[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
Date Posted:04/ 8/04 7:44am In reply to:
Wade A. Tisthammer
's message, "Succinct replies." on 04/ 7/04 11:48pm
>
>I don't see how that would apply here. Throughout the
>infinite past, in each year he writes about a
>day. Hence, he writes about an infinite number of
>days. There is no possible means for "convergence"
>here.
Sure there is. There's nothing that says as years run on they don't approach some particular finite number. It's a possibility. Just as them running towards infinity is a possibility. Just as them actually being infinite is a possibility.
This is why I see little point in explaining myself to you because when I introduce other possibilities you simply say "nah, I still like mine the best." Even though there is no reason to assume yours is any better.
Quite frankly, I think you support pet arguments that only you think you hold the keys to tearing apart. That way, you can always say you are democratically minded because you attempted to tear your own argument apart, and tell everyone else how wrong they are when they find some other way of criticizing the same argument.
I guess it's of little surprise, since you spent inordinate amounts of time using symbolic logic on an argument that most of us here could immediately see wasn't necessarily applicable to reality. Oh well.
You just keep right on espousing that argument and your own contrived solution. As I said before, I've got better ways of spending my finite time than trying to show an Ox other possibilities he refuses to admit are there.
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
