(September 25, 2014 at 9:49 pm)Rhythm Wrote: No, not the point of contention at all. The point of contention (and perhaps not between you and I) is that when someone says p- q...and you point out that it is (insert whatever fuckup they've made) - that claim..the god of that claim (and that's all that the god in question is, the contents of that claim)...it's false. Perhaps some other god, of some other claim. Right?
You're still committing the same fallacy, whether you recognize it or not. Our theist asserts
If p then q
P
Therefore q
If the conditiknal is a non sequitur, it says nothing about the case where not-p. If its valid, and you ask, well, what about the case where not-p, you are absolutely committing the inverse fallacy. The argument says nothing about the case where not-p, only where p.
You cannot necessarily determine anything about q where not-p in a modus poenens.
