Author:
Wade A. Tisthammer
|
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
Date Posted: 03/13/04 4:26pm
In reply to:
Damoclese
's message, "twister" on 03/13/04 3:01pm
>>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?
No.
>>>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.
Aw, that's nice. In which premise?
>> You are also guilty of reifying the past.
>>
>>How and in which premise?
>
>It's assumed.
Yes, I'm sure you think it is. But if your allegation is true there has to be a place where it is assumed. In which premise is this assumption made?
>>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.
See above. The assumptions, if they exist, have to be somewhere! Now where are they?
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
|
Feedback: 