Truth -- 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, 08:35:11am

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

Subject: Truth

Author:
Wade A. Tisthammer

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

Date Posted: 04/ 1/04 12:08pm
In reply to: Damoclese 's message, "Falsity" on 04/ 1/04 11:36am

>You know very well which assumptions I have a problem
>with

Not really, at least as it pertains to the premises in the argument.

>Everytime I point out that you are arguing from less
>than perfect concepts, you fall back on "So which
>premise assumes this or that?"

Yes, because I want to know! Your objection of unwarranted assumptions is only relevant if the premises make actually them. Why do you continue to refuse to explain what premise makes these alleged assumptions?

>I'm addressing the DEFINITIONS the premises rest on
>THEMSELVES and I'm saying they are inadequate

Okay, let's start there. Which premise/word do you not understand?

>So, I needn't reject any particular premise

You do if you wish to rationally deny the conclusion. It's the only way the argument can fail to be sound.

>Hence, I reject the
>entire argument, because I don't think you, or anybody
>else knows what it logically means for something to be
>infinite

In the case of an infinite past, it is a past that has no beginning and the universe is infinitely old. (Infinity is defined as a magnitude greater than any finite value.) I don't see what's so hard to understand about that.

>Any further
>questions you pose I'll consider rhetorical.

Then it seems you have considered a good deal of my relevant questions rhetorical (e.g. which premise fails and why?), since you constantly avoid answering them!

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