RE: Proof of existence of God
May 12, 2012 at 3:19 am
(This post was last modified: May 12, 2012 at 3:21 am by Oldandeasilyconfused.)
(May 12, 2012 at 3:02 am)Cthulhