| Subject: Fallacious thinking. |
Author:
Baz
|
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
Date Posted: 03/ 5/04 8:39pm
In reply to:
Wade A. Tisthammer
's message, "Invalid? Where?" on 03/ 5/04 11:51am
Wade:
However improbable (but POSSIBLE) the idea is, to make argument easier, let us assume that the story about Shandy is true.
In your arguments you have moved from a situation where deduction is not possible (we cannot DEDUCE whether there has been an infinite past or not, because there are no PREMISES from which to argue,) to an everyday situation which represents a possible situation WITHIN REALITY - Shandy writing his life’s story. We have moved into a completely different dimension of thought, from speculation to REALITY. In REALITY, all we have is an individual writing daily until he dies. In REALITY his aims and motives do not matter and the situation certainly has absolutely no connection with the REALITY, or not, of infinite time. Thought does not change REALITY outside the thinkers neurochemistry, only action does.
You can’t have it both ways, using a theoretical, and in REALITY, POSSIBLE situation - some one writing his autobiography - and then suddenly applying this to a theoretical, but IMPOSSIBLE situation, where the individual is endowed with an infinite life span. (By giving Shandy an INFINITE life span you have begged the question anyway, and this becomes an assumption (FALSE PREMISE) from which your secondary deductive reasoning then proceeds.)
Let us assume that it was you who thought up the Shandy story to prove that an infinite past was not possible.
You couldn’t use deduction to argue your point (The REALITY that there has not been an infinite past) because there are no premises to argue from.
You invent Shandy’s autobiography writing ( A POSSIBILITY within REALITY).
Now here comes the trick. Having found a vehicle by which you can argue your point (a vehicle that represents a POSSIBILITY WITHIN REALITY) you move the scenario from THE POSSIBLE to THE IMPOSSIBLE, and then argue your point from within an IMPOSSIBLE situation.
It is no good continually reciting the mantra: “If the PREMISES are correct the CONCLUSIONS are correct”, because there is a great difference between DEDUCTED CONCLUSIONS and REALITY. The existence of paradoxes demonstrates how faulty (as far as REALITY is concerned) our deductive deliberations can be, and only deduction premised IN REALITY is likely to reflect REALITY. We can imagine a certain world with its own physical laws and use deduction to come to certain conclusions but those conclusions will only be correct within the context of the imaginary world and not within the REAL world.
Desperate theists have latched onto undignified methods of deluding themselves and bamboozling their opposition: quoting ideas within the context of quantum theory (Where it seems almost anything is possible and argument is impossible) and parading as realities the conclusions arrived at by faulty deductive reasoning. If this fails they deny, sidetrack, ignore and generally obfuscate.
I do not debate to deny the existence of God, which is not possible, but to promote the general search for truth itself, by exposing fallacious pronouncements of those, who for some reason beyond my comprehension, wish to JUSTIFY their BELIEFS in an increasingly secular and scientific world.
It is probable that humanity as a whole could not survive with an appreciation of the reality of its situation 24/7, but in my 60 years plus, I have come to the conclusion that man only has dignity in reality bound truth - otherwise we are nothing but a bunch of deluded clowns.(Think how much better off the world would be if we were unable to delude ourselves that most of our actions, and our defence of those actions, were based on anything other than emotive self interest)
Wade, unlike some on this forum, it does not bother me that you believe in God - other than the fact that I consider it delusional, and although one can be deluded in this area without deluding oneself in other areas, I am not a fan of the state. You are obviously a bright man, and if you are not debating from the position of the “Devils advocate”, then I find it tragic that you seem bent on insulting your own intelligence.
Basil
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
| |
Feedback: 