If you're apathetic about this, why have you continued so far? -- 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, 11:47:35pm

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

Subject: If you're apathetic about this, why have you continued so far?

Author:
Wade A. Tisthammer

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

Date Posted: 03/18/04 9:55am
In reply to: Damoclese 's message, "Confession of much apathy" on 03/15/04 5:29pm

>Your new argument:
>
>"If an infinite past is metaphysically possible, then
>Shandy writing his autobiography for as long as time
>has existed should not lead to absurdities.
>
>If Shandy has been writing from eternity past (i.e.
>has been writing all along the infinite, beginningless
>past) he is either infinitely far behind or he
>finishes his autobiography at some point."
>
>How can we be expected to invision something
>accurately that may or may not have metaphysical
>existence?

Envisioning what, the infinite past? Sounds like you�re talking about the second premise. Well, the veracity of that premise can be established by mathematics and logic. I'm not saying that we can fully envision all things about an infinite past, but, with the help of logic, certain things can be concluded. Unless you have a means to dispute my mathematics, what premise do you dispute here?

>I thought someone who seems to cherish logic as
>much as you do would readily recognize the veracity of
>the statement that a deductive argument is only as
>good as the assumptions

If by assumptions you mean premises, then yes I acknowledge that. I've been acknowledging it from the outset. If you recall, I have asked (repeatedly) which premise fails and why.

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