Here's a fun argument that caused just no end of trouble. It's a valid syllogism* although it doesn't seem like it would be. See if you can spot the problem.
God does not exist.
The universe is god
The universe does not exist.
The universe is god
The universe does not exist.
*not sound, but valid. It may seem strange, but inconsistent premises are always valid.
It came up in an atheist vs pantheist debate. When you say there's no god, without defining your terms, you've got a problem with pantheism, because their god does exist. The two debaters won't accept each other's Premises, and this thing just shows how it would lead to a crazy result if they did.
P.S. If you're one of those people who insists it isn't a valid syllogism, first say which of the six rules of validity it breaks, otherwise piss off.
No comments:
Post a Comment