Turtles all the way down. Any logical problem?

[Speakpigeon]

Turtles all the way down. Any logical problem?

That is to say, let's assume each event in the past has been caused by a prior event. What would be the logical problem with this?
EB

 

[Underseer]

Turtles all the way down. Any logical problem?

That is to say, let's assume each event in the past has been caused by a prior event. What would be the logical problem with this?
EB

You tell us.

Is this your version of William Lane Craig's argument that infinity is impossible?

 

[Speakpigeon]

Turtles all the way down. Any logical problem?

That is to say, let's assume each event in the past has been caused by a prior event. What would be the logical problem with this?
EB

You tell us.

No.

Is this your version of William Lane Craig's argument that infinity is impossible?

You would have to explain how you could possibly have guessed!

How about just taking straightforward questions at face value? It's a reasonable question about the logic of a particular idea.

 

[Random Person]

What prior event caused this post to appear?

 

[abaddon]

What prior event caused this post to appear?

What prior event caused this post to appear?

 

[Random Person]

What prior event caused this post to appear?

What prior event caused this post to appear?

The OP.

 

[abaddon]

What prior event caused this post to appear?

What prior event caused this post to appear?

The OP.

Ok. And so?

 

[Speakpigeon]

What prior event caused this post to appear?

Derail.

There's a simple question. Don't answer it, no problem, but in this case please go try your own thread if you want to talk about something else.

If you can't for some obscure reason articulate your objections there's nothing I could do to help you.

Each event in the past has been caused by a prior event. What would be the logical problem with this idea?

Can you articulate your objection?
EB

 

[Bomb#20]

What prior event caused this post to appear?

An endless (and possibly beginningless) series of posts by a certain other TFT poster, insisting without substantive argument that there's a logical problem with it.

 

[Lion IRC]

Metaphysically possible, yes.
Otherwise....

 

[Random Person]

What prior event caused this post to appear?

Derail.

There's a simple question. Don't answer it, no problem, but in this case please go try your own thread if you want to talk about something else.

If you can't for some obscure reason articulate your objections there's nothing I could do to help you.

Each event in the past has been caused by a prior event. What would be the logical problem with this idea?

Can you articulate your objection?
EB

I thought I could save some time, but I'll wait until this morphs into the First Cause Argument.

 

[skepticalbip]

Drawing a logical conclusion either way is not a problem. The problem is justifying the initial premise that the logical argument is based on.

 

[Speakpigeon]

Drawing a logical conclusion either way is not a problem.

???

The problem is justifying the initial premise that the logical argument is based on.

Sure but that's irrelevant.

Assumptions can be entirely gratuitous. No justification is necessary as far as logic is concerned. The OP is strictly about the logic of the idea. Not at all about the reality or otherwise of what is assumed.
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

What prior event caused this post to appear?

Derail.

There's a simple question. Don't answer it, no problem, but in this case please go try your own thread if you want to talk about something else.

If you can't for some obscure reason articulate your objections there's nothing I could do to help you.

Each event in the past has been caused by a prior event. What would be the logical problem with this idea?

Can you articulate your objection?
EB

I thought I could save some time, but I'll wait until this morphs into the First Cause Argument.

You initial answer was a derail, nothing like "saving time".

The only way to save time would be to give a straightforward answer, something you never do beyond repeating your mantra.

You seem to have a very confused notion of what is logic and how it works.

The question is very simple: Each event in the past has been caused by a prior event. What would be the logical problem with this idea?

You have an answer or you don't. If you have one, the only way to save time is to post it here and now.
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

Metaphysically possible, yes.

Good.

Otherwise....

Derail.
EB

 

[fast]

All logical problems are logical contradictions? The rules! I can't take this!

There may (or at least might) be a problem to ponder that I wouldn't necessarily characterize as a genuine logical contradiction.

 

[Speakpigeon]

All logical problems are logical contradictions? The rules! I can't take this!

There may (or at least might) be a problem to ponder that I wouldn't necessarily characterize as a genuine logical contradiction.

Would that be a logical problem, do you think?

I'm going to let you ponder this one.
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

Members who have read this thread in the last 3 days: 23
BH, Juma, seyorni, Jobar, James Brown, Iznomneak, The AntiChris, Underseer, Tharmas, Bomb#20, Wiploc, Speakpigeon, abaddon, fast, skepticalbip, WAB, thebeave, Lion IRC, Old Woman in Purple, Poppa Popobawa

So out of the 20 people who visited this thread, outside myself but putting Random Person back in, no one exhibited any logical contradiction that there could have been with this idea that each event in the past has been caused by a prior event.

I can't be sure of what the magnificent fourteen who haven't participated in the poll think but I would assume that the perspective of coming up with a smelly, juicy contradiction if you had one would have been too difficult to resist.

So, here is the score:

Speakpigeon 1 - Random Person 0​

Case closed.
EB

EDIT
And why isn't Random Person listed as having visited despite having posted three times since yesterday?

 

[skepticalbip]

Drawing a logical conclusion either way is not a problem.

???

The problem is justifying the initial premise that the logical argument is based on.

Sure but that's irrelevant.

Assumptions can be entirely gratuitous. No justification is necessary as far as logic is concerned. The OP is strictly about the logic of the idea. Not at all about the reality or otherwise of what is assumed.
EB

Exactly my point. Any conclusion can be "logically" drawn but that conclusion is dependent on the premise offered.

Start with a valid premise and a valid logical and real world conclusion will be drawn.

Start with a questionable premise and a logically valid but questionable real world conclusion will be drawn.

Start with a nonsense premise and a logically valid but nonsense real world conclusion can be drawn.

 

[fast]

What prior event caused this post to appear?

Derail.

There's a simple question. Don't answer it, no problem, but in this case please go try your own thread if you want to talk about something else.

If you can't for some obscure reason articulate your objections there's nothing I could do to help you.

Each event in the past has been caused by a prior event. What would be the logical problem with this idea?

Can you articulate your objection?
EB

I thought I could save some time, but I'll wait until this morphs into the First Cause Argument.

I am in Florida (south of Georgia), and I am in South Carolina (north of Georgia).