Actual Infinity in Reality?

[Angrboda]

Both seem like loaded questions (though probably not intentionally so). My only point was that the discussion gets derailed when people fail to distinguish between the description of a thing and the thing itself. In this particular case, I am asserting that some qualities have ontological status.

When someone says that a sensible body is triangular, they are describing that body as having a distinct quality that is shares with other triangular bodies. Saying that something is triangular is an acknowledgement that it shares a certain kind of about-ness with other similar bodies, i.e. triangularity. It's simply not enough to say the word "triangle" is what we call the set of three-sided bodies. You also have to recognize that you are referring something which gives those objects similarity - the quality of triangularity they all share.

If qualities don't exist, then descriptive words do not refer to anything.

Could you give me an example of a triangle, and specifically, what makes it a triangle?

[GrandizerII]

Interesting point.  Do you imagine that the natural laws that govern the universe reflect the universe's intention?  Or do such laws just reflect the brute nature of stuff and how it interacts with other stuff?

Both seem like loaded questions (though probably not intentionally so). My only point was that the discussion gets derailed when people fail to distinguish between the description of a thing and the thing itself. In this particular case, I am asserting that some qualities have ontological status.

When someone says that a sensible body is triangular, they are describing that body as having a distinct quality that is shares with other triangular bodies. Saying that something is triangular is an acknowledgement that it shares a certain kind of about-ness with other similar bodies, i.e. triangularity. It's simply not enough to say the word "triangle" is what we call the set of three-sided bodies. You also have to recognize that you are referring something which gives those objects similarity - the quality of triangularity they all share.

If qualities don't exist, then descriptive words do not refer to anything.

Qualities only need to exist as qualities/properties of sensible objects for descriptive terms pertinent to them to have meaning. There exist objects with three sides. Having three sides is a quality given the label or term of "triangular".

If there's a flaw in my thinking here, please point it out.

[Amarok]

Both seem like loaded questions (though probably not intentionally so). My only point was that the discussion gets derailed when people fail to distinguish between the description of a thing and the thing itself. In this particular case, I am asserting that some qualities have ontological status.

When someone says that a sensible body is triangular, they are describing that body as having a distinct quality that is shares with other triangular bodies. Saying that something is triangular is an acknowledgement that it shares a certain kind of about-ness with other similar bodies, i.e. triangularity. It's simply not enough to say the word "triangle" is what we call the set of three-sided bodies. You also have to recognize that you are referring something which gives those objects similarity - the quality of triangularity they all share.

If qualities don't exist, then descriptive words do not refer to anything.

Qualities only need to exist as qualities/properties of sensible objects for descriptive terms pertinent to them to have meaning. There exist objects with three sides. Having three sides is a quality given the label or term of "triangular".

If there's a flaw in my thinking here, please point it out.

Yup in a specific pattern.  Now tell wooter to show us a concept that has qualities found in the actual universe .we observe . No numbers a quatitines of real things symbolized . No Logic is a relation to  real things . etc

[GrandizerII]

So far, the majority of people who have voted in this thread's poll say that an actual infinity in reality is logically possible. Wondering what Steve makes out of that. And if he has changed his mind about this topic.

Note, actual infinities are only a defeater of the KCA and probably a creatio ex nihilo Creator God. They do not disprove the existence of God himself.

[Amarok]

So far, the majority of people who have voted in this thread's poll say that an actual infinity in reality is logically possible. Wondering what Steve makes out of that. And if he has changed his mind about this topic.

I imagine he's obligated to stick to his guns . As the supposed yet unproven idea that a infinite exists in reality . Is gospel in modern apologetics . Much like heliocentrism in catholic church .

[GrandizerII]

So far, the majority of people who have voted in this thread's poll say that an actual infinity in reality is logically possible. Wondering what Steve makes out of that. And if he has changed his mind about this topic.

I imagine he's obligated to stick to his guns . As the supposed yet unproven idea that a infinite exists in reality . Is gospel in modern apologetics . Much like heliocentrism in catholic church .

Well, he better have some new reasons to stick to his guns then. Because his arguments thus far have been pretty uncompelling and easily debunked.

