Ó£ÌÒÊÓƵ

Hello Dr. Craig, I have recently become interested in your work on abstract objects. I have a quick question regarding the Fregean argument for mathematical platonism. The argument concludes that mathematical objects exist because they are referred to by singular terms. For example, "3 is prime" is a true, simple sentence in which "3" is a singular term referring to an abstract object. So, does the claim that abstract objects exist mean anything other than that they can be referred to by singular terms? I don't see how it could, since they have absolutely no impact on the world. But if that's the case, their "existence" seems to be more about the function of a word than anything to do with ontology. Thanks, Ander

The Canaanite destruction is the major ethical problem in the Old Testament. How can we serve a God who commanded genocide? As we saw in the previous posts on Midian, Amalek, and the Canaanites, the individuals and families who follow YHWH and become part of Israel are on one extreme of a spectrum (the Caleb end), while those who attack Israel are located on the other extreme (the Amalek end). The groups place themselves on the spectrum by means of their treatment of Israel and their attitude toward YHWH. A nation like Edom that neither helped nor attacked Israel would be near the middle of the spectrum, incurring YHWH’s displeasure but not a divine command for extermination. Although a nation like Midian might be placed on the Amalek end of the spectrum, individuals and families from Midian could turn to follow YHWH and place themselves on the Caleb end of the spectrum. In the case of Egypt, an entire nation could move on the spectrum, depending on their attitude toward Israel.