The Philosophical Porch Message Board

STOCKTALK

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 Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: TimF who wrote (150)	8/5/2005 4:57:51 PM
From: Rarebird	Read Replies (1) of 26251

>>I am disputing your initial categorization of the argument as affirming the consequent<< Yes, I stated that the cosmological argument for the existence of God committed that logical fallacy. Premises: q p implies q Conclusion p If you take q for Order or Design, then that does not necessarily entail an Orderer or Designer of the World (designated by p). By Order or Design, I mean the Greek Cosmos. If the Night is clear, for instance, we know what stars will be out on any given night and what the shape of the Moon will be. There is no question that there is a certain order to the configuration of the Universe. But given the above premises, it is ambiguous and a bit premature to deduce (as a conclusion) that p is True, given that q is true and p implies q is true. It's possible that ~p can be True without affecting the Truth value of the statement, p implies q. Thus, the conclusion, p is invalid. Are you arguing that the cosmological argument for the existence of God does not attempt to argue from effect (Design) to cause (Designer)?

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next