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]

[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.