logical falacies as applied to God

[NMSquirrel]

thinking there is only two options, IE the theist is either right or wrong.

What else could there be, in the case of theism?

do you believe legends and myths to be a case of true/false, right/wrong?
Personally I think God intentionally makes it as such for we don't just take someones word for it.

This is just your particular meta-theology.

true enough..but that doesn't necessarily make it wrong.

The theologies of the major religions do not consider this approach acceptable.

because they want the majority..I think its a case of justification, IE if everyone believes as i do,then i can't be wrong.
(not to mention the money from tithes increases with more ppl)

That would mean that the individual's current discernment is sufficient to justly be selective among religions.

this is actually backed up by the bible..the bible speaks to the individual, not to the religious leader..

Again, the theologies of the major religions do not consider this approach acceptable.

of course not..they want the control..that's a human nature thing..not from God.

Because they are, at least nominally, making claims about God, and we as non-theists are turning to the theists for knowledge of God.
As such, we are in the lesser, subordinate position.

You are in the exact same position to learn about God as the theist. the theist has the same info available to them as you do.

As theists, they are privileged, God's chosen children,

this you assign to them.IOW you give them this authority.
sure i have met some theist who are arrogant enough to communicate this as applied to themselves, but in my experiences these are the minority.

and we, as non-theists, have no power or rights against them.

again, this is you giving them the power/rights.

Or you just bought yourself a ticket to hell.

Hell isn't a destination I would favor.

this is an assumption. i believe you are speaking from the angle of 'believe or go to Hell'
yes religion capitalizes on this, i think mainly because it works to increase the congregation.

<edit> BTW special thanks to Sarkus for keeping and clarifying the OP,and also a thanks to signal for asking great questions.

 

[Sarkus]

Again, when it comes to theism, this may be the case.

It may be, but unless you want to run round in circles, second guessing everything, you eventually have to take a position that you are comfortable with... do you hold that God is unknowable or not, do you hold that God exists or not. Noone can tell you these things with certainty. Only you can say what is comfortable for you.
You can always live in fear of making the wrong choice, but then you risk losing what might be your only chance at enjoying life.

Logic really won't help you in any way - either proving or disproving God.
All logic can do is help you identify which concepts of God, or which arguments people are making (either for or against) where the conclusions don't logically follow from the premises.

We don't know if they are biased or not, or if and how their bias matters.

We don't know most things.
That is why I would suggest one starts with what is rational, and see how comfortable that is for you. And from there drift into the irrational (although using the rationality that what is "more rational" is uncomfortable for you).

Because they are, at least nominally, making claims about God, and we as non-theists are turning to the theists for knowledge of God.
As such, we are in the lesser, subordinate position.

Some non-theists make equal/opposite claims. Are they to be considered the authority in the non-existence of God?
First I would ask how you confirm that they do indeed have knowledge - given that knowledge must be true, so for you to accept as knowledge what they have claimed as knowledge it must be somehow confirmed to you?
Then when you have confirmed that they do indeed have knowledge - then you can put them on whatever pedestal you wish.
Secondly, whatever position you want to hold someone in due to your perception of their knowledge, there still needs to be respect from both sides to both sides.

You've seen enough times what happens if one asks questions that the theists do not find appropriate.
Even someone as sophisticated as Lightgigantic resorts to ad hominems.
In person, it is even worse, and it is the same, regardless how high a position the theist has in their religious/spiritual organization.

I can not provide excuses for people's inability to be respectful during discourse. To me it smacks of insecurity and frustration in their ability to adequately convey what to them might possibly seem obvious.
And when all they have to fall back on is a process that begs the question from the outset ("one must first believe in God, and then the process will help them believe in God" etc) hopefully this will raise some doubt as to the efficacy of their claims.

I did say "perhaps."

And I did say "If..."

Have you ever met any theist who doesn't think that?

Oh yes. The most sensible one, and the one I have greatest respect for, is the one who beats down all my arguments with "It is just a matter of faith." He knows he can say nothing to me (who is without such faith) and I know I can say nothing to him that will in any way dent that faith. He accepts that I probably have heard more arguments and more details about even his own religion than he has. He accepts that he has no evidence, he accepts that the Bible may have been purely written by Man, that God may not even exist. But he has faith.

One simply can not argue against that.
It is not, though, in and of itself, an argument for why anyone else should have that faith. And he also accepts that. He certainly doesn't try to use fallacious logic to convince me, and even knows when other theists use fallacious logic on him.

But I accept they are not too common.

The corollarium of being a non-theist who depends on theists to learn about God, is to blindly rely on theists.

Depending on someone should not give them a position for disrespect, though. If anything they have a duty of care for those that are dependent upon them, and should be more like a servant.

Such not being convinced might not spare me of eternal damnation.

I fear you are in a catch-22 from which you will struggle to escape. You seem to be in a cycle of doubt. You don't want to be wrong but don't know which is right, or even what the consequences of being right/wrong might be, or even how to trust what people tell you what the right answers might be.
I went with what was most comfortable for me.
Ask yourself what you are most comfortable with?

If the theistic position is true, then the theists are superior.
Considering them equals would imply we have already discovered or taken for granted that the theistic position is not true.

Maybe the positions are as you feel they should be, but between two people the discourse can only go as fast as the slower person. They therefore have the true power. The rest is surely just a matter of mutual respect, and in that I can not answer for others you have dealt with.

Because the non-theist is a non-theist ...

If I don't believe in the existence of cars does that mean I can't be hit by one?

I didn't say that logic shouldn't be used in communication with theists. I am saying that using logic makes an end to the communication with a theist.
If one wants to learn about God, then one must give up logic when talking to theists.

IF one wants to learn about an illogical God, or open themselves to being convinced by charlatans who use logical fallacies to make things sound true... sure.

Otherwise, speak to a theist who is willing to have discourse without using fallacious logic. If you can't find any on this site... :shrug:

Is your experience with theists that after you have implemented logic, this improved and strengthened your communication with them?

Depends on the person... some come back with clarification (additional premises) that might remove the fallacy, others realise they have taken a wrong turn in their own thinking but come back with some new insight as a result.
Others, assuming the fallacy was correctly spotted, are less open to having their arguments criticised and if they merely want a wall to preach against then there are more suitable people (chat-bots, for example).

But the theist can (and they do) plead special position given that they are theists, and that therefore, the onus is not on them.
As theists, they are privileged, God's chosen children, and we, as non-theists, have no power or rights against them.
Again, considering them equals would mean we already (presume to) know the truth about God. In which case, why talk to them at all?

They can plead special position all they want but it is the other person that has to grant it to them.
Are they privileged? Are they God's chosen children? And so you go back to the cyclical argument of "yes, because they say so, and they should know because they're God's chosen children" etc.

This holds well enough for ordinary matters, but not for theism.

It should hold well enough for all matters. I can't understand why you would allow a special place for theism?
If a market has been cornered that requires a "special logic" to get into, and the only reason we need to use this "special logic" is because those who have cornered the market say we do, then I would question whether one needs this market at all. And if they are tempting you with "eternal life" that only their market can give you, despite what all other markets suggest, but that you won't receive it until you die... well, it all boils down to faith. No "special logic". Just faith. You either have it, or you don't.

Or you just bought yourself a ticket to hell.

Perhaps. But I was born this way. No "choice" in the matter (although that's another issue!)

Hell isn't a destination I would favor.

Nor me. But everything in my body says that when I die it will be like before I was born. And that wasn't such a bad place.

Because you're not good enough to receive a personal revelation!

I am what God made me.

 

[wynn]

If God can and does influence how a person thinks and feels, to the point that a person thus becomes convinced they have experienced God - then how can we dispute that?

Simple, we look for a naturalistic cause of the experience(and we've found many). If you then argue that god merely uses the naturalistic causes(which would mean that god is pretty lazy if you ask me) then we can conclude that since we observe nothing which(at this point) doesn't have a naturalistic cause that god only uses naturalistic causes. If that's the case then god is indistinguishable from nature and thus is irrelevant.

We might dispute it, but it would still remain true for the other person. And it would be true for us, too, if it happened to us somehow.

The mundane ipse dixit leaves the person where they've started; the mundane ipse dixit does not empower the person, change their consciousness or something other of that kind; the mundane ipse dixit is true circular reasoning that is fallacious.

Appeal to consequences, fallacious reasoning. You can't use this to support your argument.

We appeal to consequences all the time.
Scientifically devised medical advice appeals to consequences, this is its whole reason to exist.

I think that from the perspective of the theists, theism is viewed a kind of medication for the troubles of human existence.

For any other idea or concept this would be taken as a sign of weakness, that the idea is unsupported and is likely not true. We see this in everything from science(take the recent explosion of quantum woo as an example of this) to politics and even which sports teams are the best. The inability or unwillingness to subject a concept to skeptical inquiry, which necessarily means opening it to all questions regardless of whether one thinks them "appropriate"(or giving well reasoned explanations as to why the question is inappropriate), is, in all other arenas, considered to be a sign of unfitness.

Why should theism be exempt from this?

Because theism is the only one that purports to deal with the one phenomenon that contextualizes all other phenomena. Theism is unique in this regard.

You see, it's this tendency that we atheists are talking about when we say that theism gets special treatment.

Theism is special, like I noted above.

Such not being convinced might not spare me of eternal damnation.

This is, again, an appeal to consequences. Specifically it's an appeal to force, an attempt at coercion. If coercion isn't an acceptable argument in other arenas(and it's not, we even have laws protecting people from it) then why is it acceptable when it comes to theism?

Appeal to consequences - and coercion - are present in our lives all the time.
They can function as a kind of motivation. It is common that people appeal to consequences in order to motivate themselves to do something. It is also common to use various forms of coercion.
Just look at employment contracts - there are many appeals to consequences in them.

If one wants to learn about God, then one must give up logic when talking to theists.

And by giving up logic we give up our ability to discern whether what we've learned is true or not. Nothing else seems to work at doing that. So how then do you suggest that we make such a determination?

I think that the current situation is absurd, and that theists are asking things of non-theists that cannot be done rationally and intentionally. (And we non-theists seem to have accepted this demand.)

I think this is a situation that is due to living in a multicultural, multireligious society in which religious choice exists and is left to the individual.
In traditional monocultural, monoreligious societies, a person was either born into a religion or socio-economically forced into one (from another one).
But religious choice as we have it nowadays (ie. where a person is expected to choose whether to be a Catholic, or a Muslim, or a Hindu etc.) is a relative novelty.
In earlier times, only the socio-economic elite and the outcasts could afford this kind of choice, but nowadays, it is the general population that is facing it. This is new, and I think that we do not have general guidelines for how to rationally go about that choice, nor are the major religions acknowledging this problem (they tend to trivialize or personalize it).

Religiousness is both individual and communal; but for people who do not yet belong to a religious community, the religions and society at large are making it into an exclusively individual matter. I think this makes religiousness defunct (and the individual's situation absurd).

Again, considering them equals would mean we already (presume to) know the truth about God.

No it doesn't. I don't necessarily have to know the truth about a given subject to tell you when you're wrong. For example, I don't have to understand the truth about what gravity is to tell you that pressure from displaced aether isn't what causes it. Saying someone is wrong doesn't necessitate that you have the answers, just that you can tell that they're wrong, usually because their arguments and explanations don't reflect observation.

I don't see how what you said addressed what I said.

Why should theism be alone in getting this special treatment? What makes the concept of theism so special in this regard? And please don't appeal to the consequences again, that's not a valid form of argumentation.

As I noted earlier, theism holds a unique position.

Oh, I dunno about that. After all, all of the greatest thinkers in history are likely to be there. I'd be able to discuss recent advances in biology with Darwin, cryptography with Turing, and quantum electrodynamics with Feynman. I can deal with a little heat for that kind of company(I am from Minne-fucking-sota after all, bad weather doesn't bug me).

Hell is described as awful things ... not sure if the company that now seems good, would still be good then ...

