A review of the Craig v. Malpass discussion

[Boxing Pythagoras]

I do not consider metaphysics to be an aspect of math. Math is independent of metaphysics and it is essentially a neutral tool box to be used and applied to problem solving, or in the case of metaphysics misused.

Indeed, metaphysics is not an aspect of math. Rather, math is an aspect of metaphysics.

Yes if defined as infinite they are potential infinite sets. A simple text that explains this Infinity and the Mind by Rudy Rucker.
...
No, both may be expressed and defined by sets.

Exactly where do you suppose Rucker's Infinity and the Mind refers to the whole of the Evens or Odds as potential infinites? I'm skimming through my copy, now, and I'm certainly not seeing it. Indeed, Rucker seems to agree with me entirely. In the first chapter, he describes potential infinites as being inexhaustible temporal processes or successions; while completed sets are referred to as actual infinites.

To be blunt no, unless you can provide some coherent examples. Please give examples, and explain what was meaningful referred to specifically as 'metaphysical aspects.'

Do you believe that it is metaphysically possible to have three identical things in a collection, to add four more identical things to that collection, and to not have seven identical things in that collection at the end?

The assertions that are the presuppositions of apologist arguments, such as 'The universe began to exist.'

That is not a presupposition, in this case. It is the conclusion towards which Dr. Craig is arguing.

Unless you are counting Gods one believes in, I believe metaphysics, such as the apologist arguments, are too subjective to use math to support their arguments.

Are you also of the opinion that logic is inapplicable to metaphysics? If so, why are we even discussing this? If not, where do you think you can draw a line between logic and mathematics?

Still waiting for what are the metaphysical aspects I asked about. There is no explanation forthcoming.

I actually listed three such concepts already: number, magnitude, and quantification. You do realize that there is far more to metaphysics than whether or not deity exists, right?

[Boxing Pythagoras]

I think what I was thinking was more along the lines of, Dr Craig doesn't address what Benardete thinks about the metaphysics of it, only what Benardete thinks about the logical aspect. I do definitely hear the shift in tone that Chrawnus mentioned. He starts speaking with a sort of half laugh in his voice right around the word "monstrosities".

My post may have gotten lost in the following tumult, but I actually conceded that I am likely mistaken on this point, already. I had my wife listen to that part of the discussion, without context, and she came away thinking the same as you and Chrawnus.

[shunyadragon]

Quite the contrary. The title of the book is Infinity: An Essay In Metaphysics. The entire goal of the book is to defend the notion of infinity against both metaphysical and mathematical finitists.

[shunyadragon]

Indeed, metaphysics is not an aspect of math. Rather, math is an aspect of metaphysics.

No, Math is a branch of the logic in philosophy, and not metaphysics.

Exactly where do you suppose Rucker's Infinity and the Mind refers to the whole of the Evens or Odds as potential infinites? I'm skimming through my copy, now, and I'm certainly not seeing it. Indeed, Rucker seems to agree with me entirely. In the first chapter, he describes potential infinites as being inexhaustible temporal processes or successions; while completed sets are referred to as actual infinites.

OK

Do you believe that it is metaphysically possible to have three identical things in a collection, to add four more identical things to that collection, and to not have seven identical things in that collection at the end?

I do not consider this a metaphysical question.

That is not a presupposition, in this case. It is the conclusion towards which Dr. Craig is arguing.

I do not consider this a conclusion. Craig words it as an IF premise that "IF the universe had a beginning." Craig's conclusion is: "Therefore, an uncaused, personal Creator of the universe exists, who sans the universe is beginningless, changeless, immaterial, timeless, spaceless and infinitely powerful. Referring to the implications of Classical Theism that follow from this argument, Craig writes "... transcending the entire universe there exists a cause which brought the universe into being ex nihilo ... our whole universe was caused to exist by something beyond it and greater than it. For it is no secret that one of the most important conceptions of what theists mean by 'God' is Creator of heaven and earth."

Are you also of the opinion that logic is inapplicable to metaphysics? If so, why are we even discussing this? If not, where do you think you can draw a line between logic and mathematics?

Math is its own system of logic, and not related to metaphysics. Metaphysics is a separate branch of philosophy that deals with abstract things and subjective concepts, such as the meaning life, and theological beliefs.

Still waiting for what aspects of metaphysics this needs to be addressed

I actually listed three such concepts already: number, magnitude, and quantification. You do realize that there is far more to metaphysics than whether or not deity exists, right?

Yes, there is more to metaphysics than whether or not a deity exists, but nonetheless math is a separate discipline of logic than metaphysics as previously described. You do not objectively count things in metaphysics.

