Author:
Wade A. Tisthammer
|
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
Date Posted: 03/13/04 10:03pm
In reply to:
Baz
's message, "Misread" on 03/13/04 7:29pm
>>>The arguments of extreme theists, such as Wade
>>
>>Really? I'm "extreme"? How so?
>
>Extreme in the fact most people who believe in God do
>not go to the lengths you have in this forum in
>attempting to cast doubt on science or any idea that
>you see as a challenge to the assertion that God
>exists.
Cast doubt on science? How so?
>Most people take the idea of God on faith, to
>do what you do I see as extreme.
Well, I'm not exactly the only theist in the world who believes belief in God is the most rational. Both theists and atheists think they have reason on their side.
>>>must
>>>ever remain ridiculous
>>
>>Ridiculous eh? How about that Tristram Shandy
>>paradox? Perhaps it can be resolved, perhaps one of
>>the premises is wrong, but you haven't provided any
>>basis for showing so. It seems a bit presumptuous to
>>call that argument at least, “ridiculous” if
>>you have no reason to think so.
>
>I said in a past message that it was no good reciting
>the mantra: if the premises are correct the
>conclusions are correct. I have explained why the
>paradox is a non-starter as far as reality is
>concerned. I have posted a coherent argument from a
>web site against the sort of deductive reasoning you
>have used, and you flatly refuse to accept any of it.
Nothing in the website bore much relevance to my deductive argument. (If I have missed it, I apologize and request that you point it out to me.) If you think my argument is a "non-starter" I'm willing to listen. Why think that it is?
>Give ME a reason for accepting the paradox as a valid
>vehicle for coming to the conclusion you have
Well, if you wish I can provide you with a formal proof.
1. I => ~(S -> A)
2. S => (B V F)
3. B => A
4. F => A
--------
5. S (conditional proof assumption)
6. B V F (5, 2 modus tollens)
7. (B => A) && (F -> A) (3, 4, conjunction)
8. A V A (7, 6 constructive dilemma)
9. A (8, duplication)
10. S => A (conditional proof, 5-9)
11. ~~(S => A) (10, double negation)
12. ~I (11, 1 modus tollens)
I = An infinite past exists
S = The Tristram Shandy scenario, writing his autobiography for as long as time has existed.
A = One or more absurdities result
B = Tristram Shandy is infinitely far behind
F = Tristram Shandy finishes his autobiography
This formal proof establishes with certainty the validity of the argument. The only way to claim that it isn't sound is to attack one of the premises. That is why I requested from people who thought the argument to be unsound which premise fails and why, because a failed premise(s) is the only way the argument can fail.
>>>because the conclusion they
>>>hope to arrive at happens to be their ultimate
>>>premise: God exists
>>
>>Hmm, I don't think that's been a premise in any
>>argument I've used. (If you think otherwise, I
>>request a specific example).
>
>Are you purposely being obtuse or am I going to have
>to retract my view of your abilities? This seems to be
>straight from the fundamentalists' book of tactics: if
>in doubt, sidetrack and obfuscate.
This is what I mean about a word of caution. How on earth am I sidetracking or attempting to obfuscate? You seemed to claim that people like me use God in their premises. Or did you misspeak and mean "conclusion" instead of premise?
>You know full well
>that to use such a premise in a deductive argument
>concerning the existence of God
Theoretically one could use the premise "God exists" in a deductive argument, but to what end? What would the conclusion be?
>Anyone who believes in God has
>his existence as their ultimate premise in so far as
>everything flows from that proposition.
In deductive arguments from theists in support of theism, that is seldom the case.
Or am I misconstruing what you're saying?
>>Baz, I think you need to be a bit more careful. It's
>>been my experience that in controversial and fervent
>>debates, zealousness tends to increase the risks of
>>misconstruing or distorting the opposition, attack a
>>position using albeit closely related yet irrelevant
>>information/argumentation, seeing things that aren't
>>there and missing things that are. For instance,
>>regarding the Tristram Shandy paradox thread you said
>>I had no premises in my argument against an infinite
>>past, yet my premises (true or not) were clearly
>>there.
>>How do you account for this oversight?
>
>You have just described how you yourself conduct
>arguments.