 

[wynn]

do you believe legends and myths to be a case of true/false, right/wrong?
Personally I think God intentionally makes it as such for we don't just take someones word for it.

I can't exclude your testimony, of course.

This is just your particular meta-theology.

true enough..but that doesn't necessarily make it wrong.

Nor does it make it reliable.

That would mean that the individual's current discernment is sufficient to justly be selective among religions.

this is actually backed up by the bible..the bible speaks to the individual, not to the religious leader..

At least the Calvinists don't think so.

of course not..they want the control..that's a human nature thing..not from God.

If everything is from God, then so is the human desire for control.

You are in the exact same position to learn about God as the theist. the theist has the same info available to them as you do.

This is simply not true; or I am evil and I don't know that I am evil.

If it would be true, I would have certainty about God.

If I am evil and I don't know that I am evil: I would know I am in the exact same position to learn about God as the theist, I would know the theist has the same info available to them as I do; but I would consciously deny that knowledge.

As theists, they are privileged, God's chosen children,

this you assign to them.IOW you give them this authority.
sure i have met some theist who are arrogant enough to communicate this as applied to themselves, but in my experiences these are the minority.

and we, as non-theists, have no power or rights against them.

again, this is you giving them the power/rights.

Unless I grant them that kind of authority, I see no reason for talking to them.

Hell isn't a destination I would favor.

this is an assumption. i believe you are speaking from the angle of 'believe or go to Hell'

Other than fear of hell (hell in one form or another), what other reason is there to believe in God?

This is why I don't think that the threat-of-hell argument is a fallacious appeal to consequences; I think it is the only appeal to believe in God (at least in the usual sense of practicing religion).

 

[wynn]

It may be, but unless you want to run round in circles, second guessing everything, you eventually have to take a position that you are comfortable with... do you hold that God is unknowable or not, do you hold that God exists or not. Noone can tell you these things with certainty. Only you can say what is comfortable for you.
You can always live in fear of making the wrong choice, but then you risk losing what might be your only chance at enjoying life.

I really do not want this to become an advice-giving situation.

In fact, I question precisely the things you suggest.
Ie. whether the individualism you suggest is viable.

Logic really won't help you in any way - either proving or disproving God.
All logic can do is help you identify which concepts of God, or which arguments people are making (either for or against) where the conclusions don't logically follow from the premises.

I guess logic then can make a non-theist's life easier as it gives them some way to reply to the theists.

Oh yes. The most sensible one, and the one I have greatest respect for, is the one who beats down all my arguments with "It is just a matter of faith." He knows he can say nothing to me (who is without such faith) and I know I can say nothing to him that will in any way dent that faith. He accepts that I probably have heard more arguments and more details about even his own religion than he has. He accepts that he has no evidence, he accepts that the Bible may have been purely written by Man, that God may not even exist. But he has faith.

One simply can not argue against that.

So what do the two of you talk about?

Because the non-theist is a non-theist ...

If I don't believe in the existence of cars does that mean I can't be hit by one?

If one doesn't believe in God, then one cannot rely on Him, don't you think?

IF one wants to learn about an illogical God, or open themselves to being convinced by charlatans who use logical fallacies to make things sound true... sure.

Of course, this is a consequence.

Otherwise, speak to a theist who is willing to have discourse without using fallacious logic. If you can't find any on this site...

If I can't find any on this site, then what?

It should hold well enough for all matters. I can't understand why you would allow a special place for theism?

As I noted earlier to Arioch, theism has a unique position, in that it purports to be about a phenomenon that contextualizes all other phenomena.

If a market has been cornered that requires a "special logic" to get into, and the only reason we need to use this "special logic" is because those who have cornered the market say we do, then I would question whether one needs this market at all. And if they are tempting you with "eternal life" that only their market can give you, despite what all other markets suggest, but that you won't receive it until you die... well, it all boils down to faith. No "special logic". Just faith. You either have it, or you don't.

The fact is that many of us are unhappy, experience some deep existential anxiety and doubt that no amount of drugs, job satisfaction, sex, adrenaline sports, art or positive psychology can do away with.

