• exanime@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 day ago

    I used the equivalent logic. I’m demonstrating the logic is wrong, not the conclusion.

    By using a scenario that nowhere near resembles the original claim? that’s the part I disagree with

    Nit picky. Change it to a million sided die and 999999 people all choose different answers. One doesn’t have to be true, but it’s still ridiculous to claim they all have to be wrong.

    OK, 99999 side, no option is correct. How does this disprove the original claim which concluded that “none are correct”?

    You gotta shake the black and white thinking.

    I’m not, my initial criticism of your logic is precisely that we cannot reduce it to a simple right or wrong. Almost everything is more nuanced than that, specially religion

    • EatATaco@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      1 day ago

      By using a scenario that nowhere near resembles the original claim?

      It exactly resembles the logic. Which is the important part. You can argue there is more to it because religious beliefs are much more complicated, and I would agree, but you would also be agreeing with my point that the logic itself is bad.

      How does this disprove the original claim which concluded that “none are correct”?

      ? There is only a 1 in a million chance that noone is correct. To say the only reasonable conclusion is that they are all wrong makes no sense because it is almost certainly incorrect.

      I’m not,

      ? Your last argument that I responded to is literally that we shouldnt be acting like a belief is right or certain. Which was also in a chain of you accusing me of saying one must be right.

      This is really going off then rails.