Quote:
Quote by: Kamehameha34  When does the saying attempt to verify thinking with being?
Broken down into syllogism format, it makes sense. You're adding the extra premise "Those who are, think", which isn't in the original saying. |
"I exist" IS a premise. It is an assumption, else, the argument would have a false premise.
I think
therefore I exist.
Well how do you know you're thinking? Existence is required to think. NO ONE IS SAYING THINKING IS REQUIRED TO EXIST, KAME.
So the premise assumes: I exist.
Here, another example for you.
1. God is the greatest possible being. (visible assumption,
assumes the conclusion)
2. It is greater to exist than not to exist. (
premise)
3. God exists.
<>
1. I think.
2. I exist.
<>
To think, you MUST exist.
1. I exist. (hidden assumption,
assumes the conclusion)
2. I think. (
premise)
3. I exist.
The premise (1.) assumes that the conclusion (3.) is true. Else, the premise (1.) would be impossible and false. This isn't to same, KAME, as the premise (1.) being a requirement of the conclusion (3.). I never once said that, and you're just trying to make another straw man argument 'cause apparently you don't have a real answer.
If you don't think the above is fallacious, then you've now admitted that anything can be proven.. such as zombies.
1. Zombies are the greatest possible being.
2. It is greater to exist than not to exist.
3. Zombies exists.