A review of the Craig v. Malpass discussion

[shunyadragon]

Let's review, for a moment, the actual argument which Dr. Craig makes in this video. It is as follows:

1. An actually infinite number of things cannot exist.
2. A beginningless series of events in time is an actual infinite.
3. Therefore, a beginningless series of events in time cannot exist.

Which part of this argument is poisoned by bias? Which part of this argument cannot also be made by, say, a complete atheist? If you are able to pinpoint one, I'll be sure to inform the atheists I know who have actually put forward almost this exact same argument. They'll be fairly shocked to learn that they were unknowingly theists this entire time!.

First, this does not represent Craig's argument. I do not believe they are shocked because atheists do not make this argument, particularly the conclusion.

Then you really don't know very much about Pythagoras. He studied math for religious reasons. He was not interested in practical applications, and he would quite honestly have been disgusted by any assertion to the contrary. He had ideas about the divine nature of number and proportion which fueled his study. This is why the Pythagoreans quite famously refused to accept that there could be any magnitude which is incommensurate with shorter magnitudes (a concept which we now call "irrational numbers") despite the fact that there is a fairly simply proof which shows that the Pythagorean position is incorrect.

Simply no, Pythagoras work in math was not based on a religious reasons.

I literally quoted your exact words and even provided the direct context of those words. How did I misquote you?

Read the posts. I said that math and metaphysics were separate division in , and NOT that math has nothing to do with metaphysics.philosophy

Allow me to try a different tack, here. This entire direction of our discussion arose when you said that metaphysics could not be utilized to discuss the question of whether actual infinities can exist in reality.

Twisting words to justify your agenda does not result in a different tact. I said that there are no natural divisions and numbers on time and space, and applying the question of the existence of an actual infinity that limits time and space is based on a religious justification that our physical existence has a beginning. It is whether math can be utilized to reach this metaphysical conclusion, and the answer is no. It is a misuse of math to reach a metaphysical conclusion.

Do you now agree that metaphysics is the study of the underlying foundations of reality?

The study of the philosophical 'only' underlying foundations of reality.

If so, do you now agree that the study of the underlying foundations of reality is fairly useful in determining whether or not a thing can exist in reality?

Only from a philosophical perspective depending on the assumptions of the logical argument. The underlying reality of our physical existence is falsified and determined by the sciences using the math tool box.

[Boxing Pythagoras]

First, this does not represent Craig's argument.

This is literally, word for word, the argument which Dr. Craig lays out in the video.

I do not believe they are shocked because atheists do not make this argument, particularly the conclusion.

I just told you that I have conversed with atheists who do make this argument. I know quite a few atheists who are also metaphysical finitists.

Simply no, Pythagoras work in math was not based on a religious reasons.

Again, I suggest you read literally anything on the Pythagorean cult. Somehow, I doubt you are more informed on the man than I am.

Read the posts. I said that math and metaphysics were separate division in , and NOT that math has nothing to do with metaphysics.philosophy

I was responding to your claim in Post #27 of this thread that, "Unless you are counting Gods one believes in, I believe metaphysics, such as the apologist arguments, are too subjective to use math to support their arguments." Given that we both seem to be in agreement, now, that mathematics is fundamentally useful to metaphysics, do you still think that metaphysics such as those presented in the argument which I detailed "are too subjective to use math to support their arguments?"

I said that there are no natural divisions and numbers on time and space

And how did you come to this conclusion, if not by metaphysics? You certainly can't have come to this conclusion by way of modern physics, since that field most certainly DOES suggest natural divisions on time and space-- particularly, the Planck intervals. How have you ruled out the notions of discrete space and discrete time, considering these are still very much open questions in physics?

and applying the question of the existence of an actual infinity that limits time and space is based on a religious justification that our physical existence has a beginning.

Once again, look at the actual argument which is being discussed. I will list it, again, just to continue reiterating the point:

1. An actually infinite number of things cannot exist.
2. A beginningless series of events in time is an actual infinite.
3. Therefore, a beginningless series of events in time cannot exist.

