The Incontrovertible Science and Mathematics of God's Existence

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Ironically, by his own arguments and methods, the present cannot possibly exist. It is impossible, as an infinite number of moments (which are as small as you want them to be) must have occured prior to this moment, regardless of whether or not time had a beginning.

A simple epsilon/delta proof gives infinite moments before the present ... causal events are easy to come by in math ...

Just wait until he learns that we figured out how to calculate sums of infinite series hundreds of years ago! Watching his intellectual journey from the iron age to the 16th century has been truly heartwarming. Next up: Alchemy!

 

[Hollie]

I agree. You're utterly befuddled.

You don't even understand your own citation.

You don't understand your inability to form a coherent argument.

A chorus of crickets roll their eyes​

And dance beneath the cloudy skies.

Masterful concision.

Absent an argument, grade school antics.

Most impressive.

 

[ReinyDays]

Just wait until he learns that we figured out how to calculate sums of infinite series hundreds of years ago! Watching his intellectual journey from the iron age to the 16th century has been truly heartwarming. Next up: Alchemy!

Yeah ... didn't think we'd get more than a couple posts from him until we got crickets ... math is hard ...

 

[Ringtone]

What is your proof of this claim ... or are you asking us to assume this is true? ...
Infinity is very precisely defined in mathematics ... thus it exists in mathematics ... why are you saying it doesn't? ...
I have absolutely no problem with an infinite regress of causal events, indeed Hindu theology holds this to be true ... can you prove it is not? ...

I ask again ... start at negative infinity and tell me the steps to the present ..

I didn't say the concept of infinity doesn't exist. It exists in minds and mathematics as a concept only! Where does the concept of infinity exist outside of mnds? Where do mathematics exist outside of minds? These things are not controversial. There facts of reality.

Question: What does infinity equal?

Mathematically, it's the concept of a boundlessly large, indeterminable number of things or a boundlessly large, indeterminable amount of something.

It cannot be quantified.

Further, I didn't say the concept of an infinite regress of causal events doesn't exist. It exist as a concept in mnds and mathematics. I said that an actual infinite cannot exist and that an infinite regress of causal events cannot be traversed to the present.

What does ±∞ have to do with these observations?

And from what point, precisely, do you want me to start slogging toward the present from -∞?

 

[ReinyDays]

It exists in minds and mathematics as a concept only!

This is true for any language ... including all 284 posts in this thread ... nothing you've posted exist anywhere except your mind ...

I said that an actual infinite cannot exist and that an infinite regress of causal events cannot be traversed to the present.

For the second time ... what is your proof of this claim? ... or are you asking us to assume this is true? ...

What does ±∞ have to do with these observations?
And from what point, precisely, do you want me to start slogging toward the present from -∞?

Any is fine ... although it will have to be all these points for a rigid proof ... is our space smooth? ...

 

[Ringtone]

It exists in minds and mathematics as a concept only!

This is true for any language ... including all 284 posts in this thread ... nothing you've posted exist anywhere except your mind ...

I said that an actual infinite cannot exist and that an infinite regress of causal events cannot be traversed to the present.

For the second time ... what is your proof of this claim? ... or are you asking us to assume this is true? ...

What does ±∞ have to do with these observations?
And from what point, precisely, do you want me to start slogging toward the present from -∞?

Any is fine ... although it will have to be all these points for a rigid proof ... is our space smooth? ...

Sorry, was attending to something.

I don't hold to the notion that the only things that exist are the contents of my mind, and I don't see what bearing philosophical solipsism or methodological solipsism has on my observations.

I directed your attention to an argument expounding why an infinite regress of causal events cannot be traversed to the present. That is both a logical and, arguably, a mathematical proof.

If you're not convinced by it, presumably, you're implying that the argument is invalid. So what is your counter argument or proof that it's invalid? Please begin your discourse with a demonstration that you objectively and accurately understand what you're arguing against.

As for the quantitatively definite existentiality of an actual infinity: an actual infinity only exists as a mathematical concept in minds, namely, as a boundlessly large, indeterminable number of things or a boundlessly large, indeterminable amount of something. A potential infinity, on the other hand, has existentiality in both minds and nature as a finite quantity of something at any given moment in time or being, albeit, tending toward infinity as the limit. That is the existential distinction between the two. Given the Epsilon-Delta Proof, I don't understand why you're quibbling with my over this.

