Jumping to conclustions of something else?
Historical archive only. New interaction is disabled.
Original Question
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
Comments on Question
Answers
1For 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.
Master Logical Fallacies Online
Take the Virversity course and sharpen your reasoning skills with structured lessons.
View Online Course
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.