Argument from Reason?

[Longhorn]

(1) god spelled backwards is dog
(2) I'm a cat
(3) meow
(4) therefore Allah

That's how I see most arguments for god anyway

[Barefoot]

Faulty or incorrect premises is a good enough rebuttal. If it starts off with shit, you don't need to go any further.

Almost always, these things start with something either incoherent/incorrect as assumptions, or else a massive oversimplification of scientific theory. For example, "Everything has a cause." You can't write stuff like that and expect to be taken seriously. You can't apply the day to day logic we use for dealing with massive groups of matter we call "cars" and "front door keys" and apply them to quantum mechanics; especially as you approach the plank time where everything goes out the window regarding our understanding. It's literally saying, "Fuck science. This is how it is, it's really simple."

I was experiencing this with the kalam argument and the actual vs potential infinite. One rebuttal I read was that actual infinites can exist in time and space, like by taking part of some spatial object and dividing it infinitely. But then I wondered even if you could divide it infinitely. Like wouldn't it have to stop after the sub atomic level somewhere? Isn't there a place where you just can't divide anymore? I don't know what to make of the premise then.

I wish I could learn how to disect arguemnts. It would be so helpful.

[Pyrrho]

I was experiencing this with the kalam argument and the actual vs potential infinite. One rebuttal I read was that actual infinites can exist in time and space, like by taking part  of some spatial object and dividing it infinitely. But then I wondered even  if you could divide it infinitely. Like wouldn't it have to stop after the sub atomic  level somewhere? Isn't there a place where you just can't divide  anymore? I don't know what to make of the premise then.

Conceptually, at least, there is no "smallest distance," so one may always divide any distance further, in feet or meters or whatever measure one uses (e.g., 0.00000000005 feet can be divided in half, for two measures of 0.000000000025 feet, which can be in turn divided in half, etc.).  So conceptually, length is infinitely divisible.  

What you can actually do, depends in part on what one means by that, and what measuring devices one has.  Certainly, you will run into a practically smallest length, beyond which you will not be able to measure.  If your measuring instrument is a ruler like schoolchildren typically use (or used to use), one will reach a practical limit before one would with whatever the finest measuring device is (assuming one knew how to use it).

I wish I could learn how to disect arguemnts. It would be so helpful.

If you live near a community college, you can enroll in a logic or critical thinking class.  The next term, you can also take an introduction to philosophy class, where people do analyze a variety of arguments.  Obviously, I cannot vouch for how good your classes will be, as it will be heavily dependent upon how good the teacher is, and that is quite variable.  Community College teachers can be great, terrible, or anything in between.

Now, if you want to study on your own, you can get a logic or critical thinking textbook.  Here is one that is good for a general reader (at least, earlier editions were good; I have not looked at the current edition at all):

http://smile.amazon.com/Logic-Contempora...0495804118

You do not need that edition; any of the earlier editions would be fine, and would probably be very cheap if you can find them, as they would not be used in a current class.

If you wanted to also include formal logic (which is unnecessary for your interests), the logic text Introduction to Logic by Irving M. Copi has been a standard for over half a century, and again, any edition would be fine.  If you were interested in formal logic, I would recommend Copi, as he properly explains material implication, unlike many other texts.  But I do not recommend trying to learn formal logic on your own, and recommend the book by Kahane instead for your purposes, if you cannot or will not go to a college to take a class.

[robvalue]

1. Pseudo-science drivel
2. Semantic nonsense
3. My God exists

Whether or not everything "that begins to exist" has a cause, the Kalam wants to just state the universe began to exist. We simply don't know that. We have no idea what happened before a certain point, and neither do the people making these dumb arguments.

[Cyberman]

1. Pseudo-intellectual deepity carefully worded to set up premise 2 (eg "If things were different, things would be different.")
2. Trivial, observable fact led by the nose by premise 1 ("Things are not different.")
3. Non-sequitur punchline ("Therefore [insert popular god du jour] exists.")

[ignoramus]

1] I am insecure
2] I need constant guidance
3] I'm not clever enough to work out what is right and wrong all by myself
4] I enjoy meeting others like me
5] I've never been good at understanding all that complex science stuff
6] Therefore god exists

[Mudhammam]

I still want to know what 'truth' is. I've never been able to figure it out myself.

Interesting question. It certainly deserves a more interesting answer than the one some of our Christian friends are likely to prescribe: "Jesus is the truth!"

From a scientific point of view, I think truth would be defined as a useful description of how reality is demonstrated to exist. From a philosophical point of view, I view truth as a statement about the world as it actually is, taking into account the limitations and shortcomings of language, probabilistic inference, and to summarize, derivations that originate in human brains.

...or something like that.

[Angrboda]

One absolutely central inconsistency ruins [the naturalistic worldview].... The whole picture professes to depend on inferences from observed facts. Unless inference is valid, the whole picture disappears.... [U]nless Reason is an absolute--all is in ruins. Yet those who ask me to believe this world picture also ask me to believe that Reason is simply the unforeseen and unintended by-product of mindless matter at one stage of its endless and aimless becoming. Here is flat contradiction. They ask me at the same moment to accept a conclusion and to discredit the only testimony on which that conclusion can be based.
—C. S. Lewis, "Is Theology Poetry?", The Weight of Glory and Other Addresses

More precisely, Lewis's argument from reason can be stated as follows:

1. No belief is rationally inferred if it can be fully explained in terms of nonrational causes.

I would proffer the following formulation:

1. Evolution is not rational.
2. Therefore, products of evolution are not rational.
3. We are rational.
4. Therefore, we are not products of evolution.

There's a fallacy of division in #2 that the parts of something have the same properties as the whole.

[ignoramus]

Here's some more fuel for the tards.

A conscious being cannot come from an unconscious universe ...it is simple logic!

I expect lots of kudos from you!
(yes, I'm a man of principle, you don't like 'em, I got others)

[Magilla]

Does it bother anyone else that these apologist arguments more often than not boil down to:

1. X thing exists.
2. X thing belongs to my god.
3. Therefore, my god exists, or else you can't use X.

Much of the christian intellectual edifice is just christians pointing at aspects of the world and shouting "mine!"

It's a step up from Van Til. If you even speak, no matter what is said, it's "proof" for Christian theism.

 I do appreciate the replies. But I don't see the issue in reading these arguments. I do see an issue with not thinking about them. I want to be able to engage them beyond just shouting "you're stupid" and walking away.

I look at it this way: Suppose we take it for granted that Logic and Reason come from "God". We can then use that Logic and Reason, and whilst obeying the rules of Logic and Reason, we can use them to make arguments against the existence of "God". Depending on the definition of "God", we can show that the god in question does not exist. This is an absurdity, and maybe qualifies as a reductio ad absurdum -

If Reason and Logic exist, "God" exists
Reason and Logic exist
Therefore "Gd" exists.

But also

If Reason and Logic exist they may be used to seek reasonable and logical conclusions
Reason and logic exist
Reason and Logic can be used to show that "God" is: an unreasonable conclusion; or an illogical conclusion; or the god* does not exist 
It is possible to show by means of Reason and Logic that "God"* does not exist.


So Reason and Logic both show that "God"* exists, and that "God"* does not exist.
Reductio ad absurdum?

Note: ( * = depending on how "God" is defined ).

The best theological defences to all of this seem to be that either . . .

The real* God" is not as defined in the presuppositions of any argument leading to the negation of "God's" existence

OR . . .

"God" is too 'Mysterious' for Reason and Logic to apply it, (   ).