logical falacies as applied to God

[NMSquirrel]

just found james report on logical fallacies..
there is only one i could really argue with as applied to God (ad populum)
but i thought i would try to see what i could come up with..
please feel free to rate my comments..(as if i need to say this..)
please keep it to how the statements do or do not apply to the quote.(do not derail by arguing against the statement itself.)

this is not meant as a pro or anti God argument, but as a means to apply these methods to the God debate.
(yes i know..as a theist,it is flavored with a pro-God stance,but don't let that disrupt your intelligence.)
--

A deductive argument is one in which the premises directly lead to the conclusion.

I believe God exists because i have seen God work in my life.
(bold is conclusion)(true)

An inductive argument is one in which the premises provide some support, or evidence, for the conclusion, but do not establish the conclusion beyond doubt.

I believe God exists in your life because i have seen him in mine.(false)
I believe that it was God that was working in my life because coincidence is not believable when it occurs often(true)

If all the premises in a deductive argument are true, then if the argument is good (i.e. there are no logical fallacies) the conclusion must be true.

i have seen God work in my life (premise true)
so the conclusion is also true.

If all the premises of an inductive argument are true, then the conclusion is likely, to a greater or lesser extent, to be true.

a matter of degree,eh?

A fallacy is a form of argument in which the conclusion does not follow from the premises for one reason or another.
A logical fallacy is an error in reasoning, as opposed to an error about the facts. A logical fallacy in a deductive argument may appear as a set of true premises that do not imply the conclusion. A logical fallacy in an inductive argument is less formal - the given premises simply do not provide enough support for the conclusion. In that case, even if all the premises were true, the conclusion would still not be more likely to be true than it was before the argument was made.

I believe God exists in your life because i have seen him in mine.(false)

Formal fallacies

Affirming the consequent
Any argument of the form: if A is true then B is true. B is true. Therefore A is true.

If God exists then he wouldn't do X (false)

Denying the antecedent
Any argument of the form: if A is true then B is true. A is not true. Therefore, B is not true.

If God exists he would do X (false)

Fallacies of relevance

Fallacies of relevance attempt to support an argument by offering considerations that simply have no bearing on the truth of the matter at hand.

God does not exist because religion has done bad things.(false)

Ad hominem
An attempt to counter a claim by attacking the person making the claim rather than the substance of the claim itself.

anyone who believes in God is delusional.(false)
"You only say you believe in God because you have a vested interest in saying that."

Tu quoque / Two wrongs make a right
Literally, "you also". Attempt to justify wrong action or argument on the basis that somebody else also does or says the wrong thing.

"My evidence for non-existent God may be faked, but some of the people who argue for an existent God have also been shown to fake their evidence. Therefore, there is no God."

Argument from adverse consequences
An argument that a fact cannot be accepted to be true due to the bad effects it would have if it were true.

God does not exist because if he did then i will go to hell.(false)

Argument from authority
Argument that we should believe a given "expert" based merely on the authoritative position that expert holds or due to his extensive experience or formal qualifications.

I believe in God cause my church says so.(false)

Ad populum / Appeal to popularity
Argument that we should accept a proposition because lots of other people accept it.

"Polls show that 95% of people believe God exists. Therefore, God does exist."

Bandwagon fallacy
Where a threat of social rejection is substituted for evidence.

If you don't believe in God then you will go to hell.(false)

Appeal to ignorance
Arguing that a particular belief is true because you're not aware of any evidence to the contrary. Or that people should accept your conclusion because there's no conclusive evidence either way.

God does not exist because there is no conclusive evidence that he does.

Appeal to ridicule
An argument in which ridicule or mockery is substituted for evidence.

"God exists! That's the most stupid thing I've ever heard. Therefore, God does not exist."

Appeal to tradition
Falsely assuming that something is better or correct simply because it is older, more traditional or has always been done that way.

thousands of years of religion can't be wrong.(false)

Argument from personal incredulity

God cannot exist if you can't convince me he does.

Ad hoc reasoning
Introducing new elements into an argument solely to explain away inconvenient points.

God does not exist because the bible is full of errors.

Straw man
To set up a straw man is to argue against a position that you create specifically to be easy to argue against, rather than the position actually held by those who oppose your point of view.

"These ideas of yours about Vengeful God or Evil God are ridiculous and have obvious problems. Therefore, God does not exist." (The actual argument that was put was that God does exist.)