Once again, Premises (1) and (2) are not religiously biased ideas. Both premises can be and have been held by Christians and non-Christians, theists and non-theists, naturalists and non-naturalists, et cetera. As I have already stated, I have interacted with atheists who hold to both of these premises because they are metaphysical finitists. It is also quite clear that (3) follows validly from (1) and (2) completely regardless of one's religious biases.

Now, I am quite obviously not a fan of William Lane Craig. However, it is not the case that his argument in this video is poisoned by his religious beliefs even if it is motivated by them.

It is whether math can be utilized to reach this metaphysical conclusion, and the answer is no. It is a misuse of math to reach a metaphysical conclusion.

Do you think that something which is mathematically impossible can be metaphysically possible? If you do, why? If you don't, then it seems perfectly clear that mathematics can be used to reach a metaphysical conclusion.

The study of the philosophical 'only' underlying foundations of reality.

As opposed to what?

Only from a philosophical perspective depending on the assumptions of the logical argument.

This is literally and explicitly a philosophical argument which we have been discussing, this entire time.

[shunyadragon]

This is literally, word for word, the argument which Dr. Craig lays out in the video.

So? It remains incomplete as far as what Craig's argument.

I just told you that I have conversed with atheists who do make this argument. I know quite a few atheists who are also metaphysical finitists.

So? I do not agree. Atheists do not remotely use this argument to justify limits to the nature and extent of our physical existence.

Again, I suggest you read literally anything on the Pythagorean cult. Somehow, I doubt you are more informed on the man than I am.

Still remains, no reference to justify your claim concerning Pythagoras. The existence of a Pythagorean cult does not justify that Pythagoras was motivated by religion concerning the development of the math based on his writings.

I was responding to your claim in Post #27 of this thread that, "Unless you are counting Gods one believes in, I believe metaphysics, such as the apologist arguments, are too subjective to use math to support their arguments." Given that we both seem to be in agreement, now, that mathematics is fundamentally useful to metaphysics, do you still think that metaphysics such as those presented in the argument which I detailed "are too subjective to use math to support their arguments?"

Math is fundamental to all disciplines. This does not perclude what I describe as the misuse of math in apologetic arguments.

[quote] And how did you come to this conclusion, if not by metaphysics? You certainly can't have come to this conclusion by way of modern physics, since that field most certainly DOES suggest natural divisions on time and space-- particularly, the Planck intervals. How have you ruled out the notions of discrete space and discrete time, considering these are still very much open questions in physics?
Suggest natural divisions?!?!? absolutely no. Science is descriptive, and develops systems of measurement and math as tools to describe nature, and a gain no, science does not suggest nor conclude that these divisions actually exist in nature.

Once again, look at the actual argument which is being discussed. I will list it, again, just to continue reiterating the point:

1. An actually infinite number of things cannot exist.
2. A beginningless series of events in time is an actual infinite.
3. Therefore, a beginningless series of events in time cannot exist.

Once again, Premises (1) and (2) are not religiously biased ideas. Both premises can be and have been held by Christians and non-Christians, theists and non-theists, naturalists and non-naturalists, et cetera. As I have already stated, I have interacted with atheists who hold to both of these premises because they are metaphysical finitists. It is also quite clear that (3) follows validly from (1) and (2) completely regardless of one's religious biases.

Again incomplete, the argument from Craig reflects his religious bias, and since the argument was presented in antiquity the purpose of the argument was the justification of the belief in God.

Now, I am quite obviously not a fan of William Lane Craig. However, it is not the case that his argument in this video is poisoned by his religious beliefs even if it is motivated by them.

I consider 'motivated the same as poisoned' in this case.

Do you think that something which is mathematically impossible can be metaphysically possible? If you do, why? If you don't, then it seems perfectly clear that mathematics can be used to reach a metaphysical conclusion.

First math does not determine what is possible. Math is the logical number discipline that develops and proves math theorems. Math is the tool box. Some forms of math are useful and some are not. Of course math may be used to reach a conclusion, but math can be misused to reach conclusions. The use of math does not assure the validity of the conclusion.

As opposed to what?

Science.

This is literally and explicitly a philosophical argument which we have been discussing, this entire time.

OK. I am arguing for the limits of philosophical and metaphysical arguments in reaching these conclusions, and the limitations of the use of math. There is a problem if metaphysical and philosophical argument neglect the science. In terms of the apologetic arguments proposed, there purpose is theological.

