(March 30, 2012 at 7:55 pm)Drich Wrote: Perhaps you did not understand the promise of the OP. The first paragraph in my post was taken from another forum written by another user asking How Christians address this misidentified paradox. That is not to say it is not a paradox of personal logic, but that should point to the short comings of individual understanding, rather than the subject in general.
I understood you were quoting someone else, that's why I said 'this guy' instead of 'you' or 'Drich'.
(March 30, 2012 at 7:55 pm)Drich Wrote: again the statement you are commenting against is apart of the original question asked.
(not apart of my response.)
Obviously.
(March 30, 2012 at 7:55 pm)Drich Wrote: Epicurus was guilty of affirming the consequent, so why would I address him head on?
In the interest of brevity, I'll stop here. If you can demonstrate the Epicurean Paradox affirms the consequent, you've demolished it, full stop. A better question would be why wouldn't you address him head on if his reasoning is fallacious? If you can, perhaps you'll be kind enough to to demonstrate the fallacy you believe is contained in the argument?
