535 replies to this topic

[Mercerenies]

No. I believe separately in Christ and the Bible, but the two together further strengthen the belief. It's like you know a friend who is a writer, and you believe the main points in the friend's books. The two together further strengthen what you believe, what you believe in your friend, and possibly your relationship.

But you don't know a friend who is a writer. You believe and hope that there is a friend out there whose beliefs and words have been copied into this book.

[Peter Porky]

@UltimatePronoun

Yes, it's true that the universe may have just always been here.

But for the second part you seem to have gotten my math mixed up, yes, I had my 0's backwards. My answer wasnt 0/0 = 1, it was 0/0 = 1, 0, and infinity.

[smash ball]

But you don't know a friend who is a writer. You believe and hope that there is a friend out there whose beliefs and words have been copied into this book.

Putting aside how hard I can troll that sentence, you'd probably call me mentally crazy if I say how I connect the two. To put things a bit more simply, I have faith in a friend whose beliefs and words have been copied into this book (even though the Bible isn't all about Jesus). Furthermore, I have faith in the book as well.

[NicholasJB]

Common Fallacy:

appeal to faith: (e.g., if you have no faith, you cannot learn) if the arguer relies on faith as the bases of his argument, then you can gain little from further discussion. Faith, by definition, relies on a belief that does not rest on logic or evidence. Faith depends on irrational thought and produces intransigence.

Source: http://www.nobeliefs.com/fallacies.htm

Edited by NicholasJB, 13 June 2012 - 03:39 AM.

[smash ball]

If I must, then I shall. First of all, religion is based on faith and belief. The statement Merc made was that I believe and hope everything is correct with Jesus's Word being put into the Bible. I do not hope that it is correct. Hope assumes that I am feeling a bit uneasy and need something to cling on to. I have faith in Jesus and the Bible. There is no feeling inside that says maybe I'm wrong. The problem is the point being made now relies a bit more on what I believe than what I can actually prove. You can't prove the Big Bang, you can only believe it. You can't prove God, you can only believe it. I believe that God exists because of my own experiences and knowledge. You can ask me to prove history, but not beliefs. I suppose I could argue that not believing in God has its own irrationalities (such as prove God doesn't exist, and things get real hard real fast without using an assumption or belief that can't be proven). (Entirely assuming Nicholas intended his post for me)

[Moogle-Girl]

I suppose I could argue that not believing in God has its own irrationalities (such as prove God doesn't exist, and things get real hard real fast without using an assumption or belief that can't be proven).

http://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/burden-of-proof

[NicholasJB]

You can't prove the Big Bang, you can only believe it. You can't prove God, you can only believe it.

appeal to ignorance (argumentum ex silentio) appealing to ignorance as evidence for something. (e.g., We have no evidence that God doesn't exist, therefore, he must exist. Or: Because we have no knowledge of alien visitors, that means they do not exist). Ignorance about something says nothing about its existence or non-existence.

Self-evident. You said you're a #1 right? That means you agree that there is a deity (concretely). You're using "Faith" as a argument and then contrasting God to the Big Bang when in reality it is not the same. Explained below vv

half truths (suppressed evidence): A statement usually intended to deceive that omits some of the facts necessary for an accurate description.

The big bang is merely a theory, maybe even just a hypothesis. It is not a dogmatic belief.

red herring: when the arguer diverts the attention by changing the subject.

Diverting attention from what you are doing wrong, to what we are doing wrong. It's sort of a mix between this and Straw Man.

reification fallacy: when people treat an abstract belief or hypothetical construct as if it represented a concrete event or physical entity.

(The big bang is merely a theory, maybe even just a hypothesis. It is not a dogmatic belief.)

two wrongs make a right: trying to justify what we did by accusing someone else of doing the same

(The big bang is merely a theory, maybe even just a hypothesis. It is not a dogmatic belief.)

In my mind these all apply to this statement, if you think one is not relevant or too loosely relevant, throw it out. Most of them will still stand relevant (at least three are logically undeniable as far as I can see).

[Yourself]

Peter Parker and Peter Parker of Spiderman is like Jesus as a human and Jesus believed as Christ.

