| Subject: twister |
Author:
Damoclese
|
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
Date Posted: 03/13/04 3:01pm
In reply to:
Wade A. Tisthammer
's message, "Don't pogo around the premises, pick one!" on 03/13/04 2:23pm
>Odd, I didn't mention eternity past in the text you
>quoted me.
No, but of course as we both know, your original argument assumes this.
>
>Well, basically eternity past is the infinite past.
>So when I say Shandy has been writing from eternity
>past, it means that he's always been writing
>throughout the infinite past.
The infinite past. So, the argument does assume there is a thing called the infinite past, and makes assumptions about what that might be/entail?
>>You assume that an "infinite past" is in fact,
>>something that we can imagine, which we can, but we
>>don't know if it's accurate.
>
>In which premise?
It's assumed. Deductive arguments rest on assumptions. Did you read Baz's article?
>
> You are also guilty of reifying the past.
>
>How and in which premise?
It's assumed. You are obviously treating a title as if it were the thing itself.
>What other problems? So far I haven't seen much of
>any. (Vague assertions here and there that don't
>attack a single premise, but not much in the way of
>real, legitimate problems.)
You're right, they attack things more fundamental than premises, and that is the assumptions.
>
>>That's two
>>logical fallacies against you, notwithstanding the
>>other problems everyone has pointed out.
>
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
| |
Feedback: 