(October 27, 2016 at 5:39 pm)Alasdair Ham Wrote:(October 26, 2016 at 8:31 pm)Jehanne Wrote: Both are true; what's your point?
The number zero is an existent concept that represents a quantity that is nonexistent. William Lane Craig's mistake is conflating the existent concept of the number zero with the nonexistent quantity that it represents. Just as there is the concept of nothingness but there is no nothingness: there's the number zero but there is no zeroness.
WLC is too dense to grasp this. He's a cheap apologist Christian hack in posh clothing with an education but who has evidently sub-par abstract thinking skills.
I don't know that Craig has had any higher math or science while in college. His BA was in communications (which actors and theater majors like to take), and after that, he went to Christian seminary school, and after that, he got a PhD in Christian New Testament history. His second PhD was in the Philosophy of Religion, but there, he focused on Jesus' "resurrection", but now that he has the title of "Philosopher", he thinks that he knows anything and everything.
