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.

[Mithrae]

I haven't forgotten about you Justin! I've got a bad habit of involving myself heavily in one or more topics after a few drinks on the weekend, then not being so interested in carrying the discussion after a few drinks during the week

I'd consider it a very intriguing piece of evidence - and if ten or twenty people of sound mental, physical and moral health reported similar experiences, with no plausible alternative explanation

That's just it. I have never come across a supernatural claim that did not have a plausible alternative explanation

You mean besides the ad hoc "he lied" or "she's deluded"? The gospel of John, which purports to have been written by a disciple of Jesus, relates a story of Jesus walking on water across the Sea of Galilee (found also in the gospel of Peter's interpretor Mark). What plausible alternative explanation would you offer for this supernatural claim?

You've made numerous references in your post to "the laws of nature being broken" or "a supernatural occurrence" and so on. You seem to have a view about the nature of the universe which I don't currently share. So before we proceed any further, could you explain more clearly what those views about the nature of the universe are and how you reached that conclusion? Specifically, do these 'laws of nature' and the designation of some things as 'supernatural' change with passing centuries? Are you simply talking about the current limits of common (scientific) observation?

I am forced to talk about the current limits of scientific observation and while I do not see it as absolute and indisputable, I do see them as most probable as only these findings can be reproduced. Unless that which is not considered a scientific possibility can be shown to be possible, my reason would dictate that either it is something that can happen but for some reason only happened in the Bible (such as water being turned into wine), or I am forced to consider the more likely explanation that the claim was false.

In other words, if something does not conform to our understanding of science then it is either impossible or highly improbable. Either case, a more probable explanation of false claims is more likely.

The scientific method is a superb tool for learning more about our world because it seeks to eliminate personal biases and ad hoc theories. My understanding is that one of the ways it accomplishes this is by confining itself to data which can be verified and theories which can be falsified. Both of those criteria require things which are repeatable, which can be observed again and again by anyone interested, and ideally tested and re-tested in different experimental conditions.

The specific interventions by a deity which we were discussing obviously would not be repeatable on demand. Walking on water is (and was) considered a miracle precisely because it happens so rarely. (If memory serves there's a similar story in which the Buddha and his disciples saw some local mystic walking across a river and the Buddha chose not to duplicate the feat.) In other words what you appear to be doing is taking a method designed to work out how our world usually operates, and turning it into a theory of how our world always operates. You then consider any reported observations of different behaviour (revelations/miracles/'supernatural') to be so unlikely that even ad hoc accusations of lies or delusion seem more likely to you.

It seems to me that's putting the cart before the horse. First you've got to try and guess if there might be any exceptions to the usual behaviour of the universe. And if there were a Creator of the universe, as we were discussing vis a vis deism and theism as a spin-off of the fine-tuning argument, then obviously exceptions to the usual behaviour must be considered quite possible. So as I've pointed out, the more we encounter of not-obviously-unreliable reports of interaction from this deity, simple maths suggests that it becomes increasingly more likely that some of them will be lies or delusion, but increasingly less likely that they are all lies or delusion.

To actually do the maths we'd need to assign some more or less arbitrary probability of lies or delusion to each reported event. But to give us a ballpark idea of what we're up against, suppose we gathered just twenty not-obviously-unreliable reports of divine interaction, and assigned them quite a high arbitrary lies/delusion probability of 0.9 - that is, a 90% chance that they're lying or deluded, even though we have no evidence suggesting it. Unless my maths is way off, the probability that all of them are lying or deluded would then be 0.9^20 = 0.1216, or in other words more than 80% likelihood that at least one of those reports is genuine.

Perhaps you think we should arbitrarily assign an even higher lies/delusion probability to such reports - but I rather suspect that there are more than twenty of them floating around out there In other words unless there is some sound reason to believe that the "laws of nature" are absolute, the mathematics seems to suggest considerably better than even odds that these so-called 'super-natural' things do occasionally happen.


