Apologetics and Logical Fallacies

[bluegreenearth]

All the popular apologetic arguments for the existence of God that have been provided by theists thus far contain logical fallacies within their premises. While the existence of a logical fallacy does not demonstrate an apologetic argument is false, it certainly renders it unreliable. Nevertheless, when these fallacies are identified by critical thinkers, most apologists almost never honestly acknowledge where they've made a reasoning error or attempt to directly respond to these legitimate objections. Instead, many theists try to inappropriately switch the burden of proof onto the skeptics, attack a straw-man version of the counter-apologetic, or deploy some other logically fallacious argument. Is this frustration a result of apologists being unfamiliar with common logical fallacies or are they deliberately and dishonestly refusing to mitigate for them?

If you are a theist, please indicate which apologetic argument is most convincing to you and why. If you believe it is a unified group of apologetic arguments rather than any single apologetic argument that convinces you the most, then indicate how a collection of fallacious arguments is transformed into a logical and reliable reason to believe in the existence of god. Please, be prepared to respond directly and honestly to any logical fallacy inherent to any apologetic argument you've supplied. Thanks.

[Wootah]

[Replying to bluegreenearth]

Do you have an example in mind?

[bluegreenearth]

[Replying to bluegreenearth]

Do you have an example in mind?

Since I specified that every apologetic argument is logically fallacious, any apologetic argument can serve as an example. Pick your favorite apologetic and we can evaluate where the logical fallacy exists.

[Wootah]

[Replying to bluegreenearth]

It's your thread.... What's your favourite example you have in mind?

[Jagella]

[Replying to post 1 by bluegreenearth]

One of the most common fallacies I encounter when debating apologists is that of the ad hominem. Whenever I debate them they almost always get around to telling me what a terrible person they think I am.

[Mithrae]

[Replying to post 5 by Jagella]

The term ad hominem is occasionally a source of confusion.

What it is:

• Ad hominem (Latin for "to the person"),[1] short for argumentum ad hominem, typically refers to a fallacious argumentative strategy whereby genuine discussion of the topic at hand is avoided by instead attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, or persons associated with the argument, rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself.[2]
  ~ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

An excellent example of fallacious ad hominem would be a thread which posits a dichotomy along the lines of 'theists are either ignorant of logic or deliberately dishonest, because all their arguments are fallacious' without ever showing that all such arguments are fallacious and, indeed, hedging and attempting to shift the burden of proof when asked.

What it is not:

• It should also be noted that an ad hominem fallacy occurs when one attacks the character of an interlocutor in an attempt to refute their argument. Insulting someone is not necessarily an instance of an ad hominem fallacy. For example, if one supplies sufficient reasons to reject an interlocutor's argument and adds a slight character attack at the end, this character attack is not necessarily fallacious. Whether it is fallacious depends on whether or not the insult is used as a reason against the interlocutor's argument.
  ~ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_homine ... th_insults

For example if a debater habitually adopted an openly combative/hostile approach to discussion, regularly making posts and new threads suggesting bias, bigotry, deception and ignorance among those with a contrary view, a consequent degradation of civility in those exchanges - while unfortunate - most likely would not be fallacious.

[bluegreenearth]

[Replying to post 4 by Wootah]

The Kalam Cosmological Argument for the Existence of God

Of all the gaps in our scientific understanding of the universe, the origin of the universe itself is probably the most intriguing. Expertly trained physicists, astronomers, and cosmologists continue to apply their functional understanding of the facts towards a natural explanation for how the universe came into existence. To date, such an explanation remains elusive. Nevertheless, the experts all unanimously and honestly admit that there is no demonstrable evidence to support any claim regarding the state of universe beyond the moment immediately prior to the Big Bang. Meanwhile, theists seem to confidently assert God was responsible for creating the universe as if the all the qualified scientists are just a wasting everyone’s time looking for a natural explanation. The basic structure of the argument is as follows:

Premise 1) Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
Premise 2) The universe began to exist.
Premise 3) Therefore, the universe has a cause.
Premise 4) God is the best explanation for this cause.
Conclusion) Therefore, God exists.

The reason many apologists rely upon an argument like this is because it artificially satisfies a very common psychological need for cognitive closure. In general, people are discomforted by confusion and ambiguity. The desire to have an answer to a profound question often motivates people to accept any explanation as long as it muffles their uncertainty. The propensity to be satisfied with an immediate answer over the acceptance of no answer is a form of cognitive bias we all share. To complicate things further, humans also have an evolved tendency to perceive agency where none may actually exist. The cumulative effect of these biases amounts to stacking the deck in favor of the easily digestible proposition which concludes the universe was created by a creator. So, even before we examine the first premise, the Kalam cosmological argument for the existence of God is already suspicious.

