(January 2, 2022 at 12:13 pm)Paleophyte Wrote: It's an unfounded premise.
1) If Thor does not exist then thunder does not exist. <--- Why assume that this is true?
2) Thunder exists.
3) Thor must exist.
That's entirely sound and a decent example of denying the consequent. If Thor is the only possible cause of thunder then the existence of thunder logically requires the existence of Thor.
But it depends entirely on the validity of P1. The instant that you introduce the possibility that thunder can exist without Thor then denying the consequent fails and the argument collapses.
So what is the difference between the unfounded premise and circular reasoning?
Is it that circular reasoning also contains unfounded premise, like
![[Image: Circ.jpg]](https://i.postimg.cc/k4GVV6Sc/Circ.jpg)
teachings of the Bible are so muddled and self-contradictory that it was possible for Christians to happily burn heretics alive for five long centuries. It was even possible for the most venerated patriarchs of the Church, like St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas, to conclude that heretics should be tortured (Augustine) or killed outright (Aquinas). Martin Luther and John Calvin advocated the wholesale murder of heretics, apostates, Jews, and witches. - Sam Harris, "Letter To A Christian Nation"
