Oops, another silly error. He is not doing that, nor does he need to do so. You are the one making the assertions. All one has to do to undermine your useless argument is to show counterarguments exist that undermine your assertion and that you cannot definitvely rule out.
You put yourself in this weak position with your universal, unsupported, unevidenced assertions. Maybe you will learn your lesson. But i doubt it. Religion does that to people's brains.
For example, we have this silly-ass statement from Fun for brains regarding G.T.'s deafening silence in response to my observation that Morriston-Malpass' "intuition" that a potential infinity is equally viable in both past and future directions of time because the past and future directions of time are symmetrical. Their notion is imbecilic because to continuously add events to the past is to continuously move backwards in time. To continuously move backwards in time is to never move forward in time to the present, let alone move forward in time into the future! That is self-evident. If Morriston-Malpass mean to impose the B theory of time then their argument is not with Craig as he doesn't ascribe to the B theory to time.
Another aspect of their critique is equally puzzling. As I previously observed:
Morriston is actually a Christian, that is to say, a liberal Christian who thinks that God is an actual infinite. He thinks he's refuting Craig, when actually he's arguing against rational and textual orthodoxy in defense of his liberal theology in this wise. In other words, Morriston is trying to cram his theology down reality's throat, rather than let God's uncreated logic that He bestowed on us to speak for itself and lead us where it will as God intended. This is why G.T.'s appeal to Morriston-Malpass' line of argumentation is so hilarious.
[. . .]
G.T. raised Malpass' video when he thought he was springing something new and profound on me, but he lost interest in discussing it, apparently, when he realized it wasn't new or profound to me. In the final analysis, all they're really saying, aside from the nonsense that the past and future directions of time are symmetrical, is that the complete infinities of abstraction are actual because they exist in minds. But such only exist as theoretical apprehensions of possibility in minds, and even then only as ideas without any definitive quantity or amount. For example, we all understand that any line from point A to point B can in theory be "infinitely" divided without end. But at any given moment in the process of division, the number of segments into which the line has been divided is finite, and the sum of its segments are equal to the origin whole. No one is arguing that infinity doesn't exist, but that it doesn't exist as anything more than an idea of a boundlessly large and indeterminable number or amount of something in minds. Outside minds, an actual infinite does not and cannot exist in any sense but as a potential infinite tending toward infinity, but never reaching infinity, as, ultimately, infinity has no extremity.
On the latter, Morriston proposes that three angels are compelled to praise God at regular intervals forever into the future. Malpass goes on about a demon cursing his fate at regular intervals forever into the future. These are said to constitute states of actual infinities as a brute mathematical fact, but how is this
not anything more than an actual state of potential infinity consisting of a finite number of praises/cursings at any given moment in a series wherein the future praises/cursings have yet to occur or exist? All they're describing is the causal conditions for an endless series of a boundlessly large and indeterminable number of praises/cursings.
G.T. posts this gibberish in a video.
G.T. implies that the posting of this gibberish overthrows the imperatives of the A theory of time.
G.T. is confronted by the counterargument of why this gibberish is gibberish (also see Craig's more indepth deconstruction of this gibberish).
G.T. is silent.
I was sort of hoping that G.T. might be able to directly engage me so that we might eventually move onto why the KCA would necessarily hold up under the B theory of time as well. Surprise! Surprise! But I guess we won't get to that given that G.T. has yet to demonstrate that he personally understands the matter in terms of the A theory, and is merely citing any ol' "authority" that comes along to affirm his preordained biases.
.
. What else is wrong with you?
