Is their a fallacy for when someone synomymize one subject for another?

Question

John Foley	Is their a fallacy for when someone synomymize one subject for another? It is essentially, "X is the same as Y. Since Y exists, this proves X exists". An example is when someone defines their God as everything in existence and since this is also the universe and it exists, then their God also exists. My take on arguing this is we already have a word for the universe, so their defined God is a useless definition and as such, is only a deceptive way to sidestep or shift the burden of proof as their God is a proven assertion.
	asked on Sunday, Apr 22, 2018 01:38:11 PM by John Foley
Top Categories Suggested by Community
Comments

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

Uncomfortable Ideas: Facts don't care about feelings. Science isn't concerned about sensibilities. And reality couldn't care less about rage.

This is a book about uncomfortable ideas—the reasons we avoid them, the reasons we shouldn’t, and discussion of dozens of examples that might infuriate you, offend you, or at least make you uncomfortable.

Many of our ideas about the world are based more on feelings than facts, sensibilities than science, and rage than reality. We gravitate toward ideas that make us feel comfortable in areas such as religion, politics, philosophy, social justice, love and sex, humanity, and morality. We avoid ideas that make us feel uncomfortable. This avoidance is a largely unconscious process that affects our judgment and gets in the way of our ability to reach rational and reasonable conclusions. By understanding how our mind works in this area, we can start embracing uncomfortable ideas and be better informed, be more understanding of others, and make better decisions in all areas of life.

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

Ad Hominem Info 0	Well, it very much depends on the definition of that tiny word "is". If "is" is used to state material equivalence, the statement is true. As in: Even numbers are the same as (are equivalent to) numbers divisible by 2 Numbers divisible by 2 exist, Therefore even numbers exist. (let's leave the question of the 0 out for the moment...) If "is" stands for implication, it is false. For example: A squares is (implies) a rectangle. Rectangles exist. ??? this is not sufficient proof that squares exits, in fact there's a fallacy for trying to make such a deduction (Affirming the consequent<>). The question is now whether the thing that someone compares "God" with is a material equivalence or a an implication. Well, if, for example, you have a statement like "God is goodness and goodness exists", then God certainly isn't a material equivalent (that would be such a narrow definition of "God" that even most Atheists could sign up to it), but rather somebody stating his or her definition of God implies goodness. Nothing wrong with that per se. But deducting from it the existence of God is certainly is commiting the affirming the consequent-fallacy. When thinking about what could possibly be counted as a material equivalence, the best I could find is The Holy Spirit (spiritus sanctus), which by some rather suspicious catholic doctrine is supposedly both equivalent to God and a part of it/him. There are probably some other logical problems with this, but let's assume the first premise to be: God is the same as The Holy Spirit. That's a lot better, but now we have to problem how to prove the existence of The Holy Spirit. So effectively we just shifted the problem from one term to another... So in the end, affirming the consequent is probably our best bet in any case. {u}Edit:{/u} On second thought: it might be a nice challenge to make a case for material equivalence of "God" and "Jesus" and try to deduct the existence of God without falling for the Fallacy of Equivalence. Anyone up for the challenge? ;-9
	answered on Sunday, Apr 22, 2018 02:09:39 PM by Ad Hominem Info
Comments

Bo Bennett, PhD 0	The logic X is the same as Y. Since Y exists, this proves X exists is valid. That is, if the premises are true the conclusion must be true. To determine if it is sound, we need to plug in the variables. When we then say God is everything in existence. The universe is everything in existence. Since the universe exists, then God also exists. One could rightfully reject either premise as being true. I think most believers in a god would reject that definition in God, and most cosmologists would reject that definition of the universe (especially those who subscribe to a multiverse). Fallacy-wise, this might be best seen as the Definist Fallacy
	answered on Sunday, Apr 22, 2018 03:50:40 PM by Bo Bennett, PhD
Bo Bennett, PhD Suggested These Categories
Comments

Jorge 0	I don't think that defining God as the universe is a useless definition. Someone could change their behavior by acknowledging this. For example, there are some people that respect nature because they believe that it is their God. I don't know what you mean by a "deceptive way to sidestep or shift the burden of proof as their God is a proven assertion." Do you mean proof for the divine? If so, then I agree. Saying that nature has divinity because we can see it presupposes that divinity can be seen. But for 'X is the same as Y. Since Y exists, this proves X exists' and "an example is when someone defines their God as everything in existence" does not commit a fallacy at it. This would be the same thing as saying that "my God is science. I can see science. Therefore my God exists." If you're worried about implications about the spiritual world, simply ask if that's what they mean.
	answered on Monday, Apr 23, 2018 08:03:17 PM by Jorge
Comments