Freethought & Rationalism Archive

tronvillain · 01-16-2003, 08:21 PM

irichc:

Quote:

From syllogism #2 I conclude that everything which is caused is divisible. Let's check it again:

Every multiple thing is divisible
Every caused phenomenon is multiple [as far as every uncaused phenomenon is singular or, in other words, a singularity, tertius non datur]
Every caused phenomenon is divisible

Well, the first premise is trivial, but the second appears to be a completely unsupported assertion. It is not clear that every caused phenomenon is multiple, nor is it clear that every uncaused phenomenon is singular. So, your conclusion is extremely shaky.

Quote:

You are assuming that there are uncaused effects or movements, and that means, tertius non datur, indivisible effects. Then, taking your premise:

Every indivision leads to a singularity
Quarks are indivisible
Quarks are not singularities

Then:

1) First premise is false

Or:

2) Quarks aren't indivisible

In both cases I'm right.

You are the one making assumptions here, not I. I do not assume that there are uncaused effects or movements, I simply point out the possibility.

Now, "Every indivision leads to a singularity" appears to be true by definition (though it is a poor definition from a physics perspective), so if quarks are not "singularities" then they are not indivisible. Of course, that is a pretty trivial conclusion, and is dependent on knowing quarks to not be singularities.

I am not sure where you were trying to go with all of that, since it seems unrelated to my observation that "There are more logical options, such as the possibility that some things which are mobile are uncaused. Ah, I remember now, your pathetic second syllogism was supposed to equate "caused" with "divisible." Care to try again?

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.