Yes, that's precisely the analogy I was making. The Jesus most people seem to be interested in is a mythological character who may not resemble in the slightest the actual person that the character is based upon. So what good does it do us to have a person that the character is based upon? That's a pretty common feature of many legends and myths of pretty much every culture, it's nearly universal. So why is it important here?

The big bang is merely a theory, maybe even just a hypothesis.

It's too well validated to be a hypothesis and the word "merely" should never appear in front of the word "theory" in a scientific context. If it's a theory, there's no "merely" about it. That's the highest level that can be attained.

[smash ball]

@Moogle: My claim is not that I am right, but that disproving God is difficult.

Self-evident. You said you're a #1 right? That means you agree that there is a deity (concretely). You're using "Faith" as a argument and then contrasting God to the Big Bang when in reality it is not the same. Explained below vv

Going to stop you before the explanation. My point is that there is no hard evidence that God does or does not exist (only what people can infer from beliefs, experiences, and their own knowledge). The Big Bang has no hard evidence (there are obviously no witnesses to the Big Bang), and is based on what people infer from beliefs, experiences, and their own knowledge. I did not commit the fallacy you cited because I did not use it to prove God's existence. You should read what I post again before coming to a conclusion. (I didn't use faith as an argument to prove Jesus exists historically; however, is there truly an argument beyond faith, beliefs, and experiences when a question is faith?)

For all of your examples, I can easily say you do not have to believe in God nor the Big Bang. To take them apart one at a time in no particular order,

Diverting attention from what you are doing wrong, to what we are doing wrong.

I'm still on topic with God and will gladly talk about God. I also don't see how I pointed out believing is wrong? That's what I'm understanding from how this fallacy is being put into use.

reification fallacy: when people treat an abstract belief or hypothetical construct as if it represented a concrete event or physical entity.

I never used that fallacy. I don't think I ever said "the Big Bang happened, end of discussion."

two wrongs make a right: trying to justify what we did by accusing someone else of doing the same

Making a comparison between God and the Big Bang (used in this sense, every single comparison would be classified as two wrongs make a right). I'd say this fallacy applies more to something seen and accepted as wrong, and trying to justify a retaliation. EDIT: Or are you trying to go along the lines of "I can't prove you God without assuming stuff, so I'll use the argument you can't disprove God to me without assuming stuff"? I never went into that beyond bringing it up to the surface. At its basics, it is probably acceptable as true (from limited information gathered on this topic), however I'm still not justifying a belief in God by saying it's irrational to not believe in God. I don't think I have really taken the offensive in any case on this topic.

A statement usually intended to deceive that omits some of the facts necessary for an accurate description.

This one I just don't understand how it applies.

So what good does it do us to have a person that the character is based upon?

Probable existence. By historically proving such a person existed and such a person caused a profound effect upon the world, I can infer that there is the possibility.

Edited by smash ball, 13 June 2012 - 05:07 AM.

[2Create]

This is a bit awkward. I am both 2 and 5 and really belong in neither.

EDIT:
I am more or less atheïst (5) but I am also more or less pantheïst (comes close to 2).

I believe in nature (read: every natural thing occurring in the entire universe, currently everything as far as we know) being some kind of god. It is not an entity, or a concious "God" for that matter.
I believe it to have some kind of influence, but that is not more than encouraging atoms and molecules to form, and even that may take aeons.

So I don't see humans as an intended effect from any kind of God, but I do think there is something, and all we have to do to see it is look all around us, and even to ourselves.

Edited by 2Create, 13 June 2012 - 08:01 AM.

[NicholasJB]

Going to stop you before the explanation.

You can't stop me. Obviously the explanation was made before your post.

My claim is not that I am right, but that disproving God is difficult.

I agree and disagree so strongly. It's only difficult to disprove it because of... dun dun dun:

appeal to tradition (similar to the bandwagon fallacy): (e.g., astrology, religion, slavery) just because people practice a tradition, says nothing about its viability.

Tradition prevents progress.




^^ In this case progress would be homosexual rights and cultural evolution.

In a way I feel like your being so ambiguous and general that you aren't really committing to anything besides "God exists, I have faith. You no can disprove." - and yes, there is a fallacy associated with that but attacking it would make me commit a fallacy by creating an event or phrase and then attacking it (straw man) which would be dumb.

