I feel almost certain that all forms of religious/theistic apologetics/arguments are flawed, in one way or another. So I'm putting it to the test. Please post any arguments about religion or a general God that you think are valid, and I will analyse them. They can be about whatever aspect you like, anything that demonstrates them to be something outside of your own imagination.

I will be looking for dishonest techniques and logical fallacies. As soon as I find one, I will highlight it, explain the problem, and stop. You are then welcome to amend your argument and resubmit it. There are many common problems I am likely to highlight, so please familiarise yourself with them on my website here. If you don't understand why any of them are dishonest/broken thinking, please ask. They are important for anyone who cares if their arguments are valid.

If I can't find a mistake, I will concede that your argument is valid. Don't bother with mundane arguments such as "Religion does charity, and charity is good". Yes, that is true. I'm not going to argue with such statements, but they don't prove anything about the truth of religion.

You can use any argument, either your own or from your favourite apologetic. But like I say, I'll identify one error then stop. If it's a concise argument, I may highlight several errors if present.

Go! The challenge is open. Other counter-apologists are welcome to step in on my behalf to identify errors if they so wish. But this is intended to be about the validity of arguments, rather than full rebuttals.

It should be noted that arguments can be valid, but premises are false. Validity comes cheap. For example:
If apes exist, cats speak English. If P, Q.
Apes exist. P
Therefore, cats speak English. Q

Oh yes, for sure. Good point. Unsupported assertions will be pointed out, they are on my list But it's very true, the argument can still be valid. The result is then only as true as its premises.

WLC likes that a lot. He talks for so long that you've lost track of the subject, then just assumes his conclusion and hopes you didn't notice.

(1) God sounds like bog
(2) I'm a tree
(3) why are there still monkeys
(4) therefore Cthulhu

CHECKMATE HEATHENS

(July 20, 2015 at 4:08 am)robvalue Wrote: WLC likes that a lot. He talks for so long that you've lost track of the subject, then just assumes his conclusion and hopes you didn't notice.

My old classic.

Jesus was a man
Stimbo is a man
Therefore Stimbo is blown out of Min's arse!

Sorry Stim, just trying to get a point across, your name came up.

(July 20, 2015 at 4:10 am)Neimenovic Wrote: (1) God sounds like bog
(2) I'm a tree
(3) why are there still monkeys
(4) therefore Cthulhu

CHECKMATE HEATHENS

That's the best argument I've heard for some time. I'll give it some thought. It's a squid or something right?

Haha! Squids can't talk! Gotcha.

*Twiddles thumbs*

We don't know how something happens therefore it must be god.

Also morals.

(July 20, 2015 at 4:06 am)Pizza Wrote: It should be noted that arguments can be valid, but premises are false. Validity comes cheap. For example:
If apes exist, cats speak English. If P, Q.
Apes exist. P
Therefore, cats speak English. Q

(July 20, 2015 at 4:08 am)robvalue Wrote: Oh yes, for sure. Good point. Unsupported assertions will be pointed out, they are on my list But it's very true, the argument can still be valid. The result is then only as true as its premises.

WLC likes that a lot. He talks for so long that you've lost track of the subject, then just assumes his conclusion and hopes you didn't notice.

-That- one's not actually an issue of an -unsupported assertion-.  It's a mechanical issue of -material implication- whereby the "if" modifier is being leveraged improperly.  Because an argument (of the type invoked) is only said to be valid when it takes a form wherein it is impossible for the assertions to be true while the conclusion is simultaneously false, and because an argument (of the type invoked) requires a specific condition which is not present...........that argument is actually -invalid-.

Validity doesn't come cheap, people have simplistic and incomplete concepts of validity, is all. "If p, then q" works as a simple description of a logical operation divorced from conditionals in natural language.......but that's the end of it's utility. The trouble is the inference of conditionals in natural language, and their translation to a logical form. If this doesn't -already- make it sound hopeless...I have some bad news......english might be one of the worst languages in the world on that count. There is no such trouble with the "if" modifier in other languages. That means that some of us are suffering from a handicap not uniform to all of us, and ironically that;s the problem with the word "if" in english. It does not describe a uniform condition, and theres no way of ensuring that the condition it descibes is the appropriate condition for the operation used, as in the statement regarding apes, cats.....and whether or not they speak english....

(for more, google downing, wilson, or goldstein et al - or, for some heavier reading not limited to this subject but containing one of the best explanations -of it- try "Causality and Determinism" by Von Wright)