View Single Post
Old 11-01-2008, 06:49 AM   #11 (permalink)
PinstripeRambo
Senior Member
 
PinstripeRambo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 201
iTrader: 0 / 0%
PinstripeRambo has a reputation beyond reputePinstripeRambo has a reputation beyond reputePinstripeRambo has a reputation beyond reputePinstripeRambo has a reputation beyond reputePinstripeRambo has a reputation beyond reputePinstripeRambo has a reputation beyond reputePinstripeRambo has a reputation beyond reputePinstripeRambo has a reputation beyond reputePinstripeRambo has a reputation beyond reputePinstripeRambo has a reputation beyond reputePinstripeRambo has a reputation beyond repute
A ^ B does not imply C. If A were "Everything that man CAN observe has a creator", (and if A were true), then A ^ B would imply C. In fact you could weaken B to be "Man has observed himself in the natural world" and A ^ B would obviously still imply C. But your assumptions that A and especially A ^ B -> C are both true are completely unproven.

The two things that would contradict your logic are anything that have no proven creator (eg the universe) or possibly something man has not observed yet.
__________________

PinstripeRambo is offline