Re: Proofs of God

[Munch]

wooooooow, that is such a fresh take on it, this is so new.

[SGOS]

I wonder.  What do you suppose is the most commonly used fallacy as proof of God?

[Baruch]

No respect until you introduce yourself.  After that, you have to earn respect the hard way.

[Munch]

I wonder.  What do you suppose is the most commonly used fallacy as proof of God?

I'd guess its the one of 'since you weren't there at the start of the big bang, how can you prove god wasn't there to make it happen' one.

[SGOS]

I'd guess its the one of 'since you weren't there at the start of the big bang, how can you prove god wasn't there to make it happen' one.

What would that be?  Perhaps the argument from ignorance:  "You don't know, so it must be from God" ??

[Munch]

What would that be?  Perhaps the argument from ignorance:  "You don't know, so it must be from God" ??

sounds about right. Which is also why the majority of scientists are atheist or agnostic, being the pursuit of science is to grow upon what it already knows.

[Sal1981]

Argument from ignorance, just because I wasn't there to witness something, doesn't mean that something did or didn't happen.

[pr126]

Welcome to our Muslim poster. A rare honor indeed.

Don't scare him away, we need to learn the TRUTH.

Bring on the dawah!

[trdsf]

I wonder.  What do you suppose is the most commonly used fallacy as proof of God?

Probably "You can't prove it wasn't, so it was!"

[SGOS]

Argument from ignorance, just because I wasn't there to witness something, doesn't mean that something did or didn't happen.

I was trying to take Munch's example and identify the fallacy bag it comes from.  This example, like most theist reasoning, includes little twists and turns with bits of various fallacies that work in chorus that cause the argument to fail.  You are exactly right, however.  Just because a bit of reasoning doesn't fit well into a common fallacy, doesn't mean it passes logical scrutiny.

[SGOS]

Probably "You can't prove it wasn't, so it was!"

That's the argument from ignorance, isn't it, or am I missing something?

[Sal1981]

There's a plethora of arguments from ignorance. This one is basically about not witnessing something, therefore true/false.

[Mike Cl]

Just another drive-by-troll.  Typical, nothing special. 

[trdsf]

That's the argument from ignorance, isn't it, or am I missing something?

And shifting the burden of proof.

[SGOS]

And shifting the burden of proof.

Yeah, that's what I meant about theist logic taking bits of fallacies and mixing them together. 

Remember Randy?  This was a foundation of much of his arguing.  He even copied and pasted some nonsense about one bit of evidence (one fallacy) may not be proof of God, but several bits of evidence (many fallacies combined) may very well prove his existence.  In his defense, the stuff in parenthesis were not part of his quote.  None-the-less, each bit of evidence he presented contained a fallacy, and sometimes even a truth, but none proved existence.