(October 24, 2017 at 7:00 am)Khemikal Wrote: Technically, you could just use the letter A, as a and b are functionally indistinguishable from each other anyway. Also easier to parse separated into the intended arguments and reordered for conformity. In plain english you could substitute a for god and b for revelation from god. This, at least, helps resolve some of the arguments issues of condition and ambiguity.
If there is no reason to believe in revelation from god, then it's not good to seek revelation from god.
It's good to seek revelation from god.
Therefore there is reason to believe in revelation from god.
If god doesn't exist, then there's no reason to believe in revelation from god.
There's reason to believe in revelation from god.
Therefore god exists.
Thanks for that clarification K
Okay so in the first one (from each of your pairs) the problem is clear; the second premise is unfounded and seems to be the wrong way round with regards to the conclusion; it should be the conclusion?
The second one (and maybe the first... you can judge me on that) is trickier (for me... not you, I'm sure
). There there just seems to be no connection between the premises and the conclusion: ie a negative doesn't prove a positive or something like that.I'll leave it to you, the expert, but that's my guess at what the logical problems are.
