FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.


Go Back   FRDB Archives > Archives > IIDB ARCHIVE: 200X-2003, PD 2007 > IIDB Philosophical Forums (PRIOR TO JUN-2003)
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Yesterday at 05:55 AM

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 04-29-2003, 10:28 AM   #1
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Erewhon
Posts: 2,608
Default For Clutch

Hi Clutch,
I was re-reading over my previous arguments against PoE and came to your objections of my last presentation of the argument and suddenly realized how erroneously I had formulated the argument. So, just for the record, I’m re-stating it here in case you’re interested. If not, just ignore this. But I hope this clarifies the formal statement somewhat.

PoE states:

If X then not Y
Y therefore not X

My rebuttal should have read:

If not X then not Y
Y therefore X

With X representing an omnimax being and Y representing man’s current state of affairs exactly, for both statements.

(or have I mucked it up again?)

Then, of course, any further discussion would require we flesh out these statements as I have done here: http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread....rainbow+walking
rainbow walking is offline  
Old 04-29-2003, 12:43 PM   #2
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Canada
Posts: 3,751
Default

Quote:
I was re-reading over my previous arguments against PoE and came to your objections of my last presentation of the argument and suddenly realized how erroneously I had formulated the argument.
Hey, we agree!

Kidding. It's honest of you to say as much.
Quote:
My rebuttal should have read:

If not X then not Y
Y therefore X

With X representing an omnimax being and Y representing man’s current state of affairs exactly, for both statements.
If that's your rebuttal, then its first premise is false.

Were there no omnimax god, then things would not be as they are? Why think that?
Clutch is offline  
Old 04-29-2003, 01:42 PM   #3
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Erewhon
Posts: 2,608
Default

Quote:
Clutch:

If not X then not Y
Y therefore X




If that's your rebuttal, then its first premise is false.

Were there no omnimax god, then things would not be as they are? Why think that?
rw: It's not necessarily what I think, it's just the argument I was making against PoE.

Would it be clearer if I stated it thus?

If X then Y

Y therefore X

Or is that just another way of saying the same thing?
rainbow walking is offline  
Old 04-29-2003, 01:51 PM   #4
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Canada
Posts: 3,751
Default

Quote:
If X then Y

Y therefore X

Or is that just another way of saying the same thing?
No, it's not the same thing. The first version was valid, but had a false premise; hence unsound. This version isn't even valid; it affirms the consequent.
Clutch is offline  
Old 04-29-2003, 02:10 PM   #5
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Erewhon
Posts: 2,608
Default

Quote:
Clutch:No, it's not the same thing. The first version was valid, but had a false premise; hence unsound. This version isn't even valid; it affirms the consequent.
rw: Hmmm...this won't do then. Perhaps there is no short version of the FWD? Let me think on it some more and get back to you.
rainbow walking is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 05:46 AM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.