Guilt by association
Argument that because certain disreputable people believe in A, anybody who believes in A can't be trusted and therefore any arguments made by believers in A must be false.

any argument that cites failure of religious leaders/believers as proof that all believers are failures.

Fallacies of presumption

Fallacies of presumption base an argument on one or more false (or at least unwarranted or unproven) assumptions. These assumptions are often implied rather than being explicitly stated

.
all christians believe X.

False dichotomy
Assuming that only two conclusions are possible when in fact there are more than two.

If God is not supernatural then he does not exist,
If God is not omniscience then he does not exist.

Begging the question
Assuming as a premise what you are trying to prove. Or, simply ignoring an important assumption that should really be included as a separate stated premise.

God exists/doesn't exists because it just makes sense.

Correlation does not imply causation
An argument that because A and B are often observed together, A must cause B

religious ppl are often very predjudice, therefor all religious ppl are predjudice.(false)
(maybe not a good argument)

Post hoc ergo propter hoc
Literally "after this, therefore because of this". The argument that just because A happens before B, A must cause B.

where did God come from?

Non sequitur
An argument where the conclusion doesn't follow from the premise. In other words, a logical connection is implied where there isn't one.

this is one some ppl accuse me of..i think it is because i assume most ppl know what i know, so i only give them a marker to associate my points, but if they don't understand the markers then they won't see how i came to my conclusions.

Slippery slope
Argument that if a moderate conclusion is accepted then a more extreme version of the same conclusion must also be accepted. Usually accompanied by warnings of dire consequences if the unfavoured conclusion were to be adopted.

If God exists the he would/wouldn't do X.

Special pleading
Argument of the form: As are generally B. X is an A. But X is an exception to the general rule because of (irrelevant characteristic).
"Planets are usually round. The Earth is a planet. But Earth has life on it, and planets with life on them are flat. So the Earth is flat."

not sure how to apply this..

Statistical fallacies

Hasty generalisation / Inadequate sample size
Making an assumption about a whole group or range of cases based on an insufficient number of actual observations.

My church experience was bullsh*t therefore God does not exist.

Biased sample
Presenting some of the available evidence that appears to support your argument while ignoring other evidence that does not.

do i really need to explain this one?
seems both sides do this..

Gambler's fallacy
An assumption that departures from the average or from long-term behaviour will necessarily be corrected in the short term.

God doesn't exist because he has never done anything for me..
(actually this example would be more of a lack of interpretation,IE God has done for you, you just don't recognize it)(or it is a Genie God that is being argued)

Fallacy of accident
Any argument of the form: A's are normally B. X is an A. Therefore X must be B. This ignores the fact that X may be an abnormal example of an A.
"Ground and water (especially) are usually relatively flat. The whole surface of the Earth consists of ground and water. Therefore, the Earth is flat."

another one i can't think of an example.

<i think this should stir the pot a bit..>

 

[Dywyddyr]

If all the premises in a deductive argument are true, then if the argument is good (i.e. there are no logical fallacies) the conclusion must be true.

i have seen God work in my life (premise true)
so the conclusion is also true.

False.
You have to show that the premise is true. Otherwise it's just another unsupported claim.

 

[wynn]

False.
You have to show that the premise is true. Otherwise it's just another unsupported claim.

In the example you quote, I am not sure this is the case.

It's not clear what degree of rigor and interpersonal verifiability is necessary in order to claim justified belief in God.

There is, for example some measure of clarity on what degree of rigor and interpersonal verifiability is necessary in order to claim justified belief that there is, for example, asbestos in the air in a building or that substance x increases the growth of lettuce.

But when it comes to basic existential and moral beliefs, it's not clear what degree of rigor and interpersonal verifiability is necessary in order to claim justified belief in a particular tenet.

Unless you wish to argue otherwise?

 

[Rav]

I believe that it was God that was working in my life because coincidence is not believable when it occurs often(true)

Not so long ago I walked into a book store looking for a copy of a particular book, but alas, there were no copies to be found on the shelf. As I was about to walk out and proceed to the next book store, it occurred to me that it couldn't hurt to ask the salesperson if they had any copies in stock, just in case I missed something. As it turns out the computer said that there were indeed copies in stock, and the nice lady wandered out to the storeroom to grab one for me. The best part is that when she returned she informed me that the book had been discounted from $24.95 to $10.00. "These are the pleasant book buying experiences" I said to her as I handed over the cash.