This was a joke:

And from what point, precisely, do you want me to start slogging toward the present from -∞?​

You didn't define your parameters. Are you talking in terms of being, time or counting along the number line?

 

[Ringtone]

Yeah ... didn't think we'd get more than a couple posts from him until we got crickets ... math is hard ...

Yeah, math is hard alright. Instead of making gossipy, baby talk with that imbecile Fort Fun you better concentrate. I already pulled his panties down. Now start demonstrating you understand the existential distinction between potential and actual infinities.

 

[Ringtone]

Just wait until he learns that we figured out how to calculate sums of infinite series hundreds of years ago! Watching his intellectual journey from the iron age to the 16th century has been truly heartwarming. Next up: Alchemy!

Looks like we need to review things again, Fort Fun Indiana. . . .

Yeah, Fort Fun Indiana is completely full of feces.

The law of identity was formally elucidated by Aristotle shortly after Plato elucidated the law of non-contradiction and the excluded middle, centuries before it was explicated as a coordinate principle by any school of philosophical thought. So when Fort Fun Indiana denied that the other two laws of logic are inherent to the law of identity, as Western philosophers came to realize after Andreas made that very extrapolation, he was literally just talking out of his ass due to his little knowledge as he conflated the law's formal explication as a coordinate principle in the literature and its formal elucidation in the literature. In fact, he wasn’t even aware of the latter’s historicity in the scheme of things until I pointed it out to him. Simultaneously, he seemed to think that the laws of logic, in and of themselves, didn't even exist in human consciousness before they were formally elucidated in the literature.

Clearly, Fort Fun Indiana has ZERO formal training or any real understanding about . . . well, about anything in this wise, let alone any real understanding of just how incredibly stupid he is.

And he poo-pooed the notion that the Logos—originally conceived by the Greeks as the eternally immutable and universal principle (or reason) for the existence and organization of the cosmos, a concept applied to the Living Word of God by John the Apostle—may be varyingly surmised by me as the Universal Principle of Identity entailing the fundamental laws of thought imprinted on the mind of humanity by God, a.k.a., the Imago Dei.

Hot damn his intellectual bigotry and ignorance is hilarious!

It's the same imbecility that Ringtone has exposed over and over again about this punk: everything that conclusively demonstrates God's existence is false in his tiny cranium, and he's oblivious of the fact that he's a grubby little pissant of a bucked-tooth, nose-picking doofus.

A pure intellectual fraud!

Fort Fun Indiana is an amateur who keeps exposing himself for what he is. Even when he tries to use Google, he can't get it right. Every time he opens his yap, his panties fall down and expose his little tee-tee as he spouts a torrent of drooling stupidity, ignorance, rank falsehoods, ad hominem, non-sequiturs, and grammatical monstrosities.

 

[Ringtone]

Just wait until he learns that we figured out how to calculate sums of infinite series hundreds of years ago! Watching his intellectual journey from the iron age to the 16th century has been truly heartwarming. Next up: Alchemy!

This same stooge thinks ReinyDays is going to teach me something about math. . . .

Hey, everyone, Fort Fun Indiana thought that the formal explication of the law of Identity in the literary canon as a coordinate principle = the origin of the same, when in fact this principle was formally elucidated by Aristotle centuries before it was explicated as a coordinate principle; indeed, it was later explicated by Andreas and others as the foundational coordinate principle!

But aside from the historical academics of the matter, one wonders if Fort Fun Indiana believes that the laws of logic didn’t exist at all in human consciousness until Plato and Aristotle, respectively, formally elucidated them. According to Fort Fun Indiana, apparently, whatever is wasn’t whatever it is, for example, until Aristotle elucidated that whatever is, is. In other words, in that moment whatever is suddenly became whatever it is. Magic! Talk about a total lack of understanding of things! This leads one to wonder if Fort Fun Indiana’s mind is boggled by LSD or by a lack of common sense. I think it’s a combination of both given that he, like Hollie, thinks the impossible is possible.

Let’s review things again, Fort Fun Indiana. . . .

I never claimed that the law of identity was formally codified by any school of thought before the others in history, which is the predicate of your prevarication, apparently! What did you do, punk? Google something and then pass your filth off as original thought sans any real understanding as you failed to thoroughly investigate the matter? Yeah, that's what you did alright. How many other lies have you been telling behind my back while I ignored you?

