But more poignant is that in Quantum Field Theory, in the renormalization process, one can subtract infinity from infinity and get a nonzero finite answer! Yet QFT is the most accurate theory ever tested in the history of science.

Now you must keep in mind that math, like language, is an invention of the human mind: Like language, it can be used to describe the real world. But also like language, it can describe a lot of imaginary stuff. The real art, and I use the word "art" deliberately, is to figure out when it describes something real from something nonreal.

With defining terms needlessly, we simply waste time. We are done here.

Without defining terms we simple waste time. We are done here.

As explained, it is inconsequential. We always talk in 'vague generalities' because we do not have certain knowledge of discretes. We have almost no access to absolute ontologic bounding. Such an issue only arises when the vague nature under contention is variable in such a way that changes the argument being considered. That is not the case here.

Obviously here we do.

Incorrect. Unless of course you think all things need absolute ontologic bounding to speak on them.

Without defining terms, one can only talk in what are essentially vague generalities. Which never works. Max Planck's discovery of quanta, confirmed as real by Einstein, banished Zeno from physics for good. But this silly nonsense from WLC leaves everything undefined and so we get these old Zeno type paradoxes which demonstrate just how useless these sorts of 'sophisticated' theological apologisms get.

It's not even wrong.

Lol, Zeno's Paradox. Pretty basic stuff that has no ontologic validity. If discretes, no paradox. Simpliciter rules here, so your contention is invalidly formed within the frame. Also, Events itself doesn't necessarily need to be defined. Only if time is defined as a discrete actual would that be the case. The framing makes use of discretes in essential contingency, which means it makes no difference with the possible framing of temporality. It could be separable 'events', all changes themselves being separate contingent actualizations, or it could be a body itself moving in 'units' to which the contingent actualizations conform. The actual size of the unit is indifferent to the argument. When people say 'days' in such arguments, it is shorthand for discrete instantiations, of whatever fashion. There may be congruency issues elsewhere in this regard, but not with regard to the framing of temporality itself.

While I think you are on a correct track, and OP has so far demonstrated a poor grasp of logic on two successive articles, there is an error in your thinking here. "It's not enough to simply assume infinity without evidence." This isn't necessarily the case in fundamental ontology. Assumptions are required, in fact. The problem is when they but up against incongruity within a frame. Otherwise, good post.