The misuse of science by William Lane Craig and othe Christian apologists.

[robrecht]

I will have take this as you cannot provide specifics to your claim concerning this thread, and it is unreasonable to expect me to respond to criticism from generalizations and anecdotal references concerning a history of threads other than this thread.

You can easily review my references in thread if you wish. It is not difficult math. No advanced calculus required.

Tired of repeating . . . ?!?!?!!??I need a coherent response first concerning this topic, which has not happened.

This is a compound of fallacies. Can you name them? You can add at least a few more for those involved in a chorus of personal attacks without substance nor citations.

No, I never made any specific claims in this thread about actual infinities--that's all you can take from my previous post. element771, on the other hand, asked you a question about actual infinities in his post #1149, which you seem to have avoided for the past 3 days, instead providing one of your typically incorrect ad hominem remarks about his competence.

As for the more general issues relating to this thread and beyond, I'm still encouraging you to take to heart the points being made by Sea of red (1162 et pass), element771 (1170 et pass), and MaxVel (1203). It will be very hard for you to take these remarks to heart, I know, but ultimately worthwhile, I hope.

[shunyadragon]

No, I never made any specific claims in this thread about actual infinities--that's all you can take from my previous post. element771, on the other hand, asked you a question about actual infinities in his post #1149, which you seem to have avoided for the past 3 days, instead providing one of your typically incorrect ad hominem remarks about his competence.

As for the more general issues relating to this thread and beyond, I'm still encouraging you to take to heart the points being made by Sea of red (1162 et pass), element771 (1170 et pass), and MaxVel (1203). It will be very hard for you to take these remarks to heart, I know, but ultimately worthwhile, I hope.

As far as the following question:

Shuny,

Could you answer one question...

If an actual infinity existed, how could you determine if it was an actual infinity?

I answered it in as a complete and concise a manner as I possibly could with references in terms of modern math. Actually, I answered the question earlier in my description of the problem of Aristotle and WLC believing that 'actual infinities' do not exist in nature.

Simply math including the math of 'actual infinities' do not exist or not exist in nature. Math is developed over time to be descriptive of nature, and yes. scientists use 'actual infinities' to describe natural phenomenon.

What is wrong with this explanation? It is consistent with the sources on math I cited.

[element771]

As far as the following question:



I answered it in as a complete and concise a manner as I possibly could with references in terms of modern math. Actually, I answered the question earlier in my description of the problem of Aristotle and WLC believing that 'actual infinities' do not exist in nature.

Simply math including the math of 'actual infinities' do not exist or not exist in nature. Math is developed over time to be descriptive of nature, and yes. scientists use 'actual infinities' to describe natural phenomenon.

What is wrong with this explanation? It is consistent with the sources on math I cited.

It doesn't answer my question,that is what is wrong with the explanation.

Again, you don't get to dictate the question that I am asking.

My question about the unicorn speaks to this as well.

[element771]

I don't think so. Why does he seem to obsess so madly about the origins of the universe, and become so hostile towards religious interpretations?

I think that this is what really gets me. I don't remember suggesting any "religious interpretations" to the origins of the universe. What I have done is point out the flaws in his logic or the sources that he cites. He then says that I can't accept science because of my worldview. This is ridiculous. I have repeatedly said time and time again...even with my Christian worldview, I still expect science to be able to describe all natural phenomenon. From the origins of the universe to abiogenesis to the mind, IMO science should be able to figure all of these things out because God works through nature. I have never let my religious beliefs dictate what my scientific outlook is. I have believed in evolution since I was 8....why? because I don't see it as a conflict with Christianity. IMO, God is powerful enough to work through natural processes to accomplish his goals.

[shunyadragon]

It doesn't answer my question,that is what is wrong with the explanation.

Again, you don't get to dictate the question that I am asking.

My question about the unicorn speaks to this as well.

[JimL]

I don't know for sure, but I think you guys need to explain what it is that you mean by actual infinity, infinite density where there is no space, no nothing, or infinite space where there is no such thing as nothing. In the latter case, if space, the void, the Cosmos, or the quantum vacuum, whatever you want to call it, is an actual infinity, then it would be impossible to know if it was an actual infinity. I'm not sure that Shunya disagreed with this. He said the math of actual infinities does not exist in nature, which, if I am not mistaken, I take to mean that he believes that there would be no way to determine if an actual infinity is an actual infinity. I'm wondering though, what was the point of the question in the first place.

[Sea of red]

I don't know for sure, but I think you guys need to explain what it is that you mean by actual infinity, infinite density where there is no space, no nothing, or infinite space where there is no such thing as nothing. In the latter case, if space, the void, the Cosmos, or the quantum vacuum, whatever you want to call it, is an actual infinity, then it would be impossible to know if it was an actual infinity. I'm not sure that Shunya disagreed with this. He said the math of actual infinities does not exist in nature, which, if I am not mistaken, I take to mean that he believes that there would be no way to determine if an actual infinity is an actual infinity. I'm wondering though, what was the point of the question in the first place.

Sorry if this is rude, but I honestly don't know where to begin with this. It appears that Shunya's posts have caused you a great deal of confusion concerning different concepts in physics and cosmology. Vacuum energy (or dark energy), the zero-point energy of a field, space-time singularities, and mathematical infinities (which are common in mathematics) are not one mish-mash of the same thing. They are completely different things that come from completely different frameworks of physics, and mathematical infinities like the ones discussed are more in the domain of pure mathematics. All of those concepts would require a long explanation - each several paragraphs. Forgive me, but I'm just not up to it right now. All I can tell you is that you don't understand this stuff very well, and you need to read-up a bit. I know I've answered some of these questions before, and if you search the forum you'll find the posts. Whatever you do, don't get your physics or math from Shunya. Instead, read one of Hawkings books. When you're ready to learn more let me know.

[Sea of red]

This posts is not even coherent thought. It reads like something I'd expect from a person that uses heavy drugs, or suffers from a serious mental disorder.

Not long ago I came to your defense when OBP said he thought you suffered from dementia, now I feel like I owe him an apology.

[JimL]

Sorry if this is rude, but I honestly don't know where to begin with this. It appears that Shunya's posts have caused you a great deal of confusion concerning different concepts in physics and cosmology. Vacuum energy (or dark energy), the zero-point energy of a field, space-time singularities, and mathematical infinities (which are common in mathematics) are not one mish-mash of the same thing. They are completely different things that come from completely different frameworks of physics, and mathematical infinities like the ones discussed are more in the domain of pure mathematics. All of those concepts would require a long explanation - each several paragraphs. Forgive me, but I'm just not up to it right now. All I can tell you is that you don't understand this stuff very well, and you need to read-up a bit. I know I've answered some of these questions before, and if you search the forum you'll find the posts. Whatever you do, don't get your physics or math from Shunya. Instead, read one of Hawkings books. When you're ready to learn more let me know.

I see nothing rude in your reply, but I don't think it answered to what I wrote. I'm no physicist, so its true there is a great deal that I don't understand, but I'm really not talking about any of those things that you mentioned. I'm just asking what it is that they mean by actual infinity with repect to how it relates to the universe. Elements question was "If there was an actual infinity how would you know?" If the universe is actually infinite, then you wouldn't be able to know that it was actually infinite, right?

[MaxVel]

As far as the following question:



I answered it in as a complete and concise a manner as I possibly could with references in terms of modern math. Actually, I answered the question earlier in my description of the problem of Aristotle and WLC believing that 'actual infinities' do not exist in nature.

Simply math including the math of 'actual infinities' do not exist or not exist in nature. Math is developed over time to be descriptive of nature, and yes. scientists use 'actual infinities' to describe natural phenomenon.

What is wrong with this explanation? It is consistent with the sources on math I cited.

What is wrong with this explanation?

