Blinded by overzealous emotion. -- 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):

Saturday, September 07, 06:19:56pm

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

Subject: Blinded by overzealous emotion.

Author:
Wade A. Tisthammer

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

Date Posted: 03/19/04 10:09am
In reply to: Damoclese 's message, "Blinded by the light" on 03/18/04 1:43pm

>>Against your claim that the greatest possible being
>>must have every form of being. That claim is
>>logically impossible.
>
>Moreso than a beginningless task? I don't think so.

Then perhaps you can point out to me where it violates the law of noncontradiction?

>>Really? Why? Name even one of my premises that
>>violates the law of noncontradiction.
>
>Of course none of your premises DIRECTLY violate the
>law of non-contradiction,(although they do violate
>reality) but the conclusion clearly does.

The conclusion is that an infinite past cannot/does not exist. Exactly how does this self-contradictory? How does it violate the law of noncontradiction?

>>Remember, I
>>have proven the deductive validity of the argument,
>
>heh. Something can be deductively valid, and equally
>useless.

Yes, but like I said before: the only way the argument can fail is if the premises fail.

>>which means the only way the argument can fail is if
>>one or more of the premises fail.
>
>Actually, that's not what it means.

Actually, yes it does. A deductively valid argument means that if the premises are true then the conclusion must be true also. So one can deny the conclusion only by denying the premises. The premises are the only way a deductively valid argument can fail.

>>Which premise fails
>>and why? Does any one violate the law of
>>noncontradiction? If so which one and how?
>
>I think you should concede the fact that at least one
>of the premises your argument rests on is logically
>absurd, and as that was good enough for you to reject
>this argument as being logically sound

I will concede that if you point out what premise this is and if you give me some kind of explanation!

>I'd regard the topic dead, and you a
>hypocrite.

A hypocrite? How so? On what grounds do you think me a hypocrite?

Damoclese, not long ago from this post I talked about zealous emotion clouding judgment and suggested caution. I think you need to calm down and be a little more clearheaded before you launch personal attacks against me.

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

Replies:

Subject	Author	Date
This is how it seems to me	Ben	03/19/04 11:18am
You're right you ragamuffin -- Damoclese, 03/19/04 12:56pm Logic terminology. -- Wade A. Tisthammer, 03/20/04 1:09pm
Strongly doesn't equally emotionally	Damoclese	03/19/04 12:52pm
But strongly emotional does. -- Wade A. Tisthammer, 03/20/04 1:34pm I guess you even know what I'm thinking -- Damoclese, 03/20/04 6:54pm Not necessarily. -- Wade A. Tisthammer, 03/20/04 9:56pm