Want to get notified of all questions as they are asked? Update your mail preferences and turn on "Instant Notification."
Dr. Bo is creating online courses in the area of critical thinking, reason, science, psychology, philosophy, and well-being. These courses are self-paced and presented in small, easy-to-digest nuggets of information. Use the code FALLACYFRIENDS to get 25% off any or all of Dr. Bo's courses.
|
This is the argument in syllogistic form: (I am paraphrasing here only because there wasn't enough information given. But since I have seen this argument before, I am rephrasing the argument to what I believe you are referring to.) Person 1: "The universe and everything that exists needs a creator, it couldn't have just popped into existence from nothing. Therefore God must have created everything." Person 2: "Using your own logic, If God created everything, and everything that exists needs a creator, then who created God?" Person 1: "No, God doesn't need a creator because he's God. There has to be a first cause and that cause is God." Person 2 is just using person 1's logic against them to point out an inconsistency within their logic. An inconsistency is a violation of law of non contradiction which would be an Ad Hominem (Tu quoque) Fallacy. Person 1 is also committing a Special Pleading Fallacy for God and not the universe. |
answered on Friday, May 29, 2020 11:53:43 AM by Jason Mathias | |
Jason Mathias Suggested These Categories |
|
Comments |
|
|
|
I've not heard of that one, but it seems to deal with counting events twice in relation to probability. I don't think you can assign probability to things which are only hypothesised and which we have no examples of, and "who created god" isn't an event. It sounds more like the complex question fallacy (which I know better as à loaded question) which includes a presupposition. However, if it's in response to a claim that god created everything "because everything has to have a cause", then it isn't a presupposition at all, it's raising the point that in that argument god is a thing and would require a cause as well (otherwise you have special pleading). |
answered on Friday, May 29, 2020 05:32:11 AM by Bryan | |
Bryan Suggested These Categories |
|
Comments |
|
|
|
Double Counting is a probability fallacy where the same event is counted multiple times, returning a false probability with correct numbers. There's no fallacy in your statement. "Who created God?" is a valid question of origin. |
answered on Friday, May 29, 2020 05:16:18 AM by TrappedPrior (RotE) | |
TrappedPrior (RotE) Suggested These Categories |
|
Comments |
|
|
|
Hi, John300974! As with others here who have answered, I don’t see how the question commits the Double Counting fallacy, but maybe you can clarify. The question is, however, answered by the argument. God created God, if God exists and created everything. (And that is a capital “G” because ultimate reality is what is being referred to. Capitalizing it has nothing to do with whether you as an individual are a theist, an atheist, or agnostic.) In other words, the “God created everything” argument, if sound, entails an instance of self-causation. But self-causation is absurd. Therefore, the “God created everything” argument is unsound. That is the gist of the critique, as I understand it: a reductio ad absurdum. I think it is a strong objection. Alternatively, as others have pointed out the question may also aim to reveal an inconsistency in Johnson’s view itself (let “Johnson” name the defender of the “God created everything” argument). For Johnson states that God created everything, but presumably also denies that God has a creator. If this presumption on our part is right, then Johnson contradicts himself. This route, like the one mentioned in the above paragraph, also leads to a strong objection. Regardless of what happens with Johnson, however, there is nothing here of concern for defenders of traditional and contemporary First Cause argument, just to make sure we understand that, too. No major proponent of a First Cause argument in the history of Western Philosophy has stood behind an argument that states that God created everything. Moreover, under the traditional Christian view of God (which can be found in the works of Judaic and Islamic philosophers, as well)—in which God is absolute simplicity in act —the question of who created God is easily answered with “no one” because absolute simplicity in act (God) could not in principle have a cause. Within the context of Natural Theology, then, the objection of “(if everything has a creator) then who created God” is very ignorant and incompetent, even if it is a strong objection against the gross caricature of First Cause arguments that your OP references. Although, in neither case do I yet see it as committing a Double Counting fallacy. Thank you, John300974. From, Kaiden
|
answered on Saturday, Jun 06, 2020 03:50:38 PM by Kaiden | |
Kaiden Suggested These Categories |
|
Comments |
|
|
|
No, the double counting fallacy is a probability calculation error. The Bible says God is eternal, that is he exists ('God is') but was never created ('eternal'). |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
answered on Friday, May 29, 2020 10:47:02 PM by Colin P | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Colin P Suggested These Categories |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Comments |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|