An infinite series of finite causes.

[mattbballman31]

It’s an axiom, i.e.

1. A self-evident truth that requires no proof.
2. A universally accepted principle or rule.

I don't give a rat's behind how many times you squirt the same retarded bile, no matter how many time's I've addressed this. You're a dishonest little twerp, as everyone can see. No one on these threads should take anything you say seriously. You're nothing but a pitiful troll.

IOW: it’s an assumption, regardless of accepted practice. Axioms are assumed without proof for the sake of studying the consequences that follow from them. But they remain “assumptions” nevertheless and by definition unproven. Hence the conclusions of an axiomatic-based argument cannot be proven and may well be wrong...as Aristotle found out.

Already answered this. If you're not going to address the points of contention and advance the discussion, go back and attend to cleaning your room in your mommy's basement, troll.

Have a nice day. I’m off.

Uh, don't tell me what to do. Off? What would I care, loser?

Oh, and don’t forget your meds.

And don't forget the laxatives for all the mental constipation stopped up in your retarded skull!!

[MaxVel]

Look it up yourself, you lazy sod.

Homophobe.

[shunyadragon]

Do you just pull this stuff out of your back-end? Don't you want to progress beyond your trite, disgustingly simple analyses of complex issues? Will you ever wake up and discover that you're ideas are a jumbled school of blind fish?

First, 'eternal' isn't defined. Past-eternal? Future-eternal? BOTH are against the cosmological evidence.
Second, even your vocabulary is sloppy and soaked with hopeless generalities. The possibility of an eternal universe? Possibility? Huh? Nothing is defined. Nothing is precise. One can't progress in dialogue with you. Your slippery, conniving method of communication bespeaks a disorganized and stunted mind. What KIND of possibility? What on earth are you talking about? How does this move the discussion forward? You know what else is possible? A string of fairies, hands interlocked, orbiting around all the red dwarfs in every odd-numbered galaxy in every second galactic quadrant in every galaxy, doing the "macarena" with rainbow-colored kilts. Wow. Cool. So interesting. It's possible!

Possibility is nothing but the thin veneer of a necessary condition for the methods of theoretical physics to even get started in attempting to confirm the reality, not to mention the probability, of such a fairy-tale thesis of a past-eternal multi-verse, let alone a solitary universe. There is absolutely no cosmological evidence of a multi-verse. None. Zilch. The past-eternality is our universe, let alone a multiverse, is completely out of the question ever since the BVG theorem pretty much made it disappear over night.

The only kind of eternality left on the table is Guth's eternal inflation, which needs mechanisms that have NEVER been confirmed or verified. Your mania for verification, I guess, only applies when the supernatural is on the table; but when it helps your pet theories, insecurities, biases, and prejudices, I guess treat methodology like a darn safety-blanket, and wish-fulfillment, cognitive dysfunction like an old, used pacifier. NO ONE CARES WHAT'S POSSIBLE in theoretical physics, ultimately. A cyclic universe is against so much cosmological evidence that I almost had milk coming out of my nose I was laughing so hard. Ever heard of cosmological eschatology? That probably wasn't discussed in the coloring books you peruse, or maybe it wasn't caught by that uncritical filter you have bolted onto that ideological fishing net you use like a goofy twat in your sorry excuse for a waterlogged canoe, where those block-quotes you try to catch are nothing but the drippy, moldy remnants of mistranslated and misapplied piffle that critical minds snicker at, due to the heedless fatuousness with which the subject-matter is clownishly handled.

But keep it going! See if I care! Spend your whole life in the dark. Be a rotten turkey no one will remember. Actually, I bet a lot of people on here will remember you for being the mouth-breathing schlemiel you always were on these threads.

AND ONE AMEN FROM WORLD-CLASS SCHOLAR, Dr. Dumbo Tassman. Must be so proud!

Phfffft! Splat!!! Dribble, Dribble . . .

[Tassman]

Phfffft! Splat!!! Dribble, Dribble . . .

Exactly right. It's all the bombastic, grandiloquent bluster of a blowhard.

Homophobe.

???

[mattbballman31]

Phfffft! Splat!!! Dribble, Dribble . . .

Dribble, dribble, fast break, the lane is free, shunya goes to block, not knowing he accidentally tied his shoe laces together (while lecturing everyone on how to tie their own shoes), and matt steps on shunya's fake beard, tongue out, SLAM DUNK. The crowd goes wild!!!!!

Exactly right. It's all the bombastic, grandiloquent bluster of a blowhard.

Shunya's one-man cheerleader, with no one in the stands, grabs his Pom Pons anyway!

[MaxVel]

???

You don't even know the meaning of what you said?

Look it up yourself, you lazy hypocrite!

[Tassman]

You don't even know the meaning of what you said?

Look it up yourself, you lazy hypocrite!

I'm still none the wiser. The word “sod” is “something or someone considered unpleasant or difficult” - Cambridge Dictionary. How do you get to "homophobe" from this?

[MaxVel]

I'm still none the wiser. The word “sod” is “something or someone considered unpleasant or difficult” - Cambridge Dictionary. How do you get to "homophobe" from this?

What's the origin of 'sod' in your expression "lazy sod"?

It's a shortening of 'sodomite' - you're implying that mattballman is gay, and using that implication as an insult. That's homophobic behaviour, you hypocrite.

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/sod?s=ts


[sod] Chiefly British Slang.
Spell Syllables
noun
1.
sodomite; homosexual.

[shunyadragon]

Dribble, dribble, fast break, the lane is free, shunya goes to block, not knowing he accidentally tied his shoe laces together (while lecturing everyone on how to tie their own shoes), and matt steps on shunya's fake beard, tongue out, SLAM DUNK. The crowd goes wild!!!!!



Shunya's one-man cheerleader, with no one in the stands, grabs his Pom Pons anyway!

As usual no coherent response!

[shunyadragon]

What's the origin of 'sod' in your expression "lazy sod"?

It's a shortening of 'sodomite' - you're implying that mattballman is gay, and using that implication as an insult. That's homophobic behaviour, you hypocrite.

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/sod?s=ts


[sod] Chiefly British Slang.
Spell Syllables
noun
1.
sodomite; homosexual.

Your being worse than picky. Tassman's definition is common usage. Get over it.

[MaxVel]

Your being worse than picky. Tassman's definition is common usage. Get over it.

You complaining about someone else being picky is irony at it's finest.

Matt has comprehensively shown you to be ignorant on this topic, and instead of being a true 'scientist', and learning something from someone more knowledgeable than you, all you can do is mock and insult. What a pathetic spectacle you make of yourself. It would be sad if you weren't such a self-important and pompous fool.

[mattbballman31]

A gag-reel of Tass-mania and Shunya-doggie making fools of themselves, dodging, running away, and being the intellectual cowards that they are.

In post #4, Shunya asks a stupid question that completely misunderstands 37818's point, which I point out in post #5. In post #6, Shunya swivels, predictively, into asking about the 'assumptions' of classical cosmology, not admitting his mistake, per usual. I point this out, while simultaneously answering his point that cosmological arguments have a priori premises, in post #7.

Tass comes stumbling in in post #10, spewing out his tired idiotic point that the entire argument is an argument from ignorance, that the premises are unverified, and mentions that, per contemporary physics, the universe is possibly infinite (hint: irrelevant). I argue that such arguments certainly don't commit such a fallacy in post #11, calling Tass out to carry his burden of proof regarding blanket statements about there being 'no proof' that the universe has a cause, and that his presuppositions regarding 'verification' assume epistemological scientism.

Oblivious, Tass drops my point in post #12 regarding the burden of proof and surreptitiously changes the meaning of his statement from 'there is no proof of X' to 'X is an unsubstantiated premise', which is fine, but he'll never admit that he had to do this to avoid the burden of proof. This begins Tass's fixation on 'showing' that the universe has a cause, without clarifying what 'showing' means, because if he did clarify it, it would be exposed as presupposing the same kind of presuppositions that 'verification' had.

Shunya comes barreling in to defend Tass in post #14, totally ignoring everything I said in post #7 regarding the premises being a priori, which is typical Shunya. Once caught on something, he swivels over to defending his cheerleader. Shunya then, out of left field, brings up 'falsification' and 'proving a negative': just out of nowhere, without spelling anything out. It looks like he obliviously conflated an argument from ignorance with proving a negative, but there's no way to tell. Also mentioned is the notion that scientists don't 'prove' anything, which would stand to reason that he would help Tass out with what Tass means by 'show' or 'verify', or how proof is related to falsification, but nothing is explained beyond this.

Then, Shunya does what Shunya does best and quotes a block-quote regarding the possibility of a cyclic universe, which Tass 'amens', of course. In post #19, I respond to Shunya's strange disassociation of 'proof' from 'falsification', and demand how he can have one without the other with the way he's using the terms. Then, I directly interact with Shunya's block-quote, arguing that the quote actually uses the word 'proven', when Shunya just said that science doesn't prove anything. And . . . Shunya, of course, drops this point, because he's a coward.

In post #18, I respond to Tass by pointing out how he didn't acknowledge that he misappropriated the argument from ignorance. And after a brief lesson on how Tass seems oblivious as to how the burden of proof works in the context of a debate-discussion, I give him a quoted example of his failure, and show that for the discussion to continue he either has to carry the burden that follows from how he's phrasing his assertions or go away. In post #27, he tries to save his misappropriation of the argument from ignorance by picking on Aquinas' Argument from Motion (with no link or no attempt to articulate it with any kind of charity) by, once again, assuming that Aquinas is relying on a principle of induction (which he doesn't), and without explaining why induction couldn't serve as an adequate explanation for extracting a probabilistic inference that would be sufficient to demonstrate his point. Another favorite tactic Tass decides to finally pull is just throwing out the 'quantum card', like it undercuts any and everything any philosopher has ever argued (it doesn't). Next, he shifts his application of the 'argument from ignorance' canard from Aquinas' arguments regarding Motion to the premise that a past-eternal series of events is impossible. The philosophical literature that has been written on reasons and arguments for this premise are legion, and Tass has no excuse for making such a blanket statement that nothing, in the history of western philosophy, has ever been written on such a premise. Finally, Tass (because he's a coward and knows I caught him) drops my points regarding the burden of proof and productive debate protocol by calling it 'obnoxious crap'.

