RE: DNA Proves Existence of a Designer
May 15, 2018 at 11:51 am
(This post was last modified: May 15, 2018 at 11:53 am by Mister Agenda.)
I'm going to throw out a bit of info.
A fallacy is an error in reasoning that makes an argument invalid. The conclusion can still be correct, but it does not follow. All fallacies are essentially forms of 'non sequitur'. For example, I am a male human, male humans are Mister Agenda, therefore I am Mister Agenda. My conclusion is correct, but the argument I used to reach it is flawed due to the fallacy it contains. Fallacies can be formal or informal. An informal fallacy is one in which the flaw in reasoning isn't due to the form of the argument, that is, the argument may be valid in symbolic form, but flawed when it comes to specific cases.
An argument from ignorance is an informal fallacy in which an appeal is made to lack of contrary evidence to assert something is true. Thousands of people go missing every year and we never find out what happens to them. Since we don't know what happened to them, it must be aliens.
The argument from incredulity, aka 'the divine fallacy', is an informal fallacy where you make your inability to comprehend something your argument. I can't understand it, so it must not be true. I don't understand how it could not be true, so it must be true. I don't understand where lightning comes from, and Thor makes more sense to me, so it must be Thor. In my opinion this is a type of argument from ignorance.
Affirming the consequent is a formal fallacy in which sufficiency is confused with necessity. If A, then B. B, therefore A. If God, then the universe. The universe, therefore God. If a designer, then DNA, DNA, therefore a designer. If you own a ton of gold, you are rich. You are rich, therefore you own a ton of gold.
If you use fallacies, it doesn't make your conclusion wrong, but it does mean that what you have provided to support your conclusion does not actually support it.
A fallacy is an error in reasoning that makes an argument invalid. The conclusion can still be correct, but it does not follow. All fallacies are essentially forms of 'non sequitur'. For example, I am a male human, male humans are Mister Agenda, therefore I am Mister Agenda. My conclusion is correct, but the argument I used to reach it is flawed due to the fallacy it contains. Fallacies can be formal or informal. An informal fallacy is one in which the flaw in reasoning isn't due to the form of the argument, that is, the argument may be valid in symbolic form, but flawed when it comes to specific cases.
An argument from ignorance is an informal fallacy in which an appeal is made to lack of contrary evidence to assert something is true. Thousands of people go missing every year and we never find out what happens to them. Since we don't know what happened to them, it must be aliens.
The argument from incredulity, aka 'the divine fallacy', is an informal fallacy where you make your inability to comprehend something your argument. I can't understand it, so it must not be true. I don't understand how it could not be true, so it must be true. I don't understand where lightning comes from, and Thor makes more sense to me, so it must be Thor. In my opinion this is a type of argument from ignorance.
Affirming the consequent is a formal fallacy in which sufficiency is confused with necessity. If A, then B. B, therefore A. If God, then the universe. The universe, therefore God. If a designer, then DNA, DNA, therefore a designer. If you own a ton of gold, you are rich. You are rich, therefore you own a ton of gold.
If you use fallacies, it doesn't make your conclusion wrong, but it does mean that what you have provided to support your conclusion does not actually support it.
I'm not anti-Christian. I'm anti-stupid.