What did you mean by recently?

The only thing that makes any sense is that you're stupidly going on about the order of historical codification, precisely because you don't grasp the conceptual ramifications of the matter. I'm talking about the conceptual order of logic itself, and it was Aristotle in the Third Century B.C. who was the first to formally elucidate the law of identity, shortly after Plato elucidated the other two in the literature. This was centuries before Aristotle's elucidation of it was, finally, formally codified by the Schoolmen of Scotus.

Centuries before the Fourteenth Century!

The law of identity: Whatever is, is.​

​

For all a: a = a [or for all x: x = x, as you quoted me from an earlier post, apparently]​

​

Regarding this law, Aristotle wrote:​

​

First then this at least is obviously true, that the word "be" or "not be" has a definite meaning, so that not everything will be "so and not so". Again, if "man" has one meaning, let this be "two-footed animal"; by having one meaning I understand this:—if "man" means "X", then if A is a man "X" will be what "being a man" means for him. (It makes no difference even if one were to say a word has several meanings, if only they are limited in number; for to each definition there might be assigned a different word. For instance, we might say that "man" has not one meaning but several, one of which would have one definition, viz. "two-footed animal", while there might be also several other definitions if only they were limited in number; for a peculiar name might be assigned to each of the definitions. If, however, they were not limited but one were to say that the word has an infinite number of meanings, obviously reasoning would be impossible; for not to have one meaning is to have no meaning, and if words have no meaning our reasoning with one another, and indeed with ourselves, has been annihilated; for it is impossible to think of anything if we do not think of one thing; but if this is possible, one name might be assigned to this thing.) —Aristotle, Metaphysics, Book IV, Part 4, (Law of thought - Wikipedia)​

William Hamilton of the Nineteenth Century whose work is still regarded as the leading authority on the history of the development of logic from the Classical era to modernity holds, like Antonius Andres and I, that the law of identity is "[t]he principle of all logical affirmation and definition."

The law of Identity, I stated, was not explicated as a coordinate principle till a comparatively recent period. The earliest author in whom I have found this done, is Antonius Andreas, a scholar of Scotus, who flourished at the end of the thirteenth and beginning of the fourteenth century. The schoolman, in the fourth book of his Commentary of Aristotle's Metaphysics—a commentary which is full of the most ingenious and original views—not only asserts to the law of Identity a coordinate dignity with the law of Contradiction, but, against Aristotle, he maintains that the principle of Identity, and not the principle of Contradiction, is the one absolutely first. The formula in which Andreas expressed it was Ens est ens. Subsequently to this author, the question concerning the relative priority of the two laws of Identity and of Contradiction became one much agitated in the schools; though there were also found some who asserted to the law of Excluded Middle this supreme rank. —William Hamilton ​

Further, ever since the Nineteenth Century, the law of identity has been almost universally held to be the foundation of the laws of thought and rightly so, given that it inherently entails the other two and, thusly, the other two in terms of conceptualization are extensions of the same. That's why philosophers routinely list the law of identity first, followed by (2) the law of non-contradiction, (3) the law of the excluded middle and, in recent history, (4) the law of sufficient reason, including Schopenhauer, by the way, although he contended that the laws of thought could be reduced to the excluded middle and sufficient reason, with identity and non-contradiction as corollaries of the excluded middle. I follow his reasoning, but I and most others disagree, as the law of the excluded middle can be and is routinely suspended for scientific purposes. Schopenhauer failed to anticipate that, just as he failed to appreciate the fact that the law of sufficient reason conceptually alludes back to the foundational law of logic. But, then, Schopenhauer was an atheist and, thus, a fool.

Of course, you wouldn't understand why it's sometimes suspended for scientific purposes, anymore than you understood what your source, whatever it is, was actually talking about regarding the law of identity's formal explication as a coordinate principle in the historical timeline. Clearly, you, being an ignoramus, interpreted that to regard the origin of the law of identity itself.

 

[Ringtone]

Yeah ... didn't think we'd get more than a couple posts from him until we got crickets ... math is hard ...

Here's the first part of the crickets I promised you, an excerpt from an article I wrote regarding the distinction between potential and actual infinities:

. . . Just as more than a few atheists have argued on their blogs, Morriston inexplicably argues potential infinities in refutation of Craig's observation regarding the existential impossibility of a quantitatively definite actual infinity. How is it possible that a professor of philosophy doesn't grasp the difference between potential infinities and actual infinities? As every serious calculus student should know, actual infinities only exist in minds and only as they're intuitively understood to entail a boundlessly large, indeterminable number of things or a boundlessly large, indeterminable amount of something.

