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.

[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.

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.

I believe that God allows us to make choices and simply takes advantage of the opportunities we give him. I guess that sound a lot harder, but then God is omnipotent so ...

As for the second, it has no bearing on the actual math. A series of events HAD to occur for us to arrive here. With each instance of something HAVING to occur to produce this universe the statistical probability of it happening is heightened.

You are right though, if something different had happened ... we would not have this universe. That begins with what we already know, as in the universe, at step one ... should have just radiated out into dispersed energy. It didn't. It beat the odds by a long margin when it started created matter.

Again, same analogy, when an explosion happens in the middle of a field .. who cares right? When it happens directly on top of a bridge ... that should get us thinking.

The way atheists normally get around this statistical problem is with the multiverse.

" For a start, how is the existence of the other universes to be tested? To be sure, all cosmologists accept that there are some regions of the universe that lie beyond the reach of our telescopes, but somewhere on the slippery slope between that and the idea that there are an infinite number of universes, credibility reaches a limit. As one slips down that slope, more and more must be accepted on faith, and less and less is open to scientific verification. Extreme multiverse explanations are therefore reminiscent of theological discussions. Indeed, invoking an infinity of unseen universes to explain the unusual features of the one we do see is just as ad hoc as invoking an unseen Creator. The multiverse theory may be dressed up in scientific language, but in essence it requires the same leap of faith."

In short, in order to maintain the belief that theists just imagined a God, atheists created an infinite number of universes that are completely untestable.

Probability point to design.

Could it be wrong? Sure. But it certainly points out that belief in God is anything but illogical (though certainly it can be in some cases).

[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.

Because I find the reasoning behind them sound.

You have listed no reason for anyone to doubt them whatsoever ... other than the fact that math doesn't support your position, therefore it should be rejected?

The whole point of debate is to make a case, not ask others to make a case and then willfully ignore it for no particular reason.

Perhaps, instead of debate, you would do better with www.agreewitheverythingisay.com ?

Do you>?? I have yet to see evidence you even READ them. When you point me to a web site to PROVE something, and every solitary article on that web site refutes your point (as in the dating of the Gospels in the early christian writings), it is evidence to me that you DON'T read and understand your own sources.

In debate, it is certainly acceptable to extract data from a link, and point to the link so that people can read what you extracted IN CONTEXT, and to show the source of your information to let people examine it for further information, or to see how credible it is to begin with, but raw links?? That is not debate, nor is it evidence of anything except for laziness on the part of the person providing the raw link

[dontknow]

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.

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

But at some point God will execute judgement upon the rapist and intervene right (at final judgement)? Which means at that point he will in fact interrupt free will as he won't let this rapist continue being free to do as he pleases. So if God is willing to violate free will in the so-called "afterlife" why not now? Clearly free will is something he can and will violate anyway so why not now?

[playhavock]

Okay , so I gather my questions went unsanswered. Plenty delt with the whole big number problem.

Lets make it a ton simper in funciton - we have exactly one universe.
We have laws of phyiscs in this unverse to observe.
Thats it.
We can not assign any values to that becuase we only have one universe to observe.

If we are taling a D6 we know it has 6 sides and can assin numbers to the problity it will roll a "1" - 1 in 6. When we add two dice we can make a bellcurve showing that the highest problity is rolling a 7 - but the dice can roll nohting but snake eyes - problity sugests this should not be the case, but offen the gambler fallacy is invoked, "I've lost several times, this time I will win so I will bet big." and they lose again.
Simulary dice although problity can be invoked to give us the number they will MOST OFFEN roll can not be used to tell us what they WILL roll.

Still - for the universe, we have only one side of the die to look at, so the numbers are untill shown to be otherwise, totaly meeninless.

[stubbornone]

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.

Because I find the reasoning behind them sound.

You have listed no reason for anyone to doubt them whatsoever ... other than the fact that math doesn't support your position, therefore it should be rejected?

The whole point of debate is to make a case, not ask others to make a case and then willfully ignore it for no particular reason.

Perhaps, instead of debate, you would do better with www.agreewitheverythingisay.com ?