This is where theism comes in: theism is the only one able to contextualize that deep existential anxiety and doubt in ways that nothing else can.
Of course, philosophy can contextualize that deep existential anxiety and doubt to some extent, but my experience has been that engaging in philosophy only opens up more questions, details the original ones, but gives no lasting peace (it surely gives temporary consolation, though).

But the reality is that at least for some people, it is not possible to just jump into a particular theistic tradition.

 

[NMSquirrel]

This is simply not true; or I am evil and I don't know that I am evil.

If it would be true, I would have certainty about God.

If I am evil and I don't know that I am evil: I would know I am in the exact same position to learn about God as the theist, I would know the theist has the same info available to them as I do; but I would consciously deny that knowledge.

its a matter of perspective..the theist view the info with the belief that God does exist, the non-theist view it as God does not exist,
the non-theist is looking for justification to believe, the theist has faith for his justification.

This is why I don't think that the threat-of-hell argument is a fallacious appeal to consequences; I think it is the only appeal to believe in God (at least in the usual sense of practicing religion).

this is a fallacy of 'Argument from personal incredulity'..(i think)
you do not believe it to be true,so it isn't.

and the 'Tu quoque / Two wrongs make a right' one'..
either believe or go to hell.

I was gonna argue other things but that would not be in line with the OP.
(IOW IF you WANT to believe in God so bad, just do it. quit talking yourself out of it. you do not have to justify it to no one but yourself. and faith will take care of that justification.)

 

[wynn]

its a matter of perspective..the theist view the info with the belief that God does exist, the non-theist view it as God does not exist,

No, this is not accurate.
Non-theists is a term I use as a summary term for the various kinds of agnostics and the various kinds of atheists.
Of these, it is only the strong atheists who believe that God doesn't exist.

the non-theist is looking for justification to believe

Some of the non-theists, yes - the soft agnostics and the soft atheists.

This is why I don't think that the threat-of-hell argument is a fallacious appeal to consequences; I think it is the only appeal to believe in God (at least in the usual sense of practicing religion).

this is a fallacy of 'Argument from personal incredulity'..(i think)
you do not believe it to be true,so it isn't.

and the 'Tu quoque / Two wrongs make a right' one'..
either believe or go to hell.

What? How did you come to that conclusion?


My point was that as far as I can see, there is nothing about theism that would be appealing enough (for me) to believe in God (such as positive experiences with theists, hopes about God), it is only the threat of hell that makes belief in God relevant.

An argument from incredulity or ignorance would be "I don't see any point in believing in God, therefore, God doesn't exist / there isn't any point in believing in God."
But I didn't say that.

I also don't see where you see a tu quoque here.

I was gonna argue other things but that would not be in line with the OP.
(IOW IF you WANT to believe in God so bad, just do it. quit talking yourself out of it. you do not have to justify it to no one but yourself. and faith will take care of that justification.)

I can understand your frustration, but this really isn't the time to give advice, but instead a time to look into the premises.

I think that with your advice, you are glossing over what is actually the problem and what we should look into, given the OP.

In the spirit of pointing out logical fallacies, your advice above seems to be a version of an appeal to loyalty or something like that ("Signal should be loyal to NMS, skip over the parts of theology that NMS cannot explain, and accept his advice anyway").
In fact, your advice above seems like the nirvana fallacy.

 

[wynn]

Texas sharpshooter fallacy

The Texas sharpshooter fallacy is a logical fallacy in which information that has no relationship is interpreted or manipulated until it appears to have meaning. The name comes from a joke about a Texan who fires some shots at the side of a barn, then paints a target centered on the biggest cluster of hits and claims to be a sharpshooter.[1]

The fallacy does not apply if one had an ex ante, or prior, expectation of the particular relationship in question before examining the data. For example one might, prior to examining the information, have in mind a specific physical mechanism implying the particular relationship. One could then use the information to give support or cast doubt on the presence of that mechanism. Alternatively, if additional information can be generated using the same process as the original information, one can use the original information to construct a hypothesis, and then test the hypothesis on the new data. See hypothesis testing. What one cannot do is use the same information to construct and test the same hypothesis (see hypotheses suggested by the data) — to do so would be to commit the Texas sharpshooter fallacy.

