(September 25, 2014 at 9:13 pm)Rhythm Wrote: I'm not denying the antecedent.....I'm not formulating a logical statement or a proof against something -ala "ants aren't 5 feet tall therefore no god", I'm simply explaining that the statement made is false - including the conclusion as part of that statement. Part of it is not true, because part of it is not true, those laws which would lead to our conclusion cannot be counted upon. The statement is not true - as a whole, and this includes the conclusion....upon those grounds.
Your example, btw, was what I was opining upon in my question, not mine. It has problems due to necessary and sufficient conditions (which you don't run into often in casual philosophy - but which you cannot avoid in chipset design - it's an issue I'm very sensitive to)
My example is equally fallacious as yours, once you insert not-p therefore not-q. That was the point in posting it. It clearly demonstrates the fallacy. Your original form was valid, but not once you assert not-p.
