Author:
Wade A. Tishtammer
|
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
Date Posted: 04/14/04 1:06pm
In reply to:
Damoclese
's message, ""one"" on 04/12/04 6:56pm
>>What side? What are you talking about? If the
>>universe is of finite age, it would not be infinitely
>>old. Period.
>
>Not quite. If time collapses like I said before, then
>the universe wouldn't necesarily cease to exist, but
>it'd be outside of time which would effectively make
>it infinitely old.
Thise seems new. Earlier you said:
There's nothing to keep the universe from experiencing time in regular intervals wherein the existence of time is incrementally snuffed out and started over. That'd make the universe infinitely old as it were, but the oscillations that time goes through approach a limit, and when they hit that limit, things start over.
You said nothing about the universe being "outside time."
>However, within each node of time
>before it collapses, things are quite finite.
Sounds like an infinite temporal loop, in which case it would still be infinitely old, having traversed an infinite number of years etc. Damoclese, do you believe the past is infinite or not?
>I'd encourage you to avoid either/or fallacies
>especially when it comes to the universe.
I was not making either/or fallacies, I was using sensible logic. If the past exists, it is infinite or it is not. If it is not infinite, then it is finite. There are no other alternatives.
>>Of course I am. If the universe is infinitely old,
>>necessarily an infinite amount of years has been
>>traversed. How could it possibly be otherwise?
>
>see above. A universe existing outside of time
>provides the answer.
No it doesn't. If the past is infinite, then an infinite amount of years necessarily has been traversed, regardless if it goes through an infinite temporal loop.
>>If
>>the situation is examined carefully and accurately, I
>>think no such basis will be found.
>
>I'm sure there wouldn't be, if I asked you about it. I
>have a hunch you've got biases just like every other
>human; you just simply are more oblivious to them.
>S'alright though. That's the effect of religion on a
>formerely cautious brain.
I've got a hunch your overzealousness has blinded your thinking. I ask again, what basis do you have for your accusations?
>>Remember, the argument can only fail if one of the
>>premises is false. So, which premise is false and
>why?
>
>Based on your rejection at the end of this post, this
>doesn't seem to be totally true.
What doesn't seem to be totally true? That the only way the argument can fail is if one of the premises is false? No, that is totally true. That's the nature of a deductively valid argument; it can only fail to be sound if one of the premises is false.
>>No, I don't assume that in any of the premises.
>
>Yeah, you're right, you assume it definitionally
>within the premises themselves.
Where? How? I think you need to give some explanation.
>>Your attacks against the argument fail until you
>>provide compelling reasons for why a given premise is
>>false. Have you got one? No? Then your attacks lack
>>force, which in turn means they have little relevance
>>in reality.
>
>That's all well and good, but of course, I'm not the
>one trying to make the metaphysical argument about the
>way time must be here.
But you are the one who appears to be claiming the argument is unsound.
>Then, after being so careless as to assert the
>certainty of your intuitions, you ask me to reject
>some given premise they rest on while categorically
>rejecting all other models that are viable. You turn a
>blind eye to my objections that I reject the entire
>scaffolding your argument rests on.
I reject your objections because they don't clearly attack any premise! Remember, a false premise is the only way the argument can be unsound.
>You instead insist
>I attack some particular piece of lumber that may
>simply be a flight of whimsy in the first place.
If it's so allegedly flimsy why don't you attack it and destroy the argument in a rational, logical manner?
>So, here, allow me to make it perfectally clear, I
>reject the entire formulation of the problem to begin
>with. I reject the definitions the argument rests
>upon
Which definition? Which premise? I did provide a formal proof of the argument establishing it's validity. "I reject the entire formulation of the problem" is just too vague to be of much use. It's not an adequate attack against the argument.
Again, the only way the argument can fail to be sound is if a premise is false. Do you deny this? If not, why do you keep avoiding the issue? Why do you keep attacking phantom assumptions that don't seem to exist in any of the premises? Why do you continue to refuse to explain yourself in these matters?
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
|
Feedback: 