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.

[Artie]

Every human ovum is fertilised by a sperm which is the winner in a race of over 100,000,000 participants. That means that the chances of you being born are 1 in 10^8. Both of your parents had the same chance of being born and since they had to be born before you could be, we have the statistical improbability of you being born of 1 in (10^8 x 10^8 x 10^8) or 1 in 10^24. If we take your grandparents into consideration, the statistical probability of you being born is 1 in (10^8 x 10^8 x 10^8 x 10^8 x 10^8 x 10^8 x 10^8) or 1 in 10^56.

You and your source claim that 10^50 is "statistical zero". We've only gone back 2 generations to generate a statistical improbability that you should not exist yet here you are participating on this forum.

Here are some other calculations:
"If you go back 10 generations (250 years) the chance of you being born at all is at most 1 divided by 6 x 10 to the power of 100"
http://members.shaw.ca/tfrisen/chances_ ... isting.htm
Stubbornone, you have been proven correct. Since there is no statistical possibility that you should exist, you, personally, must have been intentionally designed and made by a god. So when did this happen? Were you designed just prior to your birth or were you already designed before the big bang and it took 13.7 billion years to actualize you?

[Justin108]

Every human ovum is fertilised by a sperm which is the winner in a race of over 100,000,000 participants. That means that the chances of you being born are 1 in 10^8. Both of your parents had the same chance of being born and since they had to be born before you could be, we have the statistical improbability of you being born of 1 in (10^8 x 10^8 x 10^8) or 1 in 10^24. If we take your grandparents into consideration, the statistical probability of you being born is 1 in (10^8 x 10^8 x 10^8 x 10^8 x 10^8 x 10^8 x 10^8) or 1 in 10^56.

You and your source claim that 10^50 is "statistical zero". We've only gone back 2 generations to generate a statistical improbability that you should not exist yet here you are participating on this forum.

Here are some other calculations:
"If you go back 10 generations (250 years) the chance of you being born at all is at most 1 divided by 6 x 10 to the power of 100"
http://members.shaw.ca/tfrisen/chances_ ... isting.htm
Stubbornone, you have been proven correct. Since there is no statistical possibility that you should exist, you, personally, must have been intentionally designed and made by a god. So when did this happen? Were you designed just prior to your birth or were you already designed before the big bang and it took 13.7 billion years to actualize you?

Here's an interresting thought added to that... if God planned every single one of us then he must have planned our conception aswell. So if a baby is born out of rape. then God must have planned the rape.

[NoisForm]

Read the source. I have already pulled out the relevant parts and explained them, including a portion of the assumptions its based upon.

Its now up to you, not me, to rebut.

If you reject it, YOU have to explain why.

I'd like to raise two points. The first involves this statement (from another post of yours);

"Complexity with purpose does indicate design."

First, I believe that the complexity element here isn't required to indicate purpose. I would say that anything, simple or complex, that can be shown to have a purpose, might be said to be designed.

Take, for example, a cane or walking stick (you could use whatever manmade object you find to be especailly simple in design). I thought a walking stick might suffice as it requirs virtually no crafting to use it for its intended purpose, it has no moving parts, etc. You snap it off of a tree (or find it on the ground), and use it to aid your movement by resting on it a bit as you go. Done.

A walking stick of this nature clearly has a purpose, and very little in the way of complexity. I argue the only way we actually know that it has the purpose that it does, is because we designed it and assigned said purpose to it.

Here is what I feel is the crucial distinction that need be made; Function vs. Purpose. There is a world of difference between the two. One can deduce a supposed function of nearly anything I would imagine. But to decide upon the purpose of something - this implicitly involves intent. One must know the intent of a thing (or more clearly, a thing's designer) to know its purpose.

Without going on and on here, I argue that you (or anyone) cannot possibly show the purpose of any naturally occurring object. Again, not the function a thing, but its purpose. For this argument I mean 'naturally occurring' to mean 'not man made'.



The second point involves a quote from you, and one from the link you provided (my bold in each);

"Until you can spell out a convincing case about why the universe is random rather than designed..."

"If I were to randomly toss our planet into our solar system, what are the chances that I would place it in the 30,000 mile range that makes life possible to exist?"

I believe both you and your source offer us a false dichotomy here, while completely disregarding the laws of physics, which are anything but random. 'There is either a supreme designer (a god), or everything is completely random'.