Interestingly, the method for concluding the existence of God in this argument is tied to a cosmological mystery, the metaphysics of causality, and the notion that our universe has a finite age. Because universes don’t seem to pop into existence for no reason, then the reasonable conclusion must be that our universe had a cause. The proposition is not necessarily controversial. The scientists who investigate the properties of the universe acknowledge something caused the quantum material making up the singularity at hour zero to suddenly expand and subsequently evolve to become the observable universe. What makes this particular theistic argument controversial is the audacity required to assert such a cause can be known through reasoning alone. Nevertheless, we shall proceed to examine this particular theistic proposition for any fallacious logic or misleading language.

In premise 1, the phrase “begins to exist� is strategically chosen to invoke the mental image of something being created. For instance, a chair began to exist after it was assembled by a person. However, what actually happened was the chair was constructed from previously existing and naturally occurring materials which were then rearranged in a specific way. The specifically rearranged structure was assigned “chair� as its label. Everything humans observe in the entire universe exists as a rearrangement of pre-existing natural materials regardless of whether they were assembled by humans or through natural processes. The distinction is important because the Kalam cosmological argument intends for “begins to exist� to actually mean the creation of raw material from absolute nothingness despite the fact that such a phenomenon has no observable precedent.

While it may be intuitive to view the universe as resulting from a long causality chain, theists are drawing a conclusion about existence which has never been observed. For the argument to be taken seriously, apologist must first produce a comprehensive list of material things which were observed to have begun their existence from absolutely no pre-existing substances. From there, we would have a baseline by which to compare and thereby infer a possible cause.

In other words, until we observe something cause a material substance to begin to exist from absolutely nothing, we can’t simply assert such a thing is possible let alone serve as the cause for everything in the universe. Even if a God was indisputably observable, we couldn’t know such a deity was responsible for creating the universe without first observing that it was possible for God to produce a material substance from absolutely nothing.
Sure, it might be tempting to point out that God is defined as having the ability to create something from nothing. Unfortunately, though, we can’t just arbitrarily define God into existence without the tactic being immediately identified and rejected as logically fallacious. Nevertheless, the Kalam cosmological argument mischievously asserts God is the best explanation anyway.

Apologists respond by claiming the cause of the universe must exist beyond space and time because all space-time began with the universe. From there, they deduce the cause must either be an abstract object or intelligent mind since no other things could exist outside space-time. Apart from the fact that abstract objects don’t exist anywhere outside a thinking brain much less outside space and time, they can’t be the cause of anything. Apologists capitalize on that fact to insist the only possible option is for the universe to have been created by a transcendent intelligent mind. Of course, they conveniently ignore the fact that an intelligent mind has never been demonstrated to exist apart from a physical brain. Likewise, they fail to demonstrate how a disembodied mind is any more capable of being a cause than an abstract object. Last time I checked, there has never been a validated circumstance where a sentient being was able to cause something to happen in the external world by just thinking about it. The entire concept is therefore incoherent.

In any case, the whole argument is a non-sequitur because the potential existence of a space-time boundary for the universe does not require “nothing� to precede it. Our current inability to measure or understand the state of the universe prior to the Big Bang does not automatically validate an uncaused, timeless, spaceless, immaterial, personal being with unfathomable power as the only alternative explanation. It basically doesn’t follow that a supernatural intelligence was necessary. So, let’s rewrite the argument for what it is:

Premise 1) Science can’t yet explain why there is something rather than nothing.
Conclusion) Therefore, God did it.

So, when the Kalam cosmological argument for the existence of God is reduced to its logical foundation, it is revealed to be nothing more than a God of the gaps fallacy. It makes no verifiable predictions. It confuses the meaning of the expression “begins to exist.� It deliberately equates “creation from something� with “creation from nothing.� It pretends to know what preceded the Big Bang. It falsely assumes time is unidirectional. It builds a false dichotomy between abstract objects and disembodied minds. It contradicts itself by first asserting nothing existed prior to the formation of the universe then concludes God (a something) existed prior to the formation of the universe. Even if we irresponsibly accepted the fallacious argument, we are still no closer to understanding how the universe was created, what being or beings were responsible, or what functional impact it could have on any decisions we could make in the reality we all experience.