But of course, I'm just musing here. You're right. Of course he won't concede. Not about something that would otherwise destroy one of his favorite arguments for Creator God.

[Whateverist]

Interesting point.  Do you imagine that the natural laws that govern the universe reflect the universe's intention?  Or do such laws just reflect the brute nature of stuff and how it interacts with other stuff?

Both seem like loaded questions (though probably not intentionally so). My only point was that the discussion gets derailed when people fail to distinguish between the description of a thing and the thing itself. In this particular case, I am asserting that some qualities have ontological status.

When someone says that a sensible body is triangular, they are describing that body as having a distinct quality that is shares with other triangular bodies. Saying that something is triangular is an acknowledgement that it shares a certain kind of about-ness with other similar bodies, i.e. triangularity. It's simply not enough to say the word "triangle" is what we call the set of three-sided bodies. You also have to recognize that you are referring something which gives those objects similarity - the quality of triangularity they all share.

If qualities don't exist, then descriptive words do not refer to anything.

I've never given ontology any consideration.  Which qualities have no ontological status?  From a brief examination of the wiki entry, it is hard to know what you mean by ontological status.  Is there any way for you to translate that into ordinary speech?  

Some fundamental questions[edit]
Principal questions of ontology include:[citation needed]

• "What can be said to exist?"
  
  
• "What is a thing?"[6]
  
  
• "Into what categories, if any, can we sort existing things?"
  
  
• "What are the meanings of being?"
  
  
• "What are the various modes of being of entities?"
  

Various philosophers have provided different answers to these questions. One common approach involves dividing the extant subjects and predicates into groups called categories.[citation needed] Such lists of categories differ widely from one another, and it is through the co-ordination of different categorical schemes that ontology relates to such fields as library science and artificial intelligence. Such an understanding of ontological categories, however, is merely taxonomic, classificatory. Aristotle's categories are the ways in which a being may be addressed simply as a being, such as:[7]

• what it is (its 'whatness', quiddity, haecceity or essence)
  
  
• how it is (its 'howness' or qualitativeness)
  
  
• how much it is (quantitativeness)
  
  
• where it is, its relatedness to other beings
  

Further examples of ontological questions include:[citation needed]

• What is existence, i.e. what does it mean for a being to be?
  
  
• Is existence a property?
  
  
• Is existence a genus or general class that is simply divided up by specific differences?
  
  
• Which entities, if any, are fundamental?
  
  
• Are all entities objects?
  
  
• How do the properties of an object relate to the object itself?
  
  
• Do physical properties actually exist?
  
  
• What features are the essential, as opposed to merely accidental attributes of a given object?
  
  
• How many levels of existence or ontological levels are there? And what constitutes a "level"?
  
  
• What is a physical object?
  
  
• Can one give an account of what it means to say that a physical object exists?
  
  
• Can one give an account of what it means to say that a non-physical entity exists?
  
  
• What constitutes the identity of an object?
  
  
• When does an object go out of existence, as opposed to merely changing?
  
  
• Do beings exist other than in the modes of objectivity and subjectivity, i.e. is the subject/object split of modern philosophy inevitable?

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

[LadyForCamus]

Steve seems to have disappeared from the thread, either because he has realized he was wrong, or because he still thinks he’s right. Or, I dunno; maybe he needed to do laundry or something. 😛

[Whateverist]

Steve seems to have disappeared from the thread, either because he has realized he was wrong, or because he still thinks he’s right.  Or, I dunno; maybe he needed to do laundry or something.  😛

Or maybe you were getting too close to making him realize the contradictions in his beliefs and he praying on it right this minute?

[GrandizerII]

Steve seems to have disappeared from the thread, either because he has realized he was wrong, or because he still thinks he’s right.  Or, I dunno; maybe he needed to do laundry or something.  😛

Or maybe you were getting too close to making him realize the contradictions in his beliefs and he praying on it right this minute?

That, or doing a lot of apologetic reading on this topic. Or just waiting hopefully for us to simply move on and stop dwelling on this embarrassing moment for theists, so that he can go back to businesd here with othrr threads.