Do you>?? I have yet to see evidence you even READ them. When you point me to a web site to PROVE something, and every solitary article on that web site refutes your point (as in the dating of the Gospels in the early christian writings), it is evidence to me that you DON'T read and understand your own sources.

In debate, it is certainly acceptable to extract data from a link, and point to the link so that people can read what you extracted IN CONTEXT, and to show the source of your information to let people examine it for further information, or to see how credible it is to begin with, but raw links?? That is not debate, nor is it evidence of anything except for laziness on the part of the person providing the raw link

If you have, after several weeks of debate never seen post a link and extract information from it to make a case I can only assume that you are deliberately avoiding exactly what you ask for.

Its been done several times, and at this point, and as per the forum rules, I am going to have to ask that you back up your claim. MANY theists are providing evidence DAILY on the board, and deliberate ignorance and avoidance of that DEMANDED presentation is simply unhelpful.

In this thread alone, I posted this link:

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

And extracted the relevant portions of the article in order to butress the claims of probability.

Your claims stand in utter defiance of the evidence at hand, and I am afraid you either have to back up your supercillious and clearly irrational claim, or simply apologize.

You are allowed to disagree with presented evidence, but simply claiming it is not being done is disingenuous at best. Honor, integrity, and indeed simple honesty compells me to take issue with your claim.

[stubbornone]

Okay , so I gather my questions went unsanswered. Plenty delt with the whole big number problem.

Lets make it a ton simper in funciton - we have exactly one universe.
We have laws of phyiscs in this unverse to observe.
Thats it.
We can not assign any values to that becuase we only have one universe to observe.

If we are taling a D6 we know it has 6 sides and can assin numbers to the problity it will roll a "1" - 1 in 6. When we add two dice we can make a bellcurve showing that the highest problity is rolling a 7 - but the dice can roll nohting but snake eyes - problity sugests this should not be the case, but offen the gambler fallacy is invoked, "I've lost several times, this time I will win so I will bet big." and they lose again.
Simulary dice although problity can be invoked to give us the number they will MOST OFFEN roll can not be used to tell us what they WILL roll.

Still - for the universe, we have only one side of the die to look at, so the numbers are untill shown to be otherwise, totaly meeninless.

No according to the multiverse theory we do not ...

[Mithrae]

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.

If you're not going to bother reading what I've written, don't bother to reply.

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.

Of course going by your trusty New Age source, heliocentrism also is not a scientific theory since it too is 'non-falsifiable' in those terms. That's a curious view for you to be supporting, but fair enough. But as I said above, it seems to me that the term is usually used without allowing for the endless ad-libbing of new elements which could preserve virtually any theory from falsification.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiabi ... icationism
Scientific theories can always be defended by the addition of ad hoc hypotheses. As Popper put it, a decision is required on the part of the scientist to accept or reject the statements that go to make up a theory or that might falsify it. At some point, the weight of the ad hoc hypotheses and disregarded falsifying observations will become so great that it becomes unreasonable to support the base theory any longer, and a decision will be made to reject it.

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.

You didn't answer my question: What is the content of this 'position' you hold?

If it has no content, you are not holding a position any more than a rock or embryo is. If it has content, please explain it.

[Fuzzy Dunlop]

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.

If you're not going to bother reading what I've written, don't bother to reply.

Not really a productive rebuttal. I'm reading, you just seem to be one poster I have a particularly hard time understanding.

Of course going by your trusty New Age source, heliocentrism also is not a scientific theory since it too is 'non-falsifiable' in those terms. That's a curious view for you to be supporting, but fair enough. But as I said above, it seems to me that the term is usually used without allowing for the endless ad-libbing of new elements which could preserve virtually any theory from falsification.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiabi ... icationism
Scientific theories can always be defended by the addition of ad hoc hypotheses. As Popper put it, a decision is required on the part of the scientist to accept or reject the statements that go to make up a theory or that might falsify it. At some point, the weight of the ad hoc hypotheses and disregarded falsifying observations will become so great that it becomes unreasonable to support the base theory any longer, and a decision will be made to reject it.

