Bad Math Used in Apologetics

[Jagella]

Recently I've noticed that some apologists like William Lane Craig are using mathematics-based arguments to assure us that the Christian god exists. I would like to explain why those arguments use poor logic.

A very broad argument is that mathematics in general seems to explain the cosmos in a way that seems to work unreasonably well. An intelligent designer like Yahweh is then required to explain this apparent mathematical basis for the universe. He is "the great mathematician in the sky."

Not really. The reason math works so well to explain the world--in at least some cases--is because we humans created math to describe the cosmos. There is no mystery here. We are the mathematicians describing the universe.

Also, many apologists like to wow us with enormously improbable events that they say cannot be attributed to chance. Since chance is ruled out, "God musta done it."

Wrong again. The only probability that rules out an event happening by chance is an event with a probability of zero. Extremely improbable events--like the conception of any of us--happen all the time.

Also, to state how improbable a natural event might be doesn't say much if you don't know the probability of an alternate event. So if apologists wish to argue that an event like the apparent fine-tuning of the universe by chance is only one out a a gazillion, they must compare that probability to the probability that "God musta done it." If they cannot say that the probability of God fine-tuning the cosmos is greater than chance, then they haven't proved anything.

Finally, a really laughable argument is that the universe cannot be infinitely old because if it was infinitely we could never have reached the present! Such apologists must have slept through their high-school algebra. Consider the number line with numbers increasing infinitely with positive numbers to the right and negative numbers to the left. All you need to do is have any point on that line represent a moment in time with zero being the present, points on the positive direction are the future, and points on the negative direction are the past. See that? You're at 0 (the present), but the past is infinite. You can go back as far as you want to with no limit.

I can go on, but for now let me ask the...

Question for Debate: Are apologists sloppy mathematicians, or are they deliberately trying to deceive people with numbers?

[For_The_Kingdom]

Did your eyeballs ever see a reptile evolve into a bird? Yes/no?

No.

Then you agree with me. No need is arguing over a point that we both agree on. I said macroevolution doesn't pass the "eyeball" test..you agree with me, so I don't understand what is the point of contention.

Now, if your point is "just because it doesn't pass the eyeball test doesn't mean it isn't true", then we simply disagree as what constitutes as "scientific evidence" for the alleged natural phenomena.

And I'm fine with that.

Its a fact.

That's still your opinion.

And what shall we call your proposition of it being my opinion? An opinion.

There were multiple scenarios, you mentioned an infinitely long road and me walking forever on it and arriving at where you were standing, you also spoke of counting numbers forever and arriving at zero.

If I recall, each scenario had some kind of "counting" element to it..something that you failed to do thus far..in fact, you kept saying you will "get around to it" or something like that.

Either way, I am saying you DIDN'T count anything..therefore, my challenge went unmet by the likes of you.

a challenge that you failed to meet and I am in fact still waiting for you to COUNT all of the integers in the infinite numbers set.

But I did COUNT all of the (positive) integers in the infinite numbers set.

Nonsense.

Either way, whether I have counted all of the integers or not is a separate issue;

Separate issue? No, that is THE issue. My contention is that you cannot traverse infinity, so I challenged you to count all of the integers in the number set and tell me what will be the last number counted (at which you would prove you could traverse infinity).

Now, you haven't done this yet...nor will you, nor can you.

you said you would retract your statement if I can show you where you've granted me the same condition as an eternal past, and I showed you exactly where, yet you would not retract.

You left out the counting aspect of it...that was one of the conditions you HAD to meet..which you didn't. So therefore, no statement retracted.

Ok, so what was the highest number counted in the set, at which would have given you "completion", after having successfully counted every integer in the infinite set.

I just told you the total amount of integers that I've counted is infinite, that means there is no highest number counted. Come on, this is high school math.

It is high school logic, too. You said that you've successively counted ALL OF the integers in the numbers set. Therefore, if you were to accomplish this (assuming you were counting in numerical order sequence), there would HAVE to be a largest number counted.

You can't logically count up to the number, and then when asked "what is the number?", you say "there is no number, because it is an infinite amount".