[Boxing Pythagoras]

So? It remains incomplete as far as what Craig's argument.

No, it doesn't. This is the only argument which is under discussion in the video, and it was the only argument which I began to talk about in this thread. It is a complete argument, in and of itself. Craig's other beliefs are entirely irrelevant to the discussion of this particular syllogism.

So? I do not agree. Atheists do not remotely use this argument to justify limits to the nature and extent of our physical existence.

This is the third time, now, that I will be telling you this, so I'm going to embolden it as much as I possibly can for emphasis: I HAVE HAD DISCUSSIONS WITH ATHEISTS WHO USE THIS EXACT ARGUMENT TO JUSTIFY LIMITS TO THE NATURE AND EXTENT OF OUR PHYSICAL EXISTENCE.

Still remains, no reference to justify your claim concerning Pythagoras. The existence of a Pythagorean cult does not justify that Pythagoras was motivated by religion concerning the development of the math based on his writings.

Based on WHAT writings? Do you know so little about Pythagoras that you think we know of any works Pythagoras wrote? What mathematical work do you think Pythagoras did which was NOT motivated by his religious beliefs? Do you even know what his religious beliefs were?

Math is fundamental to all disciplines. This does not perclude what I describe as the misuse of math in apologetic arguments.

That didn't answer the question to which it was a response, at all, so let me repeat it: do you still think that metaphysics such as those presented in the argument which I detailed "are too subjective to use math to support their arguments?"

Suggest natural divisions?!?!? absolutely no. Science is descriptive, and develops systems of measurement and math as tools to describe nature, and a gain no, science does not suggest nor conclude that these divisions actually exist in nature.

Once again, there will be quite a number of physicists who disagree with you, here, as they have proposed that space-time is likely discrete, not continuous, and that this suggests a natural minimum, indivisible interval of space-time. See, for instance, this peer-reviewed article by David Crouse: https://arxiv.org/abs/1608.08506

However, even if that was not the case, I'll ask again: how have you ruled out the notions of discrete space and discrete time? How did you come to the conclusion that there are no natural divisions in space or time?

Again incomplete, the argument from Craig reflects his religious bias, and since the argument was presented in antiquity the purpose of the argument was the justification of the belief in God.

Which part of the syllogism under discussion is incompatible with atheism? Do you suppose an atheist cannot assert that "an actually infinite number of things cannot exist?" Or do you say that an atheist cannot claim that "a beginningless series of events in time is an actual infinite?" Since neither of those premises has anything to do with God, I would love to see how you can justify any such position.

I consider 'motivated the same as poisoned' in this case.

Cool. Then you are admitting that you are committing a logical fallacy.

First math does not determine what is possible.

It doesn't? Cool. Perhaps you can show me how it is possible to construct a regular polyhedron with seven sides, then, because insofar as I am aware the only thing which DOES tell us that this is impossible is mathematics.

Here's something easier! Is it possible for the radius of a circle to be larger than its circumference? Whether you answer "yes" or "no" to this question, please be sure that you justify your answer without mathematics.

Math is the logical number discipline that develops and proves math theorems. Math is the tool box. Some forms of math are useful and some are not.

Which forms of math are not useful?

Science.

Are you suggesting that science can tell us anything about the underlying nature of reality? I would love to see your falsifiable scientific method for exploring the Platonic universals.

OK. I am arguing for the limits of philosophical and metaphysical arguments in reaching these conclusions, and the limitations of the use of math. There is a problem if metaphysical and philosophical argument neglect the science. In terms of the apologetic arguments proposed, there purpose is theological.

In the actual syllogism under discussion, what limits are you proposing? Are you saying that metaphysics cannot speak to whether an actually infinite number of things can exist? Are you saying that mathematics cannot tell us whether some objective set of things is actually infinite in cardinality? What science do you suppose is being neglected, here? What part of this syllogism is theological in nature and cannot be asserted with equal force by an atheist?

[shunyadragon]

No, it doesn't. This is the only argument which is under discussion in the video, and it was the only argument which I began to talk about in this thread. It is a complete argument, in and of itself. Craig's other beliefs are entirely irrelevant to the discussion of this particular syllogism.

