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

[element771]

I believe the reverse is true concerning the likes of element771, and you. As usual condemning the sources, Ad hominem, and not addressing the information in the citations. In fact the sources I cite are indeed legitimate, and you have not been able to find justifiable fault in those I cited.

You argue via weblink and don't understand what you are reading. If you would like to have a conversation instead of just quoting wall of texts from lay sources....I am always game.

And look at the word I bolded.

You are in no position to determine what is justifiable. You are not a professionally trained scientist, have never published a peer-reviewed article, and don't reference the primary literature.

It is interesting that you continue to think it is everyone else but EVERYONE here has the same complaint about conversing with you. And now you are in a pickle because you can't just say that the reason for our complaints is that we are ignorant Christians.

If you are so into the Socratic method, then ask yourself the following...

What is more likely...is everyone else wrong about you or are you wrong about everyone else?

[Boxing Pythagoras]

It isn't an argument that the number systems are not applicable to the real world, it is an argument that some aspects of these systems cannot be actualized in reality.

Again, though, numbers are not concrete objects. No numbers, including the Natural numbers, become actualized in reality. All numbers, including the Natural numbers, are conceptual abstractions which are utilized to describe concrete objects.

But, to phrase my position more specifically, if one wants to argue that there cannot exist an infinite number of concrete objects, one needs to present a better argument than incredulity.

[element771]

Again, though, numbers are not concrete objects. No numbers, including the Natural numbers, become actualized in reality. All numbers, including the Natural numbers, are conceptual abstractions which are utilized to describe concrete objects.

But, to phrase my position more specifically, if one wants to argue that there cannot exist an infinite number of concrete objects, one needs to present a better argument than incredulity.

I agree that no numbers can become actualized. BUT there are instances when the conceptual abstractions can become realized.

4 apples being one of them while -2 apples not being one of them.

I think that the paradoxes that the concept of an infinite number of concrete objects creates is a better argument than incredulity.

[Sea of red]

You argue via weblink and don't understand what you are reading. If you would like to have a conversation instead of just quoting wall of texts from lay sources....I am always game.

And look at the word I bolded.

You are in no position to determine what is justifiable. You are not a professionally trained scientist, have never published a peer-reviewed article, and don't reference the primary literature.

It is interesting that you continue to think it is everyone else but EVERYONE here has the same complaint about conversing with you. And now you are in a pickle because you can't just say that the reason for our complaints is that we are ignorant Christians.

If you are so into the Socratic method, then ask yourself the following...

What is more likely...is everyone else wrong about you or are you wrong about everyone else?

He's too arrogant to do any sort of self reflection I'm afraid.

It takes a real narcissist to go around debating issues you have has zero insight on, while questioning the expertise and qualifications of others - all while you have none. He wants desperately to be taken seriously as a thinker, but just doesn't have the chops to back it up intellectually. So he's reduced to childish trolling, stonewalling, and silly games to grind on other peoples patience. It's hard to believe someone so old has such little wisdom.

[MaxVel]

I believe the reverse is true concerning the likes of element771, and you. As usual condemning the sources, Ad hominem, and not addressing the information in the citations. In fact the sources I cite are indeed legitimate, and you have not been able to find justifiable fault in those I cited.

Nonetheless, my view is very much the same as Boxing Pythagoras, and my sources cited confirm this.

You argue by posting large walls of text, which is against TWeb policy, and shows an inability to digest, understand and convey what you're arguing for. Even high-school level students are expected to do better than this.

Pretty much everyone else here except for you agrees broadly on the comments I made about your posting techniques.

You have some serious communication issues, and your verbiage clogs up the threads and makes it harder for posters to follow serious discussion between others.


Deal with it.

[shunyadragon]

Go away Shuny...the adults are having a conversation.

NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

By the way, this is my thread, and your behavior is deplorable.

Nonetheless my view is in agreement with Boxing Pythagoras.

[shunyadragon]

You argue by posting large walls of text, which is against TWeb policy, and shows an inability to digest, understand and convey what you're arguing for. Even high-school level students are expected to do better than this.

My citations have not been edited nor sensored by Tweb monitors. Still, you have not specifically refuted nor challenged my sources. The only thing you have offered is vindictive, venomous diatribe.

Deal with it!

[shunyadragon]

You argue via weblink and don't understand what you are reading. If you would like to have a conversation instead of just quoting wall of texts from lay sources....I am always game.

And look at the word I bolded.

You are in no position to determine what is justifiable. You are not a professionally trained scientist, have never published a peer-reviewed article, and don't reference the primary literature.

It is interesting that you continue to think it is everyone else but EVERYONE here has the same complaint about conversing with you. And now you are in a pickle because you can't just say that the reason for our complaints is that we are ignorant Christians.

If you are so into the Socratic method, then ask yourself the following...

What is more likely...is everyone else wrong about you or are you wrong about everyone else?

NOT EVERYONE ELSE!

Boxing Pythagoras and Tassman have not overtly criticized my arguments.

In a nutshell my view is math is only descriptive as part of the 'tool box' of science to describe the nature of our physical existence, and cannot be described as "existing" nor "not existing" in nature as Aristotle, WLC, and other apologists assert. Also there is no way to falsify the hypothesis that our physical existence is infinite or finite, nor eternal or non-eternal.

Infinities are indeed used by science as part of the math that is used to describe our physical existence.

[Boxing Pythagoras]

I agree that no numbers can become actualized. BUT there are instances when the conceptual abstractions can become realized.

4 apples being one of them while -2 apples not being one of them.

And I disagree. Possessing 4 apples is no more realized than possessing -4 apples or 1/4 apples.

I think that the paradoxes that the concept of an infinite number of concrete objects creates is a better argument than incredulity.

Which paradoxes? And what argument do they create?

[Boxing Pythagoras]

NOT EVERYONE ELSE!

Boxing Pythagoras and Tassman have not overtly criticized my arguments.

I'll be honest: I haven't actually read your arguments, yet.

[shunyadragon]

I'll be honest: I haven't actually read your arguments, yet.

Nonetheless, so far the arguments you have presented so far agree with what I have presented in the past with references.

At present element771's everyone does not include Tassman nor you. You may, of course, critique my posts. I do respect your knowledge on math.

In a nutshell my view is math is only descriptive as part of the 'tool box' of science to describe the nature of our physical existence, and cannot be described as "existing" nor "not existing" in nature as Aristotle, WLC, and other apologists assert. Also there is no way to falsify the hypothesis that our physical existence is infinite or finite, nor eternal or non-eternal.

Infinities are indeed used by science as part of the math that is used to describe our physical existence.

[element771]

NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

By the way, this is my thread, and your behavior is deplorable.

Nonetheless my view is in agreement with Boxing Pythagoras.

I don't really care if it your thread. You aren't contributing anything useful to the discussion.

Also, the more you use the word "deplorable", the less effect it has.

[element771]

NOT EVERYONE ELSE!

Ok..

The vast majority of those who have interacted with you in a more than just casual way. Tass seems to be last person in your corner.

BP hasn't even read your arguments.

[element771]

And I disagree. Possessing 4 apples is no more realized than possessing -4 apples or 1/4 apples.

Let us go with two apples for simplicity...

If someone has 2 apples that they own in their hands, how is this not an actualization of the number describing the real world?

Which paradoxes? And what argument do they create?

The paradox that you can eat half of your apples and still be in possession of the same number as you started with.

[element771]

I do respect your knowledge on math.

The only reason that you respect his knowledge is because he agrees with you.


That is the difference Shuny...I respect his knowledge even though he does not agree with me.