Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
Current time: May 31, 2024, 2:28 am

Thread Rating:
  • 4 Vote(s) - 2 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Scientific evidence of God by an atheist (Where mankind is one likely type of God)
#55
RE: Scientific evidence of God by an atheist (Where mankind is one likely type of God)
(November 5, 2016 at 1:04 am)Alasdair Ham Wrote: lol

Dude it wasn't an anecdote. It was an analogy. We're saying you're committing the equivocation fallacy.

Wikipedia Wrote:Equivocation ("to call by the same name") is an informal logical fallacy. It is the misleading use of a term with more than one meaning or sense (by glossing over which meaning is intended at a particular time). It generally occurs with polysemic words (words with multiple meanings).
Albeit in common parlance it is used in a variety of contexts, when discussed as a fallacy, equivocation only occurs when the arguer makes a word or phrase employed in two (or more) different senses in an argument appear to have the same meaning throughout.[1][2]
It is therefore distinct from (semantic) ambiguity, which means that the context doesn't make the meaning of the word or phrase clear, and amphiboly (or syntactical ambiguity), which refers to ambiguous sentence structure due to punctuation or syntax.[3]
A common case of equivocation is the fallacious use in a syllogism (a logical chain of reasoning) of a term several times, but giving the term a different meaning each time.

Examples

A feather is light.
What is light cannot be dark.
Therefore, a feather cannot be dark.
In the above example distinct meanings of the word "light" are implied in contexts of the first and second statements.

All jackasses have long ears.
Carl is a jackass.
Therefore, Carl has long ears.

Here the equivocation is the metaphorical use of "jackass" to imply a stupid or obnoxious person instead of a male donkey.

Your banana aligned commentary is unavoidably of anecdotal decent, for your commentary lacks logical comparison.

Separately, I need not commit, for I have simply stipulated scientifically observable statistics. (See note atop original post, encompassing the absence of faith|opinion|belief, amidst my stipulations)
Reply



Messages In This Thread
RE: Scientific evidence of God by an atheist - by Minimalist - November 3, 2016 at 11:02 pm
RE: Scientific evidence of God by an atheist (Where mankind is one likely type of God) - by ProgrammingGodJordan - November 5, 2016 at 1:14 am
He is cray - by Edwardo Piet - November 7, 2016 at 8:11 am
why - by ohreally - November 10, 2016 at 1:56 pm

Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Proof and evidence will always equal Science zwanzig 103 7260 December 17, 2021 at 5:31 pm
Last Post: arewethereyet
  Young more likely to pray than over-55s - survey zebo-the-fat 16 1613 September 28, 2021 at 5:44 am
Last Post: GUBU
  Is God weaker than theists imagine, and is mankind stronger? invalid 6 2393 March 5, 2021 at 6:38 am
Last Post: arewethereyet
  Are miracles evidence of the existence of God? ido 74 4540 July 24, 2020 at 12:59 pm
Last Post: The Grand Nudger
  Muslim students less likely to be awarded top class degrees. Succubus#2 28 2476 March 22, 2020 at 6:02 am
Last Post: Belacqua
  Religious fundamentalists more likely to believe fake news OakTree500 30 3897 November 10, 2018 at 4:32 pm
Last Post: no one
  If theists understood "evidence" Foxaèr 135 14008 October 10, 2018 at 10:50 pm
Last Post: The Grand Nudger
  Moses parting the sea evidence or just made up Smain 12 2965 June 28, 2018 at 1:38 pm
Last Post: Minimalist
  Are introverts less likely to like organised religion? Der/die AtheistIn 8 1406 March 22, 2018 at 11:13 pm
Last Post: GODZILLA
  Can religion be a type of Stockholm syndrome? ignoramus 5 2784 June 10, 2017 at 9:54 am
Last Post: Cyberman



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)