Replies

Let's say we were discussing something like The Flu.

Can't you make your point by discussing the subject instead of flu and chicken soup?

I am intrigued by Gonzalez's "solar eclipse" example and I wonder what the heck he means by it. It doesn't seem that you know either, but that didn't stop you from dismissing it. I'd be truly impressed if you could explain what Gonzalez's example refers to and why you disagree.

If you don't know, then that would explain why you would resort to your flu and chicken soup analogy.

Nephi,

Perhaps you do not have a handle on arguments based on logic and reason. I used the example "Flu" and "Chicken Soup" because I thought they would be conversational, and less abstract. Please allow me to make my point with more abstract symbols, illustrating the mistake of his statement.

If someone asserts:

Condition "E" causes "L"

to demonstrate the assertion is false, someone only has to show a case where Condition "E" occurs without "L".

Example: Here is "E" without "L", therefore "E" does not cause "L".

If this is too abstract for you, substitute the words "ECLIPSE" for "E" and "LIFE" for "L".

If you want me to discuss the subject, then I could go on spouting off other Planet/Moon combinations that produced Solar Eclipses, where no life is known to exist.

If you were observing the Sun from the surface of Jupiter (not very habitable), it can be eclipsed by Europa and Ganymede.

If you were observing the Sun from the surface of Saturn (not very habitable), it can be eclipsed by Titan and Iapetus.

I could produce many such lists, but from a logical argument perspective, I need only show ONE.

Since you did not seem to get that line of argument with the first example, I used a more conversational and non abstract example to illustrate the falsity of the the line of reasoning. In other words, the LOGIC is false REGARDLESS of the subject matter.