Now imagine that this experience had taken place in the context of seeking out a book on Christian apologetics that a fellow member of my church had recommended to me. The little voice in my head that told me to ask about the book before I left, the helpful salesperson who retrieved a copy from the storeroom, and the fact that it just happened to be 60% off would have conspired to result in a feeling of certainty that God wanted me to have that book.

As it happened however the book in question was Richard Dawkin's "The Greatest Show on Earth", and I'm not a Christian. Not anymore anyway.

Shit like this happens to everyone, all the time. Spooky coincidences, circumstances that somehow seem like they're 'meant to be', it's all a normal part of human experience, regardless of one's metaphysical beliefs. It's just that when you've contextualized your existence by invoking a supernatural being who is concerned with your affairs, you attribute everything to the same source. For example, if I believed that that Elvis had a vested interest in my affairs, I might subsequently attribute every seemingly significant thing that happened to me to his influence. And if I spent a large portion of my time hanging out with other people who believed the same thing, engaging in all sorts of Elvis related activities, it would necessarily increase the frequency of Elvis related coincidences in my life.

 

[Dywyddyr]

In the example you quote, I am not sure this is the case.

It's not clear what degree of rigor and interpersonal verifiability is necessary in order to claim justified belief in God.

Huh?
The claim "i have seen God work in my life" isn't a statement of belief.
How many values of "true" are there? :shrug:

 

[wynn]

Huh?
The claim "i have seen God work in my life" isn't a statement of belief.
How many values of "true" are there?

NMS said, which you quoted: i have seen God work in my life (premise true)

You then wanted him to show that the premise is true.

I then wondered whether it is rational to seek such showing of truthfulness of the premise, given that it's not clear what degree of rigor and interpersonal verifiability is necessary in order to claim justified belief in God.


I'm not sure how to qualify i have seen God work in my life (premise true), other than as a claim of justified belief in God.

 

[kx000]

All false. God does not aply to logic, he is logic.

 

[Big Chiller]

Nice thread.

i have seen God work in my life (premise true)

By showing this premise to be true it becomes a supportive argument not a proof.

 

[Dywyddyr]

I'm not sure how to qualify i have seen God work in my life (premise true), other than as a claim of justified belief in God.

A belief granted, but not a justified one UNLESS it can be shown that god was actually seen at work.

All false. God does not aply to logic, he is logic.

More drivel. Please stop.

 

[NMSquirrel]

A belief granted, but not a justified one UNLESS it can be shown that god was actually seen at work.

that would be a different argument, IE, Can God be shown to work in a persons life.
so your argument would qualify as a Fallacy of relevance (trying to change the terms to include 'justification')
and
Begging the question
Assuming as a premise what you are trying to prove. Or, simply ignoring an important assumption that should really be included as a separate stated premise. (separate premise)

More drivel. Please stop.

agreed.

 

[wynn]

A belief granted, but not a justified one UNLESS it can be shown that god was actually seen at work.

Like I said earlier:

It's not clear what degree of rigor and interpersonal verifiability is necessary in order to claim justified belief in God.

There is, for example some measure of clarity on what degree of rigor and interpersonal verifiability is necessary in order to claim justified belief that there is, for example, asbestos in the air in a building or that substance x increases the growth of lettuce.

But when it comes to basic existential and moral beliefs, it's not clear what degree of rigor and interpersonal verifiability is necessary in order to claim justified belief in a particular tenet.

 

[wynn]

that would be a different argument, IE, Can God be shown to work in a persons life.
so your argument would qualify as a Fallacy of relevance (trying to change the terms to include 'justification')
and
Begging the question
Assuming as a premise what you are trying to prove. Or, simply ignoring an important assumption that should really be included as a separate stated premise. (separate premise)

Justification is always necessary, but there are different kinds of justification.

For some things "I saw it, therefore, it is true" is indeed enough of a justification, for others, it is not.
It is not clear though whether this kind of justification is enough for premises that are at least nominally about God or not.



I don't quite see the point of this thread, though.

Given that it is not clear what degree of rigor and interpersonal verifiability is necessary in order to claim justified belief in God, we cannot really discuss logical fallacies as they may relate to arguments that are at least nominally about God.

If we don't know what the right reasoning about God is, we also don't know what the fallacious reasoning about God is.

 

[kx000]

A belief granted, but not a justified one UNLESS it can be shown that god was actually seen at work.


More drivel. Please stop.