[Divine Insight]

So, when the Kalam cosmological argument for the existence of God is reduced to its logical foundation, it is revealed to be nothing more than a God of the gaps fallacy. It makes no verifiable predictions. It confuses the meaning of the expression “begins to exist.� It deliberately equates “creation from something� with “creation from nothing.� It pretends to know what preceded the Big Bang. It falsely assumes time is unidirectional. It builds a false dichotomy between abstract objects and disembodied minds. It contradicts itself by first asserting nothing existed prior to the formation of the universe then concludes God (a something) existed prior to the formation of the universe. Even if we irresponsibly accepted the fallacious argument, we are still no closer to understanding how the universe was created, what being or beings were responsible, or what functional impact it could have on any decisions we could make in the reality we all experience.

Not only is everything you have stated about the KCA true, but IMHO, the only reason any theists would resort to such absurd arguments is because they are already fully aware that the theology of their actually religion is extremely flawed and totally indefensible.

After all, if they had a credible compelling theology they wouldn't need to be scraping at the bottom of the apologetics barrel with things like the KCA.

The only reason they feel a need to do this is because they know full well that their actual religious theology has no merit at all.

Besides, another huge flaw in the KCA as an apology for an specific region is the simple fact that even if it was a credible argument for a need for a magical creator (which it isn't), it still wouldn't point to Hebrew mythology.

It's not like as if any evidence for an intelligent creator would automatically make Christianity true. To the contrary, if such evidence did exist it could be used to support arguments for any religion under the sun.

So theists who resort to things like the KCA or the MOA are only demonstrating that they have already conceded that their specific theology is indefensible.

[bluegreenearth]

An excellent example of fallacious ad hominem would be a thread which posits a dichotomy along the lines of 'theists are either ignorant of logic or deliberately dishonest, because all their arguments are fallacious' without ever showing that all such arguments are fallacious and, indeed, hedging and attempting to shift the burden of proof when asked.

Reading between the lines, I assume this comment was directed at me. I should point out that the fallacy you meant to identify is the false dichotomy fallacy rather than the ad hominem fallacy. As for the comment about theists being either ignorant or dishonest, it is not an ad hominem attack since it is in the form of a question based on my personal experience with theists. To clarify, if there are other possible explanations other than the ignorance or dishonesty I've observed from theists, anyone is welcome to provide those for my consideration. Finally, it would be too impractical for me to describe every single logical fallacy I've identified in every single apologetic argument I've ever received from every theist I've encountered. However, I've offered to evaluate any apologetic argument proposed to me on this thread for any logical fallacies it might contain. Therefore, I am not shifting the burden of proof because I haven't yet received an apologetic argument in this thread to evaluate.

For example if a debater habitually adopted an openly combative/hostile approach to discussion, regularly making posts and new threads suggesting bias, bigotry, deception and ignorance among those with a contrary view, a consequent degradation of civility in those exchanges - while unfortunate - most likely would not be fallacious.

I hope this comment isn't referring to me as I've never deliberately intended to come across as excessively hostile towards those with contrary views. However, I do post my sincere perspective when prompted by other users, when it seems appropriate in response to the hostility expressed by others, or in defense of others who have been victimized by bias, bigotry, deception, and ignorance.

[Jagella]

Ad hominem (Latin for "to the person"),[1] short for argumentum ad hominem, typically refers to a fallacious argumentative strategy whereby genuine discussion of the topic at hand is avoided by instead attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, or persons associated with the argument, rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself.

Yes, I know this. A good example of an ad hominem might be the following:

Skeptic: "My conclusion is that there is no God."
Christian: "You are a fool for believing there is no God!"

The Christian here is alluding to Psalm 14:1.

An excellent example of fallacious ad hominem would be a thread which posits a dichotomy along the lines of 'theists are either ignorant of logic or deliberately dishonest, because all their arguments are fallacious' without ever showing that all such arguments are fallacious and, indeed, hedging and attempting to shift the burden of proof when asked.

No, I don't think that would be an ad hominem. Look at the definition of ad hominem you just posted. The topic posited in your example is a perfectly legitimate topic, and there is no attempt to avoid that topic. It's OK to attack some people's characters if that's the topic of debate.

Let me clarify. Say two people, Bernie and Donald, are debating if the Nazis were evil people. Bernie says yes they were evil, and Donald says no. Is Bernie committing an ad hominem for attacking the characters of the Nazis? No, because the characters of the Nazis is the topic of the debate.

For example if a debater habitually adopted an openly combative/hostile approach to discussion, regularly making posts and new threads suggesting bias, bigotry, deception and ignorance among those with a contrary view, a consequent degradation of civility in those exchanges - while unfortunate - most likely would not be fallacious.

The way I see it, if a person has good reason to believe that certain individuals are biased, bigoted, deceptive, and ignorant, then I welcome her to let us all know. I think it's good to combat bias, bigotry, deceit, and ignorance.

Don't you?