You obviouly have never met any type of logic.

"Ralph Hertle" wrote in message
...
William:


William Foley wrote:
Point of origin?? In an expanding universe, the entire cosmos is STILL
the point of origin. You folks are hung up on centers, edges, and
outsides!!




Thats the most gigantic non-sequitur ever written, probably. A
non-sequitur is a fallacy of logic, and logic is the science of correct
thinking or the identification of facts. You are obviously not a fan of
formal logic.

The universe is a continuing plurality of physical existents. The term
cosmos is a plural term, and ever since the Ancient Greeks identified the
universe, the term has been used as a name for all physical things, that
is for everything. For all practical purposes the cosmos, or to us, the
universe, is a metaphysical term that refers to physical entities.

A point, or "that which has no part", and which is a concept of location
only, is not a metaphysical term. It is an idea, specifically a
constituent concept of a defined relationship, and that means that it is
an epistemological term.

You say the the "entire cosmos" _is_ "the point of origin". That means
that the physical universe is a "point".

You have at lease three fallacies at work there.

1. There is a non-sequitur regarding the plurality of the universe and the
concept of a single point.

2. From 1., above, there is also a fallacy, or contradiction, in that
that which is plural cannot be at once singular in the same time, place
and respect. That violates the axiom called the Law of Contradiction, by
Aristotle. And that axiom is one of the two most fundamental laws of
science ever written, and which is also one of the bases for all the
sciences.

3. If something "has no part" it has no physical being, and a point is the
idea, that may be actually or potentially specified, of a location. A
point is a location. A point is an idea. It does not physically exist. To
say that the physically existing cosmos is and idea is as irreconcilable
with the facts as saying that the cosmos doesn't physically exist. There,
you have two more fallacies, or contradictions.

"You folks are hung up on centers, edges, and outsides", you say.

4. What folks. Not me. For one thing I am not "hung up", and for another
thing, all the readers of the thread, or of the general public, are not
"hung up". You have a problem of distribution in your premises. That's one
more fallacy.

5. Again, "You folks are hung up on centers, edges, and outsides", you
say. Don't me in on that claim. The universe exists where its constituent
parts exist. Period. There are no, "centers, edges, and outsides" of the
universe, at least that are possible to be known. You claim to have facts
regarding "centers, edges, and outsides" of the universe that you imply
that others presumably should not have. What are the true facts. And. yet
you claim that others are wrong without providing any facts whatsoever.
That is another fallacy, a non-sequitur. Probably other fallacies too.

6. Your term "hung up" implies a general disregard for the science and
definitions of geometry. You provide no true facts instead. That is the
fallacy that is at the base of Positivism, meaning that a person says,
"Its that way because I say its that way."

7. Your term "hung up" implies an insult to all readers of the thread or
the general public. Apparently you want to intimidate them so they will
not challenge your claims using facts and logic. That intimidation with
out proper argument is the fallacy called, "ad hominem." That is that the
claimant demeans the character of his opponent rather than by using facts
and logic in dealing with the ideas of the opponent.

That totals to ten contradictions, and there may be more.

Without the Law of Contradiction can you even do arithmetic? Let alone
science?


Ralph Hertle