Arguments for theism without logical fallacies?

[Justin108]

Can ANY argument be made in support of theism that does not rely on a logical fallacy?


A few popular logical fallacies used to support theism include ad populum, appeal to ignorance, appeal to authority, appeal to emotion, begging the question, false dilemma, false dichotomy, non-sequitur, special pleading, tautology, tu quoque, ad baculum, circular reasoning, confirmation bias, excluded middle, proving non-existence, etc.

[Divine Insight]

Can ANY argument be made in support of theism that does not rely on a logical fallacy?

It's my conclusion that such an argument can indeed be made.

However, that could potentially depend upon your precise definition of "theism".

If your definition of "theism" requires the existence of a conscious entity that is somehow totally separate from us in some way, then no, I wouldn't even bother to go there.

[stubbornone]

Can ANY argument be made in support of theism that does not rely on a logical fallacy?


A few popular logical fallacies used to support theism include ad populum, appeal to ignorance, appeal to authority, appeal to emotion, begging the question, false dilemma, false dichotomy, non-sequitur, special pleading, tautology, tu quoque, ad baculum, circular reasoning, confirmation bias, excluded middle, proving non-existence, etc.

Interesting.

So, first point, there is a thread where it is becoming clear that atheism rests upon a LOT of logical fallacies. Ergo, we have this ...

Is it an examination of ACTUAL claims? Or of the fallacious claims that could be made? And wouldn't it be nice for atheists, reassuring even, if these were.

Here is a word for you: Apologetics.

Here is a portion thereof.

Statistics - simple mathematics (can you get much more logical than that?)

Here is statistical zero - as in statistically impossible.

"1/1050
(1/100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000)
(0.00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001)
Statistical 0

That is a 1 in 10 x 50th power, chance ... at which point, mathematicians equate to zero probability.

Here is the statistical probability that the universe just randomly created itself.

1/10322
=
1/100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000
,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,
000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,0
00,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00
0,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000

That is a 1 in 10 to the 322 power chance - well beyond the statistic threshold of impossibility.

http://pleaseconvinceme.com/2012/eviden ... obability/

So your atheism, in order to reject a creator in the universe, must embrace the statistical impossibility.

There is a proof of a God. Not a single fallacy in it.

Ah yes, the logical fallacy of 'Argument from improbability'. or 'argument from personal incredulity'.

Thing is.. you can't prove your calculations.. you give big numbers to unkonwns..

that is nonsense.. might be convincing to the gullible though.

ROFL ...

Math is now a fallacy? An argument from improbability is fallacious?

The lengths that some atheists will go to to deny is truly amazing.

Statistics is used in everything from engineering to insurance, but Goat finds it fallacious. Nice.

Thanks for reminding me why it was the better choice to walk away from atheism ... and embrace math.

Now, can you show that the numbers you are throwing out are truthful and accurate, and that you are actually USING the proper calculation? No, you can't. You can't show taht the numbers you rhow out actually represent things, or that your calculations are correct.. so it is attempting to impress with big numbers that , well, don't really mean anything.

So, yes, it is a logical fallacy, using the misunderstanding of statistics .

I have a source that you are free to check at any moment.

But we don't reject statistical analysis simply because it offends the people on the wrong side of the analysis.

The entire proof is listed, there are others out there generally agreeing in terms of analytical analysis and conclusions.

Atheism is on the wrong side, so we should reject statistics?

Silliness.

I challenge you to show that your calculation and factors into your calculations have anything to do with reality what so ever. First challenge.

They are not mine, they are the sources numbers. The burden is NOW upon you to disprove it ... not me.

This atheist idea that only other people have to think, examine, and solve is really quite off putting.

[Goat]

They are not mine, they are the sources numbers. The burden is NOW upon you to disprove it ... not me.

This atheist idea that only other people have to think, examine, and solve is really quite off putting.

Yet, you used them. Please show that they have any validity, that the alleged educational you are providing has any basis in reality, or withdraw your claim. Show the source, and show that they know what the heck they are talking about... or are they just throwing big numbers out there that have no meaning?