The planet (and universe at large) is not randomly...anything. There are rather specific forces at work (at base, the laws of physics). Do you believe for example that the earth is 'randomly' hurtling around the sun at this moment? Or is it rather traveling at a specific speed in a specific trajectory due to the laws of physics?
Do you believe that the sun radiates a random amount of heat and that this heat is dissipating at a random rate? Or that it two is exhibiting predictable behaviors quite in line with those same laws?

I wonder, if you accept that none of this (current phenomenon) can be said to be random, why you would assume that all of it must have been random in the past, during the formation of said bodies? The same physics would seem to apply at least back to the very instant of the Big Bang, where things get rather messy.

So no, I don't believe our only choices are 'god or randomness' (I am leaving aside the mire of quantum mechanics as I don't believe I'm qualified to go there quite frankly. I've no real concept of the possibility of the macro effects of QM). If this is so, your (their) entire argument really seems to lose its steam.

( some related bits, though this specifically deals with evolution; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hoyle%27s_fallacy )

So, in a nutshell, 'function vs. purpose?' and 'stuff ain't random'. What say you?

[stubbornone]

Every human ovum is fertilised by a sperm which is the winner in a race of over 100,000,000 participants. That means that the chances of you being born are 1 in 10^8. Both of your parents had the same chance of being born and since they had to be born before you could be, we have the statistical improbability of you being born of 1 in (10^8 x 10^8 x 10^8) or 1 in 10^24. If we take your grandparents into consideration, the statistical probability of you being born is 1 in (10^8 x 10^8 x 10^8 x 10^8 x 10^8 x 10^8 x 10^8) or 1 in 10^56.

You and your source claim that 10^50 is "statistical zero". We've only gone back 2 generations to generate a statistical improbability that you should not exist yet here you are participating on this forum.

Here are some other calculations:
"If you go back 10 generations (250 years) the chance of you being born at all is at most 1 divided by 6 x 10 to the power of 100"
http://members.shaw.ca/tfrisen/chances_ ... isting.htm
Stubbornone, you have been proven correct. Since there is no statistical possibility that you should exist, you, personally, must have been intentionally designed and made by a god. So when did this happen? Were you designed just prior to your birth or were you already designed before the big bang and it took 13.7 billion years to actualize you?

Here's an interresting thought added to that... if God planned every single one of us then he must have planned our conception aswell. So if a baby is born out of rape. then God must have planned the rape.

Is there some reason that atheists have a problem staying on target?

Free Will. This has been answered many, many times.

[stubbornone]

Read the source. I have already pulled out the relevant parts and explained them, including a portion of the assumptions its based upon.

Its now up to you, not me, to rebut.

If you reject it, YOU have to explain why.

I'd like to raise two points. The first involves this statement (from another post of yours);

"Complexity with purpose does indicate design."

First, I believe that the complexity element here isn't required to indicate purpose. I would say that anything, simple or complex, that can be shown to have a purpose, might be said to be designed.

Take, for example, a cane or walking stick (you could use whatever manmade object you find to be especailly simple in design). I thought a walking stick might suffice as it requirs virtually no crafting to use it for its intended purpose, it has no moving parts, etc. You snap it off of a tree (or find it on the ground), and use it to aid your movement by resting on it a bit as you go. Done.

A walking stick of this nature clearly has a purpose, and very little in the way of complexity. I argue the only way we actually know that it has the purpose that it does, is because we designed it and assigned said purpose to it.

Here is what I feel is the crucial distinction that need be made; Function vs. Purpose. There is a world of difference between the two. One can deduce a supposed function of nearly anything I would imagine. But to decide upon the purpose of something - this implicitly involves intent. One must know the intent of a thing (or more clearly, a thing's designer) to know its purpose.

Without going on and on here, I argue that you (or anyone) cannot possibly show the purpose of any naturally occurring object. Again, not the function a thing, but its purpose. For this argument I mean 'naturally occurring' to mean 'not man made'.



The second point involves a quote from you, and one from the link you provided (my bold in each);

"Until you can spell out a convincing case about why the universe is random rather than designed..."

"If I were to randomly toss our planet into our solar system, what are the chances that I would place it in the 30,000 mile range that makes life possible to exist?"

I believe both you and your source offer us a false dichotomy here, while completely disregarding the laws of physics, which are anything but random. 'There is either a supreme designer (a god), or everything is completely random'.