I am authority on this subject, ask God. You don't even possess basic faith. We don't know 1/100,000,000 of what God knows. How can you think your logic will hold up against his?

 

[kx000]

that would be a different argument, IE, Can God be shown to work in a persons life.

Only if you let a man live ignorant to God, then put him in a time machine and introduce him to great faith. You will see a great difference to the positive from life 1 and life 2, IF he is on board with God. Don't be mistaken, there are those who have faith in God, but plain don't agree with him.

 

[Sarkus]

NMS - you had at least one you said you didn't know how to apply:

Special pleading
Argument of the form: As are generally B. X is an A. But X is an exception to the general rule because of (irrelevant characteristic).
"Planets are usually round. The Earth is a planet. But Earth has life on it, and planets with life on them are flat. So the Earth is flat."

An example would be such as "People are generally rational. Theists are people, but they don't have to be rational because the issue of God is outside of such matters."

On the whole your examples are... hmmm.

You also need to understand the difference between a sound argument and a valid argument.
Logical fallacies tend to deal with validity of argument, whereas the soundness is determined by the truth of the premises.

For example, if you say "All Apples are green. Here is an Apple, therefore it is Green," this would be a valid argument (the conclusion follows from the premise) but the soundness is clearly questionable - as there are other colours of apples.


Some specific criticisms:

"Affirming the consequent"
Your example is merely a statement, not an argument.
An argument that would qualify would be along the lines of "If God exists then we would praise Him. We do praise Him, therefore God exists." but this has more than a hint of question begging as well.

"Denying the antecedent"
Your example is merely a statement, not an argument.
An example is more along the classic case of "If God exists then he would not allow suffering. There is suffering therefore God does not exist".

"Argument from personal incredulity"
Your example ("God cannot exist if you can't convince me he does.") is not a particularly clear example. A clearer one would be "The idea of God does/does not make sense to me... therefore God does/does not exist".


"Begging the Question".
Your example ("God exists/doesn't exists because it just makes sense.
") is not a particularly clear one: whether something makes sense or not is subjective, and all you're doing here is summarising the conclusion of your other analysis into "because it just makes sense". So your example would be more one of obfuscation. In terms of fallacy, your example is more one of arguing from personal incredulity... it probably makes sense because you can't accept the alternative, etc.

Begging the question is more along the lines of: "God exists because I have seen His works"... i.e. there is a hidden premise that God exists. This example would be clearer if it was expanded to show the "begging":
- God exists.
- God created X.
- I saw X.
- Therefore God exists.

"Correlation does not imply causation"
Your example is wrong - which is more a fallacy of generalisation.
This correlation fallacy would be along the lines of "There are more Christians in the West than in the Middle East. But there is more Oil in the Middle East than the West. Therefore Christians prefer living where there is less oil."

"Slippery Slope"
Again, your example is not correct, although can lead to such a conclusion. It is more the reasoning used to arrive at "He wouldn't do X".


Anyhoo - perhaps I have misunderstood the purpose of your examples - i.e. whether you meant them as examples of the fallacious argument or merely as conclusions that the argument could be used to support.

And if I have misunderstood - apologies.

 

[Telemachus Rex]

A belief granted, but not a justified one UNLESS it can be shown that god was actually seen at work.

Unquestionably correct. A person may believe in God and see countless examples of God's influence on his or her life...but there are many people on this Earth following many religions, and Hindus and Shintoists, Muslims and Shenists all think they see the handiwork of their gods in equal number. If good things happen to you, you may assume that your deity (or deities) are at work, but that implies that if you were of a different religion then the outcome would have been different.

Assuming that good things happen because your God favors you can't be taken as a serious argument fir the existence of your God unless you can show it was your God acting. In do that, it's important to ask why your God also does terrible things to faithful people and bestows gifts on people who faithless or of the wrong faith. And if you do concede that God does those things, when how do you differentiate your good fortune, from random chance?

Another logical fallacy that is related to this is using an argument to prove one point, and then asserting that it proves a grander point. Take Aquinas and people who parrot him, who argued that everything that has a beginning has a cause, and that since the universe had a beginning, it must have had a cause, and therefore that cause (God) exists.

