(June 23, 2015 at 5:38 am)robvalue Wrote: Faulty or incorrect premises is a good enough rebuttal. If it starts off with shit, you don't need to go any further.
Almost always, these things start with something either incoherent/incorrect as assumptions, or else a massive oversimplification of scientific theory. For example, "Everything has a cause." You can't write stuff like that and expect to be taken seriously. You can't apply the day to day logic we use for dealing with massive groups of matter we call "cars" and "front door keys" and apply them to quantum mechanics; especially as you approach the plank time where everything goes out the window regarding our understanding. It's literally saying, "Fuck science. This is how it is, it's really simple."
I was experiencing this with the kalam argument and the actual vs potential infinite. One rebuttal I read was that actual infinites can exist in time and space, like by taking part of some spatial object and dividing it infinitely. But then I wondered even if you could divide it infinitely. Like wouldn't it have to stop after the sub atomic level somewhere? Isn't there a place where you just can't divide anymore? I don't know what to make of the premise then.
I wish I could learn how to disect arguemnts. It would be so helpful.
