Actual infinities.

[RoadRunner79]

While it sounds good, I think that there are problems with the infinite number of points between any two points (crossing an infinite number while traversing between those two points).
Mostly I would ask, how a point is being defined in this example, and how one point  is differentiated from another?  Usually an example is given, where the distance is divided over and over again (potentially infinite) however to me, it seems that the math always gives you a finite number (no matter how long you persist in this). 

It seems that the definition of the point, must be left undefined in which case; I ask what is it describing at all?  It cannot be defined as anything related to physical distance or volume.  For such would lead to a contradiction.  If I have two positions 1 meter apart then there is a finite length.  If the point is defining anything in relation to the distance, then it cannot be both infinite and finite in the same sense at the same time.   I can describe the distance as 1 meter or 1000 mm because they are defined and have a relation to one another; as well, I can go even smaller in my definition, however I always have a finite number for the distance.

As to arguments which are claimed to Dr. Craig, which then requires an actual infinite.  This would need to be more specific to answer.   Do the arguments require an actual singularity, or are they just surrounding what is commonly called the Big Bang Singularity?  If they do not require a singularity, then it is not inconsistent.  There may be some arguments effected, but it is difficult to tell, without being more specific.  It has occurred to me (within the last year), that the infinite when talking about a singularity comes from dividing by zero.  Some say, and I tend to agree, that this is better described as undefined, rather than infinite.  And the question comes about, if you can have something physical, that can be described as truly inhabiting zero space/volume?  Even with an astronomically small number (for volume), then it becomes finite again. 

I think the following describes my position on this fairly well, And I think that the word "infinite" is often used as shorthand for either very small or very large.
http://www.physlink.com/education/askexperts/ae251.cfm

[Aegon]

This seems to

Huh? Who are you? Who wrote this post?

[Brian37]

An infinite past is not a problem for theism. It would be a problem for Judaism, Christianity and Islam, but it isn't a problem for theism.

---

I like the paper's arguments though. Well done.

What? No sorry, all human religions are inventions of humans and would and do all still beg the question.

Don't try to make excuses for any non Abraham religion. Watered down mythology/superstition are still just that. 

I apply "that was then, this is now" worldwide to ALL our species religions in our entire history.

Please don't point to Hinduism or Buddhism or Jainism ect ect and think they are different, they are NOT.

Two books you should read if you have not.

Victor Stenger, "God The Failed Hypothesis" 

AND

Victor Stenger, "The New Atheism".......<-----which also addresses the religions of Asia. 

Our species was not the product of something divine, nor does bullshit superstitions like reincarnation explain anything. 

The only reason ANY and all religions exist, is because humans gap fill and those made up answers do provide social structure, but they are not an explanation to scientific reality. Most of our 7 billion get handed the social norms of their parents BEFORE they can form critical thinking skills. I don't give any religion a pass on this. NOT ANY.

[Jehanne]

While it sounds good, I think that there are problems with the infinite number of points between any two points (crossing an infinite number while traversing between those two points).
Mostly I would ask, how a point is being defined in this example, and how one point  is differentiated from another?  Usually an example is given, where the distance is divided over and over again (potentially infinite) however to me, it seems that the math always gives you a finite number (no matter how long you persist in this). 

It seems that the definition of the point, must be left undefined in which case; I ask what is it describing at all?  It cannot be defined as anything related to physical distance or volume.  For such would lead to a contradiction.  If I have two positions 1 meter apart then there is a finite length.  If the point is defining anything in relation to the distance, then it cannot be both infinite and finite in the same sense at the same time.   I can describe the distance as 1 meter or 1000 mm because they are defined and have a relation to one another; as well, I can go even smaller in my definition, however I always have a finite number for the distance.

As to arguments which are claimed to Dr. Craig, which then requires an actual infinite.  This would need to be more specific to answer.   Do the arguments require an actual singularity, or are they just surrounding what is commonly called the Big Bang Singularity?  If they do not require a singularity, then it is not inconsistent.  There may be some arguments effected, but it is difficult to tell, without being more specific.  It has occurred to me (within the last year), that the infinite when talking about a singularity comes from dividing by zero.  Some say, and I tend to agree, that this is better described as undefined, rather than infinite.  And the question comes about, if you can have something physical, that can be described as truly inhabiting zero space/volume?  Even with an astronomically small number (for volume), then it becomes finite again. 

I think the following describes my position on this fairly well, And I think that the word "infinite" is often used as shorthand for either very small or very large.
http://www.physlink.com/education/askexperts/ae251.cfm

If the Universe is expanding, as WLC says that he believes in, what, exactly, is it expanding into?

P.S. We can talk about this later, if you want, but Cantor proved that there is an actual infinite between two finite points on the real number line:

https://www.khanacademy.org/math/math-fo...infinities

[Ignorant]

An infinite past is not a problem for theism. It would be a problem for Judaism, Christianity and Islam, but it isn't a problem for theism.

---

I like the paper's arguments though. Well done.

What? No sorry, all human religions are inventions of humans and would and do all still beg the question.