It sounds to me that you are throwing big numbers out there that you have no concept of what they relate too, and then say 'PROVE IT WRONG'. This is the logical fallacy of 'Shifting the burden of Proof'. You make a claim and then say "Prove me wrong'. Wow, Such a lesson in logical fallacies.



Second challenge.

[Divine Insight]

They are not mine, they are the sources numbers. The burden is NOW upon you to disprove it ... not me.

This atheist idea that only other people have to think, examine, and solve is really quite off putting.

Yet, you used them. Please show that they have any validity, that the alleged educational you are providing has any basis in reality, or withdraw your claim. Show the source, and show that they know what the heck they are talking about... or are they just throwing big numbers out there that have no meaning?


Second challenge.

I love using other people's numbers. Especially when I can throw their own numbers right back at them to prove my points.

I have to share the following story because I so love it.

I was arguing with a preacher. I told him that Christianity is a dying religion and will be completely dismissed in a few more generations. He passionately argued that I have absolutely no grounds for this claim and demanded that Christian is as strong as ever and will continue to grow in strength.

I agreed with him that it was merely my opinion based on trends that I haven't truly put a number on.

However as our conversation continued he began to accuse colleges of turning religiously faithful "children" (actually young adults) into atheists. He was demanding that something needs to be done about our colleges.

I told him that I didn't believe his claim. He pointed me to studies that show that 9 out of 10 religious children that go on to college, graduate from college as an atheist.

In other words, his numbers show that 90% of religious children become atheists once they become college educated.

Well, gee whiz. I had just suggested that in a few more generations Christianity will be a deserted religion, and he had just confirmed this with his own numbers.

If religious children are being converted to atheism at a rate of 90% it won't even take more than one or two generations before Christianity is completely a thing of the past.

And that's based on HIS numbers.

[Mithrae]

They are not mine, they are the sources numbers. The burden is NOW upon you to disprove it ... not me.

This atheist idea that only other people have to think, examine, and solve is really quite off putting.

Yet, you used them. Please show that they have any validity, that the alleged educational you are providing has any basis in reality, or withdraw your claim. Show the source, and show that they know what the heck they are talking about... or are they just throwing big numbers out there that have no meaning?

I don't know about the numbers claimed in Stubbornone's source, but ironically it was from reading some of Stephen Hawking's work that I became curious about apparent fine-tuning of our universe and what it might imply. In The Grand Design, co-written with Leonard Mlodinow, the authors list over half a dozen points of apparent fine-tuning on a cosmological scale which are necessary for life to exist (pages 198-206):

• Existence of "tiny inhomogeneities in the early universe," without which galaxies and stars could not have formed
  
  
  For complex molecules to form, "a change of as little as 0.5 percent in the strength of the strong nuclear force, or 4 percent in the electric force, would destroy either nearly all carbon or all oxygen in every star, and hence the possibility of life as we know it"
  
  
  "It turns out that it is not only the strengths of the strong nuclear force and the electromagnetic force that are made to order for our existence. Most of the fundamental constants in our theories appear fine-tuned in the sense that if they were altered by only modest amounts, the universe would be qualitatively different, and in many cases unsuitable for the development of life. For example, if the other nuclear force, the weak force, were much weaker, in the early universe all the hydrogen in the cosmos would have turned to helium, and hence there would be no normal stars; if it were much stronger, exploding supernovas would not eject their outer envelopes, and hence would fail to seed interstellar space with the heavy elements planets require to foster life. If protons were 0.2 percent heavier, they would decay into neutrons, destabilizing atoms. If the sum of the masses of the types of quark that make up a proton were changed by as little as 10 percent, there would be far fewer of the stable atomic nuclei of which we are made; in fact, the summed quark masses seem roughly optimized for the existence of the largest number of stable nuclei. If one assumes that a few hundred million years in stable orbit are necessary for planetary life to evolve, the number of space dimensions is also fixed by our existence. That is because, according to the laws of gravity, it is only in three dimensions that stable elliptical orbits are possible. Circular orbits are possible in other dimensions, but those, as Newton feared, are unstable."
  
  
  "The laws of nature form a system that is extremely fine-tuned, and very little in physical law can be altered without destroying the possibility of the development of life as we know it. Were it not for a series of startling coincidences in the precise details of physical law, it seems, humans and similar life-forms would never have come into being. The most impressive fine-tuning coincidence involves the so-called cosmological constant in Einstein’s equations of general relativity. As we’ve said, in 1915, when he formulated the theory, Einstein believed that the universe was static, that is, neither expanding nor contracting. Since all matter attracts other matter, he introduced into his theory a new antigravity force to combat the tendency of the universe to collapse onto itself. This force, unlike other forces, did not come from any particular source but was built into the very fabric of space-time. The cosmological constant describes the strength of that force. When it was discovered that the universe was not static, Einstein eliminated the cosmological constant from his theory and called including it the greatest blunder of his life. But in 1998 observations of very distant supernovas revealed that the universe is expanding at an accelerating rate, an effect that is not possible without some kind of repulsive force acting throughout space. The cosmological constant was resurrected. Since we now know that its value is not zero, the question remains, why does it have the value that it does? Physicists have created arguments explaining how it might arise due to quantum mechanical effects, but the value they calculate is about 120 orders of magnitude (a 1 followed by 120 zeroes) stronger than the actual value, obtained through the supernova observations. That means that either the reasoning employed in the calculation was wrong or else some other effect exists that miraculously cancels all but an unimaginably tiny fraction of the number calculated. The one thing that is certain is that if the value of the cosmological constant were much larger than it is, our universe would have blown itself apart before galaxies could form and—once again—life as we know it would be impossible."

As Hawking and Mlodinow say, the cosmological constant appears to be the most impressive of all the apparent fine-tuning we observe, though the other examples given are impressive enough! Of the cosmological constant Wikipedia says:
As noted above, the measured cosmological constant is smaller than this by a factor of 10−120. This discrepancy has been called "the worst theoretical prediction in the history of physics!".[13]

Some supersymmetric theories require a cosmological constant that is exactly zero, which further complicates things. This is the cosmological constant problem, the worst problem of fine-tuning in physics: there is no known natural way to derive the tiny cosmological constant used in cosmology from particle physics.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmologic ... redictions

The most common solution to this impressive fine-tuning that I have seen, which Hawking and Mlodinow also suggest in their book, is to propose the existence of a multitude of invisible, undetectable universes of which ours is but one: In an infinite multiverse, surely there was bound to be one or two as incredible as ours!

I have not yet been convinced that this is a reasonable proposition, and since it is obviously neither observable, nor testable, nor falsifiable, it seems more along the lines of speculative metaphysics than science.

[Divine Insight]

The most common solution to this impressive fine-tuning that I have seen, which Hawking and Mlodinow also suggest in their book, is to propose the existence of a multitude of invisible, undetectable universes of which ours is but one: In an infinite multiverse, surely there was bound to be one or two as incredible as ours!

I have not yet been convinced that this is a reasonable proposition, and since it is obviously neither observable, nor testable, nor falsifiable, it seems more along the lines of speculative metaphysics than science.

Actually there are several other plausible explanations. Although the idea of infinitely many universes certain does address the problem.

One thing I find quite impressive is that the Inflation Theory, originally proposed by Alan Guth, solves the cosmological constant problem precisely, yet that wasn't his reason for proposing the theory originally.

Moreover, the cosmological constant is not really constant at all. In fact, current observations suggest that Dark Energy will ultimately rip the universe apart.

This is another thing to consider as well. Not only are we living in a universe that appears to be "fine-tuned" for life, but it also appears that we are living within a very narrow region of time within this universe where life will be possible.

In other words, our universe was not always hospitable to life, nor will it continue to be hospitable to life for very much longer (in terms of cosmological timescales).

