Take Back Our Country

[carpedm9587]

I believe that was part of Zeno's Arrow Paradox

I am familiar with the runner, but anything that moves over a distance to a destination is applicable.

[seer]

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.

Right, and I said in the recent past that we can't be 100% certain.

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."

It was not an illusion, a fellow on a mountain bike saw it too, there was no illusionist there to do a trick. And I'm not given to hallucinations I examined the fern for quite a while like I said, I know what I saw, whether you believe me or not is immaterial.

[carpedm9587]

Right, and I said in the recent past that we can't be 100% certain.

And yet your language continually reflects a lack of any doubt, and an assertion that any belief that god is not is simply "irrational." You are not being consistent.

It was not an illusion, a fellow on a mountain bike saw it too, there was no illusionist there to do a trick. And I'm not given to hallucinations I examined the fern for quite a while like I said, I know what I saw, whether you believe me or not is immaterial.

I am not given to hallucinations either, Seer, and yet I was subject to one. I'm not saying that your situation was a hallucination. I am merely saying that there are multiple perfectly naturalistic explanations that do not require "god did it." And, when you think about it, there is nothing about a "floating fern" that supports a claim of "god did it," not to mention it says nothing about the Christian god whatsoever. I find myself curious as to why this event played such a pivotal role in your life.

[seer]

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.

So infinity minus 5 equals infinity? How is that not absurd? Look at it this way, you have an infinite series of numbers, 1,2,3,4,.... You remove all the odd numbers. So infinity (even numbers) minus infinity (odd numbers) equals infinity. Again, how is that not absurd, a contradiction?

[seer]

And yet your language continually reflects a lack of any doubt, and an assertion that any belief that god is not is simply "irrational." You are not being consistent.

Hey Carp, you have been called on this too - you always come off as certain.

I am not given to hallucinations either, Seer, and yet I was subject to one. I'm not saying that your situation was a hallucination. I am merely saying that there are multiple perfectly naturalistic explanations that do not require "god did it." And, when you think about it, there is nothing about a "floating fern" that supports a claim of "god did it," not to mention it says nothing about the Christian god whatsoever. I find myself curious as to why this event played such a pivotal role in your life.

Did I say it played a pivotal role? You asked if I ever witnessed a miracle. Your objections notwithstanding, I did.

[carpedm9587]

So infinity minus 5 equals infinity? How is that not absurd?

It's infinity, Seer. You can remove as many books as you want, and there are still an infinity remaining. The only thing that has changed is the specific books removed are no longer present. Infinity is infinity. There is no contradiction here. The only contradiction is in your mind.

Look at it this way, you have an infinite series of numbers, 1,2,3,4,.... You remove all the odd numbers. So infinity (even numbers) minus infinity (odd numbers) equals infinity. Again, how is that not absurd, a contradiction?

Because infinity is not 10. If you have 10 things and you remove 5, you have five less. If you have an infinity of numbers, and you remove half, you still have an infinity of numbers. You are simply missing the odd ones.

Why you cannot see this is unknown to me. Your error is that you are treating infinity as a fixed number. It's not. It's infinity. It means "never ending" - not "X amount." If I remove every other number in an unending series, the series is still unending. For any given subset of the series, it will have half as many numbers. But half of infinity is still infinity.

[seer]

It's infinity, Seer. You can remove as many books as you want, and there are still an infinity remaining. The only thing that has changed is the specific books removed are no longer present. Infinity is infinity. There is no contradiction here. The only contradiction is in your mind.

Because infinity is not 10. If you have 10 things and you remove 5, you have five less. If you have an infinity of numbers, and you remove half, you still have an infinity of numbers. You are simply missing the odd ones.

Why you cannot see this is unknown to me. Your error is that you are treating infinity as a fixed number. It's not. It's infinity. It means "never ending" - not "X amount." If I remove every other number in an unending series, the series is still unending. For any given subset of the series, it will have half as many numbers. But half of infinity is still infinity.

But that is exactly why it is absurd: Infinity minus infinity still equals infinity. And speaking of only in your mind, infinity is only in your mind.

[MaxVel]

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

Umm... You're the one who is asserting that Aquinas and all the subsequent philosophers who studied his arguments are wrong.

Feser, for example, in the book I referenced earlier, spends about 60 pages going over the basic concepts and terms before spending 4 pages on this very point alone.

