Series: Part 11 of 11 - Wrapping Everything Up

I was going to go back through the audio conversation I had with Alex Malpass. But I think what I've said in the previous blogs is sufficient for now. I may just end up repeating myself. Suffice it to say, I think there are good reasons for rejecting the metaphysical possibility of an actual infinite, that the potential infinitude of the future doesn't imply its actual infinitude, that tense renders a beginningless past asymmetrical with an endless future, and so on. I'll be adding onto this series with future blogs as I get more time to research the issues here with more exactitude. Thanks! 

Series: Part 10 of 11: Evaluating Morriston's Criticism of Craig's Criticism of Morriston

Come, and take choice of all my library,
And so beguile thy sorrow. - William Shakespeare, Titus Andronicus

The Infinite! No other question has ever moved so profoundly the spirit of man; no other idea has so fruitfully stimulated his intellect; yet no other concept stands in greater need of clarification than that of the infinite. - David Hilbert

The is a response to Wes Morriston's "Craig on the actual infinite" (2002). 

Series: Part 9 of 11: Evaluating Morriston's Criticism of Craig's Criticism of Morriston

The last reply is from Morriston against Craig called "Beginningless Past and Endless Future: Reply to Craig". The essay isn't divided into sections but I'll do my best to address ideas as they arise topically in Morriston's response. I confess that Morriston response was not a little vexatious. I wanted there to be the kind of point-counterpoint one expects after the conceptual groundwork had been laid. I make no airs about my support for Craig. He just happens to persuade me. A thrill I get when I read philosophy is when all the groundwork is taken into account in one's response: the point-counterpoint makes progress, the unfurling of the dialectic is undeniably distinct, and my intellect is impelled to take pause. Unfortunately, this didn't happen. But what I attribute to Morriston's failure may be my own and I always stand corrected from my intellectual betters. 

Series: Part 8 of 11: Craig's Usage of Tense in His Criticism of Wes Morriston regarding the Kalam

Craig published an essay called Taking Tense Seriously in Differentiating Past and Future: A Response to Wes Morriston in 2010 in response to Wes Morriston's Beginningless Past, Endless Future, and The Actual Infinite (for my response to that essay, see here). 

Series: Part 7 of 11: A response to Dr. Wes Morriston

This is a response to Dr. Wes Morriston's essay 'Beginningless Past, Endless Future, and The Actual Infinite.' Much of what I'll say I've already said in the previous six blogs of this series. But I will elaborate if needed. This essay was published in 2010. Morriston has written another essay entitled, 'Craig on the Actual Infinite', published back in 2002. Craig responded to Morriston(2010) in 2010, and Morriston has responded to Craig(2010) in 2012. This will be a response to Morriston(2010) utilizing many of the main points of Craig(2010). In the next blog, I want to briefly unpack Craig(2010). Then I will contend that Morriston(2012)'s reply missed much of what Craig(2010) was trying to say. After this, I will touch on Morriston(2002) to see if there is anything new I can note on the symmetry issues between me and Alex. 

Series: Part 6 of 11: A response to Dr. Alex Malpass (tentative)

This is a tentative response to a blog by Alex Malpass entitled: Loke’s Singing Angels: the Kalam and abstract entities. Again, the blog is numerically ordered IAW with the Alex ordered his blog. 

1. Introduction - Alex reiterates his desire for a symmetry breaker between beginninglessness and endlessness. Craig wants to make the beginningless past an actual infinite and the endless future a potential infinite. Craig argues (and Alex agrees) that the number of events that 'have been' will always be finite. But Alex argues that Craig has missed Morriston's point, which is that the number of yet-to-be events that will eventually be is 'not growing', 'doesn't satisfy Craig's definition of a potential infinite', and hence is an actually infinite transfinite number.