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

[shunyadragon]

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.

I would give BP the opportunity to respond instead of you speaking for him.

Well . . . it is established that it is not everyone else. An important point here that is neglected is the question is it justifiable that Aristotle, WLC and and other Christian apologists claim that 'actual infinities cannot "exist" in nature to justify the conclusion that our physical existence is most likely finite.

[Boxing Pythagoras]

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?

Because numbers are not concrete objects which can be actualized, as we both agreed.
6
However, if you're asking whether the 2 in this scenario describes a state of affairs in the real world, it certainly does; but no more than -2 can similarly describe a state of affairs in the real world.

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

We already went over that. It's not actually true. If you have some infinite number of apples, X, and you eat half of those apples, you would have X/2 apples remaining. It is not true that X is the same number as, nor equal to, X/2.

[robrecht]

I would give BP the opportunity to respond instead of you speaking for him.

Well . . . it is established that it is not everyone else. An important point here that is neglected is the question is it justifiable that Aristotle, WLC and and other Christian apologists claim that 'actual infinities cannot "exist" in nature to justify the conclusion that our physical existence is most likely finite.

Are you sure Aristotle claims that physical existence is most likely finite? Finite in all senses? Existing eternally backward and forward in time sort of seems like an infinite temporal dimension, don't you think?

[shunyadragon]

Are you sure Aristotle claims that physical existence is most likely finite? Finite in all senses? Existing eternally backward and forward in time sort of seems like an infinite temporal dimension, don't you think?

No, I never intended to say that. To clarify what I believe is the case, Aristotle believed that actual infinities cannot exist. If I have misled I apologize. It is WLC and some Christian apologists that claim that our physical existence is most likely finite, in part based on the assertion that 'actual infinities' cannot "exist" in nature.

[Boxing Pythagoras]

Are you sure Aristotle claims that physical existence is most likely finite? Finite in all senses? Existing eternally backward and forward in time sort of seems like an infinite temporal dimension, don't you think?

Aristotle denies the idea that a continuum can be considered to be composed of a complete, infinite collection of indivisible. He does, however, believe that processes can be continued indefinitely.

[element771]

I would give BP the opportunity to respond instead of you speaking for him.

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

He already responded.

[robrecht]

No, I never intended to say that. To clarify what I believe is the case, Aristotle believed that actual infinities cannot exist. If I have misled I apologize. It is WLC and some Christian apologists that claim that our physical existence is most likely finite, in part based on the assertion that 'actual infinities' cannot "exist" in nature.

And we've already seen that your disagreement with Thomas Aquinas on the infinite time dimension is decidedly not based upon Aristotle. Your disagreement with Thomas on this particular point parallels the fact that you both accept different authoritative texts as divine revelation. And I think you admit that this point likely cannot be known through science. So basically this argument can be reduced to that of a Baha'i apologist vs some, but not all, Christian apologists. For the Hebrew Christian scriptures can indeed also be interpreted along the lines of our existing world being created out of a primordial (ie, infinite) chaos. I am not sure about the Baha'i scriptures on this point so please correct me on that if need be. With references, please.

[element771]

Because numbers are not concrete objects which can be actualized, as we both agreed.

I agree with the first part but not the second.

If you state a mathematical model describing the real world. X=2 if X=the number of apples on possesses, then that can be actualized in the real world by that person possessing 2 apples.

How is this not the case?

We already went over that. It's not actually true. If you have some infinite number of apples, X, and you eat half of those apples, you would have X/2 apples remaining. It is not true that X is the same number as, nor equal to, X/2.

Infinity divided by 2 is still infinity. Half of infinity is still infinity.

[shunyadragon]

He already responded.

No, he has no responded concerning whether he agrees with my view or not. Again, and again . . . I do not believe you can speak for BP.

[element771]

No, he has no responded concerning whether he agrees with my view or not. Again, and again . . . I do not believe you can speak for BP.

This is a microcosm of your problem.

Please cite where I said that he doesn't agree with you.

[Boxing Pythagoras]

I agree with the first part but not the second.

