(September 18, 2012 at 2:13 pm)MysticKnight Wrote:(September 18, 2012 at 2:11 pm)FallentoReason Wrote: I'm just not sure how A->B can be assumed to be true on its own if A hasn't shown to be true. By using A->B you have assumed A to be true and hence proving B (i.e. God, which is the thing of concern) and then this allows you to go back and [wrongly] accept that A must be true for the whole thin to be able to work.
Maybe I've missed the point. I'm not sure.
A-> B in itself says nothing about whether A is true or B is true. It only says if A is true, then B is true. Therefore A ->B doesn't assume A is true.
Yep, I agree. But in your post that I quoted originally you start your chain of thought by saying 'if we know A->B to be true, then...' but my question is how can we conclude that without proving A?
"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it" ~ Aristotle