Moreland thinks you couldn't have a library with an infinite number of books -- because
Moreland thinks you couldn't have a library with an infinite number of books -- because
This isn't his argument.
Moreland thinks you couldn't have a library with an infinite number of books -- because
A set is infinite if its members can be put in one-to-one correspondence with the members of some proper subset. For example, the set of natural numbers (1, 2, 3, ...) can be put into one-to-one correspondence with the EVEN natural numbers (2, 4, 6, ...).
Suppose you had an infinite supply of red books and an infinite supply of black books. You'd have the same number of books (an infinite number) if you destroyed all the black books. But this is absurd. In the real world, the whole always has to be larger than a part -- which wouldn't be the case with an infinite set.
Moreland thinks you couldn't have a library with an infinite number of books -- because
This isn't his argument.