Create a New Forum Admin Login Member Login Contribute to Voyager Search VoyForums Help Desk VoyForums Exchange VoyForums Directory/Categories VoyForums Homepage VoyForums News FAQ - Frequently Asked Questions

[ 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):

Monday, May 12, 02:01:07pm

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

Subject: Actually Author: Damoclese [ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ] Date Posted: 03/12/04 3:27pm In reply to: Wade A. Tisthammer 's message, "Why?" on 03/12/04 12:54pm Comments like >"we cannot DEDUCE whether there has been an infinite >past or not, because there are no PREMISES from which >to argue" don't do much to attack the argument. In fact, that question draws into doubt the premise of whether or not it's okay to suppose the past is infinite.(or to even imaginarily create one) You can suppose, for the sake of logic, all sorts of things. But if they aren't truly what happened in reality, their conclusions are less than useful. The >premises, true or not, are obviously there. So how >can you expect I, Wade A. Tisthammer, to respond any >differently? Logically possible premises are different from things that actually happened being premises. Therefore, I'd personally expect Wade A. Tisthammer to distinguish between the two. Maybe that's too much to ask. [ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Replies:

Subject Author Date Factually Wade A. Tisthammer 03/12/04 3:39pm This. -- Damoclese, 03/12/04 4:18pm That. -- Wade A. Tisthammer, 03/13/04 1:38pm Premise pogo -- Damoclese, 03/13/04 1:51pm Don't pogo around the premises, pick one! -- Wade A. Tisthammer, 03/13/04 2:23pm twister -- Damoclese, 03/13/04 3:01pm 'round and 'round we go... -- Wade A. Tisthammer, 03/13/04 4:26pm In the argument -- Damoclese, 03/13/04 7:29pm I can do that too. -- Wade A. Tisthammer, 03/13/04 10:17pm But not as well -- Damoclese, 03/14/04 8:11am Where are the assumptions? -- Wade A. Tisthammer, 03/15/04 12:23pm Confession of much apathy -- Damoclese, 03/15/04 5:29pm If you're apathetic about this, why have you continued so far? -- Wade A. Tisthammer, 03/18/04 9:55am