# p and not-p Arguments

Another thing to learn from this exchange with Nick is when he attempted to give only two possibilities. He stated:

“I am asserting that , “We have matter spontaneously organizing itself into animate matter after the universe is created, OR we have animate matter in the universe from the get go.””

That’s not how a true two-possibilities argument should go. Such an argument requires negation.

Logically, you should say “either p is true or not-p is true.” When p is true, not-p is false and when p is false, not-p is true.

His admitted assertion does not follow this negation requirement. He has two separate p’s and neither of them are not-p’s to the other. You can see that these two p’s are subtly different when you examine the sentence structure.

In the first p, “spontaneously organizing itself” is not the opposite of existed, in fact, not spontaneously organizing itself is it’s opposite. And visa-versa.

So it’s necessary to break his possibilities into two p, not-p pairs.

Taking his first assertion (and since he failed to evidence his god, I’ve changed created to began),

p1 = “matter spontaneously organizing itself into animate matter after the universe began,” and

not-p1 = “matter did not spontaneously organizing itself into animate matter after the universe began”

So, either matter spontaneously became animated after the universe began or matter did not spontaneously become animated. Only one can be true.

His second assertion should have been,

p2 = “animate matter existed when the universe began,” and

not-p2 = “no animate matter existed when the universe began”

So, either animate matter existed when the universe existed or it did not. Only one can be true.

Guess Nick got it wrong. How surprising.

Advertisements

## 2 thoughts on “p and not-p Arguments”

1. Damn, and here I was thinking you never responded. Silly me. I will upload my response to your arguments after posting this comment. Oh, and by the way, I changed my facebook name. Makes it harder for the CIA and all the Atheists I’ve offended to hunt me down.

But, with regards to what your saying right here,

Take the two P pairs you posited. The are valid but they simply say what I was saying in a more convuluted fashion.

“p1 = “matter spontaneously organizing itself into animate matter after the universe began,” and

not-p1 = “matter did not spontaneously organizing itself into animate matter after the universe began”

So, either matter spontaneously became animated after the universe began or matter did not spontaneously become animated. Only one can be true.

His second assertion should have been,

p2 = “animate matter existed when the universe began,” and

not-p2 = “no animate matter existed when the universe began”

Obviously, we know animate matter exists. So, it has to be beacuse of either P1, or P2. If P1 is true, P2 is false and not-p2 is true, and if P2 is true, P1 is false and not P1 is true. But that’s just needlessly complicating things.

Since animate matter does exist, the possibility that it came into being after the universe began, if true, necessarily negates the possibility that it was there from the beginning. Are you not seeing that?

• Well, you’ve had your one comment. And I said I’d give you one. But you failed, yet again, to adequately evidence your god. So we’re done.

Thanks for playing. Don’t let the door hit you on the way out.

Comments are closed.