This sentence is incoherent and unclear: "Simply math including the math of 'actual infinities' do not exist or not exist in nature."

Are you saying that math does exist in nature?

Or that math does not exist in nature?

or that "the math of 'actual infinities'" does not exist in nature?

or that "the math of 'actual infinities'" does exist in nature?

or that actual infinities do not exist in nature?

or that actual infinities do not not exist in nature?

[Cow Poke]

What is wrong with this explanation?

This sentence is incoherent and unclear: "Simply math including the math of 'actual infinities' do not exist or not exist in nature."

Are you saying that math does exist in nature?

Or that math does not exist in nature?

or that "the math of 'actual infinities'" does not exist in nature?

or that "the math of 'actual infinities'" does exist in nature?

or that actual infinities do not exist in nature?

or that actual infinities do not not exist in nature?

Or all of the above / None of the above.

[shunyadragon]

I don't know for sure, but I think you guys need to explain what it is that you mean by actual infinity, infinite density where there is no space, no nothing, or infinite space where there is no such thing as nothing. In the latter case, if space, the void, the Cosmos, or the quantum vacuum, whatever you want to call it, is an actual infinity, then it would be impossible to know if it was an actual infinity. I'm not sure that Shunya disagreed with this. He said the math of actual infinities does not exist in nature, which, if I am not mistaken, I take to mean that he believes that there would be no way to determine if an actual infinity is an actual infinity. I'm wondering though, what was the point of the question in the first place.

Your statements are a little incomplete and cover a broader subject then this thread topic. Try and not complicate the issues here, and stick with the subject at hand in this thread. I have defined 'actual infinity' and 'potential infinity' at least several times from Aristotle to modern math.

My challenge concerned the assertion by WLC, Aristotle and other Christian apologists that actual infinities cannot exist in nature. This assertion is used in their logic that our physical existence is finite, which is archaic reasoning considering the modern concepts concerning the nature of our physical existence, considering the modern concepts of time and space. The question becomes is our physical existence eternal or non-eternal, which likely can never be answered, nor does science try to achieve this.

You left out an important part of my argument that math neither exists, nor does not exist in nature, but is 'descriptive' of natural phenomenon, and is used by scientists as part of their 'tool box' to describe our physical existence. In this way 'actual infinities' are a part of the science of physics and cosmology, which is also descriptive of nature.

[shunyadragon]

This posts is not even coherent thought. It reads like something I'd expect from a person that uses heavy drugs, or suffers from a serious mental disorder.

Not long ago I came to your defense when OBP said he thought you suffered from dementia, now I feel like I owe him an apology.

My prayers are with you in your possible recovery form your addictions and egocentric delusions.

[shunyadragon]

What is wrong with this explanation?

This sentence is incoherent and unclear: "Simply math including the math of 'actual infinities' do not exist or not exist in nature."

Are you saying that math does exist in nature?

Or that math does not exist in nature?

or that "the math of 'actual infinities'" does not exist in nature?

or that "the math of 'actual infinities'" does exist in nature?

or that actual infinities do not exist in nature?

or that actual infinities do not not exist in nature?

None of the above is complete, and confusing, because you neglected an important fact. Math like science is descriptive of nature from the human perspective. When we view nature from the human perspective there are no numbers, formulas, symbols existing in nature. In this view, yes 'actual infinities' are used in the math to describe the nature of natural phenomenon as previously cited. The math using 'actual infinities' does not 'exist' the natural phenomenon described exists, and as wrong headed asserted by Aristotle and WLC it neither 'cannot exist in nature.'

As defined in the English language:


Math and the concept of 'actual infinities' do not 'have objective reality or being.'

[hansgeorg]

hansgeorg should also read this . . .

Did:

"But generally Cantor's ideas have been accepted and today they form their own sub-branch of pure mathematics. This has led some philosophers, and even some theologians, to rethink their ancient attitudes to infinities."

SOME philosophers/theologians. Cantor's ideas have been GENERALLY accepted.

Note the key words, I'm that minority implied.