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.

[Justin108]

That is irrelevant to the statistical probability of THIS universe being created..

Ummm... that's because in that section I wasn't arguing statistical probability. I was arguing agains complexity as a sign of design...

And yes, there are examples of what a none designed universe looks like. Statistically speaking, like most explosions, the Big Bang should have just radiated out into disparate energy. Instead, it somehow coalesces into ... matter. Its one of those events that makes the whole thing so improbable.

That's not an example.... that's merely speculation of a hypothetical universe.

But wait a minute... are you now telling me you do NOT believe in the Big Bang?

The Big Bang is a theory, and it has evidence - like cosmic background radiation

... yet here you explain how it has evidence. Wow ok so you pretty much refuted yourself there... well done.

In short, you are not debating, you are coming up with random non-scientific excuses that you clearly haven't even thought through ... all to deny.

No... I'm questioning a THEORY as THEORIES are free to be questioned. Also I am adding other scientific theories into the equation such as the Big Crunch which would support my theory of multiple "attempts" at the current state of the universe. And again, like I have said and you have not addressed this... I don't even need to bring up arguments for the Big Crunch to explain away your probability argument as I have already pointed out that the sheer number of possible planets would make it statistically likely for atleast one of them to contain life. You have conveniently ignored that point.

So to revise... I have no less than 3 independant arguments to explain away your statistical problem.

1. The Big Bang may not be true. It is just a theory after all
2. IF the Big Bang is true, the Big Crunch may also be true as it is also a scientific theory. If the Big Crunch is indeed true, it makes it very possible for the universe to have restarted many times before. Enough times for it to be statistically probable that atleast one of the universes resulted in life.
3. IF the Big Bang is true and the Big Crunch is false, it doesn't matter because the vast amounts of planets in the universe makes it very probable that atleast one has life on it.

And what is the point of asking fro evidence if you aren't even going consider it? Why should anyone treat such rabid denial as 'rational' rather than emotional?

They have been considered. They have been weighed, they have been measured, and they have been found wanting.
You just seem upset that I have managed to refute them.

No one is saying that except you. I believe I asked you to stop using deliberate strawmen.

This is not a strawman.

A straw man is when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position.

I am not ignoring your position. I am merely paraphrasing it to portray it's fallacious nature.

But if you insist it's a strawman then you can ignore it if you want. Your argument still fails without it.

You keep asking for things, but you aren't even talking statistics

I have refuted your claim of statistic improbabilit. But here it is again...

1. The Big Bang may not be true. It is just a theory after all
2. IF the Big Bang is true, the Big Crunch may also be true as it is also a scientific theory. If the Big Crunch is indeed true, it makes it very possible for the universe to have restarted many times before. Enough times for it to be statistically probable that atleast one of the universes resulted in life.
3. IF the Big Bang is true and the Big Crunch is false, it doesn't matter because the vast amounts of planets in the universe makes it very probable that atleast one has life on it.

You have so far ditched both math and the Big Bang in order to do what? Maintain your atheism?

I have addressed your math. You just ignore my points. And if you insist the Big Bang is a "fact" then go ahead and ignre point 1.
Points 2 and 3 will do:
2. IF the Big Bang is true, the Big Crunch may also be true as it is also a scientific theory. If the Big Crunch is indeed true, it makes it very possible for the universe to have restarted many times before. Enough times for it to be statistically probable that atleast one of the universes resulted in life.
3. IF the Big Bang is true and the Big Crunch is false, it doesn't matter because the vast amounts of planets in the universe makes it very probable that atleast one has life on it.

Quote:
"Everything is complex because it is more complex than that which is not complex" while "that which is not complex" does not exist since "everything is complex".


Once again, this is your strawman. Your deliberate reduction of an argument into a deliberate oversimplification.

This is not a strawman. Which part is a dishonest claim? Are you not claiming that everything that is complex? Looking at the structure of an atom, I would call it very complex. And are you not saying that everything that is complex needs a creator? What part of my paraphrase is in disagreement with your claims?

