Announcement

Collapse

Philosophy 201 Guidelines

Cogito ergo sum

Here in the Philosophy forum we will talk about all the "why" questions. We'll have conversations about the way in which philosophy and theology and religion interact with each other. Metaphysics, ontology, origins, truth? They're all fair game so jump right in and have some fun! But remember...play nice!

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

An infinite series of finite causes.

Collapse
X
Collapse
 
  • Page of 55
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 14 54 55 template Next
  • #46
    Originally posted by mattbballman31 View Post
    Oh my good Lord Jesus. Please help Tass to see the light. This quotation tells me right here that you're so far out of your depth, that you just need to stop talking.

    Tass, Tass, Tass, Tass, Tass. Are you familiar with the history of philosophy and metaphysics?

    The problems that Wittgenstein raised are just not taken seriously anymore, my poor boy. You're so behind the times. He inaugurated logical positivism, which was trounced by Popper, Putnam, and Quine, and after that, started 'ordinary language philosophy', which almost no one pays attention to anymore, post Kripke, Plantinga, Searle, Lewis, Grice, Chisolm, et al. Wittgenstein is a great philosopher, man. Don't get me wrong. But philosophy and metaphysics progress.
    The predictable, rambling, evasive response of a blowhard!

    I repeat that the point you are not addressing is that, unlike a scientific argument which is falsifiable, a metaphysical argument cannot be falsified...i.e. it cannot be tested. Hence, there is no way of assessing the truth or otherwise of a metaphysical argument. OTOH science is open to testing predictions and arriving at verifiable conclusions.
    Last edited by Tassman; 02-28-2018, 12:55 AM.

    Comment

    • #47
      Originally posted by Tassman View Post
      The predictable, rambling, evasive response of a blowhard!
      Gotta love them atheists! Aren't you as cross as a frog in a sock!

      I repeat that the point you are not addressing is that, unlike a scientific argument which is falsifiable, a metaphysical argument cannot be falsified...i.e. it cannot be tested.
      What's really cool is that because I already did the heavy lifting, I get to escort your lazy posterior back to post #33 where this is already answered. If you can't find it, that's your problem. You want to stomp your feet, close your eyes, and stick your fingers in your ears, and scream that I didn't address it, go for it. I could give two craps. It's in there. You're in my area of expertise, and you seriously don't realize how silly you look: you and Shunya-doggy. Did you not learn reading comprehension in your secondary education?

      That reminds me. I had to choke on every little stupid, irrelevant line of all the hugely daft block-quotations Shuny-doggy plopped onto the forum. The sluggishness of you two just never disappoints! And you're too half-baked to return the favor!
       At least, mine is most excellently structured and amazingly argued for!

      Hence, there is no way of assessing the truth or otherwise of a metaphysical argument. OTOH science is open to testing predictions and arriving at verifiable conclusions.
      Hence, you can take your lethargic, undisciplined, biased, obsessive, childish, narrow, heedless heinie to post #33 and make the attempt to fit the square peg of rationality into the round hole of your sophomoric, shallow, fatuous, empty skull; don't worry: if you shove it in there hard enough, it'll get in there.
      Many and painful are the researches sometimes necessary to be made, for settling points of [this] kind. Pertness and ignorance may ask a question in three lines, which it will cost learning and ingenuity thirty pages to answer. When this is done, the same question shall be triumphantly asked again the next year, as if nothing had ever been written upon the subject.
      George Horne

      Comment

      • #48
        Originally posted by mattbballman31 View Post


        Hence, you can take your lethargic, undisciplined, biased, obsessive, childish, narrow, heedless heinie to post #33 and make the attempt to fit the square peg of rationality into the round hole of your sophomoric, shallow, fatuous, empty skull; don't worry: if you shove it in there hard enough, it'll get in there.
        Can't answer, huh? Thought not!

        Comment

        • #49
          Originally posted by Tassman View Post
          Can't answer, huh? Thought not!
          Post #33.

          Look! It's 'wack-a-Tass'!
          Many and painful are the researches sometimes necessary to be made, for settling points of [this] kind. Pertness and ignorance may ask a question in three lines, which it will cost learning and ingenuity thirty pages to answer. When this is done, the same question shall be triumphantly asked again the next year, as if nothing had ever been written upon the subject.
          George Horne

          Comment

          • #50
            An infinite series of finite [physical] causes cannot be empirically proved.
            . . . the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; . . . -- Romans 1:16 KJV

            . . . that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: . . . -- 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 KJV

            Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: . . . -- 1 John 5:1 KJV

            Comment

            • #51
              Originally posted by mattbballman31 View Post
              Post #33.
              So funny!
              Last edited by Tassman; 02-28-2018, 07:17 PM.

              Comment

              • #52
                Originally posted by 37818 View Post
                An infinite series of finite [physical] causes cannot be empirically proved.
                Nor can it (at this stage) be empirically disproved. Certainly, at the mathematical level, infinities are at the heart of standard quantum theory.
                Last edited by Tassman; 02-28-2018, 07:18 PM.

                Comment

                • #53
                  Originally posted by Tassman View Post
                  So funny!
                  I know, right! It's hilarious to watch you keep stepping on that rake!

                  I'm gonna go work on my Ph.D dissertation now. Leave the adults in the room to discuss things rationally. Run along now, you goofy little twerp! And take your sad lapdog, cheerleader, Shunya-doggy with you.
                  Many and painful are the researches sometimes necessary to be made, for settling points of [this] kind. Pertness and ignorance may ask a question in three lines, which it will cost learning and ingenuity thirty pages to answer. When this is done, the same question shall be triumphantly asked again the next year, as if nothing had ever been written upon the subject.
                  George Horne

                  Comment

                  • #54
                    Originally posted by mattbballman31 View Post
                    I know, right! It's hilarious to watch you keep stepping on that rake!

                    I'm gonna go work on my Ph.D dissertation now. Leave the adults in the room to discuss things rationally. Run along now, you goofy little twerp! And take your sad lapdog, cheerleader, Shunya-doggy with you.
                    Still not answering the question I see. Give it a go when you've got your Ph.D

                    Comment

                    • #55
                      Originally posted by Tassman View Post
                      Still not answering the question I see. Give it a go when you've got your Ph.D
                      Denial is a heck of a disorder! Already answered, dipstick. Everyone but you and your lapdog cheerleader can see it!
                      Many and painful are the researches sometimes necessary to be made, for settling points of [this] kind. Pertness and ignorance may ask a question in three lines, which it will cost learning and ingenuity thirty pages to answer. When this is done, the same question shall be triumphantly asked again the next year, as if nothing had ever been written upon the subject.
                      George Horne

                      Comment

                      • #56
                        Originally posted by mattbballman31 View Post
                        Denial is a heck of a disorder! Already answered, dipstick. Everyone but you and your lapdog cheerleader can see it!

                        Comment

                        • #57
                          Originally posted by Tassman View Post
                          Unlike a scientific argument, a metaphysical argument cannot be falsified...i.e. it cannot be tested.
                          Yes, a metaphysical argument can be tested. The fact is you yourself make metaphysical decisions. Such as regarding your view of God. Being a professed atheist. So. . .
                          . . . the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; . . . -- Romans 1:16 KJV

                          . . . that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: . . . -- 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 KJV

                          Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: . . . -- 1 John 5:1 KJV

                          Comment

                          • #58
                            Originally posted by Chrawnus View Post
                            In other words, he's running circles around you and you're too stupid to realize.
                            Phfffffffft! Splat! Nothing here of substance.

                            The problem with both of you is no competent educational background in the science you ridicule and denigrate. There is no reason, logic nor coherent facts backing up these endless denigrating sound bites.

                            Comment

                            • #59
                              Originally posted by Tassman View Post
                              So funny!
                              Not so funny, just continuous ridicule of acrid obfuscations.

                              Comment

                              • #60
                                FALSIFICATION ISN'T WHAT SEPARATES SCIENCE FROM NON-SCIENCE, RETARD. I SAID THIS IN POST 33. IF YOU WANT TO CHALLENGE IT, DON'T JUST REPEAT THAT IT CAN. THAT'S WHY YOU'RE THE DOLT THAT YOU ARE. IT'S SETTLED IN PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE THAT FALSIFICATION IS NEITHER NECESSARY NOR SUFFICIENT FOR THEORY CONFIRMATION. IT'S MORE COMPLICATED THAN THAT, YOU DUMB LITTLE SIMPLETON.

