Faust,
ever since the later part of the dawn of man, we have realized that we die due to physical causes. It has been like this for centuries, and if it were possible that we could die randomly, then we would have by now, but it has not happened.
That's hardly logical. It makes some sense: common sense. Really, that's the best kind of sense, save perhaps for human senses. Nevertheless, my point is missed when considered in the sense you're considering it. You see, my point has nothing to do with what is or isn't the case, but rather how it is we might know that something is the case. I've said before, and I won't come off it, that our knowledge of any particular causal connection is derived inductively, and with what you've said above, you've proven that quite wonderfully.
I can't imagine such a thing. Imagination does not always reflect reality. Maybe you should try getting hit by a train and imagine yourself not dying.
You should work on improving your imagination then. I suggest some films, comics, or novels in the speculative fiction genre. As for me imagining anything after I've been hit by a train, how do you suggest I do that? I think I would be quite dead.
but it is deductive all the way down.
A conclusion is only deductive if we cannot imagine it being false if we accept the premise. I'm not using 'imagine' here to mean that we can't imagine a plausible scenario, but rather to mean that we cannot at all grasp what it would even mean for the conclusion in question to be false. The reason why we can't imagine a proper syllogism being false is because the conclusion is contained within the premise. It is simply a restatement of the premise. To say that it is impossible to die randomly due to the fact that such a thing has never been observed, isn't to simply restate the premise.
no you have not!!! You have conveniently ignored my rebuttals to those piss poor examples of yours that only prove Causality.
You didn't have a rebuttal to my last scenario, except to say that I was ignoring the claim you originally made. If I had done as much, you should have told me sooner that I was attacking a straw man by suggesting that you might not feel disappointed if you failed an exam. You didn't do that though, did you now? You simply ranted about how my very suggestion of that was absurd. I demonstrated that it wasn't, and now you want to tell me that you reacted so emotionally to my man of straw. Why should that be? I think maybe I may have originally attacked a man of straw, and you assumed the position of the straw man without really thinking about it. Of course, I'm being generous with that interpretation, and you may very well just be attempting to save face with lame arguments. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt though.
no!! you can't "just say" whatever the fuck you want, because I know myself more than you!! You're so idiotic in making these pathetic assumptions about my character. I would never feel indifferent after failing an exam. The ONLY time this would be possible would be if the exam was inconsequential and irrelevant in the first place, which only PROVES causality.
You can assert whatever you will, but I can only respond to you if you give me an argument. That you just really feel you'd act in a particular way doesn't give me anything to chew on. That's not to say I don't believe that you do feel that way, but simply that your feelings concerning such matters don't demonstrate much of anything, now do they?
it's not dogma for fuck's sakes, it's called character and emotions and Causality.
A belief in universal causality is the basis for your belief in universal causality? I have heard arguments of that type made before, but I can't seem to remember exactly what the name for them is. The name has something to do with some shape. Like the shape of a ball but flat. Huh, maybe you might think of it and remind me.
bla bla bla, jibber-jabber gaggle blurp. i've never felt happy or indifferent after failing an important test, nor should I be nor will I ever be as long as my tests are important and consequential. Once again, all this only proves Causality.
It provides a nice demonstration of how you rationalize your opinion. You do so inductively, which is exactly how I said you do it. Can I read minds, or do I simply have a point here? I prefer the former, but will settle for the later.