It's impossible for actual infinities to exist outside of minds precisely because there's no limit, and the only sense in which they exist inside minds is strictly conceptual. There's never a point in time or being outside of minds when there isn't still more and more. . . . One might as well ask what the numeric value of Beauty is as ask what the numeric value of Infinity is. From this we see that the existential impossibility of an actual infinity outside of minds goes to quantity, not to essential qualities of being.

A common mistake is to point to the set of real numbers, for example, as its cardinality is an actual infinity, albeit, conceptually. Indeed, the set of all real numbers arguably entails an infinite number of actual infinities, each of which is an actual infinity within an actual infinity. The infinite set of real numbers is an example of an uncountable infinity, wherein the actually infinite amount of real numbers between the integers 0 and 1, for example, is as infinity great as the actually infinite amount of real numbers between all of the other adjacently sequential ±integers from 0 to ±∞ combined (see Cantor's diagonal proof)! Mind blowing to be sure, but, once again, the infinite set of real numbers only exists in minds and only as intuitively understood to entail a boundlessly large, indeterminable number of infinities.

Which brings us to the realization that no number actually exists, in and of itself, outside of minds either. When we talk about a real number like ±1 as opposed to a surreal number like ±∞, what we actually mean is that a real number has a definitive, finite value, while a surreal number has some indeterminate value. The only things that actually exist outside of minds in this wise are the symbols (or numerals) scribbled on paper, for example, to represent numbers.

Infinity is also used to denote the quality of God’s attributes. When the classical theist says that God is infinite, he means that God is incomparably perfect in all ways. There’s no divine attribute of infinity as such. God’s omniscience, omnipotence and eternality are routinely confounded as being actual infinities, but once again these are inherent qualities, not external quantities of things. I’ve written on the actual nature of these attributes elsewhere and Craig addresses their nature quite handily in his articles "Is God Actually Infinite" and "God, Time and Eternity", so I need not repeat him or myself here, except to point out that the key to understanding their actual nature is to keep in mind that God is wholly transcendent—having no temporal extension (or magnitude). God is the Eternal Now who stands and stays, as it were, with no beginning or end.

While Morriston seems to grasp the key that unlocks the door to the understanding of the nature of the pertinent attributes of divinity, at one point in his critique he smugly argues that God could create a hotel with an actual infinite number of rooms, as if to say that this is so obviously possible that even a child could understand why Craig's argument is false.

But it's Morriston who's befuddled.

That's akin to wondering if God could create a rock so heavy that even He couldn't lift it. God can't do that either. Divine omnipotence is not the power to do anything at all; rather, it's the power to do all things possible. This is not a limit on God's power. On the contrary, it's precisely because God is omnipotent that no rock too heavy for Him to lift could possibly exist in the first place, just like a hotel with an actually infinite number of rooms couldn't possibly exist in the first place. An actual infinity is a set containing an infinite number of elements, and in general, it's the set containing all possible quantity that's forever growing toward Infinity but never reaching Infinity. The distinction between potential infinities and actual infinities is ultimately a misnomer, as the "distinction" is actually the definition of the only kind of infinity that can exist outside of minds, namely, a potential infinity, which is a set with a finite number of elements at any given moment in time or being that is always increasing toward Infinity as the limit.

It's impossible to traverse an actual infinity!

In any event, God couldn't logically do anything contrary to His nature. Objectively speaking, according to the first principles of metaphysics, if God exists, our logic is God's eternally uncreated logic bestowed on us. For God to do something contrary to His nature is for God to deny Himself. God = God. God cannot be God and not-God simultaneously. How did this guy Morriston get a doctorate in religious philosophy? Clearly, he's one of these leftist kooks turning out imbeciles from our universities.

Now on to the mathematical treatment of Infinity.

 

[ReinyDays]

I directed your attention to an argument expounding why an infinite regress of causal events cannot be traversed to the present. That is both a logical and, arguably, a mathematical proof.

What is the argument this is a proof and not an assumption? ... what logical step have you taken here? ... and go ahead and apply this logic to the CMB Epoch as a demonstration ...