From Craig's perspective this is the basis for his apologetic argument as it has been for millennia.

This is the third time, now, that I will be telling you this, so I'm going to embolden it as much as I possibly can for emphasis: I HAVE HAD DISCUSSIONS WITH ATHEISTS WHO USE THIS EXACT ARGUMENT TO JUSTIFY LIMITS TO THE NATURE AND EXTENT OF OUR PHYSICAL EXISTENCE. [/quote]

Anecdotal claims in BOLD and underlined do not pass muster, and are meaningless in any argument.

Based on WHAT writings? Do you know so little about Pythagoras that you think we know of any works Pythagoras wrote? What mathematical work do you think Pythagoras did which was NOT motivated by his religious beliefs? Do you even know what his religious beliefs were?

Yes I know Pythagoras religious beliefs, and they have nothing to do with math, except that he believes that math can be used to describe the nature of our physical existence as all math used in the history of humanity.

That didn't answer the question to which it was a response, at all, so let me repeat it: do you still think that metaphysics such as those presented in the argument which I detailed "are too subjective to use math to support their arguments?"

Yes, as specifically applies to the argument in question.

Once again, there will be quite a number of physicists who disagree with you, here, as they have proposed that space-time is likely discrete, not continuous, and that this suggests a natural minimum, indivisible interval of space-time. See, for instance, this peer-reviewed article by David Crouse: https://arxiv.org/abs/1608.08506

So what? I believe that whether our physical existence is finite, infinite, nor eternal or temporal is not falsifiable as a hypothesis, nor suported by math.

However, even if that was not the case, I'll ask again: how have you ruled out the notions of discrete space and discrete time? How did you come to the conclusion that there are no natural divisions in space or time?

Nothing ruled out in the absolute sense. Yes there are disagreements here, but I will go with the view that; model that assumes that spatial coordinates and time are continuous variables.

'Arguing from ignorance' does not justify the possibility that there are natural divisions in time and space. Sciences are as a fact descriptive, and develop units of measurement for time and space from the human perspective, and I believe fully realize that human systems of measurement are human constructs for human use. This actually the same case for math.

Which part of the syllogism under discussion is incompatible with atheism? Do you suppose an atheist cannot assert that "an actually infinite number of things cannot exist?" Or do you say that an atheist cannot claim that "a beginningless series of events in time is an actual infinite?" Since neither of those premises has anything to do with God, I would love to see how you can justify any such position.ote

It is possible for an atheist to propose this syllogism, but I do not for the life of me know why. but my argument is they would not use the apologetic argument that Craig uses to justify a finite existence necessarily from a greater infinite and eternal source.

Cool. Then you are admitting that you are committing a logical fallacy.

No

It doesn't? Cool. Perhaps you can show me how it is possible to construct a regular polyhedron with seven sides, then, because insofar as I am aware the only thing which DOES tell us that this is impossible is mathematics.

Here's something easier! Is it possible for the radius of a circle to be larger than its circumference? Whether you answer "yes" or "no" to this question, please be sure that you justify your answer without mathematics.

My statement has nothing to with the above. Proposed geometric figures that are impossible are trivial pursuit as far as science is considered. Math develops many theorems some very useful to determine what is possible in our physical existence, some are not. Science uses math as the tool box to falsify hypothesis and theories. The above cited are math games, science is not looking for impossible geometric figures in the universe.and not relevant as to what is possible in nature.

Which forms of math are not useful?

The math that is useful in falsifying theories and hypothesis concerning the nature of our physical existence.

Are you suggesting that science can tell us anything about the underlying nature of reality?

Yes science can, but in the absolute sense no that is not the goal of science.

I would love to see your falsifiable scientific method for exploring the Platonic universals.

HUh?!?!?! Love if you choose, but the abstraction of Platonic universals, and Platonic idealism may make interesting conversation among metaphysicists, but not remotely useful in science today. In fact science could care less.

In the actual syllogism under discussion, what limits are you proposing? Are you saying that metaphysics cannot speak to whether an actually infinite number of things can exist?

In the case of the apologetic argument Craig proposes as an argument for a finite limit to our physical existence, yes.

