(November 3, 2016 at 2:08 pm)Mariosep Wrote: Dear atheist colleague Simon Moon, let you and me exchange thoughts, because I stand to learn from your mastery of fallacies.
Now, you say: "This is the fallacy of affirming the consequent. Strike one."
If I may, how did you come to the certainty that I am affirming the consequent, therefore strike one?
Please do not tell me that you already explained, please let us we two start from... as from a clear slate, okay?
Simon Moon Wrote:This is the fallacy of affirming the consequent. Strike one.
You are stating your conclusion, that a god exists, in your first premise.
This fallacy follows the form:
1. If P, then Q
2. Q
3. Therefore P
Here is an example:
If I have the flu, then I have a sore throat.
I have a sore throat.
Therefore, I have the flu.
Quote:ANNEX
Your first premise contains the thing you are trying to prove.
It's a textbook example of affirming the consequent.
You'd believe if you just opened your heart" is a terrible argument for religion. It's basically saying, "If you bias yourself enough, you can convince yourself that this is true." If religion were true, people wouldn't need faith to believe it -- it would be supported by good evidence.
