I've read the William Lane Craig article over once, I will need to digest it and read it over again. One thing that both yourself and William Lane Craig seem keen to point out is that the view is not a traditionally Christian one, this does not bother me. The logical reasoning of the infinite is something I will need to spend some more time with.
?domokunrox wrote:All means all and that's all that all means.
I tend towards the continued inclusion of infinite in the dictionary.domokunrox wrote:Infinity shouldn't even be in the dictionary because it describes absolutely nothing. There isn't an example of anything ACTUALLY infinite. God is best described as eternal, but even eternal is listed as a synonym for infinite. Which is again wrong. This is all a misunderstanding that only further complicates our Christian defense to the secular intellectuals in the world.
Whilst we may not have an example of anything actually infinite we've not yet found the edge of everything. Someone posted this lovely little flash site here recently which attempts to give some scale. I don't see what makes it more probable that it stops at some point than just roughly repeats ad infinitum. The advantage seems to be if one adheres to a finite view of things then one still has room for theism.
The admission that we are not omniscient. As we don't know everything there is always a chance that there is a more convincing explanation possible, it is also possible that this explanation will resolve previous explanations which were at odds. In an other thread domokunrox used the example that earth cannot be both round and not round, I think both are partly true, it's roughly round.SnowDrops wrote:Proinsias,
I was reading the PDF, but whoever wrote it lost me at "various degrees of truth". How does it make sense to say something is partly true, or true for someone but not for someone else?