Searching for GOD...

[Nearly Sane]

1: Derived ability which we are surrounded from definitionally depends on an actual ability.

Colourless green ideas sleep furiously

[wigginhall]

1: Derived ability which we are surrounded from definitionally depends on an actual ability.

But the notion of 'derived ability' already contains the notion of something precedent.   So you are starting with your conclusion. 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

But the notion of 'derived ability' already contains the notion of something precedent.   So you are starting with your conclusion.

Show me something which has not derived it's abilities from something else.

[BeRational]

That we are surrounded by derived ability suggests ultimate actual ability. In fact you cannot have derived ability without it.

Shaker starts with the premise that God is impotent I was merely exploring that philosophy. Philosophies can be demonstrated philosophically.

What is derived ability?

[Nearly Sane]

Show me something which has not derived it's abilities from something else.

and Vlad looks at the problem of induction, picks it up, and smacks himself about the face with it.

[BeRational]

Show me something which has not derived it's abilities from something else.

It is not up to us to prove the opposite.

You have the burden to demonstrate it as true.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

But the notion of 'derived ability' already contains the notion of something precedent.   So you are starting with your conclusion.

Not sure about that if there is any conclusion it is that the derived comes from an actual. What's unreasonable about that?

Sounds like another ''funny fallacy'' on your part.

[wigginhall]

Not sure about that if there is any conclusion it is that the derived comes from an actual. What's unreasonable about that?

Sounds like another ''funny fallacy'' on your part.

Well, 'derived' means coming from something else.   So you are really saying that something that comes from something else, comes from something else. 

[Nearly Sane]

Not sure about that if there is any conclusion it is that the derived comes from an actual. What's unreasonable about that?

Sounds like another ''funny fallacy'' on your part.

You mean nothing unreasonable about using a position which creates an infinite regress and then throwing away the position to avoid it?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

and Vlad looks at the problem of induction, picks it up, and smacks himself about the face with it.

Aaah but I am not saying there isn't something with actual ability am I. Since I am saying there must be an actual. So no issue of induction.

He shoots He scores.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Well, 'derived' means coming from something else.   So you are really saying that something that comes from something else, comes from something else.

You have Sane's problem of induction if you are saying there is nothing with actual ability.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

You mean nothing unreasonable about using a position which creates an infinite regress and then throwing away the position to avoid it?

An infinite regress falls foul of your own invocation of the problem of induction.

[BeRational]

You have Sane's problem of induction if you are saying there is nothing with actual ability.

I do not think anyone has said that?

You are the one making a claim, so you need to demonstrate that.

[Nearly Sane]

An infinite regress falls foul of your own invocation of the problem of induction.

Which matters naught to someone using induction and denying it as you do. I am not arguing for a position of either induction or it being impossible. You are arguing for both.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

You mean nothing unreasonable about using a position which creates an infinite regress and then throwing away the position to avoid it?

No, i'm saying you cannot have derived ability without actual ability. An infinite regress here is not inevitable.

[BeRational]

No, i'm saying you cannot have derived ability without actual ability. An infinite regress here is not inevitable.

What is an actual ability?

Can you demonstrate that it is impossible to acquire an ability?

[Nearly Sane]

You have Sane's problem of induction if you are saying there is nothing with actual ability.

He doesn't appear to be saying that but since that appears to be a sentence that is like watching Series 7 Episode 22 of Buffy without having explained what a woman is never mind a vampire or the First, that isnu surprising. Do the ground work and define your terms.

[wigginhall]

You have Sane's problem of induction if you are saying there is nothing with actual ability.

I haven't a clue what 'actual' means here.  If you mean, 'non-derived', where is the argument for this?   So far you have simply asserted it. 

[Shaker]

Shirley Knott 

[Nearly Sane]

No, i'm saying you cannot have derived ability without actual ability. An infinite regress here is not inevitable.

You are confused. The point is that if you can have an actual abilith , note something you are still to define, then you cannot know if any abilities are derived. And if you say abilities need to be derived, you cannot have actual ones. You are using two separate and contradictory positions. It's a bit like climbing a ladder, throwing the ladder away and saying you are still at the top of the ladder.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Which matters naught to someone using induction and denying it as you do. I am not arguing for a position of either induction or it being impossible. You are arguing for both.

Where am I denying the problem of induction?

I am asking Wiggs to show me something which is not derived, he cannot.
I am not saying there is no such thing........ I am saying that thing he cannot show me is God.
There is no problem with induction.
But there is still the problem of derivation The derived definitionally implies derivation from an actual.
An infinite chain of derivation is meaningless or the word derived is meaningless. if the latter then there cannot be an infinite chain of derivation.
The only sensible formulation is the derived and the actual.

[Nearly Sane]

I haven't a clue what 'actual' means here.  If you mean, 'non-derived', where is the argument for this?   So far you have simply asserted it.

Ad so often with Vlad, he offers a perfectly useful and innocent word a bad of sweeties to go behind the bikesheds where he then removes all its meaning and exposes his full ignorance to it.

[wigginhall]

It sounds like Ed Feserese, after a bad hangover.   

[Nearly Sane]

Where am I denying the problem of induction?

I am asking Wiggs to show me something which is not derived, he cannot.
I am not saying there is no such thing........ I am saying that thing he cannot show me is God.
There is no problem with induction.
But there is still the problem of derivation The derived definitionally implies derivation from an actual.
An infinite chain of derivation is meaningless or the word derived is meaningless. if the latter then there cannot be an infinite chain of derivation.
The only sensible formulation is the derived and the actual.

So you are saying that it is impossible to show something not derived but you have shown something that isn't derived. Holy contradiction, Vladman!

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I haven't a clue what 'actual' means here.  If you mean, 'non-derived', where is the argument for this?   So far you have simply asserted it.

Derived- from something else.
Actual-The source of that which is derived.
Ability-potential to be or to do.