(July 29, 2012 at 9:19 pm)cato123 Wrote: What a childish argument. Look back and explailn to me what is the difference between A and B?
A = "There exists sufficient evidence E for proposition P."
B = "P is true."
These are not equivalent--unless what it means for a statement to be 'true' is that there exists sufficient evidence for it.
So far as I can tell, there is no logical requirement than for every true proposition, there will be sufficient evidence for it. Even in the barest logical sense, in any axiom system sufficient to describe arithmetic on the natural numbers, there will be true propositions that cannot be proved (by Godel's incompleteness theorems).
Quote:You cannot based on the argument you gave. In fact, you gave the perfect proof for circular reasoning.
Would you like to try again?
I'm not sure I understand. I didn't give any proof. I asked how the hypothetical person could know "A implies B". If A and B are truly logically equivalent--and the hypothetical person in question can know that--then my question will have been answered (of course, the hypothetical person would then need to show how he could know that they were equivalent).
“The truth of our faith becomes a matter of ridicule among the infidels if any Catholic, not gifted with the necessary scientific learning, presents as dogma what scientific scrutiny shows to be false.”