 

[wynn]

This is from another thread

One of my professors didn't think the idea of an 'eternal now' fixed the problem. He summarized the argument this way:
1. Necessarily, if God knows that p, then p.
2. Necessarily God knows that p.
3. Therefore, necessarily p.
You can see that 3, the conclusion, does not follow from both premises. Basically, the "necessarily" in premise 1 surrounds the whole if/then statement. Premise 2 instantiates the if/then statement of premise 1, but 3 is not the result of the instantiation. The actual result would be just p, and not necessarily p.

But it does seem to follow, and the variation with "necessary" doesn't seem to change anything about it.


Namely:

1. Necessarily, if God knows that p, then p.
2. Necessarily God knows that p.
3. Therefore, necessarily p.

Can be rephrased as

("God knows that p" - Q)

1. If Q, then p.
2. Q.
3. Therefore, p.

Which is standard modus ponens.

MoM wanted to show that God's omniscience doesn't imply determinism, and claimed that the argument he presented isn't valid.
Yet I see nothing wrong with it.
Does anyone see anything wrong with it?

 

[wellwisher]

It is hard to prove something to someone who lacks the proper understanding of the proof that is given. For example, most people, who look at raw data from space, could not infer anything from this data. It will not prove anything to the layman. But to the expert, this same nonproof for the layman, is plenty of proof.

For example, we can not directly see a blackhole. Its presence is inferred by its impact on other nearby objects. To the layman, he still does not see anything, therefore it has not be proven to him. All the logic of the expert, can appear to be based on false premises, due to this layman ignorance.

The opem minded layman will have to take the word of the expert, on faith, since he can not see (understand) the proof for himself, but he assumes this guy with the lab coat can. If he has no faith, but will only believe if he can see it for himself, he can argue against the subtle proof and appear to be right to other nonbelievers. The critic can use a form of logical fallicy, based on lack of understand of subtle proof. He might expect his proof to bite him on the butt, when the real proof is a nibble. Therefore it has to be false based on inference.

 

[wynn]

It is hard to prove something to someone who lacks the proper understanding of the proof that is given. For example, most people, who look at raw data from space, could not infer anything from this data. It will not prove anything to the layman. But to the expert, this same nonproof for the layman, is plenty of proof.

For example, we can not directly see a blackhole. Its presence is inferred by its impact on other nearby objects. To the layman, he still does not see anything, therefore it has not be proven to him. All the logic of the expert, can appear to be based on false premises, due to this layman ignorance.

The opem minded layman will have to take the word of the expert, on faith, since he can not see (understand) the proof for himself, but he assumes this guy with the lab coat can. If he has no faith, but will only believe if he can see it for himself, he can argue against the subtle proof and appear to be right to other nonbelievers. The critic can use a form of logical fallicy, based on lack of understand of subtle proof. He might expect his proof to bite him on the butt, when the real proof is a nibble. Therefore it has to be false based on inference.

There should be such a thing as "fallacy of mystification"!

 

[NMSquirrel]

What? How did you come to that conclusion?

maybe i was trying to stretch it a bit.
but i do not believe in the 'believe or be punished in hell' take.

My point was that as far as I can see, there is nothing about theism that would be appealing enough (for me) to believe in God (such as positive experiences with theists, hopes about God), it is only the threat of hell that makes belief in God relevant.

see i would argue it is a consequence not a punishment or threat,
the best example i could use (i think you have heard this from me before)
is a parent who explains to the child if he continues the bad action, he will get hurt, so the child continues that action and gets hurt..the parent did not punish him or threaten him, but the consequence is still there.
God keeps explaining if we do not follow him we will go to hell, this is not a threat or punishment, it is a warning that if one doesn't listen to him and continues their action, they will get hurt.
this does not mean God will punish one if they do not believe, it also does not make it a threat.
( i think i paraphrased myself..i used the flame analogy last time)

I also don't see where you see a tu quoque here.

either/or being the only options. when there could be more than just those two options.

