Jumping to conclustions of something else?

I actually think the following is Jumping to conclusions. Or is it something else?

P1. Everything which began to exist has a cause.

P2. The universe began to exist.

P3. Therefore, the universe has a cause.

Conclusion: Therefore, God exists

asked on Thursday, Feb 27, 2020 11:37:44 AM by Jack

Top Categories Suggested by Community

Comments

0	Bo Bennett, PhD writes: This might be a duplicate question of this one https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/questions/XccTc9B6/evaluation_of_godargument.html In short, yes, it would be jumping to conclusions to assert the cause is God.
	posted on Thursday, Feb 27, 2020 02:24:32 PM

	0	Jack writes: [To Bo Bennett, PhD] Whoops. Sorry, I will remember to search next time in case it's already been answered.
		[ login to reply ] posted on Thursday, Feb 27, 2020 04:47:56 PM

Want to get notified of all questions as they are asked? Update your mail preferences and turn on "Instant Notification."

Reason: Books I & II

This book is based on the first five years of The Dr. Bo Show, where Bo takes a critical thinking-, reason-, and science-based approach to issues that matter with the goal of educating and entertaining. Every chapter in the book explores a different aspect of reason by using a real-world issue or example.

Part one is about how science works even when the public thinks it doesn't. Part two will certainly ruffle some feathers by offering a reason- and science-based perspective on issues where political correctness has gone awry. Part three provides some data-driven advice for your health and well-being. Part four looks at human behavior and how we can better navigate our social worlds. In part five we put on our skeptical goggles and critically examine a few commonly-held beliefs. In the final section, we look at a few ways how we all can make the world a better place.

Get 20% off this book and all Bo's books*. Use the promotion code: websiteusers

* This is for the author's bookstore only. Applies to autographed hardcover, audiobook, and ebook.

Get the Book

Answers

Bryan 0	For this to be valid it would need to be that if the premises are true the conclusion would necessarily be true. It seems as though someone has take this valid syllogism: P1. Everything which began to exist has a cause. P2. The universe began to exist. C: Therefore, the universe has a cause. Changed the conclusion to a supposed premise, and just added the conclusion which they want. This is not valid because a god is not the only cause, and nor has it even been shown that a god is a possible cause, rather it is just asserted because that's what the person is trying to argue. This is an example of begging the question. Also note, in the syllogism I put above, whilst the conclusion must be true if the premises are both true, this says nothing regarding the truth of the premises.
	answered on Thursday, Feb 27, 2020 01:57:58 PM by Bryan
Bryan Suggested These Categories
Comments