I need some help
Historical archive only. New interaction is disabled.
Original Question
Is there any specific fallacy for this argument?
"Scientific finding exists, ergo this is proof for a deity."
Or more specifically... "Bioluminescence exists, ergo the Biblical deity exists."
It should be noted that no evidence was provided to describe the causal relationship, but I was wondering if there was a more specific fallacy outside of begging the question, as I see this argument very often when someone shoehorns their deity into some finding, whatever it may be.
"Scientific finding exists, ergo this is proof for a deity."
Or more specifically... "Bioluminescence exists, ergo the Biblical deity exists."
It should be noted that no evidence was provided to describe the causal relationship, but I was wondering if there was a more specific fallacy outside of begging the question, as I see this argument very often when someone shoehorns their deity into some finding, whatever it may be.
Answers
4If you claim that God's existence cannot be rationally discussed I urge you to watch this compelling debate between Christopher Hitchens and John Lennox.
https://youtu.be/5OXPlUCGScY<>
https://youtu.be/5OXPlUCGScY<>
“... but I was wondering if there was a more specific fallacy outside of begging the question, as I see this argument very often when someone shoehorns their deity into some finding, whatever it may be.”
Definitely a non-sequitur, but that applies to the way you’ve framed the original claims.
The “therefore God” claim has a wide spectrum of fallacies assigned to it i.e Appeal to Faith, Appeal to Belief, God of the Gaps, Special pleading, etc. etc. etc. Sadly, our greatest contemporary scientists, philosophers and secularists are preoccupied with answering this stupid, persistent and pernicious fallacy.
Definitely a non-sequitur, but that applies to the way you’ve framed the original claims.
The “therefore God” claim has a wide spectrum of fallacies assigned to it i.e Appeal to Faith, Appeal to Belief, God of the Gaps, Special pleading, etc. etc. etc. Sadly, our greatest contemporary scientists, philosophers and secularists are preoccupied with answering this stupid, persistent and pernicious fallacy.
In my opinion, the issue of God's existence cannot be rationally discussed , much less rhetorically proven...or disproven.
Not much better, but many apparent discussions intended to convince people that god exists, are really about the nature of god, and defining this is the purpose of religion, a man-made framework.
Not much better, but many apparent discussions intended to convince people that god exists, are really about the nature of god, and defining this is the purpose of religion, a man-made framework.
It is a non-sequitur . Because X exists, it does not follow that Y exists.
Master Logical Fallacies Online
Take the Virversity course and sharpen your reasoning skills with structured lessons.
View Online Course