I'm finding this hard to follow - is your claim that the argument is invalid? It isn't. — Banno
The "So" in "So I do not pray" is a clever twist, as it suggests the speaker has decided to do something to create God... — Hanover
3. (¬G→¬(P→A)∧¬P)→G — Michael
(As a proof this runs into some of the exact same difficulties that were discussed in this thread.) — Leontiskos
Why isn't the conclusion just a non-sequitur? — schopenhauer1
(CC: Lionino, — Leontiskos
I don't see how the conclusion can be derived conditionally from the premises- it is tacked on. — schopenhauer1
Do you agree with this:
~P
∴(P→A) — Leontiskos
It seems that Lionino will not sign up ever again, sadly. :sad: — javi2541997
The argument in Banno’s post is a link to a logic tree diagram that shows you why it’s valid. — Michael
Well, I suppose that’s what my first post above does. The (valid) formal logic is an improper translation of the English language sentence. — Michael
Can you have a non-sequitur critique of a structurally valid statement? Does content matter? — schopenhauer1
No, I don't think so. The OP is nowhere near as "ridiculous" as your argument about billionaires. The English argument of the OP makes sense in a way that you haven't recognized. I don't see that any of this has to do with deduction vs. induction. — Leontiskos
If you treat the premises as contingent statements that have a truth value of their own based upon empirical information or whatever you use to decide if a statement about the world is valid, then you end up with non-sequitur issues, but those non-sequiter issues are not deductive logic fallacies, but are inductive ones. — Hanover
If God does not exist, then it is false that if I pray, then my prayers will be answered. — Banno
I guess the silence speaks for itself :meh: — schopenhauer1
The two arguments (mine and the OP) are logically equivalent under deductive logic. — Hanover
Deductive logic says nothing at all about the world. — Hanover
(1) All dogs are cats, all cats are rats, therefore all dogs are rats. That is true, except for the fact that dogs aren't cats and cats aren't rats. — Hanover
(1) and (2) are represented the exact same way deductively and are therefore both true deductively. — Hanover
the speaker has decided to do something to create God — Hanover
So I guess what's the bigger picture? — schopenhauer1
I'd say the main point of the OP was snark, hitting back at those ancient proofs for the existence of God that can't seem to go away. It points out that attempts to bootstrap something from from logic alone lead to — Hanover
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.