Well, if there is no number, then how in the world did you count up to it? Makes no sense.

Not to mention the fact that it is impossible for infinity to traversed in a finite proper time. Never mind that fact, though.

Right, never mind that, because we are not talking about finite time, but infinite time.

And I am saying you can't count an infinite amount in a finite amount of time.

I got you then, which is why the term "Still" was used. You do know what "still" means in this context, right?

So why the "Gotcha?"

What?

Do you understand, now?

No, please work on your communication.

I will, you just work on counting those numbers.

[Bust Nak]

Then you agree with me.

That does not follow. I do not agree with you.

I said macroevolution doesn't pass the "eyeball" test..

But it does pass according to my eyeballs, hence the disagreement.

And what shall we call your proposition of it being my opinion?

A factual observation.

If I recall, each scenario had some kind of "counting" element to it..

Well I guess you can count the number of steps I walked in the walking infinite road scenario.

something that you failed to do thus far..in fact, you kept saying you will "get around to it" or something like that.

No, I kept saying, I've finished.

Either way, I am saying you DIDN'T count anything..therefore, my challenge went unmet by the likes of you.

Saying it doesn't help. Point out a number that I haven't counted would help though. Care to name such a number?

My contention is that you cannot traverse infinity, so I challenged you to count all of the integers in the number set and tell me what will be the last number counted (at which you would prove you could traverse infinity).

That's easy, the last number I counted is zero. You challenged me to count down to zero, remember?

You left out the counting aspect of it...

Yes, because it was not a requirement for you to retract, the requirement was, showing you where you've granted me the same condition as an eternal past, and I've done exactly that.

It is high school logic, too. You said that you've successively counted ALL OF the integers in the numbers set. Therefore, if you were to accomplish this (assuming you were counting in numerical order sequence), there would HAVE to be a largest number counted.

High school logic? School boy error more like. What you said does not follow. If one were to accomplish counting ALL OF the integers in the numbers set, (assuming numerical order sequence,) then there shouldn't and wouldn't be a largest number counted.

You can't logically count up to the number, and then when asked "what is the number?", you say "there is no number, because it is an infinite amount"

This statement is incoherent, if there is no such number, then there is no such thing as "counting up to the number," is there?

Well, if there is no number, then how in the world did you count up to it?

Exactly. If you know this, then why ask question as if there was some sort of counting up to a highest number?

And I am saying you can't count an infinite amount in a finite amount of time.

Right, and that's still moot, since we weren't talking about a finite amount of time.

What?

I asked why you said "gotcha" yesterday, as if you only understood me then, when you supposedly understood me days ago.

I will, you just work on counting those numbers.

Already finished.

[For_The_Kingdom]

Then you agree with me.

That does not follow. I do not agree with you.

I said macroevolution doesn't pass the "eyeball" test..

But it does pass according to my eyeballs, hence the disagreement.

Nonsense. My contention is "No one has EVER witnessed a reptile evolve into a bird".

"No one" includes both you and me.

You were asked did you ever witness a reptile evolve into a bird. You said no. So you agree with me.

And what shall we call your proposition of it being my opinion?

A factual observation.

Too late. You already said no.

If I recall, each scenario had some kind of "counting" element to it..

Well I guess you can count the number of steps I walked in the walking infinite road scenario.

something that you failed to do thus far..in fact, you kept saying you will "get around to it" or something like that.

No, I kept saying, I've finished.

That's not true.

Either way, I am saying you DIDN'T count anything..therefore, my challenge went unmet by the likes of you.

Saying it doesn't help.

Whether it "helps" or not is irrelevant. Does saying it reflect reality? Yes, it does.

Point out a number that I haven't counted would help though. Care to name such a number?

I am pointing to whatever highest number you counted before you "completed" it. When you tell me what that number is, not only would you prove me wrong, but you will also "name such a number".

So, 2 birds with one stone.

My contention is that you cannot traverse infinity, so I challenged you to count all of the integers in the number set and tell me what will be the last number counted (at which you would prove you could traverse infinity).

