Tuesday, October 26, 2010

L 5.22

“Craig’s basic problem is that he conflates counting an infinite number of events with counting all of them”. (p. 86)

What’s the difference? God still has to count them all and the number is infinite

“An immortal being could finish her beginningless task and yet not count all events.”

God can’t finish unless all events are counted. The sentence is absurd.

“…a set of an infinite number of events is not to be regarded as the same thing in every respect as an infinite number of sets each containing an infinite number of events”.

Why introduce an infinite number of sets each containing an infinite number of events? Either way, there is an infinite. Each event has to be counted down in order to get to zero. His attempt to object to the explanation further illustrates the absurdity of actual infinites. How can an infinite number of events be contained in a set in any real sense? How can an infinite set be compared to an infinite number of like sets?

No comments: