--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jstein@...> wrote:
> Uh, guys, you're *assuming* he's going to reason this > way. No I was observing how he already reasoned when he went from one instance and tried to connect it to a universal principle that would apply in a completely different instance. It was a simple induction, but that unfortunately is a fallacious form or reasoning. You protect that assumption from challenge if you > stop paying attention now. I predict he has a few more > things up his sleeve that you wouldn't be able to > dismiss quite so arrogantly when he gets to the second > premise. There was nothing arrogant in noticing inductive reasoning. I was stating a fact with no commentary. > > I don't think either of you has the guts to stick with > it and find out. Unnecessarily pugnacious interjection. I don't know what "guts" it takes to follow an online discussion but I have a pretty good track record with following them here. > > That's 50 for me this week, but I'll enjoy seeing how > this one plays out when I come back Friday or Saturdy. > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" > > <curtisdeltablues@> wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "John" <jr_esq@> wrote: > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "John" <jr_esq@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Barry, > > > > > > > > > > > > The first premise should be read as follows: > > > > > > > > > > > > 1. Whatever begins to exist has a CAUSE. > > > > > > > > > > > > Let us know if you agree with this. > > > > > > > > > > It sounds to me as if it's something that a > > > > > determinist might think up. I have no idea > > > > > whether it's true or not, and neither do you. > > > > > > > > Let us talk about the first premise. Don't you agree > > > > that you were born through your mother who conceived you > > > > with your father? As such, you as a physical being had > > > > a CAUSE. Correct? If yes, then you would agree with > > > > the first premise.> > > > > > > Fallacy of inductive reasoning. > > > > Exactly. "Because humans come into existence because > > someone fucked someone else, the universe must have > > also come into existence the same way." That is > > *exactly* the projection-reasoning I described. > > Uh, guys, you're *assuming* he's going to reason this > way. You protect that assumption from challenge if you > stop paying attention now. I predict he has a few more > things up his sleeve that you wouldn't be able to > dismiss quite so arrogantly when he gets to the second > premise. > > I don't think either of you has the guts to stick with > it and find out. > > That's 50 for me this week, but I'll enjoy seeing how > this one plays out when I come back Friday or Saturdy. >