The planet (and universe at large) is not randomly...anything. There are rather specific forces at work (at base, the laws of physics). Do you believe for example that the earth is 'randomly' hurtling around the sun at this moment? Or is it rather traveling at a specific speed in a specific trajectory due to the laws of physics?
Do you believe that the sun radiates a random amount of heat and that this heat is dissipating at a random rate? Or that it two is exhibiting predictable behaviors quite in line with those same laws?

I wonder, if you accept that none of this (current phenomenon) can be said to be random, why you would assume that all of it must have been random in the past, during the formation of said bodies? The same physics would seem to apply at least back to the very instant of the Big Bang, where things get rather messy.

So no, I don't believe our only choices are 'god or randomness' (I am leaving aside the mire of quantum mechanics as I don't believe I'm qualified to go there quite frankly. I've no real concept of the possibility of the macro effects of QM). If this is so, your (their) entire argument really seems to lose its steam.

( some related bits, though this specifically deals with evolution; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hoyle%27s_fallacy )

So, in a nutshell, 'function vs. purpose?' and 'stuff ain't random'. What say you?

Two points:

#1 - You addressed complexity, yet my quote is about complexity with purpose. As in something beneficial happened, what are the chances that the purposeful event happened by accident, random chance, rather than design.

The MORE complex a series of events need to be in order to achieve purpose, the less likely it is to be the result of random.

Example, again: a blown up bridge.

The requirements to blow up a specific bridge are complex. If we came across a blown up bridge, it would be FAR more likely that the USAF dropped a bomb on it then it would be that a series of gas fissures coalesced and burst forth and then ignited in a way that dropped a bridge span.

So when we see complex purposes reaching culmination, we look at probability to determine whether that purposeful result could have arisen simply by accident or random chance. With each set of 'purposeful' requirements, the odds lengthen. In this case from the Big Bang to life here on earth the chances of that occuring WITHOUT DESIGN is 10 x 322 power to 1 odds.

Well beyond the statistical point of impossibility.

In short, you seem to have misunderstood the claim I was making.

#2 - If you are claiming that the universe is not random, then you are in complete agreement with me.

The universe exploded. If things were set in such a way as to produce purpose from that explosion (i.e. eliminate or reduce randomness in the outcome) guess what that means?

So either the universe is the accidental result of that explosion or it is not. Statistics point to a much HIGHER probability of design.

Its just math.

[Mithrae]

You seem to be saying that Santa and God cannot be compared because of the different ways the concepts originated. How is that not the genetic fallacy?

Not quite. Santa actually began based on St. Nicholas. I'm saying that since Santa developed and is currently viewed purely as a concept, we should consider it to be purely a concept. Since theism developed and is currently viewed as an explanatory theory, we should consider it on its merits as an explanatory theory. How is that the genetic fallacy?

You're suggesting two concepts are incomparable because of the different ways in which the concepts originated. The "currently viewed" caveat doesn't take away from this ("we should consider theism as an explanatory theory because it is currently viewed as an explanatory theory"). The comparison stated that both Santa and God are not falsifiable, and this commonality is not invalidating by contrasting the historical circumstances in which the concepts first came to be believed.

The comparison was that "there are no actual, non-fallacious arguments for non-santaism." I pointed out that Santa developed and is considered a fictional idea, whereas theism developed and is considered an explanatory theory. Please show the fallacy, 'genetic' or otherwise, in saying that fictional ideas should be treated as fictional ideas and explanatory theories as explanatory theories.

Why can't God create a universe where consciousness is entirely the product of matter-energy interactions?

Proposing a conscious God > nonconscious matter-energy > conscious humans sequence seems unnecessarily complex, as I commented with regards to traditional Christian god/universe duality. But the reason I think that LiamOS' suggestion is a falsification criterion for theism is because it would undercut the thought/choice phenomena which provide the basis for theistic theories; by otherwise explaining them, it would provide a point beyond which extrapolation from our experience would have been falsified. Why do you think that theism is non-falsifiable in the normal sense of the term, or is that no longer your view?

Showing something to be unnecessarily complex doesn't falsify it. We are still left with a gap to put God in even if consciousness is shown to be a purely physical phenomenon, are we not?

That isn't the falsification criterion I highlighted. Read it again; "But the reason I think that LiamOS' suggestion is a falsification criterion for theism is because..." Once you've done that, I invite you to reflect a little on how falsification is generally used in academic disciplines. We don't say that geocentrism was non-falsifiable because sufficiently complex equations can still make it work. You're using non-falsifiable in the sense of "might still be maintained with increasingly ad-libbed elements and no rational basis" - but that is not the sense normally used for the word. That's a problem with your use of words, not with the theory of theism.

