Found this on the blog "My Case Against God" and was curious whether JREF forum members think it's valid and possibly sound.
Definition of terms:
"Bound by time" is defined as follows: "in the case of two or more things, when each one has a temporal location relative to the other(s)."
"A timeless being" is defined as follows: "a being that does not have a temporal location relative to anything."
Premise 1: Any two things [X] and [Y] that have a temporal relationship are bound by time.
Premise 2: "Cause" and "effect" have a temporal relationship.
Conclusion 1: "Cause" and "effect" are bound by time.
Premise 3: A timeless being is not bound by time.
Conclusion 2: A timeless being is neither "cause" nor "effect."
I'm not sure about the soundness, but it seems structurally valid, in the sense of the grammar of a simple syllogism.
Quoted from here.
Definition of terms:
"Bound by time" is defined as follows: "in the case of two or more things, when each one has a temporal location relative to the other(s)."
"A timeless being" is defined as follows: "a being that does not have a temporal location relative to anything."
Premise 1: Any two things [X] and [Y] that have a temporal relationship are bound by time.
Premise 2: "Cause" and "effect" have a temporal relationship.
Conclusion 1: "Cause" and "effect" are bound by time.
Premise 3: A timeless being is not bound by time.
Conclusion 2: A timeless being is neither "cause" nor "effect."
I'm not sure about the soundness, but it seems structurally valid, in the sense of the grammar of a simple syllogism.
Quoted from here.
via JREF Forum http://ift.tt/1pkJf10
Aucun commentaire:
Enregistrer un commentaire