Sunday, February 12, 2006

I was working on my argument for Melissus and I was wondering if this was valid:

(1) If it came to be, then before it came to be it was nothing. (EP)

(2) If [before it came to be] it was nothing, then it must have come to be out of nothing. (IP)

(3) It is not the case that anything could come to be out of nothing. (EP)

(4) So it is not the case that before it came to be it was nothing. (IP)

(5) So it is not the case that it came to be. (IP)

I know I can say that 4 follows from 2 and 3 by Modus Tollens. Can I also say that 5 follows by Modus Tollens from 1, 2 and 3? If I symbolize the argument it goes as follows:

If A, then B
If B, then C
It is never the case that C
So it is not the case that B
So it is not the case that A

Is this valid?

1 Comments:

Blogger Chris Tillman said...

What you have is valid. (5) follows from (1) and (4) by Modus Tollens. Inferences always appeal only to those lines from which the conclusion is directly derived.

8:16 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home