Agnostic atheism. An option which does not assume anything about what the "basic substance of reality" is and does not assume that the experience of "choice" to be some distinct thing or fundamental causal factor.

That's not a theory. According to many folk who identify themselves as such, it's not even a position. Theism is not "a less preferable position according to Occam's razor" than a barebones agnostic atheism which suggests nothing about substance or causation; theism is a position, and agnostic atheism is nothing.

Of course it's a position, it's the default position with regard to the existence of gods. It says we do not know and makes no assumptions on the matter either way. Leaving options on the table when evidence is too scant to make strong conclusions one way or the other is more parsimonious than making a series of unproven assumptions or arguments about the existence or nonexistence of God.

What is the content of this 'position' you hold?

It's 'default' in the sense that rocks, embryos, newborn infants and so on do not have a position regarding the existence of gods. But that's precisely it; they don't have a position. When you're aware of the concept, some of the reasons it is held and some of the reasons it is disputed, your claim to that 'default' no longer exists - you'll have reasons for either accepting or not accepting the concept.

[Alchemy]

Every human ovum is fertilised by a sperm which is the winner in a race of over 100,000,000 participants. That means that the chances of you being born are 1 in 10^8. Both of your parents had the same chance of being born and since they had to be born before you could be, we have the statistical improbability of you being born of 1 in (10^8 x 10^8 x 10^8) or 1 in 10^24. If we take your grandparents into consideration, the statistical probability of you being born is 1 in (10^8 x 10^8 x 10^8 x 10^8 x 10^8 x 10^8 x 10^8) or 1 in 10^56.

You and your source claim that 10^50 is "statistical zero". We've only gone back 2 generations to generate a statistical improbability that you should not exist yet here you are participating on this forum.

Here are some other calculations:
"If you go back 10 generations (250 years) the chance of you being born at all is at most 1 divided by 6 x 10 to the power of 100"
http://members.shaw.ca/tfrisen/chances_ ... isting.htm
Stubbornone, you have been proven correct. Since there is no statistical possibility that you should exist, you, personally, must have been intentionally designed and made by a god. So when did this happen? Were you designed just prior to your birth or were you already designed before the big bang and it took 13.7 billion years to actualize you?

Here's an interresting thought added to that... if God planned every single one of us then he must have planned our conception aswell. So if a baby is born out of rape. then God must have planned the rape.

Is there some reason that atheists have a problem staying on target?

Free Will. This has been answered many, many times.

You must then acknowledge that your argument from improbability is worthless or acknowledge that God plans every single conception.

[stubbornone]

Every human ovum is fertilised by a sperm which is the winner in a race of over 100,000,000 participants. That means that the chances of you being born are 1 in 10^8. Both of your parents had the same chance of being born and since they had to be born before you could be, we have the statistical improbability of you being born of 1 in (10^8 x 10^8 x 10^8) or 1 in 10^24. If we take your grandparents into consideration, the statistical probability of you being born is 1 in (10^8 x 10^8 x 10^8 x 10^8 x 10^8 x 10^8 x 10^8) or 1 in 10^56.

You and your source claim that 10^50 is "statistical zero". We've only gone back 2 generations to generate a statistical improbability that you should not exist yet here you are participating on this forum.

Here are some other calculations:
"If you go back 10 generations (250 years) the chance of you being born at all is at most 1 divided by 6 x 10 to the power of 100"
http://members.shaw.ca/tfrisen/chances_ ... isting.htm
Stubbornone, you have been proven correct. Since there is no statistical possibility that you should exist, you, personally, must have been intentionally designed and made by a god. So when did this happen? Were you designed just prior to your birth or were you already designed before the big bang and it took 13.7 billion years to actualize you?

Here's an interresting thought added to that... if God planned every single one of us then he must have planned our conception aswell. So if a baby is born out of rape. then God must have planned the rape.

Is there some reason that atheists have a problem staying on target?

Free Will. This has been answered many, many times.

You must then acknowledge that your argument from improbability is worthless or acknowledge that God plans every single conception.

Unfortuantely, my argument is that improbability means that there is design. Having created all this does not negate the reality of free will.

You raise children correct? When they reach adulthood do you suddenly stop existing as a parent because you grant your children the ability to make their own life?

Points for attempting to induce contradiction, minuses for not thinking it through.

