Blinded by the light -- 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, 06:56:26pm

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

Subject: Blinded by the light

Author:
Damoclese

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

Date Posted: 03/18/04 1:43pm
In reply to: Wade A. Tisthammer 's message, "7up." on 03/18/04 9:47am

>
>Against your claim that the greatest possible being
>must have every form of being. That claim is
>logically impossible.

Moreso than a beginningless task? I don't think so.

>
>Really? Why? Name even one of my premises that
>violates the law of noncontradiction.

Of course none of your premises DIRECTLY violate the law of non-contradiction,(although they do violate reality) but the conclusion clearly does. The same goes for this argument.

None of the premises of this argument maintain that God is the greatest being and non-greatest being simultaneously. They simply imply it, which is exactly the same case with your Shandy fiasco. (e.g. that Shandy can finish and not finish)

Remember, I
>have proven the deductive validity of the argument,

heh. Something can be deductively valid, and equally useless.

>which means the only way the argument can fail is if
>one or more of the premises fail.

Actually, that's not what it means. It means the argument supports the conclusion. It has little to say about how APPLICABLE or REALISTIC the argument is to reality. A beinningless task is as logically impossible if not moreso than any of the premises in this argument. You simply refuse to acknowledge the point that it is logically absurd. Fine. We'll move on, but this argument cannot be rejected on logical absurdity on its own by your own criteria.

Which premise fails
>and why? Does any one violate the law of
>noncontradiction? If so which one and how?

I think you should concede the fact that at least one of the premises your argument rests on is logically absurd, and as that was good enough for you to reject this argument as being logically sound, the same should apply to the Shandy argument. If you refuse to assent to this, I'd regard the topic dead, and you a hypocrite.

>
>It's amazing how it seems you can clearly see things
>that aren't there. I'm open to the idea, but where is
>this situation? (Confer my questions above.)

When you postulated a beginningless task, you blew your own argument out of the water and swam frantically around the wreckage trying to deductively prove that human tasks don't have beginnings.

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

Replies:

Subject	Author	Date
Blinded by overzealous emotion.	Wade A. Tisthammer	03/19/04 10:09am
This is how it seems to me -- Ben, 03/19/04 11:18am You're right you ragamuffin -- Damoclese, 03/19/04 12:56pm Logic terminology. -- Wade A. Tisthammer, 03/20/04 1:09pm Strongly doesn't equally emotionally -- Damoclese, 03/19/04 12:52pm But strongly emotional does. -- Wade A. Tisthammer, 03/20/04 1:34pm I guess you even know what I'm thinking -- Damoclese, 03/20/04 6:54pm Not necessarily. -- Wade A. Tisthammer, 03/20/04 9:56pm