Question

...
Alex Boyer

I need some help

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.
asked on Sunday, Jun 09, 2019 04:05:00 PM by Alex Boyer

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."

Eat Meat... Or Don't.

Roughly 95% of Americans don’t appear to have an ethical problem with animals being killed for food, yet all of us would have a serious problem with humans being killed for food. What does an animal lack that a human has that justifies killing the animal for food but not the human?

As you start to list properties that the animal lacks to justify eating them, you begin to realize that some humans also lack those properties, yet we don’t eat those humans. Is this logical proof that killing and eating animals for food is immoral? Don’t put away your steak knife just yet.

In Eat Meat… Or Don’t, we examine the moral arguments for and against eating meat with both philosophical and scientific rigor. This book is not about pushing some ideological agenda; it’s ultimately a book about critical thinking.

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

...
Bo Bennett, PhD
0
It is a non-sequitur . Because X exists, it does not follow that Y exists.
answered on Sunday, Jun 09, 2019 05:19:42 PM by Bo Bennett, PhD

Comments
...
mchasewalker
0
“... 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.



answered on Sunday, Jun 09, 2019 08:44:53 PM by mchasewalker

Comments
...
DrBill
0
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.
answered on Thursday, Jun 20, 2019 11:25:40 AM by DrBill

Comments
...
mchasewalker
0
If 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<>
answered on Thursday, Jun 20, 2019 01:29:52 PM by mchasewalker

Comments