You're simply uninformed, and I am not in a position to inform you more in our present situation. You will need to grasp what Aquinas meant by all the terms he uses to understand what he was actually arguing.

Thus you need to know about the 4 types of causes, act and potency, and series ordered per se and series ordered per accidens at a minimum. Until you've grasped all that, you haven't grasped the argument at all. And it's clear from your comments so far that you haven't grasped that. No disrespect to seer but Craig's arguments are different from Aquinas' altogether and not really relevant here.

I'm not 100% sure that Aquinas' arguments are correct. I am sure that they are well thought out and robust.

[seer]

No disrespect to seer but Craig's arguments are different from Aquinas' altogether and not really relevant here.

We got off on the infinite regression point, that lead to whether actual infinities exist. That was premise seven: The sequence of motion cannot extend ad infinitum. I think whether that is true or not is key to the whole argument.

[carpedm9587]

But that is exactly why it is absurd: Infinity minus infinity still equals infinity. And speaking of only in your mind, infinity is only in your mind.

Seer, you need to review your basic math. As I noted before - infinity is not a specific number you can subtract from. It is exactly that - infinity - unending. There is no absurdity here whatsoever.

[carpedm9587]

Umm... You're the one who is asserting that Aquinas and all the subsequent philosophers who studied his arguments are wrong.

With an explanation....

Feser, for example, in the book I referenced earlier, spends about 60 pages going over the basic concepts and terms before spending 4 pages on this very point alone.

You're simply uninformed, and I am not in a position to inform you more in our present situation. You will need to grasp what Aquinas meant by all the terms he uses to understand what he was actually arguing.

Thus you need to know about the 4 types of causes, act and potency, and series ordered per se and series ordered per accidens at a minimum. Until you've grasped all that, you haven't grasped the argument at all. And it's clear from your comments so far that you haven't grasped that. No disrespect to seer but Craig's arguments are different from Aquinas' altogether and not really relevant here.

I'm not 100% sure that Aquinas' arguments are correct. I am sure that they are well thought out and robust.

Then I will leave it to you, Max. If you do not want to deal with the argument put forward, I'm fine with that. If you want to declare me "clueless," I'm fine with that as well. You're not the first and certainly won't be the last.

[seer]

Seer, you need to review your basic math. As I noted before - infinity is not a specific number you can subtract from. It is exactly that - infinity - unending. There is no absurdity here whatsoever.

It still leads to absurdity. And there you go with your condescending attitude again.

[MaxVel]

With an explanation....



Then I will leave it to you, Max. If you do not want to deal with the argument put forward, I'm fine with that. If you want to declare me "clueless," I'm fine with that as well. You're not the first and certainly won't be the last.

Really?

I explained- as best I can - how your objection is not valid against Aquinas' argument. I pointed out that you clearly don't grasp the background to understand the argument being made (define a per se versus a per accidens series as an example to show that you do). I pointed out that it takes multiple pages of a " Beginner's Guide" to the subject to explain the point.

I "...don't want to deal with the argument put forward" because it's not a valid objection to what Aquinas is arguing.

You don't even have a beginner's understanding. You should be better than this.

[carpedm9587]

It still leads to absurdity. And there you go with your condescending attitude again.

When you make statements that are not supported by basic math, Seer, I'm going to call into question your grasp of basic math. There is no absurdity here. None. Your belief that there is is rooted in your misunderstanding of the concept of infinity.

As I noted, infinity is just that - unending. If your hypothetical infinite library exists, and you remove five books, there is still an infinity of books remaining. The library simply will not have the five books you removed. If you take the infinite integers, and remove the odd ones, you still have an infinity of even integers remaining, without contradiction.

In other words, infinity plus infinity does not equal 2 * infinity. Infinity plus infinity is still infinity. Infinity cut in half is still infinity. Infinity minus 5 is still infinity. None of this is absurd, unless you do not understand the concept of infinity and attempt to treat it like a specific number.

[carpedm9587]

Really?

I explained- as best I can - how your objection is not valid against Aquinas' argument. I pointed out that you clearly don't grasp the background to understand the argument being made (define a per se versus a per accidens series as an example to show that you do). I pointed out that it takes multiple pages of a " Beginner's Guide" to the subject to explain the point.

I "...don't want to deal with the argument put forward" because it's not a valid objection to what Aquinas is arguing.

You don't even have a beginner's understanding. You should be better than this.

Yeah - I get that a lot around here...