(April 16, 2016 at 10:48 am)Stimbo Wrote: Citation 1:

(April 16, 2016 at 9:59 am)RoadRunner79 Wrote: I do like how a number of those who argued, that something could not always exist...  without a cause; have switched to arguing that things can begin to exist without a cause.

Citation 2:

(April 16, 2016 at 10:06 am)RoadRunner79 Wrote: I'm comfortable, with assertion.  If someone is interested, they can go and look for themselves, to see those arguing "nothing" as a cause.

That is not sufficient to show that my hand is empty...  Only that I don't care, if you don't want to believe me, and I'm don't feel like wasting my time.

And your linking back to the head of this thread isn't sufficient to show what you were asserting.

I thought you didn’t want to play this game?

(April 16, 2016 at 12:02 pm)Stimbo Wrote: And your linking back to the head of this thread isn't sufficient to show what you were asserting.

I thought you didn’t want to play this game?

I provided the source of the information you asked for.

And I just don't want to waste a bunch of time on your "game"

Then stop playing it. Oh, and you're the one who characterised this as a game, Mr Tu Quoque.

(April 16, 2016 at 1:06 pm)Stimbo Wrote: Then stop playing it. Oh, and you're the one who characterised this as a game, Mr Tu Quoque.

Tu quoque :    appeal to hypocrisy is an informal logical fallacy that intends to discredit the validity of the opponent's logical argument by asserting the opponent's failure to act consistently in accordance with its conclusion(s).

I don't see how this applies to my statement or the conversation. I would ask for citations, and empirical peer reviewed scientific evidence for your answer.

(April 16, 2016 at 1:21 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote:

(April 16, 2016 at 1:06 pm)Stimbo Wrote: Then stop playing it. Oh, and you're the one who characterised this as a game, Mr Tu Quoque.

Tu quoque :    appeal to hypocrisy is an informal logical fallacy that intends to discredit the validity of the opponent's logical argument by asserting the opponent's failure to act consistently in accordance with its conclusion(s).

I don't see how this applies to my statement or the conversation.  I would ask for citations, and empirical peer reviewed scientific evidence for your answer.

Most cosmologists do not agree with Craig; it's that simple.  He can cherry-pick papers, but the fact is that there is, not as of yet, a consensus in cosmology as to whether the Cosmos is finite in space and/or time, or infinite in space and/or time.  It's just that simple.  Craig may consider actual infinities to be absurd, but most cosmologists do not.

(April 16, 2016 at 1:32 pm)Jehanne Wrote: Most cosmologists do not agree with Craig; it's that simple.  He can cherry-pick papers, but the fact is that there is, not as of yet, a consensus in cosmology as to whether the Cosmos is finite in space and/or time, or infinite in space and/or time.  It's just that simple.  Craig may consider actual infinities to be absurd, but most cosmologists do not.

I'm curious... how many are in your survey, to conclude that most do not?

And I look at the arguments and reasons behind the claims, not their popularity. Most theologians believe in God.... do you refer to their expertise?

Quote:Craig may consider actual infinities to be absurd, but most cosmologists do not

Why??? (do they have a rebuttal to an actual infinity) Here is an experiment for you... start counting, and let me know, when your reach infinity. If you are pressed for time, then you can count in multiples (10,100, 1,000,000) you can choose whatever you like.

(April 16, 2016 at 1:42 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote:

(April 16, 2016 at 1:32 pm)Jehanne Wrote: Most cosmologists do not agree with Craig; it's that simple.  He can cherry-pick papers, but the fact is that there is, not as of yet, a consensus in cosmology as to whether the Cosmos is finite in space and/or time, or infinite in space and/or time.  It's just that simple.  Craig may consider actual infinities to be absurd, but most cosmologists do not.

I'm curious... how many are in your survey, to conclude that most do not?    

And I look at the arguments and reasons behind the claims, not their popularity.  Most theologians believe in God.... do you refer to their expertise?

Quote:Craig may consider actual infinities to be absurd, but most cosmologists do not

Why??? (do they have a rebuttal to an actual infinity)   Here is an experiment for you... start counting, and let me know, when your reach infinity.  If you are pressed for time, then you can count in multiples (10,100, 1,000,000)  you can choose whatever you like.

I would suggest that you read this:

http://spot.colorado.edu/~morristo/craig...finite.pdf
http://spot.colorado.edu/~morristo/EndlessFuture.pdf

Not everything in mathematics is "common sense"; I used to make my living as an analyst in statistical process control.  Consider the "Birthday problem":

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birthday_problem

Most common-folk people do not give good estimates for this problem when asked, however, the mathematics are indisputable (except, perhaps, by the likes of William Lane Craig).

(April 6, 2016 at 3:48 pm)SteveII Wrote: If the atheists would stop breeding new people to dream up theories about God, we would be able to do the same. Don't know anything about the site, but this was an interesting

Why would I dream up theories about something that I think does not exist? It would be like me speculating on the  sex life of MR Snuffleuffagus, an interesting diversion but nothing to take seriously.

(April 16, 2016 at 1:50 pm)Jehanne Wrote:

(April 16, 2016 at 1:42 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote: I'm curious... how many are in your survey, to conclude that most do not?    

And I look at the arguments and reasons behind the claims, not their popularity.  Most theologians believe in God.... do you refer to their expertise?



Why??? (do they have a rebuttal to an actual infinity)   Here is an experiment for you... start counting, and let me know, when your reach infinity.  If you are pressed for time, then you can count in multiples (10,100, 1,000,000)  you can choose whatever you like.

I would suggest that you read this:

http://spot.colorado.edu/~morristo/craig...finite.pdf
http://spot.colorado.edu/~morristo/EndlessFuture.pdf

Not everything in mathematics is "common sense"; I used to make my living as an analyst in statistical process control.  Consider the "Birthday problem":

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birthday_problem

Most common-folk people do not give good estimates for this problem when asked, however, the mathematics are indisputable (except, perhaps, by the likes of William Lane Craig).

Did you finish counting to infinity already?

I didn't really see anything in those articles that refutes the idea that an actual infinity is not possible. But, I would be happy to discuss any of the arguments that you think are superior.

Your birthday problem is interesting. I only looked at it quickly, but off hand, it seems that we are still left, with who has the better reasons for their claim. In any case, it would seem that by your argument, that while the scientist expertise, would make them better at collecting the data, forming theories, and making hypothesis, that the logical induction based on those, would be better suited to those whose expertise is in logic.

I am an electrical engineer. A large part of my job is to program and troubleshoot machine controls. I have learned over the years, to always listen to the operators. I do this as part of the investigative process, and for diagnostics. I often explain to them, what I am finding, and quite often have had them tell me, that they have no clue what I am talking about. Yet there have been a number of times, that right after telling me this, they come up with a good idea, as to how to solve the problem.... There are also those who will get stuck on their theory, and not listen to the reasons I give for why that is not the case. Similarly; I have seen good maintenance people shut down, by people with a piece of paper who think they know better, because of that certification. They ignore reason, and often to their detriment.