In post #25, I gave Tass a hint that Aquinas' argument doesn't rely on inductive generalization at all, and began my ageless, numerous requests for Tass to provide (or, at least, admit) the methodologies that metaphysicians use to justify knowledge of a priori premises or demonstrate the truth of premises, hoping I could at least be productive here (by showing that physicists and metaphysicians use different methodologies because the scope and nature of their subject-matter is subject to different kinds of analysis). I also asked (once again) how Aquinas committed the argument from ignorance, because Aquinas (and scholastic metaphysicians since) provide reason and argument justifying their premises. And no where does Aquinas even come close to stating that X is true 'because' X hasn't been proven false. I defy him to find this!

Post #26 is the first time that the demarcation problem is brought up, and neither Tass nor Shunya ever so much as mention it. In Tass's response to 37818 in post #23, Tass begins his utterly repetitive dogma that premises in metaphysical arguments are 'axiomatic' that can't be 'shown to be true', even though later Tass will idiotically qualify this by arguing that even though such premises are 'axiomatic' and 'can't be shown to be true', they're also 'known apart from evidence', but we'll get to that in a moment. In response, I clearly stated that such premises aren't 'shown' to be true using the methodologies of the sciences (something I'll say so many times in a row that one wonders if Tass is actually mentally handicapped or just an obnoxious troll). I ask, 'again', that Tass provide me the methodologies that metaphysicians use in their work.

In post #29, Tass then merely mocks my point that Aquinas didn't engage in inductive generalization in his argument from motion. That's his modus operandi. Tass, again, makes his tired claim that only science can demonstrate 'verifiable truth' 'as per fact or reality' (hard words, all four of them). But I thought we made a breakthrough, because Tass FINALLY admits that he needs to be educated on what the methodologies that metaphysicians use are. Finally. But before I get to where Tass goes off the rails, I'll make the point that Tass (even after I pointed out that Aquinas didn't use inductive generalization, that Aquinas never made the argument that an infinite regress of motion is impossible 'because' it has never been proven to be possible), Tass sadly and pathetically just 'repeats' a premise Aquinas used, and 'repeats' his accusation that it's guilty of the argument from ignorance.

Now, because Tass 'asked me' to educate him in post #29, I took the time to educate him in post #33, and this is where it fell apart. Tass wanted to be educated on what the methodologies of metaphysicians were (I provided 12). I went the extra mile and articulated characteristics of such methodologies, gave an example from the literature on how there was metaphysical progress with causal concepts (just in the last few hundred years or so). I went further and went over the demarcation problem to show that no fast and loose demand to the metaphysician that the metaphysician 'show' or 'verify' or 'falsify' something would be necessary or sufficient to qualify as science in the first place. I articulated the complexities involved in your language, trying to show you that if you cared anything for the truth, you'd want to take that chip off your shoulder and actually discuss philosophy of science. I provided a three-step argument for the conclusion that epistemological scientism is self-referentially incoherent, which 'showed' that your demand that the philosopher 'show' or 'verify' in the specific way that scientists show or verify would completely undercut the practice of science or admit the possibility of metaphysical methodologies. On top of all this, I corrected you 'again' on why Aquinas isn't guilty of the argument from ignorance, which you dropped for a while, before bringing it up again later.

And what is Tass's brilliant response to my willing to 'educate' Tass on the issues, because Tass asked me to? Well, in post #34, all he does is quote my entire, detailed explanation, and (rather than take the time to read it or interact with a point of contention to make progress in the discussion) just REPEATS the question he had before the post: "Where’s the bit that demonstrates how the premise for a metaphysical deductive argument can be verified as true?" This is why Tass is either dishonest or a troll. A productive response would have quoted the relevant part of my post and shown how precisely it didn't answer this question. He didn't do that because he is a lazy idiot. I had to laugh at his lecture on the distinction between validity/soundness because it just came out of left field. Then it dawned on me. Tass actually believes that you need scientific methodologies to demonstrate the truth of any premise in a deductive argument for it to be sound, which is the most ludicrous, idiotic thing I've heard on these forums so far. This just demonstrates that Tass is nothing but a intellectual poser with an obnoxious script with absolutely no desire to get at the truth of anything.

Where did we go from here? Well, Chrawnus laughed at your non-response. I was nearly done with you. Seer saw right through your dishonesty. And who came out of nowhere (predictively!) to your defense? None other than Shunya, who called it a "long rambling loosely connected sound bites.", in post #38. But this was okay, because this post actually proves that Shunya is also either a lying troll or a mental midget. I know this because he goes on to say that I ignored falsification (I didn't), and in saying this either ignored or doesn't understand the demarcation problem. Seer saw right through this as well.

Then, we get Tass's response to Shunya, calling me "a verbose, obscurantist fraud." Chrawnus saw right through this. More proof that Tass is a complete liar with no desire to critically interact with anything argued, no desire to seek the truth, and every desire to troll Christians because he has an immature axe to grind against anything religious. Post #44 was VERY revealing because we get a glimpse into why Tass thinks as he does: he's stuck in the early to mid 20th century, quoting Wittgenstein on the utility of metaphysics seeming OBLIVIOUS about everything that has happened in 20th and 21st century philosophy since his time. I point this out in post #45 and all he has to say (because he doesn't have an answer and he knows it) is that it's a "predictable, rambling, evasive response of a blowhard!" Cool. Tass then REPEATS Shunya's ignorance by noting that I don't mention falsification (I did), but then brings in 'testability' (which I also mentioned). Testing predictions and standards of verification were all mentioned as being candidates for science in the demarcation problem (which he ignores). I tell him to read #33 (I know he didn't) . . . .

. . . . but in post #48, he pulls out a deceptive debating tactic by accusing me of running away from the issue if I insist that Tass go read #33. This puts me back in the driver's seat to somehow try to explain to him his error 'even more' while at the same time, trying not to type too much (because he's not worth my time).

Then began a series of Tass-evasions, mocking my credentials, lying about #33, and in post #56, all Tass can do at this point is REPEAT his points about falsification, like a dysfunctioning robot, and label #33 a "buried deep in that mess of pottage". Shunya chimes in at #58 with mere blanket assertions about my lack of credentials because he's been completely disarmed of his ability to write incoherent crap or quote irrelevant block-quotes. And reduces everything that was said to a "continuous ridicule of acrid obfuscations", unable to to understand that the ridicule was totally deserved and that it wasn't just ridicule.

In post #60, I SHOW that post #33 wasn't a 'mess of pottage', and in #61 I SHOW that Shunya is a complete idiot for assuming I had no credentials in the area. What's Shunya's response to #60? That I'm a "#@$!%%^^&&*!". That's the intellectual caliber of Shunya, right there. All it was was "Tweets, sound bites, and smiley faces". Yep, that's it, you lying scumbag! And what's Tass's response to #60? In #67, Tass provides the brilliant rebuttal that it's 'empty bluster' and REPEATS again his points regarding 'showing' with his absurd IEP link.

Seer tries to bring Shunya to reason by mentioning the demarcation problem in #69, but Shunya COMPLETELY IGNORES it. Why? He's a lying scumbag, that's why. In #84, I ATTEMPT to make progress by getting Tass to specify what he means by 'show', so I can draw his attention to his scientistic presuppositions. And in #87, Tass ignores the question and REPEATS his canard, and in #99, I ASKED AGAIN (with seer noting how obstinate Tass is in #101). In #104, you REPEAT it again, and accuse MY QUESTION of being a semantic argument (huh?). I ask AGAIN in #107.

Finally, in #110, you give me a little something: "a premise to a metaphysical argument can only be based upon an 'axiom', which is defined as: “a self-evident truth that requires no proof”, i.e. an assumption.", that "metaphysics cannot, generate new truths.". In #111, I tried to get you to specify how you wanted me to go about addressing these points so as to maximize productivity. Oh, and I corrected your fixation on Aristotle (I mean, seriously is Aristotle the only darn philosopher that has ever existed?).

And . . . #121 was the straw that broke the camel's back. Tass AGAIN, REPEATS his 'show point', the 'Aristotle point', the 'science is X' point, 'can't generate new truths point', etc . . .

In #123, I demonstrated that Tass is without excuses. I provided CLEAR examples from models of explanation that utilize methodologies that consist of scientific and non-scientific overlap. CLEAR. I showed how metaphysical arguments, along with deductive-nomological models of explanation, utilize universal generalizations, and I demonstrated that the methodologies that go to justify acceptance of such generalizations are either wrong in science and metaphysics or right in science and metaphysics. And I applied all of this to Kalam, to the first premise, and to the philosophical arguments demonstrating the metaphysical impossibility of an actual infinite, DEMONSTRATING that metaphysics can generate new truth about reality. You have no answer to this. And you further demonstrated a childish unwillingness to deal with the demarcation problem! --------- And in #126, all TASS does is REPEATS his points regarding testability and falsification, REPEATS his argument from ignorance mania (It's not!: and in #131, all Tass can do is repeat it again!, and thinks it helps his case to just define it! ), IGNORING the demarcation problem AGAIN, calling #123 "self-justifying bluster". In #127, I REPEAT my rebuttals to all these points, and Tass dishonestly just uses the same points as fodder for responding to 37818.

Bottom Line: Tass and Shunya are lying scumbags.

[Tassman]

A gag-reel of Tass-mania and Shunya-doggie making fools of themselves, dodging, running away, and being the intellectual cowards that they are.

In post #4, Shunya asks a stupid question that completely misunderstands 37818's point, which I point out in post #5. In post #6, Shunya swivels, predictively, into asking about the 'assumptions' of classical cosmology, not admitting his mistake, per usual. I point this out, while simultaneously answering his point that cosmological arguments have a priori premises, in post #7.

Tass comes stumbling in in post #10, spewing out his tired idiotic point that the entire argument is an argument from ignorance, that the premises are unverified, and mentions that, per contemporary physics, the universe is possibly infinite (hint: irrelevant). I argue that such arguments certainly don't commit such a fallacy in post #11, calling Tass out to carry his burden of proof regarding blanket statements about there being 'no proof' that the universe has a cause, and that his presuppositions regarding 'verification' assume epistemological scientism.

Oblivious, Tass drops my point in post #12 regarding the burden of proof and surreptitiously changes the meaning of his statement from 'there is no proof of X' to 'X is an unsubstantiated premise', which is fine, but he'll never admit that he had to do this to avoid the burden of proof. This begins Tass's fixation on 'showing' that the universe has a cause, without clarifying what 'showing' means, because if he did clarify it, it would be exposed as presupposing the same kind of presuppositions that 'verification' had.

Shunya comes barreling in to defend Tass in post #14, totally ignoring everything I said in post #7 regarding the premises being a priori, which is typical Shunya. Once caught on something, he swivels over to defending his cheerleader. Shunya then, out of left field, brings up 'falsification' and 'proving a negative': just out of nowhere, without spelling anything out. It looks like he obliviously conflated an argument from ignorance with proving a negative, but there's no way to tell. Also mentioned is the notion that scientists don't 'prove' anything, which would stand to reason that he would help Tass out with what Tass means by 'show' or 'verify', or how proof is related to falsification, but nothing is explained beyond this.

Then, Shunya does what Shunya does best and quotes a block-quote regarding the possibility of a cyclic universe, which Tass 'amens', of course. In post #19, I respond to Shunya's strange disassociation of 'proof' from 'falsification', and demand how he can have one without the other with the way he's using the terms. Then, I directly interact with Shunya's block-quote, arguing that the quote actually uses the word 'proven', when Shunya just said that science doesn't prove anything. And . . . Shunya, of course, drops this point, because he's a coward.

In post #18, I respond to Tass by pointing out how he didn't acknowledge that he misappropriated the argument from ignorance. And after a brief lesson on how Tass seems oblivious as to how the burden of proof works in the context of a debate-discussion, I give him a quoted example of his failure, and show that for the discussion to continue he either has to carry the burden that follows from how he's phrasing his assertions or go away. In post #27, he tries to save his misappropriation of the argument from ignorance by picking on Aquinas' Argument from Motion (with no link or no attempt to articulate it with any kind of charity) by, once again, assuming that Aquinas is relying on a principle of induction (which he doesn't), and without explaining why induction couldn't serve as an adequate explanation for extracting a probabilistic inference that would be sufficient to demonstrate his point. Another favorite tactic Tass decides to finally pull is just throwing out the 'quantum card', like it undercuts any and everything any philosopher has ever argued (it doesn't). Next, he shifts his application of the 'argument from ignorance' canard from Aquinas' arguments regarding Motion to the premise that a past-eternal series of events is impossible. The philosophical literature that has been written on reasons and arguments for this premise are legion, and Tass has no excuse for making such a blanket statement that nothing, in the history of western philosophy, has ever been written on such a premise. Finally, Tass (because he's a coward and knows I caught him) drops my points regarding the burden of proof and productive debate protocol by calling it 'obnoxious crap'.

In post #25, I gave Tass a hint that Aquinas' argument doesn't rely on inductive generalization at all, and began my ageless, numerous requests for Tass to provide (or, at least, admit) the methodologies that metaphysicians use to justify knowledge of a priori premises or demonstrate the truth of premises, hoping I could at least be productive here (by showing that physicists and metaphysicians use different methodologies because the scope and nature of their subject-matter is subject to different kinds of analysis). I also asked (once again) how Aquinas committed the argument from ignorance, because Aquinas (and scholastic metaphysicians since) provide reason and argument justifying their premises. And no where does Aquinas even come close to stating that X is true 'because' X hasn't been proven false. I defy him to find this!

Post #26 is the first time that the demarcation problem is brought up, and neither Tass nor Shunya ever so much as mention it. In Tass's response to 37818 in post #23, Tass begins his utterly repetitive dogma that premises in metaphysical arguments are 'axiomatic' that can't be 'shown to be true', even though later Tass will idiotically qualify this by arguing that even though such premises are 'axiomatic' and 'can't be shown to be true', they're also 'known apart from evidence', but we'll get to that in a moment. In response, I clearly stated that such premises aren't 'shown' to be true using the methodologies of the sciences (something I'll say so many times in a row that one wonders if Tass is actually mentally handicapped or just an obnoxious troll). I ask, 'again', that Tass provide me the methodologies that metaphysicians use in their work.

In post #29, Tass then merely mocks my point that Aquinas didn't engage in inductive generalization in his argument from motion. That's his modus operandi. Tass, again, makes his tired claim that only science can demonstrate 'verifiable truth' 'as per fact or reality' (hard words, all four of them). But I thought we made a breakthrough, because Tass FINALLY admits that he needs to be educated on what the methodologies that metaphysicians use are. Finally. But before I get to where Tass goes off the rails, I'll make the point that Tass (even after I pointed out that Aquinas didn't use inductive generalization, that Aquinas never made the argument that an infinite regress of motion is impossible 'because' it has never been proven to be possible), Tass sadly and pathetically just 'repeats' a premise Aquinas used, and 'repeats' his accusation that it's guilty of the argument from ignorance.

Now, because Tass 'asked me' to educate him in post #29, I took the time to educate him in post #33, and this is where it fell apart. Tass wanted to be educated on what the methodologies of metaphysicians were (I provided 12). I went the extra mile and articulated characteristics of such methodologies, gave an example from the literature on how there was metaphysical progress with causal concepts (just in the last few hundred years or so). I went further and went over the demarcation problem to show that no fast and loose demand to the metaphysician that the metaphysician 'show' or 'verify' or 'falsify' something would be necessary or sufficient to qualify as science in the first place. I articulated the complexities involved in your language, trying to show you that if you cared anything for the truth, you'd want to take that chip off your shoulder and actually discuss philosophy of science. I provided a three-step argument for the conclusion that epistemological scientism is self-referentially incoherent, which 'showed' that your demand that the philosopher 'show' or 'verify' in the specific way that scientists show or verify would completely undercut the practice of science or admit the possibility of metaphysical methodologies. On top of all this, I corrected you 'again' on why Aquinas isn't guilty of the argument from ignorance, which you dropped for a while, before bringing it up again later.

And what is Tass's brilliant response to my willing to 'educate' Tass on the issues, because Tass asked me to? Well, in post #34, all he does is quote my entire, detailed explanation, and (rather than take the time to read it or interact with a point of contention to make progress in the discussion) just REPEATS the question he had before the post: "Where’s the bit that demonstrates how the premise for a metaphysical deductive argument can be verified as true?" This is why Tass is either dishonest or a troll. A productive response would have quoted the relevant part of my post and shown how precisely it didn't answer this question. He didn't do that because he is a lazy idiot. I had to laugh at his lecture on the distinction between validity/soundness because it just came out of left field. Then it dawned on me. Tass actually believes that you need scientific methodologies to demonstrate the truth of any premise in a deductive argument for it to be sound, which is the most ludicrous, idiotic thing I've heard on these forums so far. This just demonstrates that Tass is nothing but a intellectual poser with an obnoxious script with absolutely no desire to get at the truth of anything.

Where did we go from here? Well, Chrawnus laughed at your non-response. I was nearly done with you. Seer saw right through your dishonesty. And who came out of nowhere (predictively!) to your defense? None other than Shunya, who called it a "long rambling loosely connected sound bites.", in post #38. But this was okay, because this post actually proves that Shunya is also either a lying troll or a mental midget. I know this because he goes on to say that I ignored falsification (I didn't), and in saying this either ignored or doesn't understand the demarcation problem. Seer saw right through this as well.

Then, we get Tass's response to Shunya, calling me "a verbose, obscurantist fraud." Chrawnus saw right through this. More proof that Tass is a complete liar with no desire to critically interact with anything argued, no desire to seek the truth, and every desire to troll Christians because he has an immature axe to grind against anything religious. Post #44 was VERY revealing because we get a glimpse into why Tass thinks as he does: he's stuck in the early to mid 20th century, quoting Wittgenstein on the utility of metaphysics seeming OBLIVIOUS about everything that has happened in 20th and 21st century philosophy since his time. I point this out in post #45 and all he has to say (because he doesn't have an answer and he knows it) is that it's a "predictable, rambling, evasive response of a blowhard!" Cool. Tass then REPEATS Shunya's ignorance by noting that I don't mention falsification (I did), but then brings in 'testability' (which I also mentioned). Testing predictions and standards of verification were all mentioned as being candidates for science in the demarcation problem (which he ignores). I tell him to read #33 (I know he didn't) . . . .

. . . . but in post #48, he pulls out a deceptive debating tactic by accusing me of running away from the issue if I insist that Tass go read #33. This puts me back in the driver's seat to somehow try to explain to him his error 'even more' while at the same time, trying not to type too much (because he's not worth my time).

Then began a series of Tass-evasions, mocking my credentials, lying about #33, and in post #56, all Tass can do at this point is REPEAT his points about falsification, like a dysfunctioning robot, and label #33 a "buried deep in that mess of pottage". Shunya chimes in at #58 with mere blanket assertions about my lack of credentials because he's been completely disarmed of his ability to write incoherent crap or quote irrelevant block-quotes. And reduces everything that was said to a "continuous ridicule of acrid obfuscations", unable to to understand that the ridicule was totally deserved and that it wasn't just ridicule.

In post #60, I SHOW that post #33 wasn't a 'mess of pottage', and in #61 I SHOW that Shunya is a complete idiot for assuming I had no credentials in the area. What's Shunya's response to #60? That I'm a "#@$!%%^^&&*!". That's the intellectual caliber of Shunya, right there. All it was was "Tweets, sound bites, and smiley faces". Yep, that's it, you lying scumbag! And what's Tass's response to #60? In #67, Tass provides the brilliant rebuttal that it's 'empty bluster' and REPEATS again his points regarding 'showing' with his absurd IEP link.

Seer tries to bring Shunya to reason by mentioning the demarcation problem in #69, but Shunya COMPLETELY IGNORES it. Why? He's a lying scumbag, that's why. In #84, I ATTEMPT to make progress by getting Tass to specify what he means by 'show', so I can draw his attention to his scientistic presuppositions. And in #87, Tass ignores the question and REPEATS his canard, and in #99, I ASKED AGAIN (with seer noting how obstinate Tass is in #101). In #104, you REPEAT it again, and accuse MY QUESTION of being a semantic argument (huh?). I ask AGAIN in #107.

Finally, in #110, you give me a little something: "a premise to a metaphysical argument can only be based upon an 'axiom', which is defined as: “a self-evident truth that requires no proof”, i.e. an assumption.", that "metaphysics cannot, generate new truths.". In #111, I tried to get you to specify how you wanted me to go about addressing these points so as to maximize productivity. Oh, and I corrected your fixation on Aristotle (I mean, seriously is Aristotle the only darn philosopher that has ever existed?).

And . . . #121 was the straw that broke the camel's back. Tass AGAIN, REPEATS his 'show point', the 'Aristotle point', the 'science is X' point, 'can't generate new truths point', etc . . .

In #123, I demonstrated that Tass is without excuses. I provided CLEAR examples from models of explanation that utilize methodologies that consist of scientific and non-scientific overlap. CLEAR. I showed how metaphysical arguments, along with deductive-nomological models of explanation, utilize universal generalizations, and I demonstrated that the methodologies that go to justify acceptance of such generalizations are either wrong in science and metaphysics or right in science and metaphysics. And I applied all of this to Kalam, to the first premise, and to the philosophical arguments demonstrating the metaphysical impossibility of an actual infinite, DEMONSTRATING that metaphysics can generate new truth about reality. You have no answer to this. And you further demonstrated a childish unwillingness to deal with the demarcation problem! --------- And in #126, all TASS does is REPEATS his points regarding testability and falsification, REPEATS his argument from ignorance mania (It's not!: and in #131, all Tass can do is repeat it again!, and thinks it helps his case to just define it! ), IGNORING the demarcation problem AGAIN, calling #123 "self-justifying bluster". In #127, I REPEAT my rebuttals to all these points, and Tass dishonestly just uses the same points as fodder for responding to 37818.

Bottom Line: Tass and Shunya are lying scumbags.

What a load of pretentions crap.

The so-called “demarcation problem” tells you nothing. It is merely the philosophical problem of determining what types of hypotheses should be considered scientific and what types should be considered non-scientific. This is one of the problems for the philosophy of science and it has never been properly resolved. In general, hypotheses must be falsifiable, consistent, and reproducible to be verified as true. Something an axiomatic premise such as we have in a metaphysical argument cannot do. Axioms are assumed without proof by metaphysicians for the sake of studying the consequences that follow from them and are useful as far as they go. But they remain “assumptions” nevertheless and by definition unproven. Hence, nor can the conclusions be shown to be true a consequence.

I eagerly await your next 20 paragraph snow job; you seem to think, erroneously, that lots of words and mockery make your argument right.

[mattbballman31]

What a load of pretentions crap.

You're a load of pretentious crap!

The so-called “demarcation problem” tells you nothing. It is merely the philosophical problem of determining what types of hypotheses should be considered scientific and what types should be considered non-scientific. This is one of the problems for the philosophy of science and it has never been properly resolved.

Wrong! Stop visiting RationalWiki and actually do some real homework. It doesn't have to do with the hypotheses, numbskull; it has to do with the methodology of formulating and confirming a hypothesis as a theory or a law. You're so dumb. And, as usual, you missed the point, idiot. Your CONSTANT plea that I 'show', or that I need to 'verify', or that I need to 'test', or that I need to 'falsify' a premise, not just in order for it to be demonstrated or confirmed, but in order for that methodology to qualify as science, IS TO BEG THE WHOLE QUESTION OF WHAT METHODOLOGIES COUNT AS SCIENTIFIC OR NOT, and BEGS THE WHOLE QUESTION REGARDING WHETHER THERE ARE OTHER METHODOLOGIES THAT 'show', or 'verify', or 'demonstrate' IN THEIR OWN WAY, RELATIVE TO THEIR OWN METHODOLOGY, within the scope of the particular discipline.

As I already said in post #33, any defense or rejection of something as scientific or unscientific respectively requires a definition of science, and there are no universal necessary and sufficient criteria in the offing for this purpose.

I've said this four billion times, and you've never responded. You just keep repeating your main point over and over and over again. This is too easy to see through!

In general, hypotheses must be falsifiable, consistent, and reproducible to be verified as true.

NO, TASS! Falsifiability has been SHOWN to NOT be necessary nor sufficient for scientific methodologies (the same goes for testability!). WILL YOU RESPOND TO THIS?

Consistency is stupidly broad! Am I doing science when I consistently draw a darn cartoon?

And I'VE ALREADY MENTIONED REPRODUCIBILITY! Some sciences study repeatable phenomena; some do not (the historical sciences that study unobservable, unrepeatable singularities!). WILL YOU RESPOND TO THIS, you lazy scumbag?

Something an axiomatic premise such as we have in a metaphysical argument cannot do.

And as I JUST demonstrated (AGAIN), an axiomatic premise DOESN'T HAVE TO in order to generate new truths about reality (WHICH YOU STILL HAVEN'T DEFINED). The premise just has to be a universal generalization, substantiated by the methodologies of a priori metaphysics and the methodologies a part of the deductive-nomological model of explanation in the context of the covering-law model of explanation, and is completely sync with the realist, causal model of explanation (WHICH YOU'VE IGNORED).

Axioms are assumed without proof by metaphysicians for the sake of studying the consequences that follow from them and are useful as far as they go.

Blatant lie that I've corrected you on numerously. The methodologies I've given you thousands of times imply, BY DEFINITION, that the axioms are NOT assumed without proof (and you haven't defined proof; there are MANY times when scientists postulate hypotheses, not because they have direct proof, but because they fulfill various criteria of hypothesis acceptance!).

But they remain “assumptions” nevertheless and by definition unproven. Hence, nor can the conclusions be shown to be true a consequence.

Tell me, Mr. Smarty Pants. Does the Special Theory of Relativity have any unproven assumptions? DON'T EVADE. ANSWER THE QUESTION.

I eagerly await your next 20 paragraph snow job; you seem to think, erroneously, that lots of words and mockery make your argument right.

I know you're not taking any of this seriously, you pathetic scumbag. That's why I'm not doing it for you.

[Tassman]

Wrong! Stop visiting RationalWiki and actually do some real homework. It doesn't have to do with the hypotheses, numbskull; it has to do with the methodology of formulating and confirming a hypothesis as a theory or a law. You're so dumb. And, as usual, you missed the point, idiot. Your CONSTANT plea that I 'show', or that I need to 'verify', or that I need to 'test', or that I need to 'falsify' a premise, not just in order for it to be demonstrated or confirmed, but in order for that methodology to qualify as science, IS TO BEG THE WHOLE QUESTION OF WHAT METHODOLOGIES COUNT AS SCIENTIFIC OR NOT,

Do you REALLY think that working scientists have doubts as to what qualifies as scientific or not? I'm pretty sure they don’t. Only pseudo-scientists such as creation-scientists care about blurring the distinction between real science and pseudoscience in order to teach their myths in schools and pursue their own religious agenda e.g. re climate change.

and BEGS THE WHOLE QUESTION REGARDING WHETHER THERE ARE OTHER METHODOLOGIES THAT 'show', or 'verify', or 'demonstrate' IN THEIR OWN WAY, RELATIVE TO THEIR OWN METHODOLOGY, within the scope of the particular discipline.

Who cares “WHAT “OTHER METHODOLOGIES 'show', or 'verify', or 'demonstrate' IN THEIR OWN WAY, RELATIVE TO THEIR OWN METHODOLOGY, within the scope of the particular discipline?” LOL. None of them can be shown to be true in practical terms, only bona-fide science can put a man on the moon.

NO, TASS! Falsifiability has been SHOWN to NOT be necessary nor sufficient for scientific methodologies (the same goes for testability!). WILL YOU RESPOND TO THIS?

Shown by whom?

And as I JUST demonstrated (AGAIN), an axiomatic premise DOESN'T HAVE TO in order to generate new truths about reality (WHICH YOU STILL HAVEN'T DEFINED). The premise just has to be a universal generalization, substantiated by the methodologies of a priori metaphysics and the methodologies a part of the deductive-nomological model of explanation in the context of the covering-law model of explanation, and is completely sync with the realist, causal model of explanation (WHICH YOU'VE IGNORED).

Nonsense! What “new truths” did Aristotle generate from his assumed premises that reality consisted of just four elements...or that the cosmos consisted of “celestial spheres? None! Because his assumed premises were wrong...and it took science to show that they were wrong. IOW Metaphysical premises DO "have to be correct in order to generate new facts about reality".

Blatant lie that I've corrected you on numerously. The methodologies I've given you thousands of times imply, BY DEFINITION, that the axioms are NOT assumed without proof (and you haven't defined proof; there are MANY times when scientists postulate hypotheses, not because they have direct proof, but because they fulfill various criteria of hypothesis acceptance!).

See four elements and celestial spheres above.

Tell me, Mr. Smarty Pants. Does the Special Theory of Relativity have any unproven assumptions? DON'T EVADE. ANSWER THE QUESTION.

No scientific theory can be proven, it can only be disproven. Neither of Einstein’s theories of Relativity has been disproven in over a century of rigorous testing. So there is good reason to consider them true and they have had important consequences in modern science.

https://www.theguardian.com/science/...ivity-alok-jha

I know you're not taking any of this seriously, you pathetic scumbag. That's why I'm not doing it for you.

I know, it's for the untold masses hanging on your every word.