RE: OK Christians. your chance. Convince me of God.
September 21, 2012 at 1:03 am
(This post was last modified: September 21, 2012 at 1:09 am by Mystic.)
Rhythm,
A -> B
A is a sufficient condition for B to be true, but B doesn't need A to be true, but B is a necessary condition for A.
If something is both a sufficient and necessary condition, then it's a double implication.
All this is saying, B can true without A being true, but A cannot be true without B being true, but if A is true, then is enough to prove B is true.
This is an invalid argument.
A ->B
B
Therefore A.
is invalid.
If the book is from other then God (a), contradictions will be found (b).
Contradictions are not found (not b).
Therefore the book is from God (not a).
Would not be an equivalent argument to the one you showed.
What you showed is invalid, what I am showing is valid, but not sound. Both premises 1 and 2 are wrong. But you can't accept 1 and 2 as right, and then reject the conclusion 3 which means it's valid.
A -> B
A is a sufficient condition for B to be true, but B doesn't need A to be true, but B is a necessary condition for A.
If something is both a sufficient and necessary condition, then it's a double implication.
All this is saying, B can true without A being true, but A cannot be true without B being true, but if A is true, then is enough to prove B is true.
(September 21, 2012 at 1:02 am)Rhythm Wrote: Would you consider this argument equivalent?
If the book is from god, no contradictions will be found
No contradictions are found
Therefore the book is from god
This is an invalid argument.
A ->B
B
Therefore A.
is invalid.
If the book is from other then God (a), contradictions will be found (b).
Contradictions are not found (not b).
Therefore the book is from God (not a).
Would not be an equivalent argument to the one you showed.
What you showed is invalid, what I am showing is valid, but not sound. Both premises 1 and 2 are wrong. But you can't accept 1 and 2 as right, and then reject the conclusion 3 which means it's valid.