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Just wait until he learns that we figured out how to calculate sums of infinite series hundreds of years ago! Watching his intellectual journey from the iron age to the 16th century has been truly heartwarming. Next up: Alchemy!

This same stooge thinks ReinyDays is going to teach me something about math. . . .

Hey, everyone, Fort Fun Indiana thought that the formal explication of the law of Identity in the literary canon as a coordinate principle = the origin of the same, when in fact this principle was formally elucidated by Aristotle centuries before it was explicated as a coordinate principle; indeed, it was later explicated by Andreas and others as the foundational coordinate principle!

But aside from the historical academics of the matter, one wonders if Fort Fun Indiana believes that the laws of logic didn’t exist at all in human consciousness until Plato and Aristotle, respectively, formally elucidated them. According to Fort Fun Indiana, apparently, whatever is wasn’t whatever it is, for example, until Aristotle elucidated that whatever is, is. In other words, in that moment whatever is suddenly became whatever it is. Magic! Talk about a total lack of understanding of things! This leads one to wonder if Fort Fun Indiana’s mind is boggled by LSD or by a lack of common sense. I think it’s a combination of both given that he, like Hollie, thinks the impossible is possible.

Let’s review things again, Fort Fun Indiana. . . .

I never claimed that the law of identity was formally codified by any school of thought before the others in history, which is the predicate of your prevarication, apparently! What did you do, punk? Google something and then pass your filth off as original thought sans any real understanding as you failed to thoroughly investigate the matter? Yeah, that's what you did alright. How many other lies have you been telling behind my back while I ignored you?

What did you mean by recently?

The only thing that makes any sense is that you're stupidly going on about the order of historical codification, precisely because you don't grasp the conceptual ramifications of the matter. I'm talking about the conceptual order of logic itself, and it was Aristotle in the Third Century B.C. who was the first to formally elucidate the law of identity, shortly after Plato elucidated the other two in the literature. This was centuries before Aristotle's elucidation of it was, finally, formally codified by the Schoolmen of Scotus.

Centuries before the Fourteenth Century!

The law of identity: Whatever is, is.​

​

For all a: a = a [or for all x: x = x, as you quoted me from an earlier post, apparently]​

​

Regarding this law, Aristotle wrote:​

​

First then this at least is obviously true, that the word "be" or "not be" has a definite meaning, so that not everything will be "so and not so". Again, if "man" has one meaning, let this be "two-footed animal"; by having one meaning I understand this:—if "man" means "X", then if A is a man "X" will be what "being a man" means for him. (It makes no difference even if one were to say a word has several meanings, if only they are limited in number; for to each definition there might be assigned a different word. For instance, we might say that "man" has not one meaning but several, one of which would have one definition, viz. "two-footed animal", while there might be also several other definitions if only they were limited in number; for a peculiar name might be assigned to each of the definitions. If, however, they were not limited but one were to say that the word has an infinite number of meanings, obviously reasoning would be impossible; for not to have one meaning is to have no meaning, and if words have no meaning our reasoning with one another, and indeed with ourselves, has been annihilated; for it is impossible to think of anything if we do not think of one thing; but if this is possible, one name might be assigned to this thing.) —Aristotle, Metaphysics, Book IV, Part 4, (Law of thought - Wikipedia)​

William Hamilton of the Nineteenth Century whose work is still regarded as the leading authority on the history of the development of logic from the Classical era to modernity holds, like Antonius Andres and I, that the law of identity is "[t]he principle of all logical affirmation and definition."

The law of Identity, I stated, was not explicated as a coordinate principle till a comparatively recent period. The earliest author in whom I have found this done, is Antonius Andreas, a scholar of Scotus, who flourished at the end of the thirteenth and beginning of the fourteenth century. The schoolman, in the fourth book of his Commentary of Aristotle's Metaphysics—a commentary which is full of the most ingenious and original views—not only asserts to the law of Identity a coordinate dignity with the law of Contradiction, but, against Aristotle, he maintains that the principle of Identity, and not the principle of Contradiction, is the one absolutely first. The formula in which Andreas expressed it was Ens est ens. Subsequently to this author, the question concerning the relative priority of the two laws of Identity and of Contradiction became one much agitated in the schools; though there were also found some who asserted to the law of Excluded Middle this supreme rank. —William Hamilton ​