Edited by NicholasJB, 13 June 2012 - 06:11 AM.

[Smarty]

Romans 1:18-22 says...

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse. For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened.

Couldn't resist putting that up there. I find it amusing how it speaks about how unbelievers will speculate on other theories of how the world was created.

Can I put that down as "If they don't believe this, they'll believe something else!"

Yeah, well - DUH. Captain Obvious to the rescue.

[chance]

OK, I've added a category for people who are convinced no deity exists. But personally, I put those folks in the same "mindset" as dogmatic Christians.

I put myself down as a 5, but disagree with the portrayal of them having the mindset as dogmatic Christians.

Perhaps not. But my point was that we can't prove god doesn't exist. Therefore, he may exist.

Of course, it's not the skeptic's job to prove he doesn't exist. The burden of proof lies with the believer.

But the existence of god is not a logical impossibility. Therefore, a reasonable skeptic can't be absolutely certain. That's why (4) is a better option.

.

Edited by chance, 13 June 2012 - 10:01 AM.

[flexaplex]

But the existence of god is not a logical impossibility. Therefore, a reasonable skeptic can't be absolutely certain. That's why (4) is a better option.

From our logical observations we have always seen that logic governs our entire universe as such it is logical to conclude that existence exists purely from axiomatic logic. Given that there is no logical reason why God should exist; God is a fallacy against such an axiomatic system.

[chance]

Given that there is no logical reason why God should exist; God is a fallacy against such an axiomatic system.

No. Your first statement is true, but your conclusion doesn't follow. The "first principles" that govern our universe aren't derivable from logic alone. They simply exist as starting points.

All you can say is that there's no logical requirement that a deity exists, or that a deity created the universe. But his existence isn't a logical impossibility.

edit: goddamn typos...

Edited by chance, 13 June 2012 - 11:47 AM.

[flexaplex]

The "first principles" that govern our universe aren't derivable from logic alone. They simple exist.

I guess this is where my belief comes in. I don't believe things can 'simply exist', I believe there must be a reason why things exist and since logic governs everything it must be derived from logic alone. So in my belief system God cannot exist and as such is it is perfectly reasonable for me to put his existence as a 5 on the scale.

[chance]

The "first principles" that govern our universe aren't derivable from logic alone. They simple exist.

I guess this is where my belief comes in. I don't believe things can 'simply exist', I believe there must be a reason why things exist and since logic governs everything it must be derived from logic alone.

Is there a logical reason why the universe exists? Or does it "simply exist"? Is there a logical reason the first principles exist?

No. These are the axioms that serve as "starting points". Then from them, we derive things by logic.

But you can't derive the existence of the "starting points" by logic. That's why I made my original comment that believers in (5) share something in common with believers of (1).

[makerofthegames]

You can't prove the Big Bang, you can only believe it. You can't prove God, you can only believe it.

appeal to ignorance

half truths (suppressed evidence)

reification fallacy

two wrongs make a right

In my mind these all apply to this statement, if you think one is not relevant or too loosely relevant, throw it out. Most of them will still stand relevant (at least three are logically undeniable as far as I can see).

Kinda agree with you, even though I'm still a 1. I don't really have any arguments to get anyone to agree with me on my religious beliefs. If it was that easy, everyone everywhere would be a Christian, right?

^^ In this case progress would be homosexual rights and cultural evolution.

HUUUUUUGE strawman with that picture there, thanks.
EDIT:

Is there a logical reason why the universe exists?

Clearly, it not existing would be boring. Therefore, it exists.
wait, did you say logical?

Edited by makerofthegames, 13 June 2012 - 12:12 PM.

[flexaplex]

Like I stated I believe the answers to those questions are different to what you think. ie

"Is there a logical reason why the universe exists?" Yes.
"Or does it "simply exist"?" No.
"Is there a logical reason the first principles exist?" Yes.

[chance]

"Is there a logical reason why the universe exists?" Yes.
"Or does it "simply exist"?" No.
"Is there a logical reason the first principles exist?" Yes.

What are those reasons?