That's easy, the last number I counted is zero. You challenged me to count down to zero, remember?

"Multiple scenarios" were given, remember? But as of recent, I challenged you to tell me the HIGHEST number counted. You said there was no such number, yet, you claimed the task was complete.

And after telling me there was no highest number completed, now you are telling me there is in fact a number to be counted (the last number counted) to completion..and that number is zero?

Makes no sense.

You left out the counting aspect of it...

Yes, because it was not a requirement for you to retract, the requirement was, showing you where you've granted me the same condition as an eternal past, and I've done exactly that.

All of it; the eternal past/counting were all embedded together.

High school logic? School boy error more like. What you said does not follow. If one were to accomplish counting ALL OF the integers in the numbers set, (assuming numerical order sequence,) then there shouldn't and wouldn't be a largest number counted.

Nonsense.Then there shouldn't and wouldn't be any number to precede your completion of counting all of the numbers.

You can't logically count up to the number, and then when asked "what is the number?", you say "there is no number, because it is an infinite amount"

This statement is incoherent, if there is no such number, then there is no such thing as "counting up to the number," is there?

Then there is also no such thing your completion of the task of counting all of the integers in the numbers set.

Well, if there is no number, then how in the world did you count up to it?

Exactly. If you know this, then why ask question as if there was some sort of counting up to a highest number?

That question came after you claimed you successfully counted all of the integers in the numbers set, obviously.

And I am saying you can't count an infinite amount in a finite amount of time.

Right, and that's still moot, since we weren't talking about a finite amount of time.

Nonsense. When you said you completed the task, you would have had to complete it in a finite amount of time..based on when you started it, and completed it.

So, there is nothing "infinite" about it, other than you simply using the word as you are claiming to be able to do something that you can't do.

What?

I asked why you said "gotcha" yesterday, as if you only understood me then, when you supposedly understood me days ago.

I don't know why I said it, but I do know why I said "Still". You apparently don't.

I will, you just work on counting those numbers.

Already finished.

Good job.

[Bust Nak]

Nonsense. My contention is "No one has EVER witnessed a reptile evolve into a bird".

"No one" includes both you and me.

You were asked did you ever witness a reptile evolve into a bird. You said no. So you agree with me.

That much, sure, but that's not all you said, you also said evolution doesn't pass the eyeball test, but it has.

Too late. You already said no.

So what? "No" was the answer to a different question. It's still a fact that "Reptiles evolved into birds some x-million years ago" is not an opinion; it's still a fact that your rejection of it, is merely your opinion.

That's not true.

So name me a number I haven't counted.

Whether it "helps" or not is irrelevant. Does saying it reflect reality?

Well, no, because you can't name me a number I haven't counted.

I am pointing to whatever highest number you counted before you "completed" it.

But I was counting down, remember? The number I finish on, is actually the lowest number.

When you tell me what that number is, not only would you prove me wrong, but you will also "name such a number".

What? You aren't making any sense. Telling you what the highest number is would prove me wrong. I was the one saying there is no highest number, remember?

"Multiple scenarios" were given, remember? But as of recent, I challenged you to tell me the HIGHEST number counted. You said there was no such number, yet, you claimed the task was complete.

Right you are.

And after telling me there was no highest number completed, now you are telling me there is in fact a number to be counted (the last number counted) to completion..and that number is zero?

Yep, it's pretty simple really. No highest number doesn't imply no lowest number. You do understand what "counting down to zero" means, right? That's elementary school math.

All of it; the eternal past/counting were all embedded together.

That wasn't not part of the requirement for your retraction though. The requirement for your retraction is showing you where you've granted me the same condition as an eternal past.

Nonsense. Then there shouldn't and wouldn't be any number to precede your completion of counting all of the numbers.

That doesn't follow, the final number is zero, the number preceding that was one, and the number preceding that was two.

Then there is also no such thing your completion of the task of counting all of the integers in the numbers set.

Again, that does not follow. That there isn't a highest number does not imply one cannot complete counting all the integers.

That question came after you claimed you successfully counted all of the integers in the numbers set, obviously.

That still doesn't tell me why you asked a question that you should have known is incoherent.

When you said you completed the task, you would have had to complete it in a finite amount of time..based on when you started it, and completed it.

Incorrect, you granted me the same condition as an eternal past, I did not start, I have always been counting right up to the time I finished, I had an infinte amount of time to complete it, remember?

I don't know why I said it, but I do know why I said "Still". You apparently don't.

Well it just doesn't gel with the rest of what you said.

Good job.

Time to pay up then.

[For_The_Kingdom]

That much, sure, but that's not all you said, you also said evolution doesn't pass the eyeball test, but it has.

A reptile evolving to a bird doesn't pass the eyeball test <--you agree with this. I have nothing more to say regarding subjects that my debate opponent agree with me on.

Too late. You already said no.

So what? "No" was the answer to a different question. It's still a fact that "Reptiles evolved into birds some x-million years ago" is not an opinion; it's still a fact that your rejection of it, is merely your opinion.

That's not true.

So name me a number I haven't counted.

The highest number counted before your completion of counting ever integer in the set.

Whether it "helps" or not is irrelevant. Does saying it reflect reality?

Well, no, because you can't name me a number I haven't counted.

See above.

I am pointing to whatever highest number you counted before you "completed" it.

But I was counting down, remember? The number I finish on, is actually the lowest number.

If you can't count up (to the highest number), then you can't count down (to the lowest number). Or better yet, what is the highest number you counted from in order to arrive at the lowest number (zero)?

See? You have problems either way..up or down.

When you tell me what that number is, not only would you prove me wrong, but you will also "name such a number".

What? You aren't making any sense.

Telling you what the highest number is would prove me wrong. I was the one saying there is no highest number, remember?

Then you are contradicting yourself and you haven't completed anything. To say that you completed counting all integers would mean that there has to be a "highest" number of reference...and if there isn't, then you never completed counting all of the numbers, considering there will always be a "higher" number than the last one counted, so you would never complete the task.

That, followed by the fact that you know full well you DIDN'T complete the task, yet you continue to maintain that you did. SMH.

And after telling me there was no highest number completed, now you are telling me there is in fact a number to be counted (the last number counted) to completion..and that number is zero?

Yep, it's pretty simple really. No highest number doesn't imply no lowest number. You do understand what "counting down to zero" means, right? That's elementary school math.

Ok, so I want you to simply tell me, if you've SUCCESSFULLY counted down literally ALL of the integers in the numbers set, and now you are at zero..

If you were to start counting UP from zero, and once you've reached the SAME amount of integers (in totality) counting up, that you reached counting DOWN to zero...stop at that number...now tell me that number?

You already counted this number, remember? You already counted this number as you traversed it counting down, so we "know" the number is definitely in there somewhere...so now, all you are doing is simply counting back up, and stopping at this "already traversed" number.

What number is it?

All of it; the eternal past/counting were all embedded together.

That wasn't not part of the requirement for your retraction though. The requirement for your retraction is showing you where you've granted me the same condition as an eternal past.

Then why did you mention it in your quote of me, then? Hmm.

Nonsense. Then there shouldn't and wouldn't be any number to precede your completion of counting all of the numbers.

That doesn't follow, the final number is zero, the number preceding that was one, and the number preceding that was two.

If you can't count up to infinity to reach a highest number, then how on earth can you count down from infinity to a lowest number? It is literally the same concept, but going in the opposite direction.

Changing the direction doesn't change the concept. Your rationale is illogical, is what I am trying to say.

Then there is also no such thing your completion of the task of counting all of the integers in the numbers set.

Again, that does not follow. That there isn't a highest number does not imply one cannot complete counting all the integers.

If you counted up (in numerical sequence) all of the integers, and you are now complete...how can you NOT have a highest number counted? Makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

That question came after you claimed you successfully counted all of the integers in the numbers set, obviously.

That still doesn't tell me why you asked a question that you should have known is incoherent.

"Is the married man single?"

Illogical question, right? Well, the question isn't any more illogical than the concept...and my question of what was the "highest number counted in infinity" isn't any more incoherent than you claiming that you counted all of the integers in infinity.

