Don't pogo around the premises, pick one! -- 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):

Saturday, May 10, 06:55:16pm

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

Subject: Don't pogo around the premises, pick one!

Author:
Wade A. Tisthammer

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

Date Posted: 03/13/04 2:23pm
In reply to: Damoclese 's message, "Premise pogo" on 03/13/04 1:51pm

>>Mmm, no the truth of an infinite past is never assumed
>>anywhere in the premises. We have some conditional
>>statements, analysis, modus tollens etc. but never do
>>I assume that an infinite past exists.
>
>What's eternity past again? Remind me. I'm rusty.

Odd, I didn't mention eternity past in the text you quoted me.

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.

>>Where do I make that "logical fallacy"? Nowhere in
>>the argument do I make the assumption in your last
>>sentence.
>
>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?

>You are also guilty of reifying the past.

How and in which premise?

>That's two
>logical fallacies against you, notwithstanding the
>other problems everyone has pointed out.

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.)

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

Replies:

Subject	Author	Date
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