(December 14, 2015 at 2:14 pm)RobbyPants Wrote: Now, actually looking at the points to break down the problems of the argument:So, that's where it all falls apart. I mean, once you take out the formal sounding syllogism, you're basically saying "if something could be real, it is real". I shouldn't have to explain why that's dumb. Again, leprechauns could be real.
- P1 is technically true, but you're dealing with nonfalsifiable things here, so take anything that follows with a grain of salt. Lots of grains of salt.
- P2 is not given at all. You'd have to prove that there are multiple "possible worlds".
- P3 is a non sequitur and cannot be inferred from any of the previous points.
- P4 is building off of P3, which is already not logically valid.
- P5 is logically valid, but is based off of P3 and P4, so it is not reasonable to infer, despite being logically correct in itself.
- The conclusion would also be valid, if not built off of P3 and P4.
(my bold)
Yeah!
Finally, someone else sees it.
You make people miserable and there's nothing they can do about it, just like god.
-- Homer Simpson
God has no place within these walls, just as facts have no place within organized religion.
-- Superintendent Chalmers
Science is like a blabbermouth who ruins a movie by telling you how it ends. There are some things we don't want to know. Important things.
-- Ned Flanders
Once something's been approved by the government, it's no longer immoral.
-- The Rev Lovejoy
-- Homer Simpson
God has no place within these walls, just as facts have no place within organized religion.
-- Superintendent Chalmers
Science is like a blabbermouth who ruins a movie by telling you how it ends. There are some things we don't want to know. Important things.
-- Ned Flanders
Once something's been approved by the government, it's no longer immoral.
-- The Rev Lovejoy
