Logical Fallacies: Non Sequitur

The most basic fallacy.

Script here:
http://lazyperfectionist1.blogspot.com/2011/02/logical-fallacies-2-non-sequit...

Category:

Education

Tags:

• logic
• fallacy
• McCain
• Obama
• vote
• Anselm
• Descartes
• ontological
• argument

[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.

[Censeo]

@EliteDoomer Yes, I agree with that.

[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.

[SpoiledLogic]

Good vid. *thumbs up*

[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

[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.