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.

[playhavock]

Not that I am aware of.

[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.

[Goat]

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.

[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.

[Alchemy]

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.

The problem is not the maths, it's the numbers you're using in your calculations. They've been pulled out of thin air with nothing to support them.

[Goat]

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 .

[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.

The problem is not the maths, it's the numbers you're using in your calculations. They've been pulled out of thin air with nothing to support them.

Why don't you check the source that backs it up rand see for yourself?

You claim is merely an excuse to dismiss what you do not want to see.

By all means, you come up with a better way to apply statistics to the problem set. We use it everywhere in our society, the process is peer reviewed, but heh ... according to the person whose faith is on the wrong side of the statistical analysis, I just made it up?

[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.

[Goat]

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.