So would this then be a universe that was specifically designed for life? Or merely a universe that simply went through a stage where life was possible?

It seems to me that recognizing this fact, brings up a whole new perspective.

Also, I personally don't buy into these "fine-tuning" observations. The reason being is because in a very real sense they are artificial.

What's being imagined is changing a single parameter without necessarily changing other parameters. In other words, they claim that if the strong force were slightly different atomic reactions could not exist as they currently do in our universe (i.e. keeping all the other forces and laws of physics the same).

But is that even a reasonable thing to suggest?

Perhaps the only way that the strength of the strong force could be changed is by changing the very laws of physics themselves. But if that is done perhaps nuclear reactions would unfold and behave in ways totally different from what we observe in our universe.

In other words, we can't even begin to imagine how other universes that might exist might differ from ours.

Change one little thing that is codependent on everything else (and vice versa) and you end up with a completely different physics altogether.

So it's really not even meaningful to say what might happen if a "single" parameter was changed without necessarily changing a whole lot of other stuff.

That very idea right there may not even be possible in practice.

So we really aren't in any position to even really claim that our universe is "fine-tuned" for any particular kind of success. All we can say is that if we were to imagine changing a few constants in our current universe without changing anything else, things wouldn't then work in our universe. But how can we even propose that this would be possible? We can't.

Another thing to consider too is the following:

If our universe is the result of some sort of "Quantum Fluctuation" that grew out of a quantum field then perhaps this is just the nature of the quantum field.

For example, in our universe we see what appear to be fundamental constituents that we have named "Quarks, Leptons, Bosons, etc.". We also see these types of objects or particles popping into and out of existence constantly from some underlying substrate that we call "quantum foam", or a "quantum field".

Well, if it is the nature of the quantum foam to always produce these types of fundamental constituents, and this same quantum foam or underlying field gives rise to all universes, then there's really no reason to believe that any universe would be all that much different from ours.

In other words, it may even be wrong to think in terms of the resulting universe when the actual recipe is in the quantum foam.

And again, what does it give rise to?

A universe that is specifically designed for life?

No, not really. It gives rise to a universe where it's possible for life to evolve only during certain stages of the universe's life.

That's hardly a universe that is "designed" for life.

To be more correct, it would be a universe that simply goes through a stage where life is possible. And in terms of the lifespan of the universe as a whole, that stage itself is only a very small sliver of time.

It would seem to me that if the universe had been intentionally designed to produce life it should be far more efficient than what it appears to be.

The idea that life is just a mere accidental by-product isn't all that hard to buy.

How any of this stuff came to be in the first place is still quite the mystery.

I mean, as far as I'm concerned if all that existed was a chaotic mess that would still be something, and to me, that itself would be nothing short of mysterious.

Of course, there wouldn't be anyone around to even know that nothing but chaos exists.

In fact, that then becomes a deep philosophical question of whether it's even meaningful to speak about something existing if it's not being experienced by some conscious mind that can be aware of it's existence.

That's an interesting concept to ponder as well, but clearly straying far from the original conversation.

[Justin108]

Statistics - simple mathematics (can you get much more logical than that?)

Here is statistical zero - as in statistically impossible.

"1/1050
(1/100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000)
(0.00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001)
Statistical 0

That is a 1 in 10 x 50th power, chance ... at which point, mathematicians equate to zero probability.

Here is the statistical probability that the universe just randomly created itself.

1/10322
=
1/100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000
,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,
000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,0
00,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00
0,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000

That is a 1 in 10 to the 322 power chance - well beyond the statistic threshold of impossibility.

http://pleaseconvinceme.com/2012/eviden ... obability/

So your atheism, in order to reject a creator in the universe, must embrace the statistical impossibility.

There is a proof of a God. Not a single fallacy in it.

