Epicurean Paradox

[Mister Agenda]

Demonstrate the veracity of your assertions regarding "the nature of evil"? The free will defense is unconvincing, unless you can demonstrate that free will bit as well. Just making more work for yourself. Now you're stuck defending two ghostly concepts against demonstrable objections.

"You criticisms are not logical because you failed to account for magic"

I will be most happy to. But,thier is a little matter we must resolve First:

" Regardless of what you think of the biblical definitions, even if you took the biblical definitions of of this equation, Epicurus has still affirmed the consequent. How you ask? Because the conclusion can be false even when statements 1 and 2 are true. Since P was never asserted as the only sufficient condition for Q, other factors could account for Q (while P was false)."

Conceed this point and i will most happily move to the next. After all, one has absolutly nothing to do with the other.

If the conclusion of a valid argument is false, it does not mean the argument was invalid, it means the premise was false. Conversely, the conclusion of a valid argument being true does not make the premise true. Charging that the paradox affirms the consequent is purely a challenge against the form of the argument. Taking out the 'not' does not do this and neither does challenging the premise or the conclusion.

1. If cats are mammals, then dolphins are not native to outer space.
2. Dolphins are not native to outer space.
3. Therefore, cats are mammals.

The argument is valid, the conclusion is true, but the premise is false. If the paradox affirms the consequent, it is invalid, not necessarily untrue. If it is invalid, that means the conclusion does not follow from the premise as given: that, you have not shown.

---

Thanks Rhythm, I had forgotten the name of the argument and my formulation was clumsy, it should have been:

1. If P, then Q.
2. Not Q.
3. Therefore, not P.