Re: logic: why won't evolutionists learn it?

On Dec 15, 2:23 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Dec 14, 5:25 pm, "David Hare-Scott" <comp...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

"Ray Martinez" <pyramid...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message

news:77fee296-6f48-4f8e-a396-

4) Are you aware that an argument can be fallacious even if its
premises and conclusions are perfectly true?

Such as....

premise 1: My dog is red (true;as I have a red kelpie)
premise 2: My horse is red (true; as I have a chestnut arab)

conclusion: all red mammals have hair.

Persons with philosophical training know the example given is ordinary
rhetoric (= the misuse of logic).





The conclusion is true because all mammals have hair (by definition of
"mammal"), which has nothing to do with their colour or if I have a dog or
horse of any type.

5) Are you aware that an argument can be logically valid even if its
premises and conclusions are not true?

Such as....

p1: All flying spagetti monsters are red (a validly constructed statement but
false in the real world; there is no FSM)
p2: A flying spagetti monster called Warren is in my paddock (also a valid
statement but false in the real world; I lied)

c: Warren is red (a logical valid consequence of p1 and p2 but not true in
the real world either)

David

You are saying any argument that presupposes the existence of God is
false regardless of the evidence and quality of argument given in
support.

If you take the time to read what "evolutionists" actually say instead
of being a Pagano-wannabe with the subject line changing, you would
know that evolution does not make the claim that "arguments that
presuppose the existence of God are false".

BTW, There are <16 days left in the year. How's it coming?


This is called Atheist ideology. It is an idea originated by
Atheists that the evidence for the existence of God does not matter
because the premise (supposition that a supernatural being exists) is
irrational. It is also dismissal by circular logic (mind was already
made up contrary to the open invitation to see the evidence). Probably
the leading exponent of this ideology in the 20th century is Atheist
Professor Kai Nielsen.

Nielsen's "argument" that evidence for God is irrelevant since the
premise is irrational was spoken in a debate against J.P. Moreland.
This debate was published here:

http://www.amazon.com/Does-God-Exist-Great-Debate/dp/0840771800

Ray- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: funny creationsist
    ... >>> if you accept the existence of God, ... >> Indirect evidence which helps infer the existence of God? ... >>> have throughout recorded history, ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: funny creationsist
    ... >>> No. Does not the existence of our free will and conscious mind give ... >> established by science. ... why is this an argument in favour of there being a God? ... > Indirect evidence which helps infer the existence of God? ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: So much for "teach the controversy", an antidote for "Expelled"
    ... means that the existence of such creator is possible. ... "wilfull ingorance" that science has already provided conclusive evidence ... that God does not exist, and so a continued belief in such a God is just ... In some Christian traditions, yes. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: "Liberty U" -- gotta laugh....
    ... philosophical arguments for the existence of God. ... evidence, are menaingless in terms of trying to prove that any deity ... You keep saying that without offering any support for your claim. ...
    (rec.arts.sf.fandom)
  • Re: funny creationsist
    ... >>> to follow the purposes of the designers by acting like just another ... Many aspects of our existence cannot be proven, cannot be tested, are ... > if you accept the existence of God, ... Indirect evidence which helps infer the existence of God? ...
    (talk.origins)
Loading