RE: I am a theist, what do you think of my proof for God existing?
November 1, 2016 at 12:10 pm
(This post was last modified: November 1, 2016 at 2:03 pm by Simon Moon.)
(October 31, 2016 at 10:41 pm)Mariosep Wrote: Dear atheist colleague Simon Moon, please change the word affirming in the line from you:
"This is the fallacy of affirming the consequent. Strike one."
Choose the correct appropriate word, otherwise you are not a critical reader much less a critical writer.
And you are betraying your limited grasp of thinking and writing on truths, facts, logic, and the history of ideas.
Suppose you make a write-up for the proof of the existence of atoms in objective reality outside of concepts in our mind, step by step.
[quote='Simon Moon' pid='1432039' dateline='1477959694']
This is the fallacy of affirming the consequent. Strike one.
You are stating your conclusion, that a god exists, in your first premise.
[...]
Why should I change the correct word to something else?
What word would you rather that I have used?
You know, it is very easy to google the phrase, "affirming the consequent" to see it is the correct name for a specific logical fallacy.
In addition, it has not gone unnoticed by anyone here that you completely ignored my refutation of every one of the premises of your 'proof'. But instead, focused on one word of one of the fallacies of your proof, that you thought was incorrect.
But you have been ignoring the many refutations of your argument for 40 pages now, so, it would seem that your intellectual dishonesty is the only thing that you have been successful in proving.
Congratulations.
You'd believe if you just opened your heart" is a terrible argument for religion. It's basically saying, "If you bias yourself enough, you can convince yourself that this is true." If religion were true, people wouldn't need faith to believe it -- it would be supported by good evidence.