If you don't want incoherent questions, then stop making irrational claims.

Incorrect, you granted me the same condition as an eternal past, I did not start, I have always been counting right up to the time I finished, I had an infinte amount of time to complete it, remember?

If you had an infinite amount of time to complete it, then why did you complete it when you did (x-time?). Why not sooner, why not later? You had an infinite amount of time to complete it, but you are JUST NOW completing it. Why didn't you complete it an infinite amount of time ago? Why not an infinite amount of time later?

Makes no sense.

I don't know why I said it, but I do know why I said "Still". You apparently don't.

Well it just doesn't gel with the rest of what you said.

That is irrelevant to you asking me did I get it "then"..when in fact my usage of the word "still" implied that I did in fact get it "then".

Good job.

Time to pay up then.

"Count up", then.

[brunumb]

[Replying to post 194 by For_The_Kingdom]

A reptile evolving to a bird doesn't pass the eyeball test

On the one hand we have millions of pages from countless known sources with data and observations all converging on the conclusion that is the theory of evolution. On the other hand we have a few paragraphs in an ancient collection of fanciful tales from anonymous authors saying that a magical being made it all. Nothing about creation passes any so-called eyeball test and it doesn't even pass muster in any credibility test.

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 194 by For_The_Kingdom]

A reptile evolving to a bird doesn't pass the eyeball test

FtK, just so we're all on the same page here, what exactly is it you think you need to see before you can agree that evolution has 'passed the eyeball test'?
Which of the following is it?

1) Pokemon-esque evolution, where a singular creature drastically changes form and gains new features and abilities, such as a Charmeleon evolving into Charizard, gaining wings in the process.
2) Digimon-esque Digivolution, where a singular creature is able to drastically change their form more or less at will, going both up and down in terms of 'levels'
3) A singular creature such as a reptile giving birth (or hatching from eggs) to a new form of creature that is drastically different than it.
4) Something else, and if this, please outline.

[Bust Nak]

A reptile evolving to a bird doesn't pass the eyeball test <--you agree with this.

No, I do not agree with that.

The highest number counted before your completion of counting ever integer in the set.

That doesn't tell me what number it is I supposedly haven't counted. Give me a number.

If you can't count up (to the highest number), then you can't count down (to the lowest number).

That doesn't follow. If I can't count up (to the highest number), then I can't count from that highest number back down (to the lowest number); but that does not imply I cannot count down (to the lowest number,) without starting to count (from a highest number.)

Or better yet, what is the highest nfumber you counted from in order to arrive at the lowest number (zero)?

There is no such number.

Then you are contradicting yourself and you haven't completed anything.

That assumes there is a highest number, an assumption that's irredeemably false.

To say that you completed counting all integers would mean that there has to be a "highest" number of reference...

Incorrect. To say that you completed counting all integers does not mean that there is a "highest" number of reference... Which means your conclusion does not follow.

That, followed by the fact that you know full well you can't name me a number I didn't count, yet you continue to maintain that I haven't.

Ok, so I want you to simply tell me, if you've SUCCESSFULLY counted down literally ALL of the integers in the numbers set, and now you are at zero..

Yes, but just all the positive ones, down to zero.

If you were to start counting UP from zero, and once you've reached the SAME amount of integers (in totality) counting up, that you reached counting DOWN to zero...stop at that number...now tell me that number?

There is no such number.

You already counted this number, remember?

No, such a number does not exist.

You cannot count something that does not exist. That's one major misconception to think one would have counted, or traversed past this non-existence number during my count down to zero.

What number is it?

I keep telling you that it doesn't exist. So you tell me, what number is it?

Then why did you mention it in your quote of me, then? Hmm.

Don't know what you are implying here, all I mentioned in my quote of you is that you would retract if I can show you where you've granted me the same condition as an eternal past, and you granting me the same condition as an eternal past.

If you can't count up to infinity to reach a highest number, then how on earth can you count down from infinity to a lowest number?

It is literally the same concept, but going in the opposite direction.

By counting one number at a time, that there isn't a highest number doesn't imply there isn't a lowest number, I told you that already. And that's besides the issue of the whole concept of counting down "from infinity," infinity isn't a number, you don't count "from infinite." In fact you don't count from any one particular starting point at all, because one has always been counting, having never started.

If you counted up (in numerical sequence) all of the integers, and you are now complete...how can you NOT have a highest number counted?

Because there is always a higher number. How is that not trivial?

"Is the married man single?"

Illogical question, right?

No. that's just a trivial question with a trivial answer. "Is the married bachelor single?" is an illogical question.

Well, the question isn't any more illogical than the concept...and my question of what was the "highest number counted in infinity" isn't any more incoherent than you claiming that you counted all of the integers in infinity.

Incorrect. There is no highest number involved in counting down to zero, just as there isn't any married bachelor involved in a thesis about married men.

If you had an infinite amount of time to complete it, then why did you complete it when you did (x-time?). Why not sooner, why not later?

Because it was convinent.

You had an infinite amount of time to complete it, but you are JUST NOW completing it. Why didn't you complete it an infinite amount of time ago? Why not an infinite amount of time later?

Because these are impossible since there is always a finite gap between finishing and the present.

That is irrelevant to you asking me did I get it "then"..when in fact my usage of the word "still" implied that I did in fact get it "then".

But that doesn't gel with the concept of you getting it "now."

"Count up", then.

Nah, the challenge was counting down, pay up first before issuing new challenges.

[For_The_Kingdom]

A reptile evolving to a bird doesn't pass the eyeball test <--you agree with this.

No, I do not agree with that.

Nope, too late. You were asked "Did your eyeballs ever see a reptile evolve into a bird." Your answer in post #189 was a plain "No".

I agree with you, your eyes NEVER saw a reptile evolve into a bird. Too late for backpedaling. You've never witnessed a reptile evolve into a bird.

The highest number counted before your completion of counting ever integer in the set.

That doesn't tell me what number it is I supposedly haven't counted. Give me a number.

And it also doesn't tell me what was the highest number you "supposedly" counted before the completion of the counting.

If you can't count up (to the highest number), then you can't count down (to the lowest number).

That doesn't follow. If I can't count up (to the highest number), then I can't count from that highest number back down (to the lowest number); but that does not imply I cannot count down (to the lowest number,) without starting to count (from a highest number.)

Nope. Same concept. If you can count down from infinity, then you can count up to infinity.

Or better yet, what is the highest nfumber you counted from in order to arrive at the lowest number (zero)?

There is no such number.

I agree...then there is no such counting.

Then you are contradicting yourself and you haven't completed anything.

That assumes there is a highest number, an assumption that's irredeemably false.

Yeah, it assumes there is a highest number based on the assumption that you actually counted the numbers.

To say that you completed counting all integers would mean that there has to be a "highest" number of reference...

Incorrect. To say that you completed counting all integers does not mean that there is a "highest" number of reference... Which means your conclusion does not follow.

The conclusion does not follow because it is based upon faulty, untrue premises, such as you making untruthful claims.

That, followed by the fact that you know full well you can't name me a number

That, followed by the fact that you know full well that you can't name the highest number counted.

I didn't count, yet you continue to maintain that I haven't.

Makes no sense.

Ok, so I want you to simply tell me, if you've SUCCESSFULLY counted down literally ALL of the integers in the numbers set, and now you are at zero..

Yes, but just all the positive ones, down to zero.

If you were to start counting UP from zero, and once you've reached the SAME amount of integers (in totality) counting up, that you reached counting DOWN to zero...stop at that number...now tell me that number?

There is no such number.

You already counted this number, remember?

No, such a number does not exist.

Then you counting all of the integers in the numbers set also doesn't exist.

You cannot count something that does not exist.

I agree.

That's one major misconception to think one would have counted, or traversed past this non-existence number during my count down to zero.

Nope, the misconception is thinking that you can count down to zero from infinity in the first place.

What number is it?

I keep telling you that it doesn't exist. So you tell me, what number is it?

