(September 7, 2011 at 10:15 am)Rhythm Wrote: I don't think Ryft is actually attempting to argue for the existence of god, merely stating that god exists. The rest is just an attempt to brow beat people by providing a problem that cannot be solved due to it's being engineered exactly for that purpose.
I may be mistaken about the definition of begging the question. I would still maintain that the line of argument is fallacious as it is built on an assumption that should require proof but none is offered.
Arguing "from God to logic", reads to me like stating that one is "arguing from (an unproven assertion) to (something else)".
Maybe "begging the question" isn't the right term to use here but the line of reasoning is still clearly fallacious because it's not built on a solid foundation.
Now, I'm a deist myself but I don't use my belief in God to prove anything else. If I were to do so, I should be asked to first prove my beliefs are correct and then build the argument on that. And if someone can't propose a better alternative to GodDidIt or GodWillsIt, that doesn't mean that GodDidIt or GodWillsIt is the correct answer (that, I think, is argument from ignorance).
Show me the foundation is sound first. Then we can examine the structure you've constructed on that.
Atheist Forums Hall of Shame:
"The trinity can be equated to having your cake and eating it too."
... -Lucent, trying to defend the Trinity concept
"(Yahweh's) actions are good because (Yahweh) is the ultimate standard of goodness. That’s not begging the question"
... -Statler Waldorf, Christian apologist
"The trinity can be equated to having your cake and eating it too."
... -Lucent, trying to defend the Trinity concept
"(Yahweh's) actions are good because (Yahweh) is the ultimate standard of goodness. That’s not begging the question"
... -Statler Waldorf, Christian apologist
