Arguments aren't necessarily deductions -- Ben's Message Board

[ Show ]

Support VoyForums

[ Shrink ]

VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

Thursday, October 17, 08:54:32pm

[ Login ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, [7], 8, 9, 10 ]

Subject: Arguments aren't necessarily deductions

Author:
Damoclese

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 03/12/04 3:10pm
In reply to: Wade A. Tisthammer 's message, "No it isn't." on 03/12/04 10:59am

>then, according to Craig, one could only answer that
>the days are infinitely distant from the present. It
>appears that for every day Shandy is writing, there is
>an infinite distance from that day to the last
>recorded day."

>>>I agree, but that only strengthens the argument I
>>gave.

This seems to be your argument:
"Therefore an infinite past is not metaphysically possible."

Fine. But the above only supports that point if, and only if constructing a task which has no beginning is feasible.

Here the quote is again with important stuff you left out:

"Craig further points out that the picture Russell paints entails a beginningless task. That is, if one were to ask "Where in the temporal series of events are the days recorded by Tristram Shandy at any given point?" then, according to Craig, one could only answer that the days are infinitely distant from the present"

So, the distance from the present is the ONLY measure, because there is no beginning from which to start.

Do you really think constructing a task with no beginning (that an immortal human does no less) seems like something that OUGHT to necessarily be the case with what in reality we consider the past? If so, please explain to me why it is necessary to assume a task with no beginning. I'd really like to know.

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Replies:

Subject	Author	Date
This one is.	Wade A. Tisthammer	03/12/04 3:28pm
Nah -- Damoclese, 03/12/04 4:13pm Sure. -- Wade A. Tisthammer, 03/13/04 1:42pm Yes you did. -- Damoclese, 03/13/04 2:01pm Did what? -- Wade A. Tisthammer, 03/13/04 2:18pm I don't think so. -- Damoclese, 03/13/04 3:09pm I do. -- Wade A. Tisthammer, 03/13/04 4:21pm Go to it then -- Damoclese, 03/13/04 7:30pm