Edit: Remember, whether we're talking about formal education, the media or general scientific knowledge, we all get a great deal of our information from other people's experience.

The reason that reasonable people accept such knowledge as valid - for example, that anthropogenic climate change is occurring or that evolutionary theory is sound, rather than being grand conspiracies against democracy/capitalism/God - is because we consider it improbable that so many scientists (and the media through which we receive their knowledge) are lying or deluded.

I think it's perfectly reasonable (in terms of generalisations) to raise the lying/deluded bar a little higher for claims of divine intervention. But you'd have to raise it absurdly high to reasonably dismiss all the reported experiences of people from different times, places and cultures which suggest that reality is not as simple or closed as some folk believe. They might all be false, but a betting man would put his money on some of them being true.

[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

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.

Yes, and I pointed it is one huge logical fallacy. I believe it is known as 'misuse of statistics.' I pointed out what was wrong with that argument, and there seemed to be a huge lack of understanding of not only my response, but the original argument to begin with.

Some people get impressed with big numbers being thrown out there.. but when the numbers can not be shown to be accurate, nor can they be shown to actually represent reality, the argument sort of falls apart.

[PhiloKGB]

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.

Did you extract this portion?
[center]Did you know that the sun is 93 million miles from Earth? Did you know that if our planet was just 15,000 miles closer or farther from the sun, no life could exist on Earth?[/center]
The author of that piece does not know (or worse, does know and misrepresents anyway to support a foregone conclusion, knowing that his target audience likely won't independently fact-check) that the Earth is 93 million miles from the Sun on average, and that it can be as close as 91.5 million miles at perihelion and as far as 94.5 million miles at aphelion. These extremes obviously far exceed the apparently arbitrary 30,000 mile range the author specifies.

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.

Honor and integrity, eh?

[Bust Nak]

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

Yes, I've seem many logically valid argument in support of theism. Many form this very forum. Not one that is sound though.

[Ionian_Tradition]

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.

Tell me, what is the probability that an omnipotent God would, out of an infinite number of possible universes, choose to create the specific universe in which we presently reside?

1 in infinity? I don't like these odds...Shall we then conclude that God did not create the universe given that the probability of him/her/it doing so in the manner he/she/it purportedly did is infinitely low? Such is the problem with probabilities. Once a thing has occurred, discussing the probability of whether or not it could actually happen is rather counter productive.

[olavisjo]

Tell me, what is the probability that an omnipotent God would, out of an infinite number of possible universes, choose to create the specific universe in which we presently reside?

Tell me, what is the probability of you writing down your phone number (xxx-xxx-xxxx) if you desire to do so?

=1/9,999,999,999 or 100%

[Ionian_Tradition]

Tell me, what is the probability that an omnipotent God would, out of an infinite number of possible universes, choose to create the specific universe in which we presently reside?

Tell me, what is the probability of you writing down your phone number (xxx-xxx-xxxx) if you desire to do so?

=1/9,999,999,999 or 100%

Well if, analogous to God, I happened to possess an infinite number of phone numbers, I suppose the probability that I should choose any one permutation of numbers would still be exceedingly low. We could go further and ask: What is the probability that I should develop a desire to write down any particular number when there are an infinite number of phone numbers to be desired. The probability remains exceedingly low.

[olavisjo]

Well if, analogous to God, I happened to possess an infinite number of phone numbers,

You assume that God desired the other universes as much as this one. I would think that God desired the one where you are you the most, and created that one deliberately because that is the one you were in.

[Ionian_Tradition]

Well if, analogous to God, I happened to possess an infinite number of phone numbers,

You assume that God desired the other universes as much as this one. I would think that God desired the one where you are you the most, and created that one deliberately because that is the one you were in.

I do not assume anything, rather I question the probability that God should develop a desire to create the universe in any particular way when there exists an infinite number of alternatives to be desired.

[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?

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 missed the point of course. The point is that if the universe must have been designed then you must also have been designed right down to the last strand of your DNA. Nothing to do with free will.