[Boxing Pythagoras]

I do not consider this a conclusion. Craig words it as an IF premise that "IF the universe had a beginning." Craig's conclusion is: "Therefore, an uncaused, personal Creator of the universe exists, who sans the universe is beginningless, changeless, immaterial, timeless, spaceless and infinitely powerful. Referring to the implications of Classical Theism that follow from this argument, Craig writes "... transcending the entire universe there exists a cause which brought the universe into being ex nihilo ... our whole universe was caused to exist by something beyond it and greater than it. For it is no secret that one of the most important conceptions of what theists mean by 'God' is Creator of heaven and earth."

At no point in the entire video does Craig make any conclusions related to God. His argument in this discussion concludes with the notion that the universe did not exist. While it is true that he uses this conclusion as a premise in other arguments elsewhere in his work, that is completely irrelevant to this particular conversation.

Metaphysics is a separate branch of philosophy that deals with abstract things and subjective concepts, such as the meaning life, and theological beliefs.

Ah, here's the problem. You are confusing theology with metaphysics. Metaphysics is the study of the underlying nature of reality. You won't find discussions of "the meaning of life" in journals on metaphysics. You will find discussions of the nature of space, time, quantity, act, potency, physicality, supernaturality, and other such topics, though.

[shunyadragon]

At no point in the entire video does Craig make any conclusions related to God. His argument in this discussion concludes with the notion that the universe did not exist. While it is true that he uses this conclusion as a premise in other arguments elsewhere in his work, that is completely irrelevant to this particular conversation.

Very relevant, because the whole argument behind both in the debate is relevant, because that is what motivates them.

Ah, here's the problem. You are confusing theology with metaphysics.

No I do not, and I made that clear in the last post. Though metaphysical arguments are the basis for the apologetic arguments.

Metaphysics is the study of the underlying nature of reality.

True and nothing to do with math,

You won't find discussions of "the meaning of life" in journals on metaphysics. You will find discussions of the nature of space, time, quantity, act, potency, physicality, supernaturality, and other such topics, though.

Totally separate from math. Though, math may be misused in apologetic arguments.

You and others still have neglected my questions concerning the metaphysical aspects. Also you have not responded completely to my post.

[Boxing Pythagoras]

Very relevant, because the whole argument behind both in the debate is relevant, because that is what motivates them.

The motivations for Craig's arguments are irrelevant to the arguments themselves. To claim otherwise is a pretty obvious ad Hominem fallacy.

No I do not, and I made that clear in the last post.

What you made clear in the last post is that you think Metaphysics discusses "the meaning of life" and theological questions.

True and nothing to do with math, Totally separate from math.

If you think space, time, and quantity have nothing to do with math, then you either don't understand math or else you don't understand space, time, and quantity.

You and others still have neglected my questions concerning the metaphysical aspects. Also you have not responded completely to my post.

Considering you made it clear that you don't even understand what Metaphysics is, it didn't seem fruitful to attempt to answer your questions about it.

[Leonhard]

[lee_merrill]

This an artificial construct of using math for science, and does not reflect the nature of time nor space it self, nor whether it is finite nor infinite, or temporal nor eternal.

How do you explain Zeno's paradox, then? Achilles can indeed catch the tortoise, by traversing an actual infinity of space intervals.

Blessings,
Lee

[shunyadragon]

The motivations for Craig's arguments are irrelevant to the arguments themselves. To claim otherwise is a pretty obvious ad Hominem fallacy.

This too bizzaro to be even humorous. Your saying that their arguments are not relevant to the arguments.

What you made clear in the last post is that you think Metaphysics discusses "the meaning of life" and theological questions.

If you think space, time, and quantity have nothing to do with math, then you either don't understand math or else you don't understand space, time, and quantity.

Never stated such foolishness, but I did say Math and metaphysics are separate disciplines in Philosophy. If you read the Sanford dictionary on Metaphysics there is no mention of math. Metaphysics is not synonymous with philosophy. It is a branch of philosophy, and math is a separate branch. The sections on math in the Sanford Dictionary do not mention metaphysics.

considering you made it clear that you don't even understand what Metaphysics is, it didn't seem fruitful to attempt to answer your questions about it.

considering you made it clear that you don't even understand what Metaphysics is, tou failed to answer my questions and gave inaccurate statements concerning it.

(1) Stanford diction goes into great detail into metaphysics and its history, and no mention that math has anything to do with metaphysics other than in some metaphysics they use math in their tool box just like science.

