ironhorse Posted August 7, 2014 Share Posted August 7, 2014 Ironhorse, your progression is deeply flawed. Step 2 is problematic as it is simply a false dichotomy. Step 3 is nothing more than an assertion for which you provide no support. These two false premises lead you to an illogical conclusion. Step 2: What are the other possibilities? Aliens created life on planet earth? What if there is no life on earth? What if there is no earth? What if "you" are actually a collection of random ganglions in a specimen jar and what you perceive is the result of nothing more than stimulation with electrodes? This is simply one possibility off the top of my head. There's not many are they? There don't have to be many. It only takes one other possibility to demonstrate a false dichotomy. I provided you with another possibility, and Roz has demonstrated that there are literally infinite possibilities. "This is simply one possibility off the top of my head." I'm believing in God. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bornagainathiest Posted August 7, 2014 Share Posted August 7, 2014 Ironhorse, your progression is deeply flawed. Step 2 is problematic as it is simply a false dichotomy. Step 3 is nothing more than an assertion for which you provide no support. These two false premises lead you to an illogical conclusion. Step 2: What are the other possibilities? Aliens created life on planet earth? What if there is no life on earth? What if there is no earth? What if "you" are actually a collection of random ganglions in a specimen jar and what you perceive is the result of nothing more than stimulation with electrodes? This is simply one possibility off the top of my head. There's not many are they? There don't have to be many. It only takes one other possibility to demonstrate a false dichotomy. I provided you with another possibility, and Roz has demonstrated that there are literally infinite possibilities. "This is simply one possibility off the top of my head." I'm believing in God. Because you've been indoctrinated to give that reply. . . . Now live up to your own words and your parents teaching. Question everything. Not...question everything in the Bible, after first believing it. Question your beliefs. ALL of them. We'll even help you do so - if you want. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
disillusioned Posted August 8, 2014 Share Posted August 8, 2014 "This is simply one possibility off the top of my head." I'm believing in God. Ah, the appeal to faith. Fair enough. You believe what you believe. But if this is the case, then why bother with the apologetics? Faith is required because your belief is not defensible. You can't have it both ways. Either you can produce an argument which leads to the justification of your belief, or you can appeal to faith. You can't use the faith card to trump a rational critique of your arguments. This isn't how adults reason. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sdelsolray Posted August 8, 2014 Share Posted August 8, 2014 … I'm believing in God. The indoctrination is strong with this one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super Moderator TheRedneckProfessor Posted August 9, 2014 Super Moderator Share Posted August 9, 2014 Ironhorse, your progression is deeply flawed. Step 2 is problematic as it is simply a false dichotomy. Step 3 is nothing more than an assertion for which you provide no support. These two false premises lead you to an illogical conclusion. Step 2: What are the other possibilities? Aliens created life on planet earth? What if there is no life on earth? What if there is no earth? What if "you" are actually a collection of random ganglions in a specimen jar and what you perceive is the result of nothing more than stimulation with electrodes? This is simply one possibility off the top of my head. There's not many are they? There don't have to be many. It only takes one other possibility to demonstrate a false dichotomy. I provided you with another possibility, and Roz has demonstrated that there are literally infinite possibilities. "This is simply one possibility off the top of my head." I'm believing in God. Is that meant to impress me? It doesn't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Marty Posted August 9, 2014 Share Posted August 9, 2014 … I'm believing in God. The indoctrination is strong with this one. This, is why he fails... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sdelsolray Posted August 9, 2014 Share Posted August 9, 2014 One reason I believe in god is the design of the universe and life. It is either the result of chance or a Creator. … Unsupported and possibly false premise (design) and two false dichotomies (chance or creator as to the universe and chance or creator as to life). The universe (whatever that is) and life (please define that too) may simply appear to be designed, and, without evidence it is actually designed, that's about as far as intellectual honesty will allow. As to the false dichotomy relating to the universe, there are other choices, one of which is that the universe has always existed, thereby obviating the need for a chance/creator choice. As to life, it has not always existed, at least here on Earth. As to the false dichotomy relating to life (chance or creator), a third choice is that life is inevitable within the universe, at least carbon-based life, again obviating the need to choose chance or creator. By the way, please define "chance" and compare to and contrast with "random", "inevitability", "probability" and "impossibility". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sdelsolray Posted August 9, 2014 Share Posted August 9, 2014 … from: http://www.strangenotions.com/god-exists/ 1.The universe displays a staggering amount of intelligibility, both within the things we observe and in the way these things relate to others outside themselves. That is to say: the way they exist and coexist display an intricately beautiful order and regularity that can fill even the most casual observer with wonder. It is the norm in nature for many different beings to work together to produce the same valuable end—for example, the organs in the body work for our life and health. (See also argument 8.) 2.Either this intelligible order is the product of chance or of intelligent design. 3.Not chance. 4.Therefore the universe is the product of intelligent design. 5.Design comes only from a mind, a designer. 6.Therefore the universe is the product of an intelligent Designer. This is one of the more lame arguments from design I have ever seen. 1. Assumes "intelligibility", whatever that means. Because of the nature of the remaining argument, this is assuming the conclusion in the premise. Classic circular reasoning. 2. False dichotomy. 3. Mere assertion. Wishful thinking. 4. This conclusion does not follow, even if the premises are true. Design is being mentioned for the first time as a new mere assertion. 5. Another set of mere assertions. Only? "Mind" appears for the first time in the argument. "Designer" appears for the first time in the argument. 6. Composition fallacy and a category error. There's more, but that should be sufficient for now. This "argument" would be a great example for a mid-term exam question in any Logic 101 class, "Please analyze the following argument." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts