Moderated Infinity!!!

[Foster Zygote]

What is not just silly but also downright villainous and pathetically sordid is the incessant Christian apologists' perfidy in equivocating atheists with theists.

But especially when they say things that counter your assertion that Christians keep telling us that they regard the very notion of infinity as absurd.

Those pathetic stupid asinine incessantly persistent liars for Jesus trying to hoodwink and dupe the gullible simpletons that atheists and atheism is the same as any species of theists let alone the fundamentalist variety is not silly only... it is... as is usually the case with all theistic apologetics and chicanery... a risible irony...

Just as a brief aside, I would like to take a moment to show some concern regarding your use of language. Not CONCERN, mind you. Just concern.

I'm no English professor, but I can confidently say that when you write with an expansive lexicon, it's still considered ostentatious yet clumsy writing to use multiple, synonymous adjectives in sequence. (It wouldn't hurt to use proper punctuation, either, like commas and periods.) For example, 'stupid' and 'asinine' both mean essentially the same thing. The same with 'incessant' and 'persistent' and 'hoodwink' and 'dupe'. Nothing says to an experienced reader "I rely heavily on a thesaurus to bedazzle my text" quite like such superfluous redundancies for the sake of empty and vacuous ornamental embellishments.

 

[Leumas]

But especially when they say things that counter your assertion that Christians keep telling us that they regard the very notion of infinity as absurd.

Just as a brief aside, I would like to take a moment to show some concern regarding your use of language. Not CONCERN, mind you. Just concern.

I'm no English professor, but I can confidently say that when you write with an expansive lexicon, it's still considered ostentatious yet clumsy writing to use multiple, synonymous adjectives in sequence. (It wouldn't hurt to use proper punctuation, either, like commas and periods.) For example, 'stupid' and 'asinine' both mean essentially the same thing. The same with 'incessant' and 'persistent' and 'hoodwink' and 'dupe'. Nothing says to an experienced reader "I rely heavily on a thesaurus to bedazzle my text" quite like such superfluous redundancies for the sake of empty and vacuous ornamental embellishments.

Thanks for the above vivid demonstration of the depths of fallaciousness and falsehoods which atheists on a forum for atheists and skeptics are willing to spread in defense of Christian apologists.

Note: incessantly repeating falsehoods over and over will never make them converge to truths...

Christian and other apologists and casuists keep telling us that infinity is a nonsense concept that is not in reality.

Of course they do this in the context of trying to cobble together coherent apologetics and sophistry for their gods.

Well... what do you say to this then

In defense of the Kalam Cosmological Argument, apologists such as William Lane Craig, Frank Turek, and myself will argue for the second premise (i.e that the universe had a beginning to its existence) by arguing that an actually infinite number of things are impossible.

The OP assures us that Christians keep telling us that they reject the concept of infinity...

Strawmanning is a fallacy... I suggest you read the OP again... you either misread it or are deliberately strawmanning it.

I suggest in addition to reading the OP again... to also read this

One of the common claims which is utilized in arguments for the existence of God is that actual infinities cannot exist, implying that there cannot be an infinite regress of causal events in the history of the universe. If there cannot be such an infinite regress, then there must be some First Cause. Theologians then put forth other arguments attempting to show that this First Cause must be God. Blake Giunta, a Christian apologist,

And this

In defense of the Kalam Cosmological Argument, apologists such as William Lane Craig, Frank Turek, and myself will argue for the second premise (i.e that the universe had a beginning to its existence) by arguing that an actually infinite number of things are impossible.

...

... Are you going to attempt to mask your inability to support that part of the claim <snip stuff for many QEDs>

Here have a look how wrong you are... QED!!!

• Why Islam Is True E08: Infinity Is an Imaginary Concept
• Al Ghazali and the Impossibility of an Infinite Regress
• Creator of The Creator: The Problem of the Infinite Regress

And

Temporal finitism

Temporal finitism is the doctrine that time is finite in the past. The philosophy of Aristotle, expressed in such works as his Physics, held that although space was finite, with only void existing beyond the outermost sphere of the heavens, time was infinite. This caused problems for mediaeval Islamic, Jewish, and Christian philosophers who, primarily creationist, were unable to reconcile the Aristotelian conception of the eternal with the Genesis creation narrative

ETA: And have you read the list in this post?



.

 

[junkshop]

Sir, lay down the thesaurus and disengage the hyperbole. There's no reason we can't all get home safety tonight, as long as we can keep our heads.

