1,063 views
0 votes
0 votes
Determine whether this argument, taken from Kalish and Montague [KaMo64], is valid.

If Superman were able and willing to prevent evil,he would do so. If Superman were unable to prevent evil, he would be impotent; if he were unwilling to prevent evil, he would be malevolent. Superman does not prevent evil. If Superman exists, he is neither impotent nor malevolent. Therefore, Superman does not exist.

1 Answer

0 votes
0 votes
This argument is valid in terms of logical form. If the premises are true, then the conclusion logically follows. However, the conclusion (Superman does not exist) is based on the assumption that the first premise (If Superman were able and willing to prevent evil, he would do so) is true, and that has not been proven. Therefore, one can not be certain about the conclusion without proving the first premise first.

Related questions

0 votes
0 votes
1 answer
3
0 votes
0 votes
1 answer
4
Pooja Khatri asked Mar 20, 2019
715 views
Use resolution to show that the compound proposition $(p \vee q) \wedge (\sim p \vee q) \wedge (p \vee \sim q) \wedge (\sim p \vee \sim q)$ is not satisfiable.