's "not an expert". Ok then why are you debating God in the first place? Learn some basic metaphysics and then have a convo with Danny.

​@@luqmannasser5207 Meriam webster: dependent on or conditioned by something else". Now compare that with the definition that the little minion gave and I gave. With all due respect, you're the one commenting on a subject matter that you have absolutely no clue about! Do u know what the contingency argument is? Do u know what he was saying was not factual, as that isn't how it is understood or accepted by any mainstream Philosophers? The reason I lost my cool at this little minion was coz he started making blunders after blunders. First of all, even mainstream atheist philosophers like Graham Oppy don't resort to the idea of infinite regression as it will lead to an absurdity. Second of all, if you believe in such an absurdity, you can't then say "The revolutions of moon and earth are distinguishable", as that will be saying "one infinity can be distinguishable from another". And lastly, he called "metaphysics" a "fact". Metaphysics is a branch of Philosophy and abstract theories, NOT A FACT! The only thing I wasn't able to do was present the names of the scholars that he demanded, which I admitted that I didn't have them right there, but that doesn't mean I couldn't get them, which if you see in the comments section, I did provide earlier btw. Over 10 different scholars! The argument couldn't even go further coz of his false premise! Plz learn about a subject matter before commenting else you appear like an idiot on these comments.

With all due respect, you're the one commenting on a subject matter that you have absolutely no clue about! The argument couldn't even go further coz of his false premise! Do u know what the contingency argument is? Do u know what he was saying was not factual, as that isn't how the Contingency argument is understood or accepted by any mainstream Philosophers? The reason I lost my cool at this little minion was coz he started making blunders after blunders. First of all, even mainstream atheist philosophers like Graham Oppy don't resort to the idea of infinite regression as it will lead to an absurdity. Second of all, if you believe in such an absurdity, you can't then say "The revolutions of moon and earth are distinguishable", as that will be saying "one infinity can be distinguishable from another". And lastly, he called "metaphysics" a "fact". Metaphysics is a branch of Philosophy and abstract theories, NOT A FACT! The only thing I wasn't able to do was present the names of the scholars that he demanded, which I admitted that I didn't have them right there, but that doesn't mean I couldn't get them (which btw if you watch the complete stream, I was able to get literally 30 seconds after he was gone! and I quoted Alexander Pruss!) Plz learn about a subject matter before commenting else you appear like an idiot on these comments. But if you think you can do a better job, feel free to show up on the next stream so we can school you, instead of hiding here in the comment section like a loser talking about a subject matter that you have absolutely no clue about.

@@dotsconnected2islam The quote you read from Alexander Pruss was the principle of sufficient reason, which doesn't offer a definition of contingent --what it does is is make a synthetic claim (a claim that isn't based on the definition of a term) about contingent things.

@@dannyfiltalk Here is the quote from Alexander Pruss: 1. Every contingent fact has an explanation. 2. There is a contingent fact that includes all other contingent facts. 3. Therefore, there is an explanation of this fact. 4. This explanation must involve a necessary being. Quoted from The Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology, The Leibnizian Cosmological Argument, by Alexander R. Pruss, pp.25-6

Because 1000 years ago the explanation for gravity would have been that we were all made of dirt and innately want to get back to earth because we stem from it. Even as a theist, nothing of what danny says is contradictory to God. Just view it as trying to find out how God went about doing everything in the texts and setting up a fair test for us to solve. Trying to grasp only a bit of God's in fathomable character will always lead to highly theoretical explanations.

But don't call it illogical because logic is a philosophical discipline and we don't want to get into that my friend

Just a bunch of empty claims

Hamzah Tzorthis, iERA, Sapience Institute... Go sign up if u want

you'll learn a lot more from atheists, these guys just miss the point and use their mouths more than their ears. i have a crappy art degree and even i can see how infinities work.

It’s not like you can provide a contradiction in that scenario.

@@DannyPhilTalk there is a contradiction. Let's say you infinitely get permission from a negatively (in terms of direction) infinite amount of people to where the sniper is. If this were the case, it would mean that infinity is a finite quantity since it reaches the sniper (an endpoint, analogous to zero). Since we know that infinity is not a measurable quantity, and is by definition never-ending, going _from_ or _to_ negative infinity wouldn't make a difference, the sniper could never take the shot in this scenario. Danny was arguing that direction matters, when in reality it doesn't. You have to first understand the notion of infinity to discuss it. Secondly, in order for the permission to even be granted to the sniper (from negative infinity), you have to assume that there is a person who starts to grant permission. Since the idea of a beginning is inconceivable for an infinite series of people, there could not even be a beginning of granting any permission. Therefore, not only can the sniper not take the shot, there can be absolutely no permission granted to begin with from negative infinity.

​@@beyondmethaphisikrealmInfinity doesn't have to be not-ending from both sides, not-ending from one side suffices to be considered infinite. Your claim that to grant permission there must be a first granter is begging the question i.e. circular reasoning.

Are you talking about the host or me? Because the host uses tons of philosophy! (I do too!)

​@@dannyfiltalkhe is talking about you pro and the guys philosophy came from Islam..

well that's religion for you. dulls the senses.

I'm probably old enough to be your father.

for some reason muslims have this enormous chip on their shoulder that makes them ignore reality totally, even when it's being explained to them, even in the real world they are wrong, i like roger penrose joke about this argument, he said "how can i reach this chair in my office if the universe is infinite" meaning, if you start near any point in time you are close to another point in time, and it makes no difference if there is an infinite past or infinite future, your guys don't seem to understand reality or logic. your guys don't get it.

@@dannyfiltalk another teenager then. Trying to be the big boy as usual.

@@HarryNicNicholas what are you on about islamophobe! I guess their direct, bold, and blunt way of telling the truth doesn't fit your reality.

Well, for starters, you’d do well to understand my position first. I never claimed that there was an infinite regress of moments, all I was arguing in the video was that it’s logically possible, i.e. there’s not a contradiction you could derive. So try to first understand what’s been said before you call anything out.

@@dannyfiltalk first I wanna say I liked how you presented yourself generally. You were respectful and everything. But it is not logically possible that is the issue. They gave you many examples so you could understand the contradiction. But you were ignorant about it. You said, if I'm not mistaken, something can have an an infinite past without necessarily having an infinite futuer (correct me if I got that wrong). That is by definition contradictory. What they said is exactly that if I use the sniper example, you would never get the order or whatever when the order has to go through infinite number of people to get to you. That is the contradiction. Only in mathematics there can be infinity.but not in the real physical world/reality. Not with the physical rules we have

@@CatHarington Sorry, what are two propositions that are mutually exclusive that can be derived from 'time has always been progressing toward the present day'? I want the P and not P.

​@@dannyfiltalk do you accept causal finitism?

@@jean1785 If by causal finitism you mean that something cannot have an infinite causal history, no.