For those familiar with Covenant Theology and the idea that God made a covenant with Adam (expressed in God's command for Adam not to eat of the fruit).
The way it has been explained to me is Scripture tells us that God commanded Adam not to eat of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for the day he eats of the fruit he will surly die. The implication is the inverse - God is also promising Adam life should Adam not eat of the fruit.
The formal fallacy of denying the antecedent (also called fallacy of the inverse, is a formal fallacy inferring the inverse from an original statement.
For example:
Original statement: If you eat of the fruit then you will die.
Erroneous assumption: If you do not eat of the fruit then you will not die.
If P then Q. Not P therefore not Q.
How is the supposed Covenant with Adam not a formal fallacy?
The way it has been explained to me is Scripture tells us that God commanded Adam not to eat of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for the day he eats of the fruit he will surly die. The implication is the inverse - God is also promising Adam life should Adam not eat of the fruit.
The formal fallacy of denying the antecedent (also called fallacy of the inverse, is a formal fallacy inferring the inverse from an original statement.
For example:
Original statement: If you eat of the fruit then you will die.
Erroneous assumption: If you do not eat of the fruit then you will not die.
If P then Q. Not P therefore not Q.
How is the supposed Covenant with Adam not a formal fallacy?