Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
LOL! Can you re-read what you wrote?You are confusing what it means to affirm the consequent. Affirming the consequent looks like this:
If a, then b
b
Therefore, a
That is not the same as what the OP is doing, which is this:
If a, then not-b
b
Therefore, not-a
That is logically valid. There is no way to affirm b without rejecting a.
LOL! Can you re-read what you wrote?
Yes it is...
Premise 1's consequent is -B. Premise 2 is affirming that consequent as B.
I think all of you are failing to grasp the fallacy is how the atructure of the argument is. Even the above two examples are in the same structure. ..
Read it again. Or maybe you simply don't understand. If premise 2 was rejecting the consequent it would mean that it is not the case. That is rejecting... when in fact premise 2 does not say such rather it claims it is the case evil exists.No, premise 2 is rejecting the consequent. If the consequent is "-B," then premise 2 is rejecting it by asserting "b." That is the critical difference that you are missing.
Read it again. Or maybe you simply don't understand. If premise 2 was rejecting the consequent it would mean that it is not the case. That is rejecting... when in fact premise 2 does not say such rather it claims it is the case evil exists.
Conscious Z said:UndercoverElephant is correct in his assessment. Affirming the consequent looks like this:
If A, then B
B
Therefore, A
That is invalid because there is no reason to think that A is the only thing that could cause B. Here it is in plain English:
If I've won a million dollars, I will travel this year.
I am travelling this year.
Therefore, I've won a million dollars.
Even though it is true that I would travel if I've won a million dollars, I might travel for other reasons as well. Simply knowing that I'm travelling is not sufficient to know that I've won a million dollars.
However, here is the OP's argument:
If A, then not-B
B
Therefore, not-A
That is valid because there is no way to affirm B without rejecting A. The two are mutually exclusive in this argument. Here's a plain English example:
If I've won a million dollars, I won't ask for money
I will ask for money
Therefore, I have not won a million dollars
That is valid because, per the first premise, there is no way that I will ask for money if I've won a million dollars. Therefore, if I'm asking for money, I have not won a million dollars.
"Evil exists" is not stated as a rejection. It is claiming evil exists. Rejecting would be saying it is not the case that evil exists.
So you admit you are unaware of formal logic?
The argument is valid. That is obvious.
The argument is not sound, however. The faulty premise is the first one. No philosopher in the world believes the first premise is true, which is why the standard problem of evil argument has zero traction in the philosophical community. What does have traction, however, is the evidentiary problem of evil. Roughly speaking, it goes more like this:
1. If an omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent god exists, then there is as little evil in the world as possible.
2. There probably isn't as little evil in the world as possible.
3. Therefore, it is probably that such a god does not exist.
The argument isn't designed to produce a conclusion that says a god is logically impossible, but rather that such a god is highly unlikely. I've given the quick and dirty version here, but it's enough to get a good idea of the argument.
It is very compelling, IMO.
Just for the record, I don't think it is particularly compelling. I'm not a Christian, but I do believe in the existence of something worthy of the description "God", which is as close to "omnipotent" as is logically possible in a world where humans have free will, and is doing Its best to minimise "evil".
More simply stated, I think we live in the Best Possible World, or something that might Possibly be the Best Possible World. Just my opinion, not based on logic...
one prime example is the suffering of animals before humans ever hit the evolutionary scene. Another example is the prevalence of natural disasters. Both of these are independent of a need for humans to have free will.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?