Author:
Wade A. Tisthammer
|
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
Date Posted: 03/13/04 2:23pm
In reply to:
Damoclese
's message, "Premise pogo" on 03/13/04 1:51pm
>>Mmm, no the truth of an infinite past is never assumed
>>anywhere in the premises. We have some conditional
>>statements, analysis, modus tollens etc. but never do
>>I assume that an infinite past exists.
>
>What's eternity past again? Remind me. I'm rusty.
Odd, I didn't mention eternity past in the text you quoted me.
Well, basically eternity past is the infinite past. So when I say Shandy has been writing from eternity past, it means that he's always been writing throughout the infinite past.
>>Where do I make that "logical fallacy"? Nowhere in
>>the argument do I make the assumption in your last
>>sentence.
>
>You assume that an "infinite past" is in fact,
>something that we can imagine, which we can, but we
>don't know if it's accurate.
In which premise?
>You are also guilty of reifying the past.
How and in which premise?
>That's two
>logical fallacies against you, notwithstanding the
>other problems everyone has pointed out.
What other problems? So far I haven't seen much of any. (Vague assertions here and there that don't attack a single premise, but not much in the way of real, legitimate problems.)
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
|
