Scientific Proof of God, A New and Modern Bible, and Coexisting Relations of God and the Universe

Tuesday, April 01, 2008

More on Non Sequiturs

My blog of March 30, 2008 led to comments from Winston Smith on the subject ‘ non sequitur.’ Smith said, "The non sequitur is nothing more than a badly drawn conclusion." He gives an example of a premise as follows: Obama has little experience as a leader. Then, he gives an example of a non sequitur as follows: Therefore, Obama would be a bad president.

Smith tells us: One does not ‘use’ non sequiturs. A non sequitur is not an instrument or a law. A non sequitur is just a conclusion that doesn't follow from its premise. He says that we are not talking about ‘necessary statements.’

Smith also tells us: There are countless books about logic. Read them. I don't want to be rude, but it really puzzles me how someone can pretend to prove God 'scientifically' without understanding the elementary concept of a non sequitur.

Smith’s comments do not close my challenges on the non sequitur. For instance, if non sequiturs are not used, why did five atheistic logicians use non sequiturs to produce negative reviews of my book on Amazon.com? (click) Further, if non sequiturs do not produce ‘necessary statements,’ why is Smith asking me to understand the elementary concepts of non sequiturs if my scientific proof of God is constructed with necessary statements?

It seems as though Smith does not have his act together. Readers should take heed to my responses to Smith.

It is clear to me that the US logicians are becoming more and more confused by British empiricism and the ugly English language. It is also clear that the non sequitur is not the solution to the problems of British empiricism and the ugly English language.

2 Comments:

  • At 1:33 PM, Anonymous Aaron Henderson, Amherst MA said…

    "(...) if non sequiturs are not used, why did five atheistic logicians use non sequiturs to produce negative reviews of my book on Amazon.com?"

    This remark of yours exposes once again your ignorance of what a non-sequitur is. Those reviewers didn't 'use' non-sequiturs, they merely exposed the many non-sequiturs in your book.

    "Furthermore, if non sequiturs do not produce ‘necessary statements,’ why is Smith asking me to understand the elementary concepts of non sequiturs if my scientific proof of God is constructed with necessary statements?"

    That's just it. Your book doesn't contain any necessary statements, it only contains non-sequiturs. And for your information: a non-sequitur is just a fancy Latin name for a faulty, illogical conclusion.

    I mean no disrespect, but I do think the reviewers of your book were right. You would like to be a great mind, but don't forget that real great minds tend to be much more modest and humble than you are. Arrogance is a crippling moral handicap indeed.

     
  • At 2:51 PM, Blogger George Shollenberger said…

    response to aaron henderson,

    The reviewers of my book never read the book because they have no skills to understand it. So, your support of them is strange indeed.

    To say thay my book has no statements shows that you have not even read my book. I thus have no respect for any of your thoughts or for any non ssquitors.

    Good minds are not always humble especially when one must deal with dogmatists or opponents who cannot open their mind.

    Since you and your kind are destroying sciene, don't expect to post any other stupid words on this website.

    George

     

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home