Don't try to make excuses for any non Abraham religion. Watered down mythology/superstition are still just that. 

...

The only reason ANY and all religions exist, is because humans gap fill and those made up answers do provide social structure, but they are not an explanation to scientific reality. Most of our 7 billion get handed the social norms of their parents BEFORE they can form critical thinking skills. I don't give any religion a pass on this. NOT ANY.

Do you consider the God of Aristotle a religious God?

Is deism a religion?

By theism, I meant merely a metaphysical/purely philosophical account of reality which includes some sort of self-explanatory/self-existent "being". An infinite past is not mutually exclusive with these sorts of accounts.

[Jehanne]

What? No sorry, all human religions are inventions of humans and would and do all still beg the question.

Don't try to make excuses for any non Abraham religion. Watered down mythology/superstition are still just that. 

...

The only reason ANY and all religions exist, is because humans gap fill and those made up answers do provide social structure, but they are not an explanation to scientific reality. Most of our 7 billion get handed the social norms of their parents BEFORE they can form critical thinking skills. I don't give any religion a pass on this. NOT ANY.

Do you consider the God of Aristotle a religious God?

Is deism a religion?

By theism, I meant merely a metaphysical/purely philosophical account of reality which includes some sort of self-explanatory/self-existent "being". An infinite past is not mutually exclusive with these sorts of accounts.

Aristotle believed that God and the Universe were co-existent with a beginningless past.

[Brian37]

What? No sorry, all human religions are inventions of humans and would and do all still beg the question.

Don't try to make excuses for any non Abraham religion. Watered down mythology/superstition are still just that. 

...

The only reason ANY and all religions exist, is because humans gap fill and those made up answers do provide social structure, but they are not an explanation to scientific reality. Most of our 7 billion get handed the social norms of their parents BEFORE they can form critical thinking skills. I don't give any religion a pass on this. NOT ANY.

Do you consider the God of Aristotle a religious God?

Is deism a religion?

By theism, I meant merely a metaphysical/purely philosophical account of reality which includes some sort of self-explanatory/self-existent "being". An infinite past is not mutually exclusive with these sorts of accounts.

Oh stop it.

I don't care if you are arguing Aristotle's watered down version or Jefferson's deism. Sure, one could argue they avoid the violent tribalism, but ultimately there is still NO NEED for either.

Our species morality is not found in fictional beings, and while metaphor can depict our nature, fiction of any kind does not explain where our evolutionary behavior is REALLY coming from.

OUR species behavior is in US, in our evolution.

For the same reason a male lion will kill rival cubs and female lions will protect those same cubs.

You DON'T NEED the mythology of antiquity, and attempting to water down that crap and call it metaphorical is just as much junk as anything else.

Our species ability to be cruel or compassionate isn't handed down to us, it isn't rooted in even metaphor even if expressed in metaphor. Our species morality is in our genes whether we do good or bad.

Aristotle did right by the idea of thinking and skepticism, the same as Paine and Jefferson, but that did not make a deist deity real, nor does our human existence need to be explained by any type of God, not authoritarian tribal, nor watered down non gang mentality deity.

No, I don't even buy liberals, when they say, "I am spiritual not religions".

How about just accept as well intended as Aristotle was, even he didn't know what we know now?

[Ignorant]

Do you consider the God of Aristotle a religious God?

Is deism a religion?

By theism, I meant merely a metaphysical/purely philosophical account of reality which includes some sort of self-explanatory/self-existent "being". An infinite past is not mutually exclusive with these sorts of accounts.

Aristotle believed that God and the Universe were co-existent with a beginningless past.

Precisely.

Earlier you said arguments against actual temporal infinities are not helpful to theism, but they aren't necessarily harmful either.

[Jehanne]

Aristotle believed that God and the Universe were co-existent with a beginningless past.

Precisely.

Earlier you said arguments against actual temporal infinities are not helpful to theism, but they aren't necessarily harmful either.

They are neutral; agreed.  But, as Professor Sean Carroll said repeatedly in his debate with WLC, theism is 1) not well defined, 2) given to multiple definitions, and 3) leads to no strong predictions.  Theism is compatible with everything!  As with the idea that planets move because there are angles pushing them in a way that conforms to mindless natural forces, so, too, Occam's Razor demands that we reject theism, deism, pantheism, etc., and only accept naturalism, as there is simply no need to postulate anything beyond the natural order.

[Ignorant]

Do you consider the God of Aristotle a religious God?

Is deism a religion?

By theism, I meant merely a metaphysical/purely philosophical account of reality which includes some sort of self-explanatory/self-existent "being". An infinite past is not mutually exclusive with these sorts of accounts.

Oh stop it.

Stop what?

All I said is that theism is compatible with an infinite past, and the three abrahamic religions are not. That you read into those few words some sort of implicit religious argument is on you.

Theistic arguments which try to demonstrate god's existence based on the "fact" of a "beginning" of all things are not satisfactory. Whether there is an infinite past or not is irrelevant to the rational conclusion of God's existence.