RE: Arguments for God's Existence from Contingency
November 28, 2017 at 1:49 pm
(This post was last modified: November 28, 2017 at 2:02 pm by The Grand Nudger.)
(November 28, 2017 at 1:34 pm)Hammy Wrote:Whose future? Which future? Are all futures running in a concordant direction...and how would you determine any of this?(November 28, 2017 at 1:25 pm)Khemikal Wrote: Sure, -after a cause-Yes. And what happens after a cause is what happens in the future.
Quote:No it isn't. What happens next is by definition what happens in the future. "Y happens next" and "Y happens in the future" are the same thing. Time necessarily works in one direction, forwards, otherwise we're equivocating when we're talking about it. The very idea of time working in an alternative direction doesn't even make sense.If you say so, Ham.
Quote:What is an MP/MT conversion?
The rule by which any modus ponens can be converted to a modus tollens and vv. Whereby, "If P then Q" is mechanically equivalent to "If not Q then Not P"
So, "If a ship will sink tonight, there will be a report in the morning" -or- "If there will not be a report in the morning, a ship will not sink tonight". Both statements are sensible. If one statement is valid and true, then the other must be equally so....notice that the first is an implication of orthodox causality..the other, retro-causality.
-Alot- of ink has been spilled on this one. If there is some reason for accepting the one statement but not the other, and their attendant implications..it's not made apparent by either's relative sensibility. We have to refer to other propositions for a justification..which you did, two of them, as much as you'd like to imagine you didn't. Mind you, I'm not telling you that you're wrong in either of those additional qualifiers...simply explaining that it is those things by which you (and pretty much every one else) rejects bi-directionality of cause in-time....but in doing so it does call into question some of the rules by which we handle material implications and the sensibility of propositions or perhaps even the applicability of natural language to conditional logic.
In sum, we intuitively recognize that there's an issue with the second proposition..but what is it? Further, if there is a problem with the second proposition then it must carry back over to the first in transposition...but that;s the one that we intuitively recognize to accurately describe causality as we know it. Trouble, trouble.
I am the Infantry. I am my country’s strength in war, her deterrent in peace. I am the heart of the fight… wherever, whenever. I carry America’s faith and honor against her enemies. I am the Queen of Battle. I am what my country expects me to be, the best trained Soldier in the world. In the race for victory, I am swift, determined, and courageous, armed with a fierce will to win. Never will I fail my country’s trust. Always I fight on…through the foe, to the objective, to triumph overall. If necessary, I will fight to my death. By my steadfast courage, I have won more than 200 years of freedom. I yield not to weakness, to hunger, to cowardice, to fatigue, to superior odds, For I am mentally tough, physically strong, and morally straight. I forsake not, my country, my mission, my comrades, my sacred duty. I am relentless. I am always there, now and forever. I AM THE INFANTRY! FOLLOW ME!
