Evidence for atheism

[Jackalope]

Is the premise sound? Is the argument valid?

Not in your 5 foot tall ant example, assuming the conditional is not a non sequitur (which it is, but we're ignoring that). Its not valid because you're denying the antecedent which makes it an invalid approximation of a modus poenens.

[The Grand Nudger]

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 )

[Angrboda]

"A ⇒ B is true only in the case that either A is false or B is true, or both."

Material implication, in classical logic, is simply a binary operator, like AND or OR. It implies nothing about the relationship between A and B beyond their truth values.

I think you're trying to read more into it than is there.

[Jackalope]

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.

[The Grand Nudger]

And in the case that a does not imply b (or that a would imply b..if it were true...and simply isn't), the conclusion is what?
(I don't actually have to insert anything to your example CD, it's invalid, the premise does not have the power to make any assertion that follows lead to the conclusion, necessary and sufficient conditions - the conclusion is false -because- the premise is false.)

[Jackalope]

And in the case that a does not imply b (or that a would imply b..if it were true...and simply isn't), the conclusion is what?

That the conditional is a non-sequitur.

[Jackalope]

And in the case that a does not imply b (or that a would imply b..if it were true...and simply isn't), the conclusion is what?
(I don't actually have to insert anything to your example CD, it's invalid, the premise does not have the power to make any assertion that follows lead to the conclusion, necessary and sufficient conditions - the conclusion is false -because- the premise is false.)

I was referring to your example, which in it's original form, is a valid modus poenens. But you cannot assert anything about the truth of the statement as a whole once you assert not-p. It's fallacious, end of. It has -no truth value whatsoever-. It is merely an invalid, unsound argument at that point.

Fucking post editing ninja, that's what you are.

[The Grand Nudger]

Right, so ...if I claimed p to q and you accurately stated that whatever I invoked with those variables was a non-sequitur...my statement is true or false?

[Jackalope]

Right, so ...if I claimed p to q and you accurately stated that whatever I invoked with those variables was a non-sequitur...my statement is true or false?

That statement "if p then q" would be false. But again, that is not how logic describes arguments as a whole, which I understand to be the point of contention.

[The Grand Nudger]

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?