No, you do not quite understand me. -- 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):

Monday, May 12, 06:14:38am

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

Subject: No, you do not quite understand me.

Author:
Wade A. Tisthammer

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

Date Posted: 09/12/04 6:10pm
In reply to: Don 's message, "So let me see if I understand Wade correctly. ....." on 09/ 8/04 9:15am

>>Wade said:
>>Is it? You be the judge. The essence of the argument
>is >that an infinite past implies an absurdity
>and therefore >cannot be correct.
>
>
>So let me see if I understand Wade correctly. He is
>saying that an infinite past is not posible?

Yes.

>Why he thinks it is under the "absurd" argument is
>like
>the christains confronted with a round earth as they
>called a round earth obserd also. Absurd is not an
>argument and not even related.

Except I actually gave some pretty solid justification to show that my absurdities were genuine absurdities on the metaphysical level. For instance, if Tristram Shandy were infinitely far behind, the present could never be reached (as I demonstrated mathematically). This is a metaphysical absurdity and could not possibly happen.

>Or how about infinitly all powerfull or infinitly all
>knowing? Acorrding to Wades argument
>if an infinite past is obsurd then so would be a
>infinitly all knowing and a all powerfull god--

That does not logically follow from my argument at all.

>Here is the sad part--Wade knows this. He knows this
>very well so I can only conclude
>Wade is looking to dumy down others as a cheap carpet
>bager of religious garbage.

Here is the sad part--and Don does not know this. He is seriously confused and seems pretty paranoid about the opposition (believing I am trying to "dumy down" others when I am not, nor is there any shred of evidence that I am).

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

Replies:

Subject	Author	Date
This is a tipcal mind game of the religious.	Don	09/16/04 11:17am