I think that with your advice, you are glossing over what is actually the problem and what we should look into, given the OP.

i do tend to get side tracked easily..
specially when one presents the either/or argument for God ('believe or goto hell' as a threat or punishment)

In the spirit of pointing out logical fallacies, your advice above seems to be a version of an appeal to loyalty or something like that ("Signal should be loyal to NMS, skip over the parts of theology that NMS cannot explain, and accept his advice anyway").

there is a fine line there..
I may not always be right,but i am never wrong..

In fact, your advice above seems like the nirvana fallacy.

"The Nirvana fallacy is the logical error of comparing actual things with unrealistic, idealized alternatives. It can also refer to the tendency to assume that there is a perfect solution to a particular problem. A closely related concept is the Perfect solution fallacy."

this is the argument i use to say that atheist tend to seek out THE answer,(the perfect answer/solution)

(there is other things to this one,but it boils down to my brain ain't cooperating with me right now...)

AND..
you are refering to this advice; IF you WANT to believe in God so bad, just do it. quit talking yourself out of it. you do not have to justify it to no one but yourself. and faith will take care of that justification?

how does that qualify?
i do not see the idealization..(the faith part maybe?)

 

[scifes]

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

why is this a fallacy?

if you add "your" to the beginning of your sentence it wouldn't be a fallacy and claim that the bible is the exact word of god then it isn't a fallacy.

you should admit that the bible in it's "full of error" form is not god's word.
hence you wouldn't be able to use it in an argument or as evidence.
or admit that god is full of errors.

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

then what is left to be a god?
what is "god" then? if not omni-everything, which is supernatural?


awesome thread btw squirrel, hats off to you for the effort:bravo:

 

[wynn]

see i would argue it is a consequence not a punishment or threat,
the best example i could use (i think you have heard this from me before)
is a parent who explains to the child if he continues the bad action, he will get hurt, so the child continues that action and gets hurt..the parent did not punish him or threaten him, but the consequence is still there.
God keeps explaining if we do not follow him we will go to hell, this is not a threat or punishment, it is a warning that if one doesn't listen to him and continues their action, they will get hurt.
this does not mean God will punish one if they do not believe, it also does not make it a threat.

The analogy with the child and the parent doesn't apply to the non-theist and God scenario, though.

For the child, it is clear 1. who the parent is, 2. what the harmful activity is.

For the non-theist, it is not clear who God is, and what ungodly behavior is.
This is because there are numerous theisms around and each of them has their own ideas about who God is and what ungodly behavior is.

For the child, it is an intuitive given whom to consider their parent.
The non-theist doesn't know whom to treat as their "parent."
In fact, the preachers from various theisms are inviting the non-theist to choose whom they are going to consider their parent (an absurd situation).

Further complicated by the fact that within theistic doctrine itself, there is the idea that religion isn't a matter of religious choice. So in effect, a non-theist is supposed to deliberately make a choice which leads to a situation where they believe they didn't make a choice!

I also don't see where you see a tu quoque here.

either/or being the only options. when there could be more than just those two options.

You're describing a false dichotomy, not a tu quoque.

In fact, your advice above seems like the nirvana fallacy.

"The Nirvana fallacy is the logical error of comparing actual things with unrealistic, idealized alternatives. It can also refer to the tendency to assume that there is a perfect solution to a particular problem. A closely related concept is the Perfect solution fallacy."

this is the argument i use to say that atheist tend to seek out THE answer,(the perfect answer/solution)

AND..
you are refering to this advice; IF you WANT to believe in God so bad, just do it. quit talking yourself out of it. you do not have to justify it to no one but yourself. and faith will take care of that justification?

how does that qualify?
i do not see the idealization..(the faith part maybe?)

Yes, the faith part - the "quit talking yourself out of it" and the "you do not have to justify it to no one but yourself."

You are idealistically advising me to do something that cannot be done intentionally. Ie. one cannot intentionally "quit talking oneself out of something."