Alright, I am clearly trying and failing to understand why you think theism is falsifiable.

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.

I suppose I do not recognize theism as a scientific theory based on "the thought/choice phenomenon" outside of your own characterizations of it. Predestination comes to mind, for example. Also it seems to me we are already at the point where "free will" is not an especially defensible concept. Theism is already a collection of such convoluted, ad hoc explanations that it is hard to imagine the next nail in the coffin will be the last. Perhaps as falsification criterea for certain uncommonly reasonable theisms I can understand your point.

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.

You didn't answer my question: What is the content of this 'position' you hold?

If it has no content, you are not holding a position any more than a rock or embryo is. If it has content, please explain it.

I don't understand the question. What is the "content" of any default position with regard to any question? It is the neutral standpoint making no positive assertions one way or the other.

[Mithrae]

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.

If you're not going to bother reading what I've written, don't bother to reply.

Not really a productive rebuttal. I'm reading, you just seem to be one poster I have a particularly hard time understanding.

If you read what I wrote, then you are continuing to affirm that it is fallacious to say that "fictional ideas should be treated as fictional ideas and explanatory theories as explanatory theories." I did specifically ask you to show how this was fallacious, not to liberally re-word and re-interpret my comments to make them fit what you think the genetic fallacy is. Perhaps it would help if you explained why you think the genetic fallacy is in fact a fallacy, and then show how "fictional ideas should be treated as fictional ideas and explanatory theories as explanatory theories" fits into that mould?

Of course going by your trusty New Age source, heliocentrism also is not a scientific theory since it too is 'non-falsifiable' in those terms. That's a curious view for you to be supporting, but fair enough. But as I said above, it seems to me that the term is usually used without allowing for the endless ad-libbing of new elements which could preserve virtually any theory from falsification.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiabi ... icationism
Scientific theories can always be defended by the addition of ad hoc hypotheses. As Popper put it, a decision is required on the part of the scientist to accept or reject the statements that go to make up a theory or that might falsify it. At some point, the weight of the ad hoc hypotheses and disregarded falsifying observations will become so great that it becomes unreasonable to support the base theory any longer, and a decision will be made to reject it.

Alright, I am clearly trying and failing to understand why you think theism is falsifiable.

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.

I suppose I do not recognize theism as a scientific theory based on "the thought/choice phenomenon" outside of your own characterizations of it. Predestination comes to mind, for example. Also it seems to me we are already at the point where "free will" is not an especially defensible concept. Theism is already a collection of such convoluted, ad hoc explanations that it is hard to imagine the next nail in the coffin will be the last. Perhaps as falsification criterea for certain uncommonly reasonable theisms I can understand your point.

You're welcome to show where I even remotely suggested anywhere that theism is a scientific theory. Not only have I not done so, in fact I specifically described it as one possible metaphysical theory in this post, and not so long ago you and I spent many days discussing why metaphysics and science are different things. I'm not sure why you have such difficulty understanding me, but you have my sympathy.

LiamOS, who I believe is an atheist, posted an potential scenario which he suggested would falsify theism. I agreed that it would do so, if it came to pass, and I have explained my reasoning. If you continue to insist that theism is non-falsifiable, either you are using the term 'falsifiable' in a sense which I suspect no academic discipline would accept, or else you are obliged to explain why you think this is so. Vague allusions to predestination and free will do not demonstrate theism's non-falsifiability, I'm afraid.

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.

You didn't answer my question: What is the content of this 'position' you hold?

If it has no content, you are not holding a position any more than a rock or embryo is. If it has content, please explain it.

I don't understand the question. What is the "content" of any default position with regard to any question? It is the neutral standpoint making no positive assertions one way or the other.

So correct me if I'm wrong here but it seems that, default or not, your 'position' has no intellectual content, no usefulness and no merit.

[playhavock]

No according to the multiverse theory we do not ...

That theroy- if true (and we can not know it is or is not) would meen that the numbers are totaly irrevelent as you are now rolling billons of dice and the chance that any sequance of any numbers will occure is now 100%. So, no.