So you did pull it off a random atheist website. Good to know.

Remind me again where you found your statistics? Oh a website? And what's with all the ad hominims? You sound like a pissy kid who's not getting his way.

Its like a bomb hitting a bridge. If you drop a bomb in the middle of the woods, who cares? But when it hits a bridge ... well, to have such a specific result is highly indicative of planning and targeting. That energy produces matter is a very specific result, and just one step in which probability begins to make you go ... hmmm.

Ok so absolutely everything has a purpose?
Ok what's the purpose of Pluto? What's the purpose of Orion's belt? What's the purpose of dandruff? Hell you seem to claim everything has a purpose so what's the meaning of life?

And Mr. Hume is wrong. If I see ONE dropped bridge, I can figure out the statistical probability, which Mr. Hume is not even addressing BTW, of whether the drop was natural or induced. I don't need to see 17 dropped bridges to know what happened.

Ok let me ask you something. How do you know what is natural and what is man made?

Take the I-90 bridge collapse (which did not result from explosion) in Minneapolis a few years back. Did we need to see a dozen other collapsed bridges to determine that it was mechanical failure that caused it?

The concluded it to be mechanical failute because they understood the concept of mechanical failure through EXPERIENCE with mechanical failure. If no machine has EVER failed then they would not have considered mechanical failure since they would not have had experienced it before and they would not know what it constitutes.

If you are claiming that the universe is infinite, you are disagreeing with the Big Bang. The universe might be infinitely large (which is incorrect, its still expanding which means it must be expanding somewhere) has no bearing on the math whatsoever.

Its another excuse to deny.

It doesn't have to be litterally infinite. It just has to be pretty fking bit. Which it is. I would say it's big enough to house 10 to the 322 power planets. In which case the odds of life on atleast one is statistically probable.

Once again, for a guy who complains about his points not being read, you seem oddly content to ignore massive portions of argumentation. Whether a god stops caring after creation (deism), is irrelevant to the probability of design. It really is that simple.

Jesus Christ... my point is your supposed to be arguing for THEISM but instead, all you're arguing for is DEISM because that's all these probability arguments lead to! a God - yet there is no reason thereafter to conclude that this God communicated with man.

Abiogenesis only adds to the probability issue, for all the step to occur ... from an explosion, only adds to the probability problem making it even more unlikely that it was just random chance.

And I explained to you that probability is not an issue in the grand scheme of things.

Not only id Mr. Hume rebutted, but we have the emotionalism of "It's from a Christian Website!" Indeed, 'I' am Christian, therefore you can ignore me at will? Why indeed did you bother coming to a Christian Website if your biases are so strong and compelling you cannot even acknowledge the countering points?

If you can't even prove A god exist, how do you intend to prove the Christian god is the right god? You have miles to go still and you're stuck at the beginning. If you like, I can give you a push start? I'll be kind enough to throw you a bone and say for argument sake there cannot exist a universe without a god. Can you take the next step and prove it's indeed YOUR god who is to thank for it?

http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... hp?t=22096

Follow this link if you wish to continue to step 2

[Artie]

Requirements Related to the Universe and Our Galaxy
Correct local abundance and distribution of dark matter
Correct relative abundances of different exotic mass particles
Correct decay rates of different exotic mass particles
Correct density of quasars
Correct density of giant galaxies in the early universe
Correct galaxy cluster size
Correct galaxy cluster density
Correct galaxy cluster location
Correct galaxy size
Correct galaxy type
Correct galaxy mass distribution

OK. Let's see if I get this fine-tuning argument straight.

Once upon a time a god sits and makes a recipe for a universe capable of supporting life. He makes sure that every ingredient such as gravity will have exactly the right properties. Then he puts the dough in the oven. After 13.7 billion years the dough has expanded into the observable universe, a sphere with a diameter of about 29 gigaparsecs (93 Gly or 8.8×1026 m) containing up to a septillion stars and an untold number of planets. On one planet he creates some kind of life, then dinosaurs and then other kinds of animals and man out of dirt. Right so far?