[Fuzzy Dunlop]

The comparison was that "there are no actual, non-fallacious arguments for non-santaism." I pointed out that Santa developed and is considered a fictional idea, whereas theism developed and is considered an explanatory theory. Please show the fallacy, 'genetic' or otherwise, in saying that fictional ideas should be treated as fictional ideas and explanatory theories as explanatory theories.

Santa and God are concepts that have different developmental roots, therefore the comparison is invalid. The genetic fallacy. It makes no difference how the concepts are commonly viewed or how they developed. If they have things in common they have things in common.

Showing something to be unnecessarily complex doesn't falsify it. We are still left with a gap to put God in even if consciousness is shown to be a purely physical phenomenon, are we not?

That isn't the falsification criterion I highlighted. Read it again; "But the reason I think that LiamOS' suggestion is a falsification criterion for theism is because..." Once you've done that, I invite you to reflect a little on how falsification is generally used in academic disciplines. We don't say that geocentrism was non-falsifiable because sufficiently complex equations can still make it work. You're using non-falsifiable in the sense of "might still be maintained with increasingly ad-libbed elements and no rational basis" - but that is not the sense normally used for the word. That's a problem with your use of words, not with the theory of theism.

After some searching I am having trouble finding sources claiming that geocentrism is falsifiable, although I have found several that argue that geocentrism is non-falsifiable.

Philosophically, since the concepts of center and absolute motion are not clearly defined and no evidence distinguishing any motion of the earth from motion of the universe is available, geocentrism in and of itself cannot be falsified and is therefore not a scientific theory.

http://www.new-age-guide.com/new_age/mo ... ntrism.htm

What is your reference for the normal use of the word? I am open to better sources. But I think perhaps being unfalsifiable is why theism and geocentrism are not considered scientific theories.

What is the content of this 'position' you hold?

It's 'default' in the sense that rocks, embryos, newborn infants and so on do not have a position regarding the existence of gods. But that's precisely it; they don't have a position. When you're aware of the concept, some of the reasons it is held and some of the reasons it is disputed, your claim to that 'default' no longer exists - you'll have reasons for either accepting or not accepting the concept.

The default position with regard to a question doesn't change when we encounter arguments for different answers to it, if it did the concept wouldn't have much use for determining who has the burden of proof. I can only lose my claim to the default position and assume the burden of proof by making positive assertions in one direction or the other.

[Alchemy]

Every human ovum is fertilised by a sperm which is the winner in a race of over 100,000,000 participants. That means that the chances of you being born are 1 in 10^8. Both of your parents had the same chance of being born and since they had to be born before you could be, we have the statistical improbability of you being born of 1 in (10^8 x 10^8 x 10^8) or 1 in 10^24. If we take your grandparents into consideration, the statistical probability of you being born is 1 in (10^8 x 10^8 x 10^8 x 10^8 x 10^8 x 10^8 x 10^8) or 1 in 10^56.

You and your source claim that 10^50 is "statistical zero". We've only gone back 2 generations to generate a statistical improbability that you should not exist yet here you are participating on this forum.

Here are some other calculations:
"If you go back 10 generations (250 years) the chance of you being born at all is at most 1 divided by 6 x 10 to the power of 100"
http://members.shaw.ca/tfrisen/chances_ ... isting.htm
Stubbornone, you have been proven correct. Since there is no statistical possibility that you should exist, you, personally, must have been intentionally designed and made by a god. So when did this happen? Were you designed just prior to your birth or were you already designed before the big bang and it took 13.7 billion years to actualize you?

Here's an interresting thought added to that... if God planned every single one of us then he must have planned our conception aswell. So if a baby is born out of rape. then God must have planned the rape.

Is there some reason that atheists have a problem staying on target?

Free Will. This has been answered many, many times.

You must then acknowledge that your argument from improbability is worthless or acknowledge that God plans every single conception.

Unfortuantely, my argument is that improbability means that there is design. Having created all this does not negate the reality of free will.

You raise children correct? When they reach adulthood do you suddenly stop existing as a parent because you grant your children the ability to make their own life?

Points for attempting to induce contradiction, minuses for not thinking it through.

Do you agree that if there we a slight difference in past events that stopped our parents meeting, you or I would not have been born? If we were not born, someone else would have. Each outcome is as extremely improbable as each other yet we still have an outcome.

The same goes for your calculations on the improbability of our universe appearing as it does. If there were a slight difference in past events or some physical law (i.e. Gravitation force being 0.0001 stronger or weaker), we’d have a difference universe that what we have but we’d still have one.