Are you saying that mathematics cannot tell us whether some objective set of things is actually infinite in cardinality?

No I did not say that, but I would like to know the useful context this would apply in science.

What science do you suppose is being neglected, here? What part of this syllogism is theological in nature and cannot be asserted with equal force by an atheist?

Applying this argument, which Craig does, to limit our physical existence to a finite temporal entity. I see no other functional purpose for theis argument other than trivial pursuit. In tis case I do not believe you can neatly separate the argument from Craig's apologetic argument.

I would have to know what context the atheist would propose this in a meaningful way in science, but that is not forthcoming.

[Boxing Pythagoras]

From Craig's perspective this is the basis for his apologetic argument as it has been for millennia.

Which is entirely irrelevant to this particular syllogism.

Anecdotal claims in BOLD and underlined do not pass muster, and are meaningless in any argument.

Which part of this syllogism represents a statement that could not be made by an atheist?

1. An actually infinite number of things cannot exist.
2. A beginningless series of events in time is an actual infinite.
3. Therefore, a beginningless series of events in time cannot exist.

Premise (1) has nothing to do with God. Premise (2) has nothing to do with God. The conclusion in (3) follows validly from (1) and (2) and has nothing to do with God.

Yes I know Pythagoras religious beliefs, and they have nothing to do with math.

What, pray tell, do you think Pythagoras' religious beliefs were?

Yes

Awesome. Which part of this syllogism would you say is too subjective?

1. An actually infinite number of things cannot exist.
2. A beginningless series of events in time is an actual infinite.
3. Therefore, a beginningless series of events in time cannot exist.

Is Premise (1) subjective? Or is it Premise (2)? Or is it both?

So what? I believe that whether our physical existence is finite, infinite, nor eternal or temporal is not falsifiable as a hypothesis, nor suported by math.

And how did you come to this conclusion?

Nothing ruled out in the absolute sense. Yes there are disagreements here, but I will go with the view that; model that assumes that spatial coordinates and time are continuous variables.

If space and time are continuous intervals, that also contradicts your earlier statement that there are no natural numbers or divisions in space and time. After all, the most natural division of a continuous interval is simply the whole of that interval-- a division by one.

It is possible for an atheist to propose this syllogism, but I do not for the life of me know why.

I already explained to you why they use such an argument: they are metaphysical finitists. Some of the atheists I know who have argued in this way are simply uncomfortable with the same sorts of thought experiments that make Craig uncomfortable. Other atheists who I know that have argued this way reject particular axioms in the foundations of mathematics-- usually the Axiom of Infinity, the Axiom of Choice, or both.

The argument is about infinity. It has nothing to do with God.

No

You can't have it both ways. Either you are claiming that Craig's religious motivations affect the soundness of the syllogism or else you admit that Craig's religious motivations are irrelevant to the soundness of the syllogism. The former claim is obviously fallacious. The latter claim implies that all your complaints about Craig's religious bias are entirely irrelevant.

My statement has nothing to with the above. Proposed geometric figures that are impossible are trivial pursuit as far as science is considered.

Please provide a source for the trivial scientific experiments which can determine whether or not it is possible to construct a regular heptahedron or a circle with a radius larger than its circumference.

Math develops many theorems some very useful to determine what is possible in our physical existence...

You literally said the exact opposite two posts ago when you claimed, "math does not determine what is possible."

The math that is useful in falsifying theories and hypothesis concerning the nature of our physical existence.

Perhaps you misread, there. I asked which forms of math are NOT useful, since you claimed that "Some forms of math are useful and some are not."

Yes science can, but in the absolute sense no that is not the goal of science.

How do you propose science can tell us anything about the underlying foundations of reality?

HUh?!?!?! Love if you choose, but the abstraction of Platonic universals, and Platonic idealism may make interesting conversation, but not remotely useful in science today. In fact science could care less.

That is rather my point. Science tells us absolutely nothing about the Platonic universals. Nor can it.

[shunyadragon]

Which is entirely irrelevant to this particular syllogism.

Again for Craig it is very meaningful and critical for his apologetic argument, but of no constructive value to anyone else.