Just one question: Why in the world would an almighty god need to wait 13.7 billion years until the observable universe had evolved, a sphere with a diameter of about 29 gigaparsecs (93 Gly or 8.8×1026 m) containing up to a septillion stars and an untold number of planets to put some life on a planet? Honestly...

[stubbornone]

That is irrelevant to the statistical probability of THIS universe being created..

Ummm... that's because in that section I wasn't arguing statistical probability. I was arguing agains complexity as a sign of design...

And yes, there are examples of what a none designed universe looks like. Statistically speaking, like most explosions, the Big Bang should have just radiated out into disparate energy. Instead, it somehow coalesces into ... matter. Its one of those events that makes the whole thing so improbable.

That's not an example.... that's merely speculation of a hypothetical universe.

But wait a minute... are you now telling me you do NOT believe in the Big Bang?

The Big Bang is a theory, and it has evidence - like cosmic background radiation

... yet here you explain how it has evidence. Wow ok so you pretty much refuted yourself there... well done.

In short, you are not debating, you are coming up with random non-scientific excuses that you clearly haven't even thought through ... all to deny.

No... I'm questioning a THEORY as THEORIES are free to be questioned. Also I am adding other scientific theories into the equation such as the Big Crunch which would support my theory of multiple "attempts" at the current state of the universe. And again, like I have said and you have not addressed this... I don't even need to bring up arguments for the Big Crunch to explain away your probability argument as I have already pointed out that the sheer number of possible planets would make it statistically likely for atleast one of them to contain life. You have conveniently ignored that point.

So to revise... I have no less than 3 independant arguments to explain away your statistical problem.

1. The Big Bang may not be true. It is just a theory after all
2. IF the Big Bang is true, the Big Crunch may also be true as it is also a scientific theory. If the Big Crunch is indeed true, it makes it very possible for the universe to have restarted many times before. Enough times for it to be statistically probable that atleast one of the universes resulted in life.
3. IF the Big Bang is true and the Big Crunch is false, it doesn't matter because the vast amounts of planets in the universe makes it very probable that atleast one has life on it.

And what is the point of asking fro evidence if you aren't even going consider it? Why should anyone treat such rabid denial as 'rational' rather than emotional?

They have been considered. They have been weighed, they have been measured, and they have been found wanting.
You just seem upset that I have managed to refute them.

No one is saying that except you. I believe I asked you to stop using deliberate strawmen.

This is not a strawman.

A straw man is when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position.

I am not ignoring your position. I am merely paraphrasing it to portray it's fallacious nature.

But if you insist it's a strawman then you can ignore it if you want. Your argument still fails without it.

You keep asking for things, but you aren't even talking statistics

I have refuted your claim of statistic improbabilit. But here it is again...

1. The Big Bang may not be true. It is just a theory after all
2. IF the Big Bang is true, the Big Crunch may also be true as it is also a scientific theory. If the Big Crunch is indeed true, it makes it very possible for the universe to have restarted many times before. Enough times for it to be statistically probable that atleast one of the universes resulted in life.
3. IF the Big Bang is true and the Big Crunch is false, it doesn't matter because the vast amounts of planets in the universe makes it very probable that atleast one has life on it.

You have so far ditched both math and the Big Bang in order to do what? Maintain your atheism?

I have addressed your math. You just ignore my points. And if you insist the Big Bang is a "fact" then go ahead and ignre point 1.
Points 2 and 3 will do:
2. IF the Big Bang is true, the Big Crunch may also be true as it is also a scientific theory. If the Big Crunch is indeed true, it makes it very possible for the universe to have restarted many times before. Enough times for it to be statistically probable that atleast one of the universes resulted in life.
3. IF the Big Bang is true and the Big Crunch is false, it doesn't matter because the vast amounts of planets in the universe makes it very probable that atleast one has life on it.

