RE: OK Christians. your chance. Convince me of God.
September 21, 2012 at 4:44 pm
(This post was last modified: September 21, 2012 at 5:41 pm by The Grand Nudger.)
Here I was starting to think that I had misread the situation. Apparently, I had not.
"And if it were from any other than Allah (if from other than god[A]), they would have found in it many a discrepancy.(then contradictions will be found[B])"
You clearly aren't getting the gist of what I'm saying here.
This verse looks to me (if we're going to be using it as a conditional statement and premise), to be a statement of sufficient condition (a statement of if, but not only if). All that could be established from a sufficient condition is that "If A were a sufficient condition of B, then A, implies....B." Neither of us seem to disagree here. Correct me if I'm wrong, this would be the proper form of modus ponens, eh?
-A necessary aside regarding sufficient and necessary conditions-
If it were a sufficient condition (if I accepted the premise)- the valid rule of inference is modus ponens (not modus tollens - which you keep trying to apply) To use modus tollens we would have to indicate -somehow- that A was a necessary condition of B in that premise (which we have not). My questions to you are as follows. How can I accept what is not contained in the premise? Why would I be compelled to accept a conclusion that followed from an unstated premise by accepting a premise which it does not follow from? This is what I am asking you, I am not asking you to explain to me how either of these rules of inference work- because I already understand that.
The disagreement we are having here is not about how modus ponens or modus tollens works, everytime you respond to my very simple criticism of the way this premise has been worded by arguing for modus tollens or modus pollens, or transposition, or contraposition you are completely ignoring my criticism, and it's starting to irritate me.
Is there, in your estimation, a difference between-
If, then
and
Only if, then
-if so, what is that difference?
To be clear, I am not suggesting that you could not from a valid argument from necessary condition. It ought to be fairly simple. Just and the word "only".
"And -ONLY- if it were from any other than Allah, they would have found in it many a discrepancy." Now you have a premise whose valid rule of inference is modus tollens.
If this were the premise, and I accepted it (along with the assertion that followed), I could not deny the conclusion.
"And if it were from any other than Allah (if from other than god[A]), they would have found in it many a discrepancy.(then contradictions will be found[B])"
You clearly aren't getting the gist of what I'm saying here.
This verse looks to me (if we're going to be using it as a conditional statement and premise), to be a statement of sufficient condition (a statement of if, but not only if). All that could be established from a sufficient condition is that "If A were a sufficient condition of B, then A, implies....B." Neither of us seem to disagree here. Correct me if I'm wrong, this would be the proper form of modus ponens, eh?
-A necessary aside regarding sufficient and necessary conditions-
If it were a sufficient condition (if I accepted the premise)- the valid rule of inference is modus ponens (not modus tollens - which you keep trying to apply) To use modus tollens we would have to indicate -somehow- that A was a necessary condition of B in that premise (which we have not). My questions to you are as follows. How can I accept what is not contained in the premise? Why would I be compelled to accept a conclusion that followed from an unstated premise by accepting a premise which it does not follow from? This is what I am asking you, I am not asking you to explain to me how either of these rules of inference work- because I already understand that.
The disagreement we are having here is not about how modus ponens or modus tollens works, everytime you respond to my very simple criticism of the way this premise has been worded by arguing for modus tollens or modus pollens, or transposition, or contraposition you are completely ignoring my criticism, and it's starting to irritate me.
Is there, in your estimation, a difference between-
If, then
and
Only if, then
-if so, what is that difference?
To be clear, I am not suggesting that you could not from a valid argument from necessary condition. It ought to be fairly simple. Just and the word "only".
"And -ONLY- if it were from any other than Allah, they would have found in it many a discrepancy." Now you have a premise whose valid rule of inference is modus tollens.
If this were the premise, and I accepted it (along with the assertion that followed), I could not deny the conclusion.
I am the Infantry. I am my country’s strength in war, her deterrent in peace. I am the heart of the fight… wherever, whenever. I carry America’s faith and honor against her enemies. I am the Queen of Battle. I am what my country expects me to be, the best trained Soldier in the world. In the race for victory, I am swift, determined, and courageous, armed with a fierce will to win. Never will I fail my country’s trust. Always I fight on…through the foe, to the objective, to triumph overall. If necessary, I will fight to my death. By my steadfast courage, I have won more than 200 years of freedom. I yield not to weakness, to hunger, to cowardice, to fatigue, to superior odds, For I am mentally tough, physically strong, and morally straight. I forsake not, my country, my mission, my comrades, my sacred duty. I am relentless. I am always there, now and forever. I AM THE INFANTRY! FOLLOW ME!