I agree, the number doesn't exist, but when you claim that you counted all of the integers in the numbers set...then the number suddenly exists.

Then why did you mention it in your quote of me, then? Hmm.

Don't know what you are implying here, all I mentioned in my quote of you is that you would retract if I can show you where you've granted me the same condition as an eternal past, and you granting me the same condition as an eternal past.

Yeah, we got that part of it already. As I stated before, there was a "counting" element to it, which even you mentioned in one of your quotes of me. This "counting" aspect of it was embedded into the challenge and as far as I'm concerned, the challenge has yet to be met.

If you can't count up to infinity to reach a highest number, then how on earth can you count down from infinity to a lowest number?

It is literally the same concept, but going in the opposite direction.

By counting one number at a time, that there isn't a highest number doesn't imply there isn't a lowest number, I told you that already.

Nope, if you can reach a lowest number counting one at time, then you should be able to reach a highest number counting one at a time...unless you can articulate why you can do it one way, and can't the other.

Like I said, the concept is the same regardless of which direction you are counting (up or down), so why you can do it one way and not the other is still an enlightenment I want to receive.

Second, you can "tell" me anything you want...that doesn't mean that what you tell me true or even possible. In fact, what you told me not only ain't true, but it is in fact impossible.

So, I don't believe everything I am "told".

And that's besides the issue of the whole concept of counting down "from infinity," infinity isn't a number, you don't count "from infinite." In fact you don't count from any one particular starting point at all, because one has always been counting, having never started.

Straw man. First of all, I never said nor implied that infinity is a number. I am using the term as a limitless amount...which is why your claim that you've completed counting a limitless amount is absurd.

Your claim defies logic and reasoning <--is what I am trying to say.

If you counted up (in numerical sequence) all of the integers, and you are now complete...how can you NOT have a highest number counted?

Because there is always a higher number. How is that not trivial?

Then there is always a "lower" number to be counted, so you will never get to zero, contrary to your claim that you did.

See? If it works one way, it has to work the other.

"Is the married man single?"

Illogical question, right?

No. that's just a trivial question with a trivial answer. "Is the married bachelor single?" is an illogical question.

There really isn't a difference, besides the fact that you stick the word "bachelor" in there as if that was supposed to be a distinction from what I said...but, it wasn't.

Well, the question isn't any more illogical than the concept...and my question of what was the "highest number counted in infinity" isn't any more incoherent than you claiming that you counted all of the integers in infinity.

Incorrect. There is no highest number involved in counting down to zero,

Then there is no lowest number.

If you had an infinite amount of time to complete it, then why did you complete it when you did (x-time?). Why not sooner, why not later?

Because it was convinent.

Makes no sense.

You had an infinite amount of time to complete it, but you are JUST NOW completing it. Why didn't you complete it an infinite amount of time ago? Why not an infinite amount of time later?

Because these are impossible since there is always a finite gap between finishing and the present.

Makes no sense. Just say "you got me there". That'll work for me.

That is irrelevant to you asking me did I get it "then"..when in fact my usage of the word "still" implied that I did in fact get it "then".

But that doesn't gel with the concept of you getting it "now."

Reading comprehension. "Still" would cover both then, and now.

"Count up", then.

Nah, the challenge was counting down, pay up first before issuing new challenges.

I will give you the last word here, amigo. I will take my dub and keep it moving. See ya around.

[Bust Nak]

Nope, too late. You were asked "Did your eyeballs ever see a reptile evolve into a bird." Your answer in post #189 was a plain "No".

I agree with you, your eyes NEVER saw a reptile evolve into a bird. Too late for backpedaling. You've never witnessed a reptile evolve into a bird.

Right, we agree there, but we were talking about evolution passing the eyeball test, that's where we don't agree.

And it also doesn't tell me what was the highest number you "supposedly" counted before the completion of the counting.

Because there is no such number. On the other hand, I can tell you exactly what the lowest number I counted before the completion of the counting. I counted one, then I counted zero and I was done.

Nope. Same concept. If you can count down from infinity, then you can count up to infinity.