Quote:
"Everything is complex because it is more complex than that which is not complex" while "that which is not complex" does not exist since "everything is complex".


Once again, this is your strawman. Your deliberate reduction of an argument into a deliberate oversimplification.

This is not a strawman. Which part is a dishonest claim? Are you not claiming that everything that is complex? Looking at the structure of an atom, I would call it very complex. And are you not saying that everything that is complex needs a creator? What part of my paraphrase is in disagreement with your claims?

So you did pull it off a random atheist website. Good to know.

Remind me again where you found your statistics? Oh a website? And what's with all the ad hominims? You sound like a pissy kid who's not getting his way.

Its like a bomb hitting a bridge. If you drop a bomb in the middle of the woods, who cares? But when it hits a bridge ... well, to have such a specific result is highly indicative of planning and targeting. That energy produces matter is a very specific result, and just one step in which probability begins to make you go ... hmmm.

Ok so absolutely everything has a purpose?
Ok what's the purpose of Pluto? What's the purpose of Orion's belt? What's the purpose of dandruff? Hell you seem to claim everything has a purpose so what's the meaning of life?

And Mr. Hume is wrong. If I see ONE dropped bridge, I can figure out the statistical probability, which Mr. Hume is not even addressing BTW, of whether the drop was natural or induced. I don't need to see 17 dropped bridges to know what happened.

Ok let me ask you something. How do you know what is natural and what is man made?

Take the I-90 bridge collapse (which did not result from explosion) in Minneapolis a few years back. Did we need to see a dozen other collapsed bridges to determine that it was mechanical failure that caused it?

The concluded it to be mechanical failute because they understood the concept of mechanical failure through EXPERIENCE with mechanical failure. If no machine has EVER failed then they would not have considered mechanical failure since they would not have had experienced it before and they would not know what it constitutes.

If you are claiming that the universe is infinite, you are disagreeing with the Big Bang. The universe might be infinitely large (which is incorrect, its still expanding which means it must be expanding somewhere) has no bearing on the math whatsoever.

Its another excuse to deny.

It doesn't have to be litterally infinite. It just has to be pretty fking bit. Which it is. I would say it's big enough to house 10 to the 322 power planets. In which case the odds of life on atleast one is statistically probable.

Once again, for a guy who complains about his points not being read, you seem oddly content to ignore massive portions of argumentation. Whether a god stops caring after creation (deism), is irrelevant to the probability of design. It really is that simple.

Jesus Christ... my point is your supposed to be arguing for THEISM but instead, all you're arguing for is DEISM because that's all these probability arguments lead to! a God - yet there is no reason thereafter to conclude that this God communicated with man.

Abiogenesis only adds to the probability issue, for all the step to occur ... from an explosion, only adds to the probability problem making it even more unlikely that it was just random chance.

And I explained to you that probability is not an issue in the grand scheme of things.

Not only id Mr. Hume rebutted, but we have the emotionalism of "It's from a Christian Website!" Indeed, 'I' am Christian, therefore you can ignore me at will? Why indeed did you bother coming to a Christian Website if your biases are so strong and compelling you cannot even acknowledge the countering points?

If you can't even prove A god exist, how do you intend to prove the Christian god is the right god? You have miles to go still and you're stuck at the beginning. If you like, I can give you a push start? I'll be kind enough to throw you a bone and say for argument sake there cannot exist a universe without a god. Can you take the next step and prove it's indeed YOUR god who is to thank for it?

http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... hp?t=22096

Follow this link if you wish to continue to step 2

Its clear that you are engaging in conspiracy theorizing.

#1 - The Big Bang may not be true? Why? Its the accepted scientific paradigm and, guess what, if you are advocating that our analysis reject the scientific paradigm you have to explain why - and EXTRAORDINARY CLAIMS REQUIRE EXTRAORDINARY EVIDENCE.

