Take Back Our Country

[seer]

Seer, the men in the two scenarios are "seeing" exactly the same thing. The only difference is that for one it is an external reality, and for the second it is all in their mind. The question is, how could you tell the difference?

How can you tell if any thing you see is real? Or if it is all in your mind?

I'm also curious - how many miracles have you personally witnessed?

Just one...

[carpedm9587]

How can you tell if any thing you see is real? Or if it is all in your mind?

My point exactly. You and I are paddling in the same boat....

Just one...

Care to describe?

[carpedm9587]

Incorrect. Read up on what Aquinas is saying - series ordered per accidens versus series ordered per se. You're clearly wrong.

Max, an assertion is not an argument. If you have an argument, put it forward. Otherwise, I see no conflict here.

[seer]

Here, you are proposing an infinite number of visits with an infinity to traverse them, so the problem is nowhere near as bad. The problem with the argument lies in the implicit assumption in the argument of a "beginning." If you have an infinite number of things to visit and an infinity to do it in, you will simply keep traversing infinitely with no contradiction. After all, we are dealing with infinity. The argument assumes the existence of a "beginner" and is essentially arguing that you can never get to it. There is no beginner - there is simply infinity.

In my thought experiment we do have an end, this actual universe. So it is a beginning in reverse. And you know given an infinite amount of time you could never visit all the past events or universes because no matter how many you did visit you would always have an infinite number ahead.

Craig's example:

The absurdities resulting from attempting to apply basic arithmetical operations, functional in the real world, to infinities suggest that although actual infinites can have an ideal existence, they cannot exist in reality.

Once you see the error in the infinite regress argument, the conclusion is fairly simple. But the First Way also has the other problems I pointed out.

So you agree that the prime mover must be sentient? If not what causes it to begin moving other bodies?

[seer]

My point exactly. You and I are paddling in the same boat....

So you are saying that you can not know what it true?

Care to describe?

I have in the past. I posted this right after it happened so it was still fresh in my mind.

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...t=dancing+fern

[carpedm9587]

In my thought experiment we do have an end, this actual universe. So it is a beginning in reverse. And you know given an infinite amount of time you could never visit all the past events or universes because no matter how many you did visit you would always have an infinite number ahead.

Craig's example:

Craig's error is to treat an infinity as if it was a number to be subtracted from. The number of odd numbers is infinite. The number of even numbers is infinite. The number of integers is infinite. Yet we know that there are more total integers than either odd or even numbers. For any given range within the infinity, there will be twice as many integers as odd or even numbers. But all three are infinite without contradiction.

So you agree that the prime mover must be sentient? If not what causes it to begin moving other bodies?

No - I think the infinite regress argument fails entirely, meaning it is possible for there to be no "first" mover.

[seer]

Craig's error is to treat an infinity as if it was a number to be subtracted from. The number of odd numbers is infinite. The number of even numbers is infinite. The number of integers is infinite. Yet we know that there are more total integers than either odd or even numbers. For any given range within the infinity, there will be twice as many integers as odd or even numbers. But all three are infinite without contradiction.

OK, then make this work, change it so it makes sense:

Likewise, in a real library by removing a certain number of books we reduce the overall collection. But if infinites are actual, a library with an infinite number of books would not be reduced in size at all by removal of a specific number of books (short of all of them), for example, all the red books or those with even catalogue numbers.

[seer]

It appears to be a paradox, but it builds the falseness into the paradox with its assumptions. Consider a parallel case: Zeno's paradox about the runner. In order for the runner to finish a race, they must first pass the half-way point. From there, they must then pass the half way point again. The runner must pass an infinite number of "halfway points" before they can cross the finish line. Since it is impossible to traverse an infinite number of points in a finite period of time, a runner can never finish a race. The argument LOOKS incredibly compelling, but we know that runners finish races every day, so something has to be wrong with the argument.

That is the point isn't, you can sub divide distance to infinity, but that is only on paper. A real life example would be a a runner starting a race with an infinite number of actual feet or miles ahead.

[carpedm9587]

That is the point isn't, you can sub divide distance to infinity, but that is only on paper. A real life example would be a a runner starting a race with an infinite number of actual feet or miles ahead.

