(April 9, 2016 at 9:14 pm)ChadWooters Wrote:(April 9, 2016 at 6:36 pm)Simon Moon Wrote: Sure it is:
A is part of B
A has property X
Therefore, B has property X
Hydrogen and oxygen are not wet.
Therefore water is not wet.
Your snowman example only works because of have chosen a particular property that they both have. Congratulations for creating a non fallacious example!
If you were to say, I can hold a snowflake on my tongue, therefore I can hold a snowman on my tongue, then it would be fallacious.
It is only fallacious with respect to accidental properties. Only essential properties are preserved. So for example, mass is an essential property of both hydrogen and oxygen. Subsequently mass is an essential property of water. In your example size is an accidental property of a snowflake so that property doesn't transfer to a snowman. That is why it is only a guide. The logical form does not distinguish between essential and accidental properties.
Craig talks about atheists having a "burden of proof" with respect to god, but if god(s) does not exist, what "burden of proof" could atheists have with respect to a non-existent entity, which, necessarily, would have non-existent attributes?