(2) Meta physics has three categories, and yes, metaphysics deals with many subjects including religion. Your efforts to exclude topics is artificial and does not reflect the diversity of the field of metaphysics.

[JimL]

If infinity is not the reality, then what is beyond the finite existence. Nothiningness? What is nothingness, and is it infinite?

[Boxing Pythagoras]

This too bizzaro to be even humorous. Your saying that their arguments are not relevant to the arguments.

No, I said that the motivation for Dr. Craig's argument is irrelevant to the argument. It is certainly possible that Dr. Craig's argument is motivated by his religious bias. However, that religious bias doesn't appear in the argument, at all. My namesake, Pythagoras, was absolutely motivated by his religious bias in developing the mathematical arguments which have been attributed to him. That doesn't make them false.

Never stated such foolishness, but I did say Math and metaphysics are separate disciplines in Philosophy.

You literally wrote, "Metaphysics is a separate branch of philosophy that deals with abstract things and subjective concepts, such as the meaning life, and theological beliefs" (emphasis added). And then, when I noted that space, time, and quantity are all topics of discussion in metaphysics, you replied DIRECTLY to that statement by saying, "Totally separate from math."

So which is it? Do you think that space, time, and quantity are "totally separate from math" or do you acknowledge that math is fundamentally useful to metaphysics?

If you read the Sanford dictionary on Metaphysics there is no mention of math.

Did you seriously just quote an article one metaphysics which lists Big Bang Cosmology and physical cosmology among the prime topics of metaphysics in order to argue that mathematics is not applicable to metaphysics?

Metaphysics is not synonymous with philosophy. It is a branch of philosophy, and math is a separate branch.

Has anyone stated otherwise? The fact that they are separate branches does not imply that they do not overlap one another in places. You do realize that there are not hard set boundaries to branches of philosophy, right? Things which are discussed in one branch are quite often also discussed in others.

considering you made it clear that you don't even understand what Metaphysics is, tou failed to answer my questions

The fact that you continue to ignore my answers does not imply that I failed to answer.

and gave inaccurate statements concerning it.

Such as? Please quote one single statement which I have made which is inaccurate.

(1) Stanford diction goes into great detail into metaphysics and its history, and no mention that math has anything to do with metaphysics other than in some metaphysics they use math in their tool box just like science.

Are you talking about the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy's article on Metaphysics? Did you even read it? The concept of number and the existence of numbers are most certainly mentioned explicitly as topics of metaphysics in that article. Not to mention the fact that there is a rather MASSIVE section of the text which discusses Universals and anyone with even a modicum of experience in studying metaphysics would note that numbers have been a prime example of Universals since before Plato wrote on them.

(2) Meta physics has three categories, and yes, metaphysics deals with many subjects including religion.

No one ever claimed that Metaphysics does not deal with religious topics. Nor did I even claim that Metaphysics never deals with theological topics. What I stated was that questions about "the meaning of life" are not metaphysical topics. And while certain "theological beliefs" can be topics of metaphysics (ie, God as pure being, or God as the concept-holder of the universals, or God's relation to space and time); the vast majority of "theological beliefs" are most certainly not topics of metaphysics (ie, God's goodness, God's justice, God's plan, God's chosen people, God's inspired word).

[lee_merrill]

If infinity is not the reality, then what is beyond the finite existence. Nothiningness? What is nothingness, and is it infinite?

Good point, if the universe doesn't curve back on itself, then it is an actual infinity...

Blessings,
Lee

[shunyadragon]

No, I said that the motivation for Dr. Craig's argument is irrelevant to the argument. It is certainly possible that Dr. Craig's argument is motivated by his religious bias. However, that religious bias doesn't appear in the argument, at all.

Religious bias is a part of all the writings, and apologetic arguments Craig writes and makes.


My namesake, Pythagoras, was absolutely motivated by his religious bias in developing the mathematical arguments which have been attributed to him. That doesn't make them false. [/quote]

I have no reason to believe Pythagoras was motivated by his religious bias. His goal was problem solving using math.

You literally wrote, "Metaphysics is a separate branch of philosophy that deals with abstract things and subjective concepts, such as the meaning life, and theological beliefs" (emphasis added). And then, when I noted that space, time, and quantity are all topics of discussion in metaphysics, you replied DIRECTLY to that statement by saying, "Totally separate from math."

So which is it? Do you think that space, time, and quantity are "totally separate from math" or do you acknowledge that math is fundamentally useful to metaphysics?

First, I said math is a totally separate discipline of logic and philosophy than metaphysics, and it rubs me the wrong way when you misquote me. math is fundamentally useful in all disciplines.