Seer, it's not just on paper. Distance can be subdivided to infinity - period. We physically measure beyond a certain point, but that does not change the fact that distance can be subdivided to infinity. That is not the problem with Zeno's paradox.

[carpedm9587]

OK, then make this work, change it so it makes sense:

Likewise, in a real library by removing a certain number of books we reduce the overall collection. But if infinites are actual, a library with an infinite number of books would not be reduced in size at all by removal of a specific number of books (short of all of them), for example, all the red books or those with even catalogue numbers.

The problem, Seer, is that an infinite library is not actual and cannot be actual because it is comprised of discrete elements that occupy space, which would require infinite space to house them and the universe is finite. So Craig is using a concept that is itself self-contradictory to try to highlight a concept. I already gave you an example of something that involves two related infinites, where one is a subset of the other, without contradiction.

[seer]

Seer, it's not just on paper. Distance can be subdivided to infinity - period. We physically measure beyond a certain point, but that does not change the fact that distance can be subdivided to infinity. That is not the problem with Zeno's paradox.

Yes distance can be subdivided to infinity, on paper that is correct. That has nothing to do with moving through infinity - actually, again, a real life example would be a runner starting a race with an infinite number of actual feet or miles ahead.

[seer]

The problem, Seer, is that an infinite library is not actual and cannot be actual because it is comprised of discrete elements that occupy space, which would require infinite space to house them and the universe is finite. So Craig is using a concept that is itself self-contradictory to try to highlight a concept. I already gave you an example of something that involves two related infinites, where one is a subset of the other, without contradiction.

Well if you can have an infinite number of objects then you can have an infinite space to hold them. It is a thought experiment, and where did you show what you claimed, in actuality?

But you said: Yet we know that there are more total integers than either odd or even numbers. For any given range within the infinity, there will be twice as many integers as odd or even numbers. But all three are infinite without contradiction.

So use that and make sense of the library example.

[carpedm9587]

So you are saying that you can not know what it true?

I am saying that all humans, regardless of their beliefs, can only know what is true to a degree of certainty less than 100%. There is always a gap, because there is always the possibility of reasoning or perceiving incorrectly. When we adopt a position that our beliefs cannot be wrong, we adopt a position that is unsustainable.

I have in the past. I posted this right after it happened so it was still fresh in my mind.

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...t=dancing+fern

Yeah, I've read it. I couldn't remember if that was you or CP or Sparko. That it impressed you as a miracle is, without doubt, true. But I know that our senses can themselves deceive us when the mind needs it to. Years ago, I had an accident. I was horsing around with my friends and got my finger caught in a slamming door. I felt I had pinched it, and when I looked at the finger I saw the finger a whole, but bleeding around the nail. I went to the infirmary for a bandage. The medic on duty got the bandage and went to put it on, then stopped. I remember he looked at me with this stunned look, and then he suggested I continue to hold it and told me he wanted to take me to the E.R. "just to make sure it wasn't broken." I did so. It wasn't until we were in the E.R. and I heard the doctor say, "emulsion of the finger tip" that I realized I had not just damaged the nail a bit, I had lost the entire tip of the finger. But my brain registered it as whole, and continued to do so for a significant period of time.

Our mind has a unique ability to help us see what we need to see at that time. So the "dancing fern" does not particularly impress me. It's a fern. It was suspended in mid-air. We see illusionists do such things regularly. That it can happen naturally, or that you can see it when it is not exactly happening as you describe it, is far more reasonable to me than "god did it."

[rogue06]

Yes distance can be subdivided to infinity, on paper that is correct.

I believe that was part of Zeno's Arrow Paradox

[carpedm9587]

Well if you can have an infinite number of objects then you can have an infinite space to hold them. It is a thought experiment, and where did you show what you claimed, in actuality?

Yes, and if you had an infinite library and you removed five books, the number of books remaining would be infinity - 5, which is still infinity. But the five books you removed would no longer be there. Craig is treating infinity as if it is a fixed number. It's not. It's infinity.

But you said: Yet we know that there are more total integers than either odd or even numbers. For any given range within the infinity, there will be twice as many integers as odd or even numbers. But all three are infinite without contradiction.

So use that and make sense of the library example.

I just did. The library would no longer hold the five books you removed, and there would still be an infinity of books.