~G→~(P→A)
~P
G — Banno
logic — Banno
There are similarities to the present puzzle. Quite a valid conclusion, but it seems muddled. Similarly, whether I pray or not seems irrelevant to there being a god, although my prayers being answered is dependent on there being a god.The moon is made of green cheese. Therefore, either it is raining in Ecuador now or it is not.
There must be a difference between implication and deduction — NotAristotle
not-G -> ( not- (P -> A) )
not - P
does not imply
G. — NotAristotle
in fact, the premises do not actually tell us anything. On the other hand,
not- G -> ( not- (P -> A) )
not- A
does seem to imply..
P. — NotAristotle
1. not-G -> ( not (P->A) )
2. ( not (P->A) )
3. not-A
Therefore,
4. P — NotAristotle
If God does not exist, then it is false that if I pray, then my prayers will be answered — Banno
~G→~(P→A) — Banno
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.