Another idealization is the notion that one needn't justify oneself to anyone but oneself.
To refuse to justify oneself to anyone but oneself would mean effectual solipsism; and it is an absurd idealization to think that a person could actually function with such solipsistic individualism. This kind of individualism may look good in some theory, but it doesn't work in practice.

 

[wynn]

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

why is this a fallacy?

Because it presumes that if there would be any proof of God, it would be the Bible, and no other scripture. But, so goes the fallacious reasoning, since the Bible is full of errors, it is invalid and to be dismissed, and the notion of God along with it.

The objection to the fallacy is that there could be other scriptures that in fact are proof of God.
So even if we dimiss the Bible (on account of it being full of errors), we still need to examine all other scriptures before we could claim "The scriptures are the only proof of God; all scriptures are full of errors; therefore, God does not exist."

Of course, even this one can be objected to with "There could be other proofs of God, not just scriptures."

 

[NMSquirrel]

The analogy with the child and the parent doesn't apply to the non-theist and God scenario, though.

yes the analogy can be argued with as with any analogy..but you do understand the point i was trying to make correct?

Further complicated by the fact that within theistic doctrine itself, there is the idea that religion isn't a matter of religious choice. So in effect, a non-theist is supposed to deliberately make a choice which leads to a situation where they believe they didn't make a choice!

i understand your point, which is why i have a tough time arguing with 'why is it so important to believe in God if your life lines up with his teachings'
(i agree with that to a point.)

You're describing a false dichotomy, not a tu quoque.

true.my mistake.sorry

You are idealistically advising me to do something that cannot be done intentionally. Ie. one cannot intentionally "quit talking oneself out of something."

you saying you have no control over what you think?

Another idealization is the notion that one needn't justify oneself to anyone but oneself.

i don't think this is an idealization, i think this is more the reality,before one can justify something to someone else they must justify it to themselves.

To refuse to justify oneself to anyone but oneself would mean effectual solipsism;

if you could not justify it to yourself, how/why would you justify it to someone else?

 

[wynn]

The analogy with the child and the parent doesn't apply to the non-theist and God scenario, though.

yes the analogy can be argued with as with any analogy..but you do understand the point i was trying to make correct?

Unless we solve the problem of which religion is the right one, or at least somehow agree to follow a specific one, your point remains moot.

You are idealistically advising me to do something that cannot be done intentionally. Ie. one cannot intentionally "quit talking oneself out of something."

you saying you have no control over what you think?

The control one has over one's mind is limited.

I do not see how "quit talking oneself out of something" would be a doable action.

Perhaps there is a process, consisting of many smaller actions, that eventually leads to the result that one has quitted to talk oneself out of something. But it is not clear what this process is, what the smaller actions are.

(Whereby those smaller actions are not simply instances of gritting one's teeth and by sheer force of will refuse to engage a particular train of thought.)

i don't think this is an idealization, i think this is more the reality,before one can justify something to someone else they must justify it to themselves.

if you could not justify it to yourself, how/why would you justify it to someone else?

I don't think so. One has to be able to justify something both to oneself and to (some) others; one without the other is impossible.

 

[NMSquirrel]

Unless we solve the problem of which religion is the right one, or at least somehow agree to follow a specific one, your point remains moot.

now you are just arguing that you WANT someone to tell you what to believe.
AND
that has nothing to do with my point of going to hell is a consequence of not following the rules and not a punishment or threat.
AND
we are getting off topic..

The control one has over one's mind is limited.

you answered yourself.

by sheer force of will refuse to engage a particular train of thought.

through your own will.

 

[wynn]

now you are just arguing that you WANT someone to tell you what to believe.

Oh, your favorite thought-terminating cliche again?

we are getting off topic..

Not at all. I am pointing out a common thestic tactic of evading the non-theist's concern.
You've just pulled a red herring.

through your own will.

And why? Because you told me so?

I see no reason to give up on my concern. Can you show me one, other than fallacious appeals to authority, loyalty, mysticism, or force?

 

[Arioch]

@Signal --

Yeah, logical fallacies are a favorite tactic of theists in general, and of NM in particular.