This fallacy is where a consequent in an "if, then" statement is said to be true, therefore proving the antecedent in said "if, then" statement.

Just an example of why such arguments are always fallacious

1. if I own fort knox, then I am rich
2. I am rich
3. therefore, I own fort knox

But notice, the only thing implied in my logic is that owning fort knox makes me rich. But the arguments grammar allows for other ways one can be rich without owning fort knox.

It's the equivalent of going

1. if x, then y
2. y
3. therefore, x

Which is an obviously invalid mode of argument since I said "x leads to y" and not the other way around.


Atheist in Louisiana

  • ***
  • 2631 Posts
  • I ain't afraid of no ghost!
    • View Profile
    • Atheist in Louisiana
The moral argument, as presented by William Lane Craig, is actually in a different format.

1. If ~X, then ~Y.
2. Y
C. Therefore, X

It is actually a valid form of Modus Tollens.  There are definitely other problems with WLC's moral argument, so don't think that it's a knock down argument.  If you'll notice by my username, I'm atheist so I'm certainly not convinced by WLC's arguments.

Can you link to the version of the moral argument you're talking about so we can be sure that we're addressing the right one?
Had the magazine not published these cartoons, they would not have been specifically targeted.
Consequences, AiL, consequences. - Jenna Black

Hey, if you want to, I'm more than ok with it.  :)  I love the attention. - Questions11