On Sun, 27 May 2001 18:31:17 -0400 "Harry W. Jones"
writes:
> > Now the statement: if not (A and B), then not (C and D) translates
> > into one of several possibilities:
> > 1. If not (A and B), then not (C and D), or
> > 2. If (A but not B), then (C but not D), or
> > 3. If (not A and not B), then (not C and not D), or
> > 4. If (not A but B), then (not C but D).
>
> Paul,
>
> You seem to be saying that logically if(A but not B) then (C but not
> D). Is that correct?
No. I am saying the statement "if A and B, then C and D" does not imply
"if not (A and B), then not (C and D)." That is the logical error that
is so often being committed. Secondly, I showed that "if (A but not B),
then (C but not D)" is just a variation of "if not (A and B), then not
(C and D)," and as such is not a valid inference.
We simply cannot infer from "if a man repents and is baptized, then his
sins will be forgiven and he will receive the Holy Spirit" that "if a man
repents and is not baptized, then his sins are forgiven but he does not
receive the Holy Spirit." It is logically incorrect, because a
conditional does not imply its negative.
Paul Dixon
---
B-Greek home page: http://metalab.unc.edu/bgreek
You are currently subscribed to b-greek as: [jwrobie@mindspring.com]
To unsubscribe, forward this message to leave-b-greek-327Q@franklin.oit.unc.edu
To subscribe, send a message to subscribe-b-greek@franklin.oit.unc.edu