Dr. Craig is a liar.

[TheRocketSurgeon]

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.

This is a well-described problem/issue in human nature; it's also why Peer Review is probably the single most important part of science.

[RoadRunner79]

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.

This is a well-described problem/issue in human nature; it's also why Peer Review is probably the single most important part of science.

I understand the value in peer review, but also I am aware of it's flaws.   I don't think that acceptance by a peer review publication makes something scientific or not.   There are many articles that pass peer review and then are retracted.  Some are peer reviewed and by their nature non-repeatable.   And people have won noble prizes, who where rejected by peer review for the very work they won the accommodation for in science.   I don't think that peer review is magic pixie dust, where acceptance means that all of the sudden science begins.

[TheRocketSurgeon]

I understand the value in peer review, but also I am aware of it's flaws.   I don't think that acceptance by a peer review publication makes something scientific or not.  [...]  I don't think that peer review is magic pixie dust, where acceptance means that all of the sudden science begins.

I concur! Nor did I think or imply otherwise.

The point was that the error-correction mechanism exists for a good reason.

Those things which were changed/withdrawn even after passing Peer Review (based on the best knowledge at the time) are because others who looked at the works found better explanations. That's why all knowledge in science, and all the theoretical models we build, are tentative explanations and subject to being altered or changed with better information. That's the primary strength of the Scientific Method.

[Jehanne]

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?

0 <--> (0,0), 1 <--> (1,0), 2 <--> (0,1), 3 <--> (2,0), 4 <--> (1,1), 5 <--> (0,2), 6 <--> (3,0) ....

[RoadRunner79]

Those things which were changed/withdrawn even after passing Peer Review (based on the best knowledge at the time) are because others who looked at the works found better explanations. That's why all knowledge in science, and all the theoretical models we build, are tentative explanations and subject to being altered or changed with better information. That's the primary strength of the Scientific Method.

Sometimes; other times, they where just junk to begin with.... and sometimes they are junk on purpose to point out the flaws in peer review. Politics and bias plays a role, as well of the current orthodoxy. Or it could just be the format of your work. The disillusionment over peer review seems to be dropping ;however, and some publications are better than others. But I don't automatically accept or reject something just because of peer review publication (it's not the demarcation of science).

I don't operate on blind faith of the peer review process.

[Jehanne]

Those things which were changed/withdrawn even after passing Peer Review (based on the best knowledge at the time) are because others who looked at the works found better explanations. That's why all knowledge in science, and all the theoretical models we build, are tentative explanations and subject to being altered or changed with better information. That's the primary strength of the Scientific Method.

Sometimes; other times, they where just junk to begin with.... and sometimes they are junk on purpose to point out the flaws in peer review.   Politics and bias plays a role, as well of the current orthodoxy.  Or it could just be the format of your work.  The disillusionment over peer review seems to be dropping ;however, and some publications are better than others.  But I don't automatically accept or reject something just because of peer review publication (it's not the demarcation of science).  

I don't operate on blind faith of the peer review process.

But, you possess blind faith in a religion for which there is no evidence.

[RoadRunner79]

Sometimes; other times, they where just junk to begin with.... and sometimes they are junk on purpose to point out the flaws in peer review.   Politics and bias plays a role, as well of the current orthodoxy.  Or it could just be the format of your work.  The disillusionment over peer review seems to be dropping ;however, and some publications are better than others.  But I don't automatically accept or reject something just because of peer review publication (it's not the demarcation of science).  

I don't operate on blind faith of the peer review process.

But, you possess blind faith in a religion for which there is no evidence.

I don't, and I don't espouse blind faith either.   I think that we should be ready to give the reason for why we believe.

[Jehanne]

But, you possess blind faith in a religion for which there is no evidence.

I don't, and I don't espouse blind faith either.   I think that we should be ready to give the reason for why we believe.

That's what the scientific method can provide, the ability to verify, and more importantly, falsify competing hypotheses.  Religion has no such "pruning" mechanism, which is why there are so many different religions and creeds, all of which contradict themselves and each other.

[RoadRunner79]

I don't, and I don't espouse blind faith either.   I think that we should be ready to give the reason for why we believe.

That's what the scientific method can provide, the ability to verify, and more importantly, falsify competing hypotheses.  Religion has no such "pruning" mechanism, which is why there are so many different religions and creeds, all of which contradict themselves and each other.

There are a fair number of theories in science, which contradict each other (or are at least incoherent with each other).  I would also disagree that religion can't be falsified or corrected.  Just because something isn't repeatable doesn't mean that there is no reason or evidence behind it. Also I think you are of a misunderstanding, that so many contradict each other.

[Jehanne]

That's what the scientific method can provide, the ability to verify, and more importantly, falsify competing hypotheses.  Religion has no such "pruning" mechanism, which is why there are so many different religions and creeds, all of which contradict themselves and each other.

There are a fair number of theories in science, which contradict each other (or are at least incoherent with each other).  I would also disagree that religion can't be falsified or corrected.  Just because something isn't repeatable doesn't mean that there is no reason or evidence behind it.  Also I think you are of a misunderstanding, that so many contradict each other.

Your statement about scientific theories is just misleading and false, and I would invite you to provide some examples.  General Relativity, Einstein's theory of gravitation, is being tested and retested and tested again and again right up to the present day.  No religion receives such scrutiny because no religion makes any predictions which anyone can test.  Theology is a predictionless academic discipline, and as the late Professor Carl Sagan once said, "Philosophers have no laboratory in which they can test their ideas."  As religion makes no testable predictions, religious belief is unfalsifiable.