skeptic griggsy

aleph_o, WLC maintains, with his discsussions of Hilbert hotels, infinite books in a library and other red herrings, that non-mathematical infinity is impossible. He maintains that by successive addition, no one can attain infinity,but that is the essence of ininity! Everyday arrives on time as Kyle Williams and Aquinas argue, so that an infinity of days- real stuff, not a mathematical series: there is indeed no final count! He fails to realize that infinity minus infinity, the series of odd and even numbers + the series of just odd or just even numbers and such matters, whilst different from finite numbers, do not invalidate the notion of infinity for material stuff. He fails to realize that the Big Bang was no creation but a transformation. Morriston, Grünbaum and Oppy,amongst others, have presented the case against the Kalam.

How does all this gainsay William Lane Craig's Kalam argument? He argues against an actual infinity.

Dr. Jerry Coyne has the meritorious article one can see by Googling his name " Seeing and Believing," where he thrashes creationistic [theistic] evolutionists Drs. Karl Giberson and Kenneth Miller. He show the contradiction that I present here at length. Those evolutionists merely obfuscate with their it must be's and guesses about Him.Coyne notes the absurdity of their position. What would you say to such individuals on their obfuscation? How do we further the case that He has nothing to do with evolutn, only contradicting natural selection? Also see Coyne's 'Intergalactic Jesus."

I 'm a Quentin Smith naturalist pantheist- in awe of Exiistence. We ignostics find that theologians and theistic philosophers of religion merely use guesses and it must be's to define God. Aren't Objectivists new atheists, anti-theists? Whilst Miss Rand was right that this is a small matter in her sense, it is a gargantuan one as it affects public polilcy and people being superstitious- anti-rational. Some cannot stomach that we let others know that even theistic evolution is nonsense [ Eugneie C. Scott, herself a naturalist]. It takes mockery and such contempt to get to theists to see reason, as philosophy and science alone don't suffice. This is a spur to their reason, not contempt for it, as I see it. Objectivist George Smith in " Atheism: the Case against God," notes the anti-rationality of faith, the we just say so of credulty.

Also, the writer, like Clive Staples Lewis and Alvin Platinga, begs the question that some super mind had us in mind when natural selection just used what was available to form our minds. This argument is called the argument from reason. It is a teleological one; they all beg that question- design, fine-tuning, and probability. Theists who use the argument should realize that it goes against their reasoning as well. How do they know that it isn't Descarte's demon that guides them? Oh, their faith tells them the truth! Then they again beg the question thrice over: as noted; faith begs the question of its subject to avoid showing evidence therefor, and science is acquired knowlege, as naturalist Sydney Hook notes, whle faith begs the question of being knowledge. Sounds to me that the esteemed Prof. Irwin Corey could make better arguments! We learn, of course, from trial and error to trust our senses. Theists want certiude[ the Truth] rather than our provisional knowledge, it seems to me. Logic is the bane of theists.