Author:
Wade A. Tisthammer
|
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
Date Posted: 03/ 5/04 11:51am
In reply to:
Baz
's message, "Invalid" on 03/ 4/04 1:49am
>Wade, I have not read all the arguments, but this is
>nonsense. There is a big difference between deduction
>and reality. If one of the conditions within an
>argument is impossible then the reasoning becomes
>invalid.
No, the reasoning is perfectly valid. Let's look at the argument:
- If an infinite past is metaphysically possible, then Shandy writing his autobiography for as long as time has existed should not lead to absurdities.
- If Shandy has been writing from eternity past (i.e. has been writing all along the infinite, beginningless past) he is either infinitely far behind or he finishes his autobiography at some point.
- Shandy finishing his autobiography, since it takes him a whole year to write about a day, is an absurdity and cannot possibly happen.
- Shandy being infinitely far behind means the present would never be reached (the day he wrote about last year is infinitely far away, there is no way to get from that day to the present), which is an absurdity and cannot possibly happen.
- All (both) possible options generate an absurdity, if Shandy were writing his autobiography from eternity past (2, 3, and 4).
Therefore an infinite past is not metaphysically possible (1 and 5).
The conclusion logically follows from the premises. Which premise doesn't logically follow from the ones it's based upon?
>There is one assumption you have omitted to
>consider which invalidates your conclusion, and that
>is the assumption that an individual can exist for an
>infinite length of time.
Hmm, no I don't believe that's in the premises. If anything, it assumes the opposite.
>The infinite existence of the
>vehicle of your argument
Well, yes this is true, and is exactly why the argument is valid.
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
|
Feedback: 