If the only reason we should do so is because the Big Bang conflicts with your precious faith choice ... that is problem for YOUR FAITH ... not with scientific reasoning.

#2 - Experience is irrelevant to logic. I for example, have never built a bridge. But if tasked to examine the collapse of a bridge, I can figure out the parts of a bridge that make the bridge work and then see where and why the bridge fails.

All experience does is hasten the process in terms of time. That's it.

I am going to stop there, because there is a clear pattern, as I have already pointed out in your analysis:

#1 - You are not making a case in support of your views at all. You have a thesis: that the universe is the result of random chance ... and have presented nothing more than disagreement with design. You provide ZERO evidence in support of your conclusion.

#2 - As with the examples above, you are leaping from one excuse to the next without even thinking them through. You appear desperate to find ANY reason, no matter how superfluous, to reject.

Its the same thing Wells does in the Jesus Myth, wherein he uses a cacophony of random excuses to basically ignore the historical evidence of Jesus (an argument from absurdity). The result is not only much maligned, but a literal conspiracy theory.

Until you can spell out a convincing case about why the universe is random rather than designed, all you have is desperate conspiracy theory to maintain your faith.

If you want to be atheist, more power to you. Who cares?

If you want peer review, and your methodology is found severely lacking, than it is incumbent upon you to either shore it up or acknowledge that you are wrong.

Statsitics.

And you have not provided anything, in your lengthy swag from all over the excuse tree, that deal with probability. Indeed, in other threads right now, you are arguing about 'extremely unlikely events' proving rather clearly that the name of the game is denial at any cost ... even with overt double standards in analysis.

And that is a SERIOUS shortcoming in any analytical case.

Not surprisingly, the problem is with the atheist side in this matter.

[playhavock]

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.

Lets ask a few critcal questions about this number.

What are the calacuations based on, who made them, who agress with them?

[Justin108]

#1 - The Big Bang may not be true? Why? Its the accepted scientific paradigm and, guess what, if you are advocating that our analysis reject the scientific paradigm you have to explain why - and EXTRAORDINARY CLAIMS REQUIRE EXTRAORDINARY EVIDENCE.

If the only reason we should do so is because the Big Bang conflicts with your precious faith choice ... that is problem for YOUR FAITH ... not with scientific reasoning.
.

Observational evidence of all kinds (such as the WMAP data, recession of distant galaxies, etc.) seems to support the theory, but we may never know if it actually occured as theorized.

I understand it is a very good theory but it can still be wrong. I'm not saying it is wrong. I'm saying it can be.

I am going to stop there, because there is a clear pattern, as I have already pointed out in your analysis:

#1 - You are not making a case in support of your views at all. You have a thesis: that the universe is the result of random chance ... and have presented nothing more than disagreement with design. You provide ZERO evidence in support of your conclusion.

Wrong. If you recall, the OP clearly asks for arguments for Theism. You're the one meant to make the argument - not me. I am merely meant to attempt to refute them which I have done adequately.

#2 - As with the examples above, you are leaping from one excuse to the next without even thinking them through. You appear desperate to find ANY reason, no matter how superfluous, to reject.

The reason I am jumping from one refutation to the next is because I have more than one refutation. Why can't I present them all?
And can you please stop these ad hominims and stick to the actual argument? I get it. You don't like me. Let's move on.

Its the same thing Wells does in the Jesus Myth, wherein he uses a cacophony of random excuses to basically ignore the historical evidence of Jesus (an argument from absurdity).

I don't doubt Jesus' existence. I doubt that he came back from the dead and all... but I'm pretty sure he existed.

Until you can spell out a convincing case about why the universe is random rather than designed, all you have is desperate conspiracy theory to maintain your faith.

Again I remind you the OP asks that you present arguments for Theism. Not that I present arguments for Atheism.

If you want peer review, and your methodology is found severely lacking, than it is incumbent upon you to either shore it up or acknowledge that you are wrong.

