|
|
I need some helpIs 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."
Claims are constantly being made, many of which are confusing, ambiguous, too general to be of value, exaggerated, unfalsifiable, and suggest a dichotomy when no such dichotomy exists. Good critical thinking requires a thorough understanding of the claim before attempting to determine its veracity. Good communication requires the ability to make clear, precise, explicit claims, or “strong” claims. The rules of reason in this book provide the framework for obtaining this understanding and ability.
This book / online course is about the the eleven rules of reason for making and evaluating claims. Each covered in detail in the book.
|
|
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 |
|
| |
|
|
“... 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 |
|
| |
|
|
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 |
|
| |
|
|
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 |
|
| |