Author:
Wade A. Tisthammer
|
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
Date Posted: 03/12/04 10:48am
In reply to:
Baz
's message, "Fallacious thinking." on 03/ 5/04 8:39pm
>Wade:
>
>However improbable (but POSSIBLE) the idea is, to make
> argument easier, let us assume that the story about
>Shandy is true.
>
>In your arguments you have moved from a situation
>where deduction is not possible (we cannot DEDUCE
>whether there has been an infinite past or not,
>because there are no PREMISES from which to argue,)
Hmm, let's go through the Tristram Shandy paradox again, this time in the form of an argument.
- If an infinite past is metaphysically possible, then Shandy writing his autobiography for as long as time has existed should not lead to absurdities.
- If Shandy has been writing from eternity past (i.e. has been writing all along the infinite, beginningless past) he is either infinitely far behind or he finishes his autobiography at some point.
- Shandy finishing his autobiography, since it takes him a whole year to write about a day, is an absurdity and cannot possibly happen.
- Shandy being infinitely far behind means the present would never be reached (the day he wrote about last year is infinitely far away, there is no way to get from that day to the present), which is an absurdity and cannot possibly happen.
- All (both) possible options generate an absurdity, if Shandy were writing his autobiography from eternity past (2, 3, and 4).
Therefore an infinite past is not metaphysically possible (1 and 5).
The argument is valid, i.e. the conclusion logically follows from the premises. The only way to reject the conclusion is to reject at least one of the premises. So, which premise do you reject?
>Let us assume that it was you who thought up the
>Shandy story to prove that an infinite past was not
>possible.
>
>You couldn’t use deduction to argue your point (The
>REALITY that there has not been an infinite past)
>because there are no premises to argue from.
Guess again sucka. Look at the above argument. I see premises, don't you?
> Wade, unlike some on this forum, it does not bother
>me that you believe in God - other than the fact that
>I consider it delusional, and although one can be
>deluded in this area without deluding oneself in other
>areas, I am not a fan of the state. You are obviously
>a bright man, and if you are not debating from the
>position of the “Devils advocate”, then I find it
>tragic that you seem bent on insulting your own
>intelligence.
I'm not sure whether to feel complimented or insulted. On one hand, I'm "obviously a bright man" and on the other I'm "delusional" and "seem bent on insulting" my own intelligence.
Well, in any case let's start with attacking the premises before pretending they don't exist.
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
|
Feedback: 