Let's assume that the universe had a beginning (some cosmological models do not "start" at the Big Bang, so that is an assumption) and let's assume that everything that begins has a cause (not clearly true either, under quantum mechanical rules). The assumption that the cause is God is completely unsupported from this argument, let along the even broader claim that this God is all-knowing, all-powerful, and good. An evil god of limited power could still be the cause. The cause needn't be divine, let alone a personal deity at all, as an impersonal force could be just as sufficient as a "first cause" for the universe. The "prime mover" in this case could have caused the universe and then crawled off and died billions of years ago.

Similar problems arise in arguments that God is philosophically necessary. Even if these arguments were correct (which I believe they are not), they do not demand that a personal god exist, let alone the Christian God.

 

[NMSquirrel]

Some specific criticisms:

Anyhoo - perhaps I have misunderstood the purpose of your examples - i.e. whether you meant them as examples of the fallacious argument or merely as conclusions that the argument could be used to support.

thank you..this is what i was after.
I knew some of my examples were not quite right..
i was hoping someone would step up and correct me in this manner.
you have and have made it clearer..thank you.

 

[wynn]

Again:

How can we talk about logical fallacies in reasoning about God unless we already know the truth about God?

If we don't know what the right reasoning about God is, we also don't know what the fallacious reasoning about God is.


How can we know that these examples from the OP:

I believe God exists in your life because i have seen him in mine.

If God exists then he wouldn't do X

If God exists he would do X

God does not exist because religion has done bad things.

anyone who believes in God is delusional.

God does not exist because if he did then i will go to hell.

I believe in God cause my church says so.

- are false?


Logical fallacies do not apply automatically, regardless of the stances and practices of the field of knowledge from which the premises are taken that we are assessing for right/fallacious reasoning.

 

[NMSquirrel]

Again:

How can we talk about logical fallacies in reasoning about God unless we already know the truth about God?

do you need to know how a computer works to reason out how it works?
the fallacies are in the arguments not in the conclusions, without a valid argument you cannot get to a valid conclusion.

your statement sounds like a fallacy..you are asking for a conclusion to validate the argument..what fun would that be?

How can we know that these examples from the OP:
..
..
- are false?

because they qualify for the fallacy..

 

[Sarkus]

Again:

How can we talk about logical fallacies in reasoning about God unless we already know the truth about God?

Logic isn't concerned with what is true or false in reality, but in relation to the premises.
And logic really doesn't concern itself with the truth of the premises.
This is the difference between soundness and validity.
A valid argument is one where the conclusion logically follows from the premises.
A sound argument is a valid one but where the premises are also true.

Logical fallacies are really only issues of validity, not of soundness.

If we don't know what the right reasoning about God is, we also don't know what the fallacious reasoning about God is.

We may not know whether the premises being used are true or not, which limits whether we can say an argument is sound or not, but we can always assess the validity of an argument.

How can we know that these examples from the OP:
...
- are false?

They're not "false" - they're just using fallacious logic... i.e. the conclusions given do not follow directly from their premises.
Taking each in turn:

If God exists then he wouldn't do X

If God exists he would do X

anyone who believes in God is delusional.

These are actually just claims, not arguments. Unsupported claims as given here, but just claims nonetheless. To be an argument one would need to provide the premises upon which those claims are based. At that point one can assess the argument for fallacies.

God does not exist because religion has done bad things

This is fallacious logic because the conclusion is not logically supported by the premise... i.e. just because religion has or has not done bad things can not lead one logically to conclude one way or the other on the nature of God's existence.
It might lead one to take a position on belief (or not) in the matter, but then there is no claim as such... just a statement of cause/effect.

God does not exist because if he did then i will go to hell.

The conclusion here also does not follow logically from the premise. Here it is an argument from fear of the consequence. But how one feels about a consequence can not alter whether it follows logically from the premise or not.

I believe in God cause my church says so.

If one takes this to be the claim "God exists because my church says so" then the argument would be fallacious: an appeal to authority. Just because someone in a position of authority says something does not make it true. It may be... but it may not be. There is nothing that requires the conclusion ("God exists") to be true from the premise ("my church says God exists").

Logical fallacies do not apply automatically, regardless of the stances and practices of the field of knowledge from which the premises are taken that we are assessing for right/fallacious reasoning.

Logical fallacies apply wherever there is incorrect logic being used in an argument between the premises and the conclusion.
If there is no actual argument being made, merely a claim, then there is no logic and it can not be logically fallacious in and of itself.
It is only when the claim (e.g. "God exists") is concluded from premises (e.g. "because my church says so") that one can apply logic and assess the argument for fallacies.