Philosophy Problem: ';A conditional is valid if its antecedent is valid'; True or False?

If P then Q [conditional]


P= antecedent


Q= consequent





If the conditional as a whole is valid, then if P (antecedent) is true, then Q(consequent) must be true as well.





Your question is set up weird however because it assigns validity to a part of a conditional instead of only to the whole, that is misguided.Philosophy Problem: ';A conditional is valid if its antecedent is valid'; True or False?
Why don't you just simplify the term of antecedent to a a preceding circumstance, event, object, style, or phenomenon?





A conditional implies at least two choices, true or false (for if there is one condition there must also be the opposite of that condition) [for every instance of duality, I clarify - thus we speak of realitvities and not absolutes].





Therefore, if the preceding circumstance is False, the following circumstance could be true or false. And, if the preceding circumstance is True, the following circumstance could be true or false. Since the following conditional to the antecedent could either be true or false, it is NOT TRUE that a conditional is necessarily valid if its antecedent is valid.Philosophy Problem: ';A conditional is valid if its antecedent is valid'; True or False?
Validity only applies for arguments.