RE: Proof of existence of God
May 12, 2012 at 10:18 pm
(This post was last modified: May 12, 2012 at 10:24 pm by LiberalHearted.)
(May 12, 2012 at 1:32 am)jain.rahul Wrote: Theist : If non living things are dependent on external intelligence to perform some systematic work, how can you believe that this whole universe, where each mass systematically exerts gravitational force, where charge systematically exerts coulumbic force, where everything is so systematic, can come to existence naturally? How can you believe that no-one created it.
Me : <answerless>
I need a good argument to counter his reasoning, something is flawed in this, and I can't seem to find out what is wrong in this reasoning. Can anyone help me?
Try out these fallacies of logic.
http://www.logicalfallacies.info/relevance/fallacists/
Fallacist’s Fallacy
Explanation
The fallacist’s fallacy involves rejecting an idea as false simply because the argument offered for it is fallacious. Having examined the case for a particular point of view, and found it wanting, it can be tempting to conclude that the point of view is false. This, however, would be to go beyond the evidence.
It is possible to offer a fallacious argument for any proposition, including those that are true. One could argue that 2+2=4 on the basis of an appeal to authority: “Simon Singh says that 2+2=4″. Or one could argue that taking paracetamol relieves headaches using a post hoc: “I took the paracetamol and then my headache went away; it worked!”
Each of these bad arguments has a true conclusion. A proposition therefore should not be dismissed because one argument offered in its favour is faulty.
Example
“People argue that there must be an afterlife because they just can’t accept that when we die that’s it. This is an appeal to consequences; therefore there is no life after death.”
Appeal to Consequences
Explanation
An appeal to consequences is an attempt to motivate belief with an appeal either to the good consequences of believing or the bad consequences of disbelieving. This may or may not involve an appeal to force. Such arguments are clearly fallacious. There is no guarantee, or even likelihood, that the world is the way that it is best for us for it to be. Belief that the world is the way that it is best for us for it to be, absent other evidence, is therefore just as likely to be false as true."
For this answer I like this one better:
"Weak Analogy
Explanation
Arguments by analogy rest on a comparison. Their logical structure is this:
(1) A and B are similar.
(2) A has a certain characteristic.
Therefore:
(3) B must have that characteristic too.
For example, William Paley’s argument from design suggests that a watch and the universe are similar (both display order and complexity), and therefore infers from the fact that watches are the product of intelligent design that the universe must be a product of intelligent design too.
An argument by analogy is only as strong as the comparison on which it rests. The weak analogy fallacy (or “false analogy”, or “questionable analogy”) is committed when the comparison is not strong enough.
Example
The example of an argument by analogy given above is controversial, but is arguably an example of a weak analogy. Are the similarities in the kind and degree of order exhibited by watches and the universe sufficient to support an inference to a similarity in their origins?"
Cosmos, and machinery aren't compatible. A light bulb could be used in the beginning argument, but it is not cosmos.
One logically doesn't fall into the other. The stars are billion old suns that died - a known, planets are objects which have substance yet are nearly unexplainable as of yet. We do know this planet is alive by certain means. {plants, animals people} yet another known is we have evidence of evolution. Something which came from primordial ooze. The make up us Carbon based.
Back to fallacies.
"Fallacy of Division
Explanation
The fallacy of division is the reverse of the fallacy of composition. It is committed by inferences from the fact that a whole has a property to the conclusion that a part of the whole also has that property. Like the fallacy of composition, this is only a fallacy for some properties; for others, it is a legitimate form of inference.
Example
An example of an inference that certainly does commit the fallacy of division is this:
(1) Water is liquid.
Therefore:
(2) H2O molecules are liquid.
This argument, in attributing a macro-property of water, liquidity, to its constituent parts, commits the fallacy of division. Though water is liquid, individual molecules are not.
Note, however, that an argument with the same logical form but inferring from the fact that a computer is smaller than a car that every part of the computer is smaller than a car would not be fallacious; arguments with this logical form need not be problematic."
Besides who can say the cosmos is a non living entity? Whereby how is something operated by a battery alive?
Another fallacy.