Further, ever since the Nineteenth Century, the law of identity has been almost universally held to be the foundation of the laws of thought and rightly so, given that it inherently entails the other two and, thusly, the other two in terms of conceptualization are extensions of the same. That's why philosophers routinely list the law of identity first, followed by (2) the law of non-contradiction, (3) the law of the excluded middle and, in recent history, (4) the law of sufficient reason, including Schopenhauer, by the way, although he contended that the laws of thought could be reduced to the excluded middle and sufficient reason, with identity and non-contradiction as corollaries of the excluded middle. I follow his reasoning, but I and most others disagree, as the law of the excluded middle can be and is routinely suspended for scientific purposes. Schopenhauer failed to anticipate that, just as he failed to appreciate the fact that the law of sufficient reason conceptually alludes back to the foundational law of logic. But, then, Schopenhauer was an atheist and, thus, a fool.

Of course, you wouldn't understand why it's sometimes suspended for scientific purposes, anymore than you understood what your source, whatever it is, was actually talking about regarding the law of identity's formal explication as a coordinate principle in the historical timeline. Clearly, you, being an ignoramus, interpreted that to regard the origin of the law of identity itself.

You know, literally every person seeing your copy paste tantrum (not one person will actually read it) knows this is an attempt by you to avoid all other points. Do you even fool yourself?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Yeah ... didn't think we'd get more than a couple posts from him until we got crickets ... math is hard ...

Here's the first part of the crickets I promised you, an excerpt from an article I wrote regarding the distinction between potential and actual infinities:

. . . Just as more than a few atheists have argued on their blogs, Morriston inexplicably argues potential infinities in refutation of Craig's observation regarding the existential impossibility of a quantitatively definite actual infinity. How is it possible that a professor of philosophy doesn't grasp the difference between potential infinities and actual infinities? As every serious calculus student should know, actual infinities only exist in minds and only as they're intuitively understood to entail a boundlessly large, indeterminable number of things or a boundlessly large, indeterminable amount of something.

It's impossible for actual infinities to exist outside of minds precisely because there's no limit, and the only sense in which they exist inside minds is strictly conceptual. There's never a point in time or being outside of minds when there isn't still more and more. . . . One might as well ask what the numeric value of Beauty is as ask what the numeric value of Infinity is. From this we see that the existential impossibility of an actual infinity outside of minds goes to quantity, not to essential qualities of being.

A common mistake is to point to the set of real numbers, for example, as its cardinality is an actual infinity, albeit, conceptually. Indeed, the set of all real numbers arguably entails an infinite number of actual infinities, each of which is an actual infinity within an actual infinity. The infinite set of real numbers is an example of an uncountable infinity, wherein the actually infinite amount of real numbers between the integers 0 and 1, for example, is as infinity great as the actually infinite amount of real numbers between all of the other adjacently sequential ±integers from 0 to ±∞ combined (see Cantor's diagonal proof)! Mind blowing to be sure, but, once again, the infinite set of real numbers only exists in minds and only as intuitively understood to entail a boundlessly large, indeterminable number of infinities.

Which brings us to the realization that no number actually exists, in and of itself, outside of minds either. When we talk about a real number like ±1 as opposed to a surreal number like ±∞, what we actually mean is that a real number has a definitive, finite value, while a surreal number has some indeterminate value. The only things that actually exist outside of minds in this wise are the symbols (or numerals) scribbled on paper, for example, to represent numbers.

Infinity is also used to denote the quality of God’s attributes. When the classical theist says that God is infinite, he means that God is incomparably perfect in all ways. There’s no divine attribute of infinity as such. God’s omniscience, omnipotence and eternality are routinely confounded as being actual infinities, but once again these are inherent qualities, not external quantities of things. I’ve written on the actual nature of these attributes elsewhere and Craig addresses their nature quite handily in his articles "Is God Actually Infinite" and "God, Time and Eternity", so I need not repeat him or myself here, except to point out that the key to understanding their actual nature is to keep in mind that God is wholly transcendent—having no temporal extension (or magnitude). God is the Eternal Now who stands and stays, as it were, with no beginning or end.

While Morriston seems to grasp the key that unlocks the door to the understanding of the nature of the pertinent attributes of divinity, at one point in his critique he smugly argues that God could create a hotel with an actual infinite number of rooms, as if to say that this is so obviously possible that even a child could understand why Craig's argument is false.

But it's Morriston who's befuddled.

