 |
| Instagram Vancouver |
September 1, 2016 article revised on May 1, 2023. Placed on academia.eu
PIRIE, MADSEN (2006)(2015) How To Win Every Argument, Bloomsbury, London.
Cited
'...the fallacy of denying the antecedent (precedes from, my add) is for those who do not really care if their brain is going forwards or backwards. It does not admit the possibility that different events can produce similar outcomes.
If I eat too much, I'll be ill. Since I have not eaten too much, I will not be ill' (81).
Other events can bring about the same results and the event that is assumed to have taken place, did not take place. (81).
Illness could be caused by, for example:
Food poisoning.
A virus.
Bacteria.
Cited
'If he's slow, he'll lose.'
'Since he isn't slow, he won't lose'. (81)
Pirie states he might just be stupid. (81). He might lose to someone that is faster.
'Denying the antecedent is a fallacy because it assigns only one cause to an event for which there might be several.' (82). The are other possible causes.
Pirie reasons that this is a conservative status quo fallacy. (82). In my mind, this is another fallacy used by those prone to intellectually lazy thinking.
The concept of antecedent is also related to counterfactuals, which means they are contrary-to-fact conditionals, that presuppose that the antecedent is false. (163).
'If Hitler had invaded Germany, Germany would have won.' (163).
My example
God existence = No problems of evil
Cited
'...the fallacy of denying the antecedent (precedes from, my add) is for those who do not really care if their brain is going forwards or backwards. It does not admit the possibility that different events can produce similar outcomes.
If I eat too much, I'll be ill. Since I have not eaten too much, I will not be ill' (81).
Other events can bring about the same results and the event that is assumed to have taken place, did not take place. (81).
Illness could be caused by, for example:
Food poisoning.
A virus.
Bacteria.
Cited
'If he's slow, he'll lose.'
'Since he isn't slow, he won't lose'. (81)
Pirie states he might just be stupid. (81). He might lose to someone that is faster.
'Denying the antecedent is a fallacy because it assigns only one cause to an event for which there might be several.' (82). The are other possible causes.
Pirie reasons that this is a conservative status quo fallacy. (82). In my mind, this is another fallacy used by those prone to intellectually lazy thinking.
The concept of antecedent is also related to counterfactuals, which means they are contrary-to-fact conditionals, that presuppose that the antecedent is false. (163).
'If Hitler had invaded Germany, Germany would have won.' (163).
My example
God existence = No problems of evil
If God exists
Then there is no problems of evil
This of course rejects Biblical revelation explaining God's reasoning for willingly allowing evil and his eternal plan (Ephesians 1) for the atoning and resurrection work of Jesus Christ to save those in Christ, and restore creation. This also rejects theological and philosophical explanations within defences and theodicy.
This of course rejects Biblical revelation explaining God's reasoning for willingly allowing evil and his eternal plan (Ephesians 1) for the atoning and resurrection work of Jesus Christ to save those in Christ, and restore creation. This also rejects theological and philosophical explanations within defences and theodicy.
I can reason that some critics may conclude that my example assumes an informal and not formal fallacy. But, the existence of problems of evil does not logically cancel out the existence of God.
References: Kiersky, J. H., & Caste, N. J. (1995) Thinking Critically: Techniques for Logical Reasoning, West Publishing Company.
Cited
'Logical Form:
If P, then Q.
Not P.
Therefore, not Q.
Example #1:
If it barks, it is a dog.
It doesn’t bark.
Therefore, it’s not a dog.'
CONWAY DAVID A. AND RONALD MUNSON (1997) The Elements of Reasoning, Wadsworth Publishing Company, New York.
DAVIS, WAYNE A. (1996) ‘Counterfactuals', in Robert Audi (ed.), The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
FOULKES, FRANCIS (1989) Ephesians, Grand Rapids, Inter-Varsity Press.
HASKER, WILLIAM (2003) ‘Counterfactuals and Evil’, in Philosophia Christi, Volume 5, Number 1, pp. 235-249. La Mirada, California, Biola University.
LANGER, SUSANNE K (1953)(1967) An Introduction to Symbolic Logic, Dover Publications, New York. (Philosophy)
PIRIE, MADSEN (2006)(2015) How To Win Every Argument, Bloomsbury, London.References
KIERSKY, J.H. & Caste, N. J. (1995) Thinking Critically: Techniques for Logical Reasoning, West Publishing Company.