                                That was FAR from a mess of pottage, dingbat! You're just a lazy piece of stinky doo-doo, and you're not used to actually working through an issue. You just exercise that dumb, unchecked, knee-jerk, sound-bite, chatty cathy doll of a brain you have, and think it settles the issue. It doesn't. It won't. It can't. If what I took the time to write out for you is a mess of pottage, then you're an idiotic, pathetic waste of insignificant mucus. Oh, a little bit of what was accomplished in post #33 . . .

                                1. Described the demarcation problem in science. (YOU IGNORED)

                                2. Gave detailed, demonstrative evidence of the different methods employed in the sciences. (YOU IGNORED)

                                3. Critiqued your fetishizing of 'verification' (which has now morphed into falsification). (YOU IGNORED).

                                4. Critiqued your ambiguity with the idea of truth (YOU IGNORED)

                                5. Critiqued your ambiguity with the idea of fact (YOU IGNORED)

                                6. Gave an argument for how the settlement of such ambiguities involve the very methods you denounce, and provided a disjunctive argument for the conclusion that you either give up the rationality of practicing science or accept the methods of the non-sciences to justify the practice of science (YOU IGNORED)

                                7. Against your idea that no non-scientific methodology can verify a true premise, I presented a 3-step argument that assumes the truth of your PREMISE [], and reduces it to 3 different kinds of absurdity, a reductio ad absurdum. (YOU IGNORED).
                                8. Gave 12 examples of methodologies employed in metaphysics (YOU IGNORED).

                                9. Gave 4 characteristics of such methodologies, to distinguish them from typical scientific methodologies (YOU IGNORED).

                                10. I illustrated some of the methodologies in practice, along with some of the characteristics, with the example of 'causation' (YOU IGNORED)

                                11. I showed that your PREMISE [] can be JUSTIFIED by at least one or all of 10 reasons I GAVE YOU. (YOU IGNORED)

                                12. I showed that to EVEN GO ABOUT JUSTIFYING ONE OF THE 10 REASONS I GAVE YOU, YOU HAVE TO ASSUME ONE OF THE 12 METHODOLOGIES I ALREADY GAVE YOU ABOVE (YOU IGNORED)

                                13. This methodology (conceptual analysis) I then SHOWED had already been taken up by PHILOSOPHERS, where Rik Peels had delineated 30 different varieties of scientisms. THIS DEMONSTRATES THAT EVEN IF I WERE TO GRANT YOU YOUR PREMISE, AND YOUR CONCLUSION (!), YOU'D HAVE TO USE METAPHYSICAL METHODOLOGIES TO GET THERE. (YOU IGNORED).

                                14. I REPEATED MY 3 reductio ad absurdum points IN INTERACTION WITH YOUR PREMISE, AGAIN JUST TO MAKE SURE YOU GOT IT, AND, YOU GUESSED IT . . . (STILL IGNORED).

                                15. I then PROVIDED REASONS FOR MY 3 REDUCTIOS (and STILL IGNORED).

                                AT LEAST, 15 SOLID POINTS. ALL IGNORED BY YOUR STUPID, DISHONEST, PATHETIC, REPETITIVE HOGWASH YOU CALL ACTUAL RESPONSES.

                                Face it. You're a pseudo-intellectual, dishonest, troll with absolutely no interest in finding the truth.
                                Many and painful are the researches sometimes necessary to be made, for settling points of [this] kind. Pertness and ignorance may ask a question in three lines, which it will cost learning and ingenuity thirty pages to answer. When this is done, the same question shall be triumphantly asked again the next year, as if nothing had ever been written upon the subject.
                                George Horne

                                Comment

                                Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 14 54 55 template Next

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse
                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                The problems with the extremes of Hard Determinism versus Libertarian Free Will. by shunyadragon
                                Started by shunyadragon, 03-01-2024, 09:40 AM
                                172 responses
                                606 views
                                0 likes
                                		 Last Post seer
                                by seer
                                04-15-2024, 11:55 AM  
                                View All
                                Working...
                                X