Belief in space, time and quantity is not dependent on math. Math is the logic number system tool box used to understand 'space,' time and quantity, and not a part of metaphysics.

Did you seriously just quote an article one metaphysics which lists Big Bang Cosmology and physical cosmology among the prime topics of metaphysics in order to argue that mathematics is not applicable to metaphysics?

Actually, Big Bang Cosmology and physical cosmology is the venue of science, not cosmology. Metaphysics may address the philosophical implications of contemporary cosmology.

Has anyone stated otherwise? The fact that they are separate branches does not imply that they do not overlap one another in places. You do realize that there are not hard set boundaries to branches of philosophy, right? Things which are discussed in one branch are quite often also discussed in others. [/quote]

Yes, in all the references I could find including the Stanford Dictionary do not describe math as part of metaphysics. 'Overlap?' No, math is a separate logic number system, and again it is our number tool box to be applied in problem solving in many disciplines.

The fact that you continue to ignore my answers does not imply that I failed to answer.

Such as? Please quote one single statement which I have made which is inaccurate.

You described math as a part of metaphysics.

Are you talking about the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy's article on Metaphysics? Did you even read it? The concept of number and the existence of numbers are most certainly mentioned explicitly as topics of metaphysics in that article. Not to mention the fact that there is a rather MASSIVE section of the text which discusses Universals and anyone with even a modicum of experience in studying metaphysics would note that numbers have been a prime example of Universals since before Plato wrote on them.

Yes, they are important in all disciplines that use the math toolbox, but no all the references DO NOT describe math as a part of metaphysics. Math is described as the tool box for all disciplines.

No one ever claimed that Metaphysics does not deal with religious topics. Nor did I even claim that Metaphysics never deals with theological topics. What I stated was that questions about "the meaning of life" are not metaphysical topics. And while certain "theological beliefs" can be topics of metaphysics (ie, God as pure being, or God as the concept-holder of the universals, or God's relation to space and time); the vast majority of "theological beliefs" are most certainly not topics of metaphysics (ie, God's goodness, God's justice, God's plan, God's chosen people, God's inspired word).

If they are apart of theological beliefs, than "the meaning of life" is a part of metaphysics. Your trying to split frog hairs to justify what? My references did not exclude the above separate from metaphysics, and you cannot cite a source that does this. You are making this up including your claim math is a part of metaphysics.

[Boxing Pythagoras]

Religious bias is a part of all the writings, and apologetic arguments Craig writes and makes.

Let's review, for a moment, the actual argument which Dr. Craig makes in this video. It is as follows:

1. An actually infinite number of things cannot exist.
2. A beginningless series of events in time is an actual infinite.
3. Therefore, a beginningless series of events in time cannot exist.

Which part of this argument is poisoned by bias? Which part of this argument cannot also be made by, say, a complete atheist? If you are able to pinpoint one, I'll be sure to inform the atheists I know who have actually put forward almost this exact same argument. They'll be fairly shocked to learn that they were unknowingly theists this entire time!

I have no reason to believe Pythagoras was motivated by his religious bias. His goal was problem solving using math.

Then you really don't know very much about Pythagoras. He studied math for religious reasons. He was not interested in practical applications, and he would quite honestly have been disgusted by any assertion to the contrary. He had ideas about the divine nature of number and proportion which fueled his study. This is why the Pythagoreans quite famously refused to accept that there could be any magnitude which is incommensurate with shorter magnitudes (a concept which we now call "irrational numbers") despite the fact that there is a fairly simply proof which shows that the Pythagorean position is incorrect.

First, I said math is a totally separate discipline of logic and philosophy than metaphysics, and it rubs me the wrong way when you misquote me. math is fundamentally useful in all disciplines.

I literally quoted your exact words and even provided the direct context of those words. How did I misquote you?

Belief in space, time and quantity is not dependent on math. Math is the logic number system tool box used to understand 'space,' time and quantity, and not a part of metaphysics.

Infinity: An Essay in Metaphysics. I will also note that the work which actually coined the term "metaphysics," Aristotle's Metaphysics, spends the ENTIRETY of its 13th book and much of its 14th book discussing the metaphysics of mathematics. Finally, I will note that philosophers discussing metaphysics have argued about the metaphysics underlying mathematics, in general, and infinities, in particular, for at least 2300 years. So, are you saying that you know more about metaphysics than all of these scholars, who HAVE thought that metaphysics is an appropriate discipline for the discussion of these topics? Or do you now admit that metaphysics IS an appropriate discipline for the discussion of these topics and that we can reasonably discuss whether or not actual infinites are metaphysically possible?