From: Daniel L. Christiansen (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Thu Jun 28 2001 - 18:57:23 EDT
> I have seen it stated that it is a logical fallacy when one assumes that a conditional statement is also true in the reverse as in "If A, then B is not equal to if non-A, then non-B) as described by Wallace on page 687.
This is correct, since there is nothing in the syllogism to indicate the antecedent is a *necessary* rather than a *sufficient* condition. On the other hand, "If and only if A, then B" _does_ imply "If not A, then not B," since the A condition is necessary.
> Could one also state that this is also the case for "if not B then not A"?
"If A, then B" _does_ imply "If not B, then not A." This is so, since in the original syllogism, B is a *necessary* consequent of A, rather than an occasional result.
> Assume a third class conditional with EAN + subjunctive followed by an apodosis in the future.
Such a conditional sentence is found in John 14:15. EAN AGAPATE ME ("A" Sufficient Subseq), TAS ENTOLAS TAS EMAS THRHSETE ("B" Necessary Conseq). One may _not_ infer from this sentence that one who does not love Jesus will not be keeping his commands: in terms of this sentence, we might expect (e.g.) to see people preaching the gospel in hopes of stirring up persecution. However, we _may_
infer from this conditional the following: If one is not keeping his commands, that one is not loving Jesus.
A great resource for understanding and avoiding logical fallacies, BTW, is T. Edward Damer's _Attacking Faulty Reasoning_, published by Wadsworth Publishing.
Daniel L. Christiansen
Professor of Biblical Languages, Portland Bible College
Adjunct, Multnomah Bible College and Biblical Seminary
B-Greek home page: http://metalab.unc.edu/bgreek
You are currently subscribed to b-greek as: [email@example.com]
To unsubscribe, forward this message to leave-b-greek-327Q@franklin.oit.unc.edu
To subscribe, send a message to firstname.lastname@example.org
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:37:00 EDT