"Warp" <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote in message 
news:4aef114b@news.povray.org...
> Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>>
http://directionlessbones.wordpress.com/2009/10/31/challenge-suggest-a-more-evil-principle-than-this-one/
>
>  I wonder what this fallacy is called:
>
> 1) If God is good, then X.
> 2) Clearly, not X.
> 3) Hence there is no God.
>
>  Is it a non-sequitur? Deduction #3 does not follow from the other two.
> (What would follow is "God is not good", not "there is no God".)

I don't know for sure, but it's not exactly in the spirit of a non-sequitur, 
anyway.

One of the most common problems that arise from using this kind of logic, 
aside from poor definitions and baseless assumptions, is that often the "X" 
in the first step refers to something different from the "X" in the second 
step, which confuses the bejabbers out of some people.

One of my favorite bits of silliness:

A candle is brighter than nothing.
Nothing is brighter than the sun.
Therefore, a candle is brighter than the sun.

:D

Post a reply to this message