Logical Fallacies: Non Sequitur

[SpoiledLogic]

Good vid. *thumbs up*

[shaneho78]

God cannot create an unstoppable attack and an impregnable defense at the same time, therefore god is not omnipotent. is that argument non-sequitur?

[lazyperfectionist1]

@shaneho78 Hmm. Well that's an interesting one. Let's examine it. In order for an attack to be accurately called "unstoppable," it must be an attack which cannot be stopped by anything whatsoever. It must be an attack which cannot be stopped by any manner of defense. If you are utterly confident that a certain attack is unstoppable, you must be confident that you can predict that nothing will stop it.

(cont'd)

[lazyperfectionist1]

@lazyperfectionist1 It has occured to me, though, that this does not account for the possibility of the attack in question circumnavigating the defense in question. As long as this possibility remains, it seems to me that it is possible for an unstoppable attack and an impregnable defense to coexist.

[lazyperfectionist1]

Ah, but wait a minute. That's not your question. What you are asking is whether the conclusion properly follows from the premises.

First premise: This is clearly impossible

Second premise: An omnipotent being is a being for whom nothing is impossible

Conclusion: Therefore, God cannot be accurately called omnipotent.

I would say this is not a non sequitur. While I have a problem with one of the premises, the conclusion properly follows from them.

[shaneho78]

thank you. that was what i was asking :) It appears i didn't fully understand the concept of non-sequitur but now i do

[josealonsoleon]

Spock would have agreed with you....:-)

[FHomeBrew]

A game with perfect information is a game where both players know everything relevant to the game. Such as chess and checkers.

Lazy perfectionist you may find this interesting:

"a green apple proves all crows are black".

It's a very unintuitive argument, but it's sound and logical. Hope you check it out. (explanation requires more than 512 characters ;-)

[laraesque]

I don't know if you meant this to be funny or not, but it really gave me a chuckle. How people can infer such lunacy is beyond me: If I am thinking about something, it must exist? Where did someone come up with the idea that one cannot think of god not existing? I can easily imagine god, jehovah, zeus, the easter bunny, and leprechauns not existing. You were incredibly patient pointing out the logical fallacies. I would be cracking up laughing.

[smalltownatheist]

well said

[YaYaJuke]

very interesting grass hopper... almost wrote grandpa

[Censeo]

Looking at existence as a property never gets you anywhere in the first place. I can imagine god not existing by imagining anything that isn't defined as god. If I imagine a pop corn, I imagine nether myself or god. In the imagination, not me nor god is included. This trying to imagine something not existence only require that you imagine something other than that thing, very simple.

[lazyperfectionist1]

??  Could you phrase that a little less philosophically?

[Censeo]

I don't know if I can, but I try to rephrase myself. Existence should not be considered a property in and of itself, since everything we think of starts existing as a concept already, so we bring whatever we think of into existence. In a sense everything exist in some form. So, to imagine a beer can not existing for example is impossible because it exist when you think about it. Did it get clearer?

[lazyperfectionist1]

Perhaps the problem is that I don't have a very good handle on the word "property" in the sense that you use it here.

[Censeo]

aha. Well, that means to say that we shouldn't see existence as a thing in itself, because then non-existence becomes something that is outside it, but that isn't the case. Existence don't exist, things do. Life do not life, animals do. ;)

[Censeo]

correction: life do not *live*

[Censeo]

so, to conclude. How do you imagine a beer can not existing? By imagining something that isn't a beer can... That is the only way.

[clemzzz]

censeo makes no sense-io

check up " burden of proof "

for some-thing to exist you have to prove it... you cannot prove some-thing doesn't exist , and , of course , you don't have to.

I argue that no one has proved that god exists , so i cannot accept it, but i cannot prove he doesn't exist , just that there isn't evidence to show he/it does.

anyone can prove a beer can exists , so there's no argument , it is made from quarks and electrons. anything supernatural has not been proved !

[clemzzz]

at 5:00 he explains , in a round about way , that philosophy relies , purely on language , that's why it is currently useless (but sometimes fun)

you can state anything with words , but it doesn't make it true , the same with some mathematics , although maths can get you closer than logical english language statements

[Censeo]

Philosophy doesn't rely purely on language. It is a logical endevour and also philosophy use some times scientific discoveries in their considerations. Note that math use less than that (only language and logic)

[Censeo]

I know what burden of proof means. God doesn't exist as electrons and quarks, as you put it. Neither does meaning.

[EliteDoomer]

@Censeo An all loving god for this universe is impossible for we suffer. An all loving god is the only one worthy of worship and respect. An all powerful, all loving god does not exist in any universe, for if one did it would have not allowed suffering to exist here.

[Censeo]

@EliteDoomer Yes, I agree with that.

[lazyperfectionist1]

I wasn't talking about the non-existence of perfection, but the perfection of non-existence.

[lazyperfectionist1]

It seems to me that if I read a story like that, there is no way I would infer that particular allegory.

[DiggumSmack77]

Dude..you rock! Deep rational thought. I wonder if the hebrew god is a rational one...hmmm.

[FuckTheFuckingSchool]

lol yes