SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Pastimes : The Philosophical Porch
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: Rarebird who wrote (148)8/5/2005 12:38:49 PM
From: TimF  Read Replies (1) of 26251
 
Any deductive argument assumes certain premises. The premises do not have to be proven for the argument to be valid. Disputing the premises (including assumed premises) doesn't make the argument invalid. It might make the argument less than convincing.

I am not as much supporting the argument and its premises as I am disputing your initial categorization of the argument as affirming the consequent (you didn't use those words but you described that form when you talked about the argument), and your later categorization of it as circular, or assuming the conclusion.

I'm not trying to argue that the argument represents convincing proof of the existence of a devine being or force, let alone anything like the Christian idea of God.

Tim
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  

HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2025 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News