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: July 25, 2025, 6:51 am

Thread Rating:
  • 1 Vote(s) - 5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Disproving Odin - An Experiment in arguing with a theist with Theist logic
RE: Disproving Odin - An Experiment in arguing with a theist with Theist logic
(March 19, 2018 at 3:37 pm)Simon Moon Wrote:
(March 19, 2018 at 12:18 pm)SteveII Wrote: For reference, the KCA:
1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause.

Fallacious.

It fails with a affirming the consequent fallacy at the first premise.

Here's why:

Premise 1 makes the distinction between things that 'begin to exist', and things that 'don't begin to exist'. That is defining 2 sets, the set with everything that begins to exist, and the set of things that don't begin to exist.

If the only thing that you believe is in the set of things that don't begin to exist, is your god, then you are smuggling in your conclusion in the first premise.

KCA also has an equivocation fallacy in the 2nd premise. But since it fails on the 1st, there is no reason to continue.

This is affirming the consequent:

P implies Q

therefore P

Also called the fallacy of the converse. An example is:

1. If Bill Gates owns Fort Knox (P), then Bill Gates is rich (Q).
2. Bill Gates is rich. (Q)
3. Therefore, Bill Gates owns Fort Knox. (P)

This is the KCA

P implies Q 

therefore Q

1. Everything that begins to exist (P) has a cause. (Q)
2. The universe began to exist. (P)
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause. (Q)

Nope. Definitely not Affirming the Consequent. 

You point out two possibilities: those things that don't begin to exist and those things that do. That is very simply put the distinction between something that is necessary and something that is contingent. You could insert the phrase "All contingent objects" in the Premise (1) and it would mean exactly the same thing. The universe by definition is a contingent object. The reason that Premise (1) is formulated that way is because necessary objects don't have a cause--so don't belong in Premise (1)
Reply



Messages In This Thread
RE: Disproving Odin - An Experiment in arguing with a theist with Theist logic - by SteveII - March 19, 2018 at 4:27 pm

Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  It's Darwin Day tomorrow - logic and reason demands merriment! Duty 7 1217 February 13, 2022 at 10:21 am
Last Post: BrianSoddingBoru4
Photo The atrocities of religiosity warrant our finest. Logic is not it Ghetto Sheldon 86 10323 October 5, 2021 at 8:41 pm
Last Post: Rahn127
  Neil DeGrasse Tyson on Disproving God Mechaghostman2 158 41628 July 14, 2021 at 3:52 pm
Last Post: arewethereyet
  First order logic, set theory and God dr0n3 293 46809 December 11, 2018 at 11:35 am
Last Post: T0 Th3 M4X
  Disproving the christian (and muslim) god I_am_not_mafia 106 35804 March 15, 2018 at 6:57 pm
Last Post: The Grand Nudger
  a challenge All atheists There is inevitably a Creator. Logic says that suni_muslim 65 19059 November 28, 2017 at 5:02 pm
Last Post: Fidel_Castronaut
  What is logic? Little Rik 278 77263 May 1, 2017 at 5:40 pm
Last Post: Cyberman
  What is your Opinion on Having Required Classes in Logic in Schools? Salacious B. Crumb 43 11576 August 4, 2015 at 12:01 am
Last Post: BitchinHitchins
  Arguing w/ Religious Friends z7z 14 4484 June 5, 2015 at 4:53 pm
Last Post: Cephus
  Logic vs Evidence dimaniac 34 15096 November 25, 2014 at 10:41 pm
Last Post: bennyboy



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)