On 8/6/2014 10:46 AM, Bart Goddard wrote: > Don Kresch <email@example.com> wrote in > news:firstname.lastname@example.org: >> On 5 Aug 2014 05:08:28 GMT, Bart Goddard >> <email@example.com> wrote:
>>> 3. My favorite: "If your God exists you say He >>> incarnated Himself as a man and walked on water. >>> Since we know men can't walk on water, that proves >>> your God can't exist." It assumes God exists and >>> doesn't exist in the same sentence. Not logical. >> >> You've never heard of proof by contradiction/reductio ad >> absurdam? Wow. Just wow. > > Since I teach logic at university, yes, I've heard of it. > The above is not an example of it. It is, rather, an > example of denying the antecedent. So now, if we > need an example of an atheist doing bad logic: we have > you. Wow. Just wow. >
_This_ is your gotcha? Using a technical term wrong is what you think "arguing like a teenager" means?
I admit, I'm not sure what "arguing like a teenager" would be like, but I'm pretty sure it's a lot closer to saying both God exists and God doesn't exist are assumed, -- when _neither_ of them are assumed.
Kinda like what you did, and that Don called you out on.
(God exists) -> (Some man can walk on water) ~(Some man can walk on water) ------ ~(God exists)
What are the assumptions in that argument? Are any of them (God exists) or ~(God exists) ?
How would you grade one of your students who answered "Yes, both" to the second question?