1. You seem to misunderstand my question. I am not asking for arguments AGAINST atheism (which this still isn't). I'm asking for arguments FOR theism. There is a difference. For one, even if it were impossible for the universe to exist at random doesn't therefor mean that a personal entity called god created it. An alternative to theism is deism and in the case where atheism is refuted, deism is still possible.

2. It is at best "highly inprobable" but I would argue that bringing a supernatural entity into the equation is not needed. The odds of winning the lottery is 1 in 14 million but a winner of the lottery need not attribute it to divine intervention.

3. The fact that the universe is infinite makes up for the mathematical improbability of chance. If you have a 6 sided dice, the odds of throwing 6 is 1/6. But if you had 6 chances to throw, then statistically you are very likely to throw 6 atleast once. Now the universe, being infinite, has an infinite number of throws. So the 1/10 to the 322 power dice is thrown over and over and over again for infinity until it lands on what is our universe today. For all we know, many different universes have existed before and this is only the billionth version or so? So no. It is not mathematically imporbable. It is very probable that in a universe with unfinite time, eventually the dice will land on our current state of being.

[Justin108]

Can ANY argument be made in support of theism that does not rely on a logical fallacy?

It's my conclusion that such an argument can indeed be made.

However, that could potentially depend upon your precise definition of "theism".

If your definition of "theism" requires the existence of a conscious entity that is somehow totally separate from us in some way, then no, I wouldn't even bother to go there.

the·ism (thzm)
n.
Belief in the existence of a god or gods, especially belief in a personal God as creator and ruler of the world.

[Justin108]

Can ANY argument be made in support of theism that does not rely on a logical fallacy?

It's my conclusion that such an argument can indeed be made.

However, that could potentially depend upon your precise definition of "theism".

If your definition of "theism" requires the existence of a conscious entity that is somehow totally separate from us in some way, then no, I wouldn't even bother to go there.

the·ism (thzm)
n.
Belief in the existence of a god or gods, especially belief in a personal God as creator and ruler of the world.



For the purpose of this debate, let's define theism as such. I do want to stress the criteria of "personal" to seperate it from deism. So whatever argument is being made for theism should be seperate to the arguments made for deism. An argument made for theism must include a reason to believe this entity is personal

[TheTruth101]

Statistics - simple mathematics (can you get much more logical than that?)

Here is statistical zero - as in statistically impossible.

"1/1050
(1/100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000)
(0.00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001)
Statistical 0

That is a 1 in 10 x 50th power, chance ... at which point, mathematicians equate to zero probability.

Here is the statistical probability that the universe just randomly created itself.

1/10322
=
1/100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000
,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,
000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,0
00,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00
0,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000

That is a 1 in 10 to the 322 power chance - well beyond the statistic threshold of impossibility.

http://pleaseconvinceme.com/2012/eviden ... obability/

So your atheism, in order to reject a creator in the universe, must embrace the statistical impossibility.

There is a proof of a God. Not a single fallacy in it.

1. You seem to misunderstand my question. I am not asking for arguments AGAINST atheism (which this still isn't). I'm asking for arguments FOR theism. There is a difference. For one, even if it were impossible for the universe to exist at random doesn't therefor mean that a personal entity called god created it. An alternative to theism is deism and in the case where atheism is refuted, deism is still possible.

2. It is at best "highly inprobable" but I would argue that bringing a supernatural entity into the equation is not needed. The odds of winning the lottery is 1 in 14 million but a winner of the lottery need not attribute it to divine intervention.

3. The fact that the universe is infinite makes up for the mathematical improbability of chance. If you have a 6 sided dice, the odds of throwing 6 is 1/6. But if you had 6 chances to throw, then statistically you are very likely to throw 6 atleast once. Now the universe, being infinite, has an infinite number of throws. So the 1/10 to the 322 power dice is thrown over and over and over again for infinity until it lands on what is our universe today. For all we know, many different universes have existed before and this is only the billionth version or so? So no. It is not mathematically imporbable. It is very probable that in a universe with unfinite time, eventually the dice will land on our current state of being.

Not billions of universes Justin, only 12.