There is no such thing as counting from or to infinity, as infinity is not a number.

I agree...then there is no such counting.

That's a non sequitur fallacy.

Yeah, it assumes there is a highest number based on the assumption that you actually counted the numbers.

Again, that does not follow. Counting all the numbers does not imply there is a highest number.

The conclusion does not follow because it is based upon faulty, untrue premises, such as you making untruthful claims.

Incorrect. The faulty, untrue premises is you thinking counting all the numbers involve counting a highest number.

That, followed by the fact that you know full well that you can't name the highest number counted.

Right, because the fact is, there is no such number.

Makes no sense.

You were challenged to name me a number I haven't counted, you are failing the challenge.

Then you counting all of the integers in the numbers set also doesn't exist.

That does not follow.

I agree.

And yet there you are asking me to about counting a number that does not exist.

Nope, the misconception is thinking that you can count down to zero from infinity in the first place.

More correctly the misconception is thinking that counting all the numbers down to zero equates to counting down from infinity.

I agree, the number doesn't exist, but when you claim that you counted all of the integers in the numbers set...then the number suddenly exists.

No it wouldn't suddenly exists. Counting doesn't make the non-existent pop into existence.

Yeah, we got that part of it already. As I stated before, there was a "counting" element to it, which even you mentioned in one of your quotes of me. This "counting" aspect of it was embedded into the challenge and as far as I'm concerned, the challenge has yet to be met.

Regardless of whether the challenge was met or not, the requirement for you to retract was met, namely showing you where you've granted me the same condition as an eternal past. I've done exactly that, yet you are not retracting.

Nope, if you can reach a lowest number counting one at time, then you should be able to reach a highest number counting one at a time...

Again, not so, because there is no such thing as a highest number, where as there is a lowest number, namely zero.

Like I said, the concept is the same regardless of which direction you are counting (up or down)

And you are just as wrong as you were the first time you said it. That there isn't a highest number, doesn't imply there isn't a lowest number - I can name that lowest number - it's zero. In contrast you cannot name the highest number.

In fact, what you told me not only ain't true, but it is in fact impossible.

We can chalk that up to the misconceptions you hold.

So, I don't believe everything I am "told".

Good, you shouldn't believe everything you are told.

Straw man. First of all, I never said nor implied that infinity is a number.

Post history shows otherwise, you've even done it in this very post, you mentioned counting to and from infinity multiple times here.

I am using the term as a limitless amount...which is why your claim that you've completed counting a limitless amount is absurd.

So you kept insisting, yet you cannot name me a number I haven't counted. You spoke of a highest number but you've since submitted that such a number does not exist. If there is no number I haven't counted, then I've counted all of them.

Your claim defies logic and reasoning <--is what I am trying to say.

Except your so called "logic and reasoning" is filled with fallacies and misconceptions.

Then there is always a "lower" number to be counted, so you will never get to zero, contrary to your claim that you did.

That does not follow, as there is a finite gap between every pair of numbers, there cannot always be another lower number to be counted; a finite gap can be close in finite time. Zero is the lowest number to be counted, there isn't another lower number to count.

There really isn't a difference, besides the fact that you stick the word "bachelor" in there as if that was supposed to be a distinction from what I said...

A single man is not a contradiction, where as a married bachelor is a contradiction. That's a pretty big distinction.

Then there is no lowest number.

Incorrect. The lowest number is zero.

Makes no sense.

This response doesn't contribute to the debate any more you usual "LOL" and "SMH."

Makes no sense. Just say "you got me there". That'll work for me.

No idea what you mean here. Are you suggesting saying "you got me there" make the impossible work for you?

Reading comprehension. "Still" would cover both then, and now.

That still doesn't explain why, getting it should be continuous and not happen twice.

I will give you the last word here, amigo.

Sure.

An eternal past is bounded on one side only, it has no start but it does have an end. Having an end means it can be completed.

An eternal future is also bounded on one side only, in contrast it has no end but it does have an start. Not having an end means it cannot be completed.

Pretty simple really.

I will take my dub and keep it moving. See ya around.

Not so fast, you owe me money.