If you state a mathematical model describing the real world. X=2 if X=the number of apples on possesses, then that can be actualized in the real world by that person possessing 2 apples.

How is this not the case?

Because "actualization" is a philosophical term which refers to the entry of concrete objects into the real world. Since numbers cannot be concrete, they cannot be actualized.

If you're using the word "actualized" to mean something else, then I apologize for my misunderstanding, and I'll ask you to clarify what you mean by the word.

Infinity divided by 2 is still infinity. Half of infinity is still infinity.

No, "infinity divided by two" is nonsense, because infinity is not a number. You cannot perform numerical operations on things which are not numbers.

An infinite number divided by 2 is still an infinite number, but it is not the same number as the dividend.

[shunyadragon]

And we've already seen that your disagreement with Thomas Aquinas on the infinite time dimension is decidedly not based upon Aristotle.

At present, I have not addressed the view of Thomas Aquinas concerning infinities in this thread. nor whether I agree nor disagree with him. I can actually some agreement with Thomas Aquinas cncering his apophatic view of God..

Your disagreement with Thomas on this particular point parallels the fact that you both accept different authoritative texts as divine revelation. And I think you admit that this point likely cannot be known through science.

My points in this thread is clear and not based on me being a Baha'i apologist. They are based on my neutral view of the reality and limits of math and science that cannot be used to justify theological arguments.

So basically this argument can be reduced to that of a Baha'i apologist vs some, but not all, Christian apologists. For the Hebrew Christian scriptures can indeed also be interpreted along the lines of our existing world being created out of a primordial (ie, infinite) chaos. I am not sure about the Baha'i scriptures on this point so please correct me on that if need be. With references, please.

Baha'i references actually not the subject of the thread, and I have not represented the Baha'i apologist view in this thread, but I will post some references here for you:

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...believe-in-God

I have posted an initial response concerning Baha'i beliefs and infinities.

[element771]

Because "actualization" is a philosophical term which refers to the entry of concrete objects into the real world. Since numbers cannot be concrete, they cannot be actualized.

If you're using the word "actualized" to mean something else, then I apologize for my misunderstanding, and I'll ask you to clarify what you mean by the word.

Sorry, it is most likely my fault. I have a feeling that if we were speaking to one another, it would go much quicker...especially over a beer.

X=2 if X=the number of apples on possesses

There is a scenario in the real world which a person could be in possession of 2 apples that this would describe. It doesn't need to be described by any other ideas like someone has a debt of 2 apples (for -2). It is an idea that can be represented in reality without any other ideas attached to it. Just a person with 2 apples.

No, "infinity divided by two" is nonsense, because infinity is not a number. You cannot perform numerical operations on things which are not numbers.

An infinite number divided by 2 is still an infinite number, but it is not the same number as the dividend.

Ok...let's flip this around as we seem to be talking in circles. Maybe approaching it another way could prove a path forward.

Can you describe to me a situation how an actual infinity could exist in reality?

[robrecht]

At present, I have not addressed the view of Thomas Aquinas concerning infinities in this thread. nor whether I agree nor disagree with him. I can actually some agreement with Thomas Aquinas cncering his apophatic view of God..

But you did mistakenly misrepresent Thomas on exactly this point (infinite dimension of time in both directions) here in this thread and elsewhere. I know because I have repeatedly corrected you on exactly this point.

My points in this thread is clear and not based on me being a Baha'i apologist. They are based on my neutral view of the reality and limits of math and science that cannot be used to justify theological arguments.

And yet your own view on this point is in fact based on your belief in the infallible Baha'i scriptures and not on science, correct?

Baha'i references actually not the subject of the thread, and I have not represented the Baha'i apologist view in this thread, but I will post some references here for you:

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...believe-in-God

It was not your chosen topic for this thread, but it is in fact the basis of your belief in the topic of this thread, correct?

[shunyadragon]

This is a microcosm of your problem.

Please cite where I said that he doesn't agree with you.

It is not a microcosm of anything.

No, it is not. You said he responded, and I say that he has not indicated one way or another.

If he chooses to respond one way or another it is best that you let him speak for himself if he chooses to do so.