Statsitics.

And you have not provided anything

Funny. You haven't even TOUCHED my Big Crunch argument.


And I see you haven't visited step 2.

http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... hp?t=22096

Do you give up then?

[stubbornone]

#1 - The Big Bang may not be true? Why? Its the accepted scientific paradigm and, guess what, if you are advocating that our analysis reject the scientific paradigm you have to explain why - and EXTRAORDINARY CLAIMS REQUIRE EXTRAORDINARY EVIDENCE.

If the only reason we should do so is because the Big Bang conflicts with your precious faith choice ... that is problem for YOUR FAITH ... not with scientific reasoning.
.

Observational evidence of all kinds (such as the WMAP data, recession of distant galaxies, etc.) seems to support the theory, but we may never know if it actually occured as theorized.

I understand it is a very good theory but it can still be wrong. I'm not saying it is wrong. I'm saying it can be.

I am going to stop there, because there is a clear pattern, as I have already pointed out in your analysis:

#1 - You are not making a case in support of your views at all. You have a thesis: that the universe is the result of random chance ... and have presented nothing more than disagreement with design. You provide ZERO evidence in support of your conclusion.

Wrong. If you recall, the OP clearly asks for arguments for Theism. You're the one meant to make the argument - not me. I am merely meant to attempt to refute them which I have done adequately.

#2 - As with the examples above, you are leaping from one excuse to the next without even thinking them through. You appear desperate to find ANY reason, no matter how superfluous, to reject.

The reason I am jumping from one refutation to the next is because I have more than one refutation. Why can't I present them all?
And can you please stop these ad hominims and stick to the actual argument? I get it. You don't like me. Let's move on.

Its the same thing Wells does in the Jesus Myth, wherein he uses a cacophony of random excuses to basically ignore the historical evidence of Jesus (an argument from absurdity).

I don't doubt Jesus' existence. I doubt that he came back from the dead and all... but I'm pretty sure he existed.

Until you can spell out a convincing case about why the universe is random rather than designed, all you have is desperate conspiracy theory to maintain your faith.

Again I remind you the OP asks that you present arguments for Theism. Not that I present arguments for Atheism.

If you want peer review, and your methodology is found severely lacking, than it is incumbent upon you to either shore it up or acknowledge that you are wrong.

Statsitics.

And you have not provided anything

Funny. You haven't even TOUCHED my Big Crunch argument.


And I see you haven't visited step 2.

http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... hp?t=22096

Do you give up then?

Let me get this straight, you understand the evidence for the Big Bang and why its so compelling and yet, still unexplained, you are asking us to eject it from consideration anyway ...

Ergo, we can assume that your religious biases are clearly fully engaged, which means I am about to give up because my evidence is so weak?

Silliness.

As stated, the goal isn't about logic or reason, its about not being wrong at any cost: self worship.

[stubbornone]

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.

Lets ask a few critcal questions about this number.

What are the calacuations based on, who made them, who agress with them?

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.

[Justin108]

Let me get this straight, you understand the evidence for the Big Bang and why its so compelling and yet, still unexplained, you are asking us to eject it from consideration anyway ...
.

I did not ask you to eject it from consideration. I asked you to consider the possibility that it may not be true.

And for the third time I remind you that you did not even begin to address my Big Crunch argument. Why are you ignoring it? Are you not able to refute it?

[Alchemy]

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.

Firstly, your source is only giving us the probability of THE universe and life as we know it. It is not giving us the probability of ANY universe existing without a deity being the cause.

Secondly, there are over 7 billion examples of extreme statistical improbabilities on earth. You are one of them. Extreme improbability is not zero, it is just extremely unlikely.

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.

[playhavock]

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

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

I guess you might have the topic is cluttered with lots of things to look at. Before I go off reading a webpage - tell me who wrote it, who agress with it, where they got there numbers from. You can just quote yourself from before to do so if you have done this before.