Atheism Destroyed in Under 50 Seconds

[Angrboda]

Under the hypothetical, yes, if A entails B, and For all X, if X does not entail B, then B entails A. This is all very reminiscent of many ontological arguments for the existence of God which are essentially definitional: they are true given the assumption of certain definitions, but the assumption of the relevant definitions is never shown to be necessary. As it is, the question of A -> B was spun off from your assumption that the Kalaam cosmological argument demonstrated the existence of God. In that context, your A -> B argument is equivocating to avoid a clear misapplication of the law of the excluded middle. On top of which, Kalaam is a shit argument to start with. Anyway, yes, given the hypothetical, if A -> B, and only A -> B, all other X -> ~B, then yes, B -> A. So what? This wasn't the hypothetical to begin with. (I can only guess that you truly were too stupid to comprehend Ace's point in bringing it up. All is forgiven. Come home soon. The cows need milking.)


On pragmatism, another ball of so what. If we accept the notion of tacit beliefs, for which there are an essentially infinite number, sitting motionless in a room entails the denial of an infinite number of beliefs and entities. Even if this weren't fundamentally stupid, and a bit of a misunderstanding of pragmatism, our minds supposedly exist as implementations on wetware consisting of 100 billion neurons — not your requisite near infinite host. (I must confess to not having studied pragmatism. It seems to suffer massive foundational issues. And in this case, anyway, it appears to blur into constructivism, which I have more sympathy for, or would, if you were using it as more than a temporary epistemic crutch. Postulating 'belief' as an atomistic element of mind is far from demonstrable. And if you are tempted to detour into dualism, I highly recommend that you do not. Failing that, your "under pragmatism" notion flounders. You seem to favor arguments of the definitional form, that would be true, if the given assumptions and definitions are true, but for which you seem to lack any actual justifying reasons for accepting them.)