Which part of this syllogism represents a statement that could not be made by an atheist?
[LIST=1][*]An actually infinite number of things cannot exist.[*]A beginningless series of events in time is an actual infinite.[*]Therefore, a beginningless series of events in time cannot exist.[/list']

Ontological naturalism, and the nature of our physical existence is indifferent to the matter of the existence of actual infinities. Infinities including potential infinities cannot be falsified by objective scientific methods. In fact the math of physics and cosmology works very well without infinities.

Premise (1) has nothing to do with God. Premise (2) has nothing to do with God. The conclusion in (3) follows validly from (1) and (2) and has nothing to do with God.

What, pray tell, do you think Pythagoras' religious beliefs were?

Indifferent to his math.

Awesome. Which part of this syllogism would you say is too subjective?

1. An actually infinite number of things cannot exist.
2. A beginningless series of events in time is an actual infinite.
3. Therefore, a beginningless series of events in time cannot exist.

Is Premise (1) subjective? Or is it Premise (2)? Or is it both?

And how did you come to this conclusion?

The whole thing because it cannot be objectively verified by scientific methods in any meaningful way nor purpose,

If space and time are continuous intervals, that also contradicts your earlier statement that there are no natural numbers or divisions in space and time. After all, the most natural division of a continuous interval is simply the whole of that interval-- a division by one.

No it does not, being continuous and variable, the designations used be science are for the descriptive purposes of science, and nature is indifferent.

I already explained to you why they use such an argument: they are metaphysical finitists. Some of the atheists I know who have argued in this way are simply uncomfortable with the same sorts of thought experiments that make Craig uncomfortable. Other atheists who I know that have argued this way reject particular axioms in the foundations of mathematics-- usually the Axiom of Infinity, the Axiom of Choice, or both.atu

I already explained to you before this is not meaningful concerning methodological nor ontological naturalism.

The argument is about infinity. It has nothing to do with God.

Disagree as usual, but nonetheless it has nothing to with nor functionally useful as far as science is concerned.

You can't have it both ways. Either you are claiming that Craig's religious motivations affect the soundness of the syllogism or else you admit that Craig's religious motivations are irrelevant to the soundness of the syllogism. The former claim is obviously fallacious. The latter claim implies that all your complaints about Craig's religious bias are entirely irrelevant.

The syllogism is meaningless regardless.

Please provide a source for the trivial scientific experiments which can determine whether or not it is possible to construct a regular heptahedron or a circle with a radius larger than its circumference.

[quote] You literally said the exact opposite two posts ago when you claimed, "math does not determine what is possible.[quote]

Math does not prove what is possible in nature, and science does not deal with what is proven nor necessarily possible. Math can prove theorems regardless of whether or not it physically possible in the nature of existence. As far as science goes math is a practical tool box to be useful concerning what can be falsified by scientific methods.

Perhaps you misread, there. I asked which forms of math are NOT useful, since you claimed that "Some forms of math are useful and some are not."

Science determines that. As a matter of fact the existence of actual nor potential infinities are not useful to science, because they cannot be falsified by objective verifiable evidence concerning physical nature of our physical existence. The math for science works very well without infinities.

How do you propose science can tell us anything about the underlying foundations of reality?

Science is descriptive of the foundation to the extent that it is objectively verifiable by scientific methods, beyond that it is subjective and too variable from different philosophical and theological perspectives to be meaningful and useful.

It is the result of a math theorem, and only applies to science if science finds it useful.

That is rather my point. Science tells us absolutely nothing about the Platonic universals. Nor can it.

True, and it could care less concerning ancient subjective and anecdotal views concerning the universal.

[Boxing Pythagoras]

Alright, I am fairly certain anyone else reading this thread will agree that I've been more than fair in attempting to respond to shuny, but I honestly don't think that line has any potential to be at all fruitful. So I'm just going to ignore his willfully fallacious and demonstrably erroneous claims from here on in the hopes that something of interest might be resurrected for other people to discuss.

[Leonhard]

Alright, I am fairly certain anyone else reading this thread will agree that I've been more than fair in attempting to respond to shuny, but I honestly don't think that line has any potential to be at all fruitful. So I'm just going to ignore his willfully fallacious and demonstrably erroneous claims from here on in the hopes that something of interest might be resurrected for other people to discuss.

