| Subject: Strongly doesn't equally emotionally |
Author:
Damoclese
|
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
Date Posted: 03/19/04 12:52pm
In reply to:
Wade A. Tisthammer
's message, "Blinded by overzealous emotion." on 03/19/04 10:09am
>
>Then perhaps you can point out to me where it violates
>the law of noncontradiction?
Sure. Where you said Shandy can finish or not finish depending upon the numbering scheme involved. That's a contradiction in the conclusion, which makes the whole thing useless.
>
>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?
Because an argument in which Shandy can finish or can not finish (e.g. be infinitely far behind) doesn't lend direct support that an infinite past cannot exist. It's simply contradictory.
>
>Yes, but like I said before: the only way the
>argument can fail is if the premises fail.
No, it can also fail in reality, and I'm going to start another thread with a classical paradox to demonostrate why.
>
>
>Actually, yes it does. A deductively valid argument
>means that if the premises are true then the
>conclusion must be true also.
Logically speaking, I know that's true, but I'm talking about the veracity and applicability of the argument in reality, which is really the ultimate test anyway.
So one can deny the
>conclusion only by denying the premises. The
>premises are the only way a deductively valid argument
>can fail.
>
>I will concede that if you point out what premise this
>is and if you give me some kind of explanation!
That Shandy had been writing from eternity past.
>
>A hypocrite? How so? On what grounds do you think me
>a hypocrite?
Because you shift your criteria of what's logical according to your own biases. A logical argument doesn't rest in a vacuum, but sits nested among a hierarchy of auxillary assumptions as I'm sure you'll remember from a similar situation with Duheim and Quine. You simply switch off your brain on assumptions like having a beginngless task and balk at statements like non-being is part of the set of being when the outcomes are something you find less than palatable.
If this isn't the case explain to me why a beginningless task is logically feasible.
And if it is logically feasible, you've managed to prove that there isn't any need for a God, because humans could have simply always procreated without the need for any beginning or a God to create them in the first place. Are you prepared to admit this too?
. I think you
>need to calm down and be a little more clearheaded
>before you launch personal attacks against me.
I've yet to launch one, and I'm ice cold calm. If anything shows through, it's frustration, because arguing with you is at times like arguing with a mad man. (and that, is my own personal opinion, not a personal attack)
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
| |
Feedback: 