RE: 'Counterargument - immediate fresh argument'---a forum game.
July 18, 2020 at 10:26 am
(This post was last modified: July 18, 2020 at 10:28 am by Porcupine.)
(July 18, 2020 at 8:44 am)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: That one is true (all humans are mortal) but invalid. In order for it to be valid, you would need to reverse the clauses in Premise 1, because not everything that is mortal is human.
Yep it's an invalid inference, and formal fallacy, also known as Affirming the consequent.
Feel free to offer another argument as well.
Here's another from me:
Premise 1: If one knows of no evidence of God's existence then it is not rational for one to believe in God.
Premise 2: One knows of no evidence of God's existence.
Conclusion: Therefore, it is not rational for one to believe in God.
(July 18, 2020 at 8:45 am)arewethereyet Wrote: WOW! This is fun.
I suspect that you made your comment sarcastically---and therefore non-seriously...---but I kudosed it because I actually seriously agree with it. For me, this really *is* fun.
"Zen … does not confuse spirituality with thinking about God while one is peeling potatoes. Zen spirituality is just to peel the potatoes." - Alan Watts
