tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10098115.post111343008500824341..comments2023-10-03T19:47:34.084+11:00Comments on Dialectic: Golding On The Existence Of GodEditorhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13986439579966977930noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10098115.post-1113863267285859442005-04-19T08:27:00.000+10:002005-04-19T08:27:00.000+10:00Yeah, I’ll be the first to admit that I have my so...Yeah, I’ll be the first to admit that I have my soundness and my validity confused- it’s sort of dispositional – but you only need to switch them around to get my point.<BR/><BR/>Anyway, I have been unable to place my finger on exactly where the observation is recorded; basically because I don’t have copies of half the books that I may have found it in on hand. The point of the observation – thatMHhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09068975650320612418noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10098115.post-1113844839372232722005-04-19T03:20:00.000+10:002005-04-19T03:20:00.000+10:00I think you've confused validity and soundness. A ...I think you've confused validity and soundness. A valid argument would be one where the conclusion follows from the premises, and a sound argument would be one where those premises are true. Now it seems to me that there are plenty of sound arguments that don't rely on emperical evidence. So why is it needed in this case. I've never heard the "old observation that the Ontological Argument has Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com