Crown. We know that Fnorbert exists because we know that morality exists. We see people acting badly and we see people acting well. This could only be true if Fnorbert existed, because Fnorbert is defined as the only possible source of morality, so Fnorbert exists.
Laphroig. Sure, and we know that there's a secret conspiracy fixing all basketball games because cheese exists. We see cheese sold in supermarkets and in speciality stores and so on. This could only be true if there was a secret conspiracy fixing all basketball games, because this secret conspiracy is defined as the only possible source of cheese, so there is a secret conspiracy fixing all basketball games.
Crown tries to prove that Fnorbert exists and fails miserably. From
this we should conclude that Fnorbert doesn't exist, or at the very least there
is no reason to think that he does exist. Fnorbert is presumably some kind of
deity, and so Crown has a very heavy burden of proof to overcome, as he would
for any other supernatural being since such beings radically contradict the
well-established facts of science. Now, when you trying to prove that something
exists, you've got to start with a definition of that thing. Crown starts with
a definition of Fnorbert that includes the claim that Fnorbert is the only possible
source of morality. Laphroig counters with a definition of a secret conspiracy
that includes the claim that this secret conspiracy is the only possible source
of cheese. Crown claims that the existence of morality proves that Fnorbert
exists because Fnorbert, as Crown defines him, is the only possible source of
morality. Laphroig points out that if this argument works, it follows that the
existence of cheese proves the existence of this secret conspiracy because the
conspiracy, as Laphroig defines it, is the only possible source of cheese. This
is a ludicrous argument, and because Laphroig's facts are true, (cheese exists,
we have a definition of a secret conspiracy as the only source of cheese) the
argument can only fail if the logical principle that purports to connect the
two is false. Since Crown's argument depends on exactly the same logical principle,
Crown's argument is equally ludicrous.
Click your browser's "back" button to return to your
place in the reading.
This Site is Proudly
Hosted By:
