rainbow walking

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

Clutch

Hey, we agree!

Kidding. It's honest of you to say as much.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?

rainbow walking

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?

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.

rainbow walking

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.