SYE RESPONDS TO MY PRECEEDING POST:<\/p>\n
@ Stephen,<\/span><\/p>\n Alright, how about we go this way. Since you, and perhaps many of your cohorts are philosphically trained, why don’t you show me how it’s done. It would appear that your biggest problem with my proof is that you feel that the argument I offer “The impossibility of the contrary,” for the truth of my premise that “God is the necessary precondition for intelligibiliy,” is not, in fact, an argument.<\/span><\/p>\n Alright in the format you are requesting of me:<\/span><\/p>\n premise 1<\/span> please prove to me, that “The impossibility of the contrary” is not an argument.<\/span><\/p>\n Cheers,<\/span><\/p>\n Sye<\/span><\/p>\n MY RESPONSE TO SYE:<\/p>\n Sye<\/p>\n You misunderstand.<\/p>\n I am not saying you don’t have an argument. Maybe you do (though of course I don’t think you have a good argument – for there are not the resources on the page behind the continue button<\/a> to support your conclusion).<\/p>\n
premise 2<\/span>
premise 3<\/span>
(…)<\/span>
premise n<\/span>
Therefore: conclusion<\/span><\/p>\n