I have? Where?
>As far as the Tristram Shandy paradox is
>concerned I said, as a starter, and nothing to do with
>the fictitious Shandy, that we can't make any
>deductions about an infinite past as we have no
>premises from which to argue.
Hmm, did I not point out that my deduction about an infinite past had a number of premises?
>I was talking about the reality or not of an infinte
>past. Your premises were concerned with a scenario
>where a straw man individual was writing a book, not
>premises about infinite time itself. My fictitious
>character Brandy demonstrated that his yesterday had
>as much to do with the reality of yesterday (none) as
>did Shandy's infinity had to do with the reality or
>not of infinite time.
The Tristram Shandy scenario, in my argument at least, as a high degree of relevance against an infinite past. Though perhaps that relevance could be removed if the first premise in the argument is incorrect.
>You might remember very early on, I presented a piece
>of logic someone produced that "proved" God did not
>exist.
Alas, I do not remember. What was that piece of logic?
>>Speaking of distorting the opposition,
>
>(Which you do all the time, either intentionally or
>through a lack of understanding or being incapable of
>accepting ideas contrary to your beliefs. I have
>already gone through some in this post)
Careful. I request a specific example of where I have distorted the opposition. (If I have done so, I apologize in advance.)
>what about the
>>"Surely your Jorge" remark? What prompted you to make
>>that? What mistake(s) do you think I made?
>
>I'm sorry Wade but this is almost becoming laughable.
>Go through all the "debates" you have had with me and
>others for that matter. They are almost all concerned
>with your mistakes of reasoning. "What mistakes do you
>think I made"?
>So you don't make mistakes of any kind?
Careful, I never said that. I'm just asking what mistakes you think I have made on this message board that you felt warranted the remark about me and Jorge.
>In all the
>arguments you have had with me you have never conceded
>a thing.
Hmm, I have conceded things in threads a number of times before. I'm afraid I don't recall many arguments with you to know whether or not that is the case.
>You may have in other threads but I haven't
>seen it, not on any major points. In this respect, and
>in the respect of some of the tactics you
>use(consciously or not), you are like Jorge.
Because I have not conceded major points? People conceding major points is, IIRC, a rare occurrence by anyone on these message boards. I don't think I would be alone on the matter. When have you conceded a major point? But if you wish to see an example of me conceding a major point, consider a concession I have made on the very topic about Tristram Shandy at here where I admit and even point out the invalidity of a deductive argument that I had previously supported. From one post in that web page:
"Easy: I didn't see the invalidity in the portion of the first paradox in the first place. I discovered this relatively recently. I just thought I'd let you know. (I often admit when I am wrong in these discussions.)"
I applaud your honesty. It sets you apart from 90% of the Christian debaters I've encountered.
Now I ask you, aren't you being a little presumptuous, at least with the link between me and Jorge? I again suggest a word of caution.
>Perhaps I should not bring this up, but because you
>are being so intractable in you attitude, I will. I
>seem to have a better memory than you.
That may be true. I admit my memory is not the best.
>Can you
>rememdber sending me an unsolicited e-mail asking why
>I had dropped out of the forum? You expressed doubts
>about continuing, and one of the reasons you gave was
>because you found yourself arguing merely to win the
>argument! Having made that admission to me how can you
>expect anyone to trust that your arguments are genuine
>and not merely a means of protecting your ego?
Well, if you must know my purpose of submitting the Tristram Shandy paradox here is to see if there is anything wrong with it. My previous postings, if you recall, were often out of intellectual self-defense. And even then I never proposed an argument as true that I did not genuinely believe to be true. This Tristram Shandy paradox is more of a test, an experiment. If the argument I have submitted fails, and someone points out a genuine error, I will concede the matter. But, as of yet, I don't think anyone has demonstrated a premise to be wrong.
Hmm, looking back on it now I realize I forgot to inform you about the initial argument being invalid. (I'll post an explanation on why it is invalid shortly.) For that I apologize. The revised version, however, appears to be valid. Of course, validity (the conclusion is true if the premises are true) does not mean soundness. The premises even if true are not rigorously proven, so if there is a problem it lies with the premises.
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
|
Feedback: 