Falsity -- Ben's Message Board

[ 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):

Wednesday, May 14, 08:45:40am

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

Subject: Falsity

Author:
Damoclese

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 04/ 1/04 11:36am
In reply to: Wade A. Tisthammer 's message, "I've admitted mistakes before. What is there to admit here?" on 04/ 1/04 9:54am

You know very well which assumptions I have a problem with, and that I think are well and good imagined but not so good in reality. My thinking they are false in reality doesn't preclude them from being true imaginarily.

Everytime I point out that you are arguing from less than perfect concepts, you fall back on "So which premise assumes this or that?" It's obvious that your argument relies on less than perfect definitions of infinity first of all, and because Tristram is given a task with no beginning, namely writing his biography, that too is less than useful or true.
(remember my thread about 0 being the starting time and your follow up post about infinity having a beginning?)

I'm addressing the DEFINITIONS the premises rest on THEMSELVES and I'm saying they are inadequate, but you simply brush that aside as if it doesn't matter. I see no reason to "list each premise out" according with the assumptions, because it goes without saying that the definitions of infinity and the like are GOING to influence whether or not this argument is true in reality.

So, I needn't reject any particular premise although I certainly have problems with the implications of some of them, because I reject the DEFINITIONS the premises rest on in the first place.

Until you can show me what must logically follow from something being infinite (which requires a very thorough definition of what it means to be infinite) then my points stand. There is absolutely no reason to assume that because you have conceived of the infinite in such a such a way that that is the way infinitity would have to necessarily work. Hence, I reject the entire argument, because I don't think you, or anybody else knows what it logically means for something to be infinite other than perhaps as strictly defined in a formal mathematical sense.

This is my final word on the issue. Any further questions you pose I'll consider rhetorical.

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Replies:

Subject	Author	Date
Truth	Wade A. Tisthammer	04/ 1/04 12:08pm