A little late here, but i have a question. If someone says "a rock fits the definition, therefore a rock is atheist" fall into this category? I asked someone on reddit, and they said this about it was "A sloppy, inaccurate definition (not strictly a fallacy) followed by a vacuous truth (which is)." What would your interpretation of that statement be?
It is an illiterate sentence. Truth does not take an adjective.
So anything can be said of a subject that does not exist and it is vacuously true, except for a statement that says that the subject exists.
what if I predicate two contradictory properties to a non-existent subject? Can hobbits be both red and blue?
You must be logged in to post a comment.