In general, I'd advise you to never engage with Shunya, he likes to pretend to be an intellectual, but he usually just quacks terms he's gleaned from colorful magazines without actually demonstrating comprehension. He's a quack.

When that is pointed out to him, no matter how polite or constructive you're being, he'll ignore you or worse he'll quote you back what you said ad verbatim as if what you said was a pointless insult.

He's a crank, and for some reason (and this truly is a mystery) he's stuck around this forum for a decade.

If you do answer Shunya it is important to pick one subject, stick to that. Shunya will meander all over the place, and pull in various links he thinks supports him from random google searches he does. Even when the conclusion of the articles he links to is the opposite of what he is trying to establish (we think he doesn't always bother reading them).

[Leonhard]

First, this does not represent Craig's argument.

Actually it does, Craig deploys what has come to be known as the Kalam cosmological argument. I relies on two premises, one trivial the other not, and derives a conclusion.

The non-trivial premise is that actual infinites are impossible. He then proceeds to defend this claim. Whether or not he is successful in establishing that premise is a different matter than the structure of his argument.

[Cerebrum123]

Alright, I am fairly certain anyone else reading this thread will agree that I've been more than fair in attempting to respond to shuny, but I honestly don't think that line has any potential to be at all fruitful. So I'm just going to ignore his willfully fallacious and demonstrably erroneous claims from here on in the hopes that something of interest might be resurrected for other people to discuss.

In my experience that is how all discussions with shuny go.

[shunyadragon]

Alright, I am fairly certain anyone else reading this thread will agree that I've been more than fair in attempting to respond to shuny, but I honestly don't think that line has any potential to be at all fruitful. So I'm just going to ignore his willfully fallacious and demonstrably erroneous claims from here on in the hopes that something of interest might be resurrected for other people to discuss.

Failure to respond to the key points and clinging to ancient metaphysical worldview no longer remotely relevant to science.

Example: You have failed to explain how the religion of Pythagoras lead to the Math Pythagoras developed. You made the claim would not support it, and demanded me to explain your argument.

Another: You failed to describe nor defend how this syllogism is meaningful in Ontological Naturalism, nor cited anyone and explain why they would ever support this syllogism in their worldview.

[shunyadragon]

Actually it does, Craig deploys what has come to be known as the Kalam cosmological argument. I relies on two premises, one trivial the other not, and derives a conclusion.

Incomplete citation. I actually agree. I said this does represent the root of Craig's argument, but it is incomplete. Pythagoras claimed it does not represent Craig's apologetic argument at all.The estimates from China indicate that up to Please do not cite me out of context, particularly if you are going resort to slander and name calling.

The non-trivial premise is that actual infinities are impossible. He then proceeds to defend this claim. Whether or not he is successful in establishing that premise is a different matter than the structure of his argument.

Actually we agree.

I said: "Again for Craig it is very meaningful and critical for his apologetic argument, but of no constructive value to anyone [those that believe in ontological naturalism] else."

Which is entirely irrelevant to this particular syllogism.

Concerning Craig's apologetic argument.

[shunyadragon]

In general, I'd advise you to never engage with Shunya, he likes to pretend to be an intellectual, but he usually just quacks terms he's gleaned from colorful magazines without actually demonstrating comprehension. He's a quack.

When that is pointed out to him, no matter how polite or constructive you're being, he'll ignore you or worse he'll quote you back what you said ad verbatim as if what you said was a pointless insult.

He's a crank, and for some reason (and this truly is a mystery) he's stuck around this forum for a decade.

If you do answer Shunya it is important to pick one subject, stick to that. Shunya will meander all over the place, and pull in various links he thinks supports him from random google searches he does. Even when the conclusion of the articles he links to is the opposite of what he is trying to establish (we think he doesn't always bother reading them).

Name calling, like Pythagoras, does not respond to any of my posts. I actually agree with your previous post, and name calling gets you nowhere.

[JonathanL]

Name calling, like Pythagoras, does not respond to any of my posts. I actually agree with your previous post, and name calling gets you nowhere.

"like Pythagoras"?

Dude, if you think anything BP said to you in this thread constituted name calling you're not living in the same reality as the rest of us.