toby-c-boon wrote:
I AM ALL I AM wrote:
G'day Toby-c-boon..
Interesting response that you have made to Boots here.
toby-c-boon wrote:
Boots wrote:
Isn't time just a man made construct? As i understand it time can loop back on it's self hence there really isn't a concept of time as we know it, on that bases there is no end and answers are obtained on the journey not the end.
Time is a man made construct is it? Can you name the man who made it?
This part is a straw man argument. Simply because someone could not name the individual "who made it" does not mean that it isn't man made. For instance, could you name the individual that came up with the English language ?
If you can't, does that mean that the English language isn't man made ?
toby-c-boon wrote:
You could argue that humans are here to experience and mark time but you are trying to day if humans were not here the linear timeline would dissolve, this is not the case.
This appears to be another straw man argument. From having read Boots' post, he hasn't stated that "the linear timeline would dissolve" as far as I can see.
Also, the "You could argue ..." part is pointless, unless it is you that is making such a claim, for again, Boots did not post any such thing, and therefore, if you are not claiming such, then it is a straw man argument.
toby-c-boon wrote:
Your argument that there is no end because it begins again holds no weight, no matter which way you look at it, the end still comes. There is no way you can answer every question during the "journey", if you can then start a thread like this and prove it. You cant because it is beyond the capability of a human.
Boots actually proposed that there isn't an end as time loops back around on itself, not that "it begins again". There would have to an ending for it to begin again.
You are also attempting to switch the burden of proof. As you are declaring that there is 'time', then the burden of proof would be upon you, the one affirming it. After all, it is a logical fallacy believing that you can disprove a negative. For instance, how could you prove that there are no unicorns ?
This is also known as an argument from ignorance.
Argument from ignorance, also known as
argumentum ad ignorantiam or "
appeal to ignorance" (where "ignorance" stands for: "lack of evidence to the contrary"), is a fallacy in informal logic.
It asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false, it is "generally accepted" (or vice versa). This represents a type of false dichotomy in that it excludes a third option, which is that there is insufficient investigation and therefore insufficient information to prove the proposition satisfactorily to be either true or false. Nor does it allow the admission that the choices may in fact not be two (true or false), but may be as many as four, (1) true, (2) false, (3) unknown between true or false, and (4) being unknowable (among the first three).[1] In debates,
appeals to ignorance are sometimes used to shift the burden of proof.
Curious how you left out the definition of "straw man argument" seen as I have not used one.
G'day Toby-c-boon.
And how does equating having "left out the definition of "straw man arguments"" to you "not having used one" ?
That in itself is a straw man argument, of which a quote of the definition for it is here ...
A straw man, known in the UK as an Aunt Sally, is a type of argument and is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position.[1] To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by replacing it with a superficially similar yet unequivalent proposition (the "straw man"), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position.
...
The straw man fallacy occurs in the following pattern of argument:
1. Person A has position X.
2. Person B disregards certain key points of X and instead presents the superficially similar position Y. The position Y is a distorted version of X and can be set up in several ways, including:
1. Presenting a misrepresentation of the opponent's position.
2. Quoting an opponent's words out of context — i.e. choosing quotations that misrepresent the opponent's actual intentions (see fallacy of quoting out of context).[2]
3. Presenting someone who defends a position poorly as the defender, then refuting that person's arguments — thus giving the appearance that every upholder of that position (and thus the position itself) has been defeated.[1]
4. Inventing a fictitious persona with actions or beliefs which are then criticized, implying that the person represents a group of whom the speaker is critical.
5. Oversimplifying an opponent's argument, then attacking this oversimplified version.
3. Person B attacks position Y, concluding that X is false/incorrect/flawed.
This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because attacking a distorted version of a position fails to constitute an attack on the actual position.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man
toby-c-boon wrote:
In the end you will know everything, that was the answer to the poster's first question. Said poster then wanted to argue that there is no such thing as "the end" and you want to accuse me of moving goal posts?
So, by making the statement, "In the end ...", you are making a positive claim that there is an "end", yet when questioned on the validity of such a thing as "the end", you are unwilling to provide evidence to support your claim and simply repeat your claim AS IF it can be the only answer ... yet on top of arguing from ignorance by attempting to shift the burden of proof, you add a straw man to defend your position. 
toby-c-boon wrote:
Without the end there can be no beginning and without the beginning there will be no end. How can you have difficulty with that from a human perspective.
A reminder of what Boots stated ...
Boots wrote:
Isn't time just a man made construct? As i understand it time can loop back on it's self hence there really isn't a concept of time as we know it, on that bases there is no end and answers are obtained on the journey not the end.
Your argument that there is no end because it begins again holds no weight, no matter which way you look at it, the end still comes. There is no way you can answer every question during the "journey", if you can then start a thread like this and prove it. You cant because it is beyond the capability of a human.
... and which I replied with ...
"Boots actually proposed that there isn't an end as time loops back around on itself, not that "it begins again". There would have to an ending for it to begin again."
So, yeah, no "end" means there wouldn't be a beginning, of which you stated, "Your argument that there is no end because it begins holds no weight ...", makes no sense as you now state, "Without the end there can be no beginning ...".
As is clearly shown, you falsely presented Boots statement. Where's the difficulty in comprehending that ?
Or is it only in admitting it ?
toby-c-boon wrote:
Is the poster trying to say that they see the fractal nature of the God's dream as a going concearn?
If not then their argument is of no practical value.
Boots stated what he stated, nothing more, nothing less. Instead of responding to what Boots actually has stated, you have built a straw man argument.
I find it interesting that you appear to not like being questioned about the statements that you make, yet have started a thread requesting questions ?!?!?!?
Personally, I think that it is rather ironic. 