That's akin to wondering if God could create a rock so heavy that even He couldn't lift it. God can't do that either. Divine omnipotence is not the power to do anything at all; rather, it's the power to do all things possible. This is not a limit on God's power. On the contrary, it's precisely because God is omnipotent that no rock too heavy for Him to lift could possibly exist in the first place, just like a hotel with an actually infinite number of rooms couldn't possibly exist in the first place. An actual infinity is a set containing an infinite number of elements, and in general, it's the set containing all possible quantity that's forever growing toward Infinity but never reaching Infinity. The distinction between potential infinities and actual infinities is ultimately a misnomer, as the "distinction" is actually the definition of the only kind of infinity that can exist outside of minds, namely, a potential infinity, which is a set with a finite number of elements at any given moment in time or being that is always increasing toward Infinity as the limit.

It's impossible to traverse an actual infinity!

In any event, God couldn't logically do anything contrary to His nature. Objectively speaking, according to the first principles of metaphysics, if God exists, our logic is God's eternally uncreated logic bestowed on us. For God to do something contrary to His nature is for God to deny Himself. God = God. God cannot be God and not-God simultaneously. How did this guy Morriston get a doctorate in religious philosophy? Clearly, he's one of these leftist kooks turning out imbeciles from our universities.

Now on to the mathematical treatment of Infinity.

This is copy paste material you don't really understand. It is posted in an effort to try to make your subjective premises look as though they have more substance than they do. Have you ever taken discrete mathematics? Clearly not.

 

[ReinyDays]

Rather quickly spinning in the wind ... some new and unfounded brand of pseudo-math that won't make his case ... just sounds good is all ...

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Rather quickly spinning in the wind ... some new and unfounded brand of pseudo-math that won't make his case ... just sounds good is all ...

Of course. That's the MO of this charlatan. And it matches right up with the MO of religiosity. Large, ornate buildings...elaborate costumes...music, chanting, speaking in tongues, long winded, emotional sermons...all to put a tuxedo on the turd of iron age myths.

 

[Hollie]

What is your proof of this claim ... or are you asking us to assume this is true? ...
Infinity is very precisely defined in mathematics ... thus it exists in mathematics ... why are you saying it doesn't? ...
I have absolutely no problem with an infinite regress of causal events, indeed Hindu theology holds this to be true ... can you prove it is not? ...

I ask again ... start at negative infinity and tell me the steps to the present ..

I didn't say the concept of infinity doesn't exist. It exists in minds and mathematics as a concept only! Where does the concept of infinity exist outside of mnds? Where do mathematics exist outside of minds? These things are not controversial. There facts of reality.

Question: What does infinity equal?

Mathematically, it's the concept of a boundlessly large, indeterminable number of things or a boundlessly large, indeterminable amount of something.

It cannot be quantified.

Further, I didn't say the concept of an infinite regress of causal events doesn't exist. It exist as a concept in mnds and mathematics. I said that an actual infinite cannot exist and that an infinite regress of causal events cannot be traversed to the present.

What does ±∞ have to do with these observations?

And from what point, precisely, do you want me to start slogging toward the present from -∞?

Fifteen pages in a thread you opened purporting to have something to do with mathematics and incontrovertible evidence for your gods.

There has been no mathematics presented offering proof of your gods and no offering of incontrovertible evidence for your gods.

Beyond the ramifications of the first principle of the thread title promoting a fraudulent premise, your participation in the thread has been an embarrassment to the gods and mathematics alike.

 

[ReinyDays]

As a Christian myself ... this is NOT how we are commanded to treat our neighbors ... just awful how some people discredit our doctrine, just awful ... we worship the Prince of Peace, we should be peaceful, duh ...

 

[Ringtone]

As a Christian myself ... this is NOT how we are commanded to treat our neighbors ... just awful how some people discredit our doctrine, just awful ... we worship the Prince of Peace, we should be peaceful, duh ...

If you're a Christian then why did you turn what began as a civil conversation with me into a mockfest as you incessantly misrepresented my observations? Why are you abetting the obfuscations. of atheist reprobates and throwing shade on the logical, mathematic and scientific ramifications regarding God's existence? I'm not impressed by your moralizing yuk yuk.

 

[Ringtone]

What is the argument this is a proof and not an assumption? ... what logical step have you taken here? ... and go ahead and apply this logic to the CMB Epoch as a demonstration ...

