Posted: May 17, 2012 3:49 pm
amkerman wrote:rEvolutionist wrote:
How do you know, in this example, that he can't exist? A premise is it's own entity in a logic statement. It's validity as a premise is not contingent upon any other premises. That's how deductive logic works.
B/c square circles can't exist.
You can't define something in terms of that which it is impossible for it to be. I don't get the point you are trying to make about the carrot. Please put carrot into my argument everywhere you see consciousness. I doubt it will hold up.
You are failing to consider the argument given by shrunk rev. He is simply defining square circle in his second premise. That definition is valid for any instance of "square circle" in the argument. He has defined square circle as that which cannot exist. So premise 1 becomes "if god exists he is that which cannot exist". It is internally contradictory. It is not valid. It is logically incoherent. I don't mean to ignore you I can only repond so quickly.
Oh, dear. Still struggling with the basics.
Your paraphrase of premise 1 is incorrect. In my original version, it is simply making the existence of God conditional on his being a square circle. That condition holds whether or not a square circle can exist. If it turns out a square circle cannot exist, then if follows that God cannot exist either. But that does not affect truth of the conditional statement that God can only exist if he does so as a square circle.