Create a New Forum Admin Login Member Login Contribute to Voyager Search VoyForums Help Desk VoyForums Exchange VoyForums Directory/Categories VoyForums Homepage VoyForums News FAQ - Frequently Asked Questions

[ 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, 09:10:30pm

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

Subject: Yes you did. Author: Damoclese [ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ] Date Posted: 03/13/04 2:01pm In reply to: Wade A. Tisthammer 's message, "Sure." on 03/13/04 1:42pm >>> >>>I don't believe it is because I don't believe an >>>infinite past is feasible. > >I didn't say otherwise. I asked why you thought making a beginningless task was feasible. You replied because you don't think an infinite past is feasible. My original question: "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?" It's clear your reasoning is either circular, or you are equating a beginningless task with an infinite past. I gave you the benefit of the doubt and assumed the latter. If that's not what you meant, what did you mean? > >Yes, so how is that relevant? Because if that contigency rests on the basis of a beginningless task, then calling into doubt the logically impossible idea of a "beginningless task" will throw into doubt and possibly refute the rest. (You do understand logic, right?) > >> >>>>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? >>> >>>Not if the past is finite. >> >>An infinite past doesn't imply a beginningless human >>task. > >I didn't say otherwise. Maybe you should look at my > >title="Yep, this post explains it.">argument >again, and if you think you've found why a premise >fails, let's discuss it in that thread. Even if it were the case the past was infinite, postulating a beginningless human task is absurd. It's absurd if the past is finite. Show me why this assumption is reasonable, and then we'll talk. [ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Replies:

Subject Author Date 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