Total gibberish with a smidgen of word-salad dressing (i.e., the CMB epoch) poured on top.

(By the way, that's the second time I posted the excerpt from my article in this thread. You should have read it the first time.)

The summation of the Kalam Cosmological Argument below the accompanying videos of the same in the OP stand and stay.

The ball is in your court. It's for you to disprove the argument, and the only way you can do that is to show how an infinite chain of causal events regressing into the past forever could ever possibly be traversed to the present. Either you can coherently show that or you can't, and, of course, you can't. No one can. Actual infinities only exist in minds as mathematical concepts. They have absolutely no existentiality outside of minds, and the notion of an infinite regress of causal events being traversed to the present is an absurdity. Period!

And just as you incessantly misstated my observations due to your obvious ignorance regarding the distinction between potential and actual infinities, and the ramifications thereof—I seriously doubt you understand what the essence of the Epsilon-Delta Proof (ε - δ definition of a limit) is, given that the most straightforward mathematical illustration of the existential impossibility of an actually infinite regress in nature would entail a limit function of systematic division.

Excerpt from my article:

But, once again, what do we do with any given integer divided by Infinity? The quotient would obviously not equal ±∞. Nor would it equal 0. If we were to divide ±1 by ∞, for example, and say that the quotient were 0, then what happened to ±1? Calculus entails the analysis of algebraic expressions in terms of limits, so in calculus the expression n ÷ ∞ = 0 doesn't mean the quotient literally equals 0. Rather, 0 is the value to which the quotient converges (or approaches). Again, Infinity is a concept, not a number. We can approach Infinity if we count higher and higher, but we can't ever actually reach it. Though not an indeterminate form proper, n ÷ ∞, like any other calculation with Infinity, is technically undefined. Notwithstanding, we intuitively understand that ±1 ÷ ∞ equals an infinitesimally small positive or negative number. Hence, we could intuitively say that ±1 ÷ ∞ = ±0.000 . . . 1, and we would be correct.​

​

For the proof, let the input variable = x, and let the integer = 1:​

​

x​	1 ÷ x​
1​	1​
2​	0.5​
4​	0.25​
10​	0.1​
100​	0.01​
1,000​	0.001​
10,000​	0.0001​
100,000​	0.00001​
1,000,000 . . .​	0.000001 . . .​

​

Note that as x gets larger and larger, approaching Infinity, 1 ÷ x gets smaller and smaller, approaching 0. The latter is the limit, and because we can't get a final value for 1 ÷ ∞, the limit of 1 ÷ x as x approaches Infinity is as close to any definitive value as we're going to get. The limit of a function in calculus tells us what value the function approaches as the x of the function (or, in shorthand, the x of the f ) approaches a certain value:​

​

lim f(x)​

x→a ​

​

We know that we're proving the limit for 1 ÷ ∞; hence, the following reads "the limit of the function f(x) is 1 ÷ x as x approaches Infinity":​

​

f(x) = lim 1 ÷ x​

x→∞ ​

​

Additionally, the output values of function f depend on the input values for the variable x. In the expression f(x), f is the name of the function and (x) denotes that x is the variable of the function. The function itself is "the limit of 1 ÷ x as the inputs for x approach Infinity." When we solve for the limit of more than one function in an algebraic combination, we typically call the first of the functions f for "function." It really doesn't matter what we call any of them as long as we distinguish them from one another. The names given to the others typically follow f in alphabetical order merely as a matter of aesthetics: g, h, i, j and so on.​

​

Hence, as we can see from the table above, the function proves out that the limit of 1 ÷ x as x approaches Infinity is 0. That is, as x approaches Infinity, 1 ÷ x approaches 0.​

​

lim 1 ÷ x = 0​

x→∞​

​

Altogether then:​

​

lim f(x) = lim 1 ÷ x = 0 (i.e., 0.000 . . . 1)​

x→a x→∞ ​

​

x	1 ÷ x
1	1
2	0.5
4	0.25
10	0.1
100	0.01
1,000	0.001
10,000	0.0001
100,000	0.00001
1,000,000 . . .	0.000001 . . .

In nature t = 0 is never reached via an infinite regress into the past. Hence, an infinite regression can never be traversed to the present.

Check and mate!

 

[Ringtone]

Edit: I had to delete the post in the above and repost it as the format would not let me present the inputs and outputs properly sans a table.