 

[GDon]

Christian and other apologists and casuists keep telling us that infinity is a nonsense concept that is not in reality.

Of course they do this in the context of trying to cobble together coherent apologetics and sophistry for their gods.

As is usually the case with apologetics... ironically and risibly... the very apologists who keep harping on how infinity is nonsense in order to "prove" their gods... turn around and start brandishing infinity when it comes to denying indeterminism in order to keep their gods in the game

I know I'm going to regret this, but I have to ask...

Leumas, which group of Christian apologists do you agree with?

Do you agree with those Christian apologists that keep telling us that infinity is a nonsense concept that is not in reality? So "infinity is a nonsense concept"?

Or do you agree with those Christian apologists that start brandishing infinity in order to keep their gods in the game? So infinity is a valid concept that Christian apologists can use in their apologetics?

Fire in the hole!

 

[Foster Zygote]

I know I'm going to regret this, but I have to ask...

Leumas, which group of Christian apologists do you agree with?

Do you agree with those Christian apologists that keep telling us that infinity is a nonsense concept that is not in reality? So "infinity is a nonsense concept"?

Or do you agree with those Christian apologists that start brandishing infinity in order to keep their gods in the game? So infinity is a valid concept that Christian apologists can use in their apologetics?

Fire in the hole!

Well--well look! I already told you: I deal with the god damn apologists so the casuists don't have to! I have people skills! I am good at dealing with people! Can't you understand that? What the hell is wrong with you people?

 

[GDon]

Well--well look! I already told you: I deal with the god damn apologists so the casuists don't have to! I have people skills! I am good at dealing with people! Can't you understand that? What the hell is wrong with you people?

 

[Leumas]

I know I'm going to regret this, but I have to ask...

Yes... you need to regret it... because it is an irrational nonsensical question.


Here let me show you...

Leumas, which group of Christian apologists do you agree with?

GDon... which creationist casuists do you most agree with?

Do you agree with those Christian apologists that keep telling us that infinity is a nonsense concept that is not in reality? So "infinity is a nonsense concept"?

The Imbecilic Design ones from the DiscoveryHoodwinking Institute for Hawking Jesus?

Or do you agree with those Christian apologists that start brandishing infinity in order to keep their gods in the game? So infinity is a valid concept that Christian apologists can use in their apologetics?

Or the ones who think that the creator of the universe raped a young married girl in Palestine 2023 years ago in order to ill beget with her a future human sacrifice in order to let go of a grudge he had against a callow couple he made and let loose on them a talking walking snake he also made to trick them into eating from the forbidden fruits of a magic tree he also made?


And while you are working so hard to defend Christian apologists which ones do you agree with most?

 

[Leumas]

Well--well look! I already told you: I deal with the god damn apologists so the casuists don't have to! I have people skills! I am good at dealing with people! Can't you understand that? What the hell is wrong with you people?

Aah... it is so nice to see such team work in action... good on you guys for your concerted concerns to vividly demonstrate your efforts to malign an atheist member of a forum for atheists and skeptics all in defense of Christian Apologists... QED!!!

 

[8enotto]

There is nothing worth defending against. There is no means of ending these beliefs short of doing something horrible on a massive scale.
That isn't remotely necessary either. The damages you percieve now in this age are miniscule in relation to nearly all the religious wars, by every religion, in history.

Go ahead build another windmill or three. Then go tilt against them until you win. We'll be here to help you celebrate another victory.

 

[jsfisher]

Well, I remain confused by this whole thread.

Whether the QIOUS (Quantum Irregularity of Unusual Size, aka the Big Bang) resulted in a finite or infinite universe--don't care. 'Infinity' as a mathematical concept is perfectly acceptable, quite useful, actually, but whether it applies to the real world--don't care.

What should I care about? And what has this thread to do with anything?

 

[Foster Zygote]

Aah... it is so nice to see such team work in action... good on you guys for your concerted concerns to vividly demonstrate your efforts to malign an atheist member of a forum for atheists and skeptics all in defense of Christian Apologists... QED!!!

So you think we're somehow obliged to agree with anything you say about Christians because you're an atheist? You think we shouldn't point out that something you're saying is ******** if it happens to be ******** about Christians?

This isn't a blue code of silence thing, Leumas. I don't care if you're an atheist or not. If something you claim about Christians, or anyone else, isn't true, I'm not going to pretend it is just because you think you're striking a blow against religion.

 

[Chanakya]

Well, I remain confused by this whole thread.

Whether the QIOUS (Quantum Irregularity of Unusual Size, aka the Big Bang) resulted in a finite or infinite universe--don't care. 'Infinity' as a mathematical concept is perfectly acceptable, quite useful, actually, but whether it applies to the real world--don't care.

What should I care about? And what has this thread to do with anything?

Seeking attention. And finding it.

 

[Leumas]

Seeking tribalism and getting it... huh??

 

[Leumas]

So you think we're somehow obliged to agree with anything you say about Christians because you're an atheist? You think we shouldn't point out that something you're saying is ******** if it happens to be ******** about Christians?

This isn't a blue code of silence thing, Leumas. I don't care if you're an atheist or not. If something you claim about Christians, or anyone else, isn't true, I'm not going to pretend it is just because you think you're striking a blow against religion.

I am amusingly bemused by your persistent concerted consternations on behalf of Christian apologists... but thanks for all the confirmations of... well... QED!!!

 

[GDon]

Just reading about the Cosmological Argument on the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy website. I can't say I understand the arguments being made, but they differentiate between "actual infinities" and "potential infinities". Some propose that potential infinities can exist but not actual ones. Others think that actual infinities can also exist. The following is very confusing for me:
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/cosmological-argument/

Craig’s defense is that Morriston has ignored the difference between a potential and an actual infinite. According to Craig, an actual infinite is a collection of definite and discrete members whose number is greater than any natural number, whereas a potential infinite is a collection that is increasing toward but never arriving at infinity as a limit (Craig 2010; Craig and Sinclair 2009: 116).

Morriston objects to Craig’s definition of the potential infinite. For one thing, there is no limit to which the future praises grow. The collection of praises continues to grow as the praises are sung, but it does not approach a limit, for always one more praise can be sung. The series of future praises is actually infinite.

Craig responds that Morriston is really attacking his notion of a potential infinite by claiming that no relevant distinction exists between a potential and an actual infinite. But this, he says, rests on confusing an A-theory with a B-theory of time. An infinite directed toward the future would be actual only on a B-theory of time, but not on an A-theory (Craig 2010: 452–53). On an A-theory of time, a change of tense makes a difference. That something actually has happened differs significantly from what may (even if determined) happen​

 

[Chanakya]

Seeking tribalism and getting it... huh??

nuh, you'd tried playing the atheist card, and bizarrely enough demanded of us that we support your nonsense merely because of the atheism thing. But that didn't go down well, did it? So no, while the tribalism thing was sought, kind of desperately if you ask me, but it wasn't actually "got".

At least no one can accuse you of being a stopped clock. you don't seem to get anything right, not even once!

I am amusingly bemused by your persistent concerted consternations on behalf of Christian apologists... but thanks for all the confirmations of... well... QED!!!

I suppose you meant 'amusedly', but as it happens "amusingly" nails it, even if inadvertently. We do find your contortions completely hilarious.

Although that does "demonstrate" --- QED! --- that you do sometimes get some things right, even if by accident. Congratulations, you get the broken clock prize.

 

[Leumas]

nuh, you'd tried playing the atheist card, and bizarrely enough demanded of us that we support your nonsense merely because of the atheism thing.....

... We do find your contortions completely hilarious.
...

How does it feel now... QED!!!

 

[Foster Zygote]

Seeking tribalism and getting it... huh??

Leumas, when you say we shouldn't point out your errors because we're all atheists, that's tribalism. And it isn't just atheists who think you're wrong.

 

[Chanakya]

How does it feel now...

a) Hilarious.
b) But less so than before.
c) Now veering more towards pathetic than funny, actually.
d) After this it'll get completely boring.

QED!!!

How long can you go on talking nonsense? If I don't stop, if I keep responding, will we actually cover pages over pages exchanging completely nonsensical comments? Do you at some point tire of talking complete nonsense? Or is that simply not a thing with you?

QED?

 

[Leumas]

a) Hilarious.
b) But less so than before.
c) Now veering more towards pathetic than funny, actually.
d) After this it'll get completely boring.

How long can you go on talking nonsense? If I don't stop, if I keep responding, will we actually cover pages over pages exchanging completely nonsensical comments? Do you at some point tire of talking complete nonsense? Or is that simply not a thing with you?

QED?

Thank you Chanakya for that emotional outburst and fervent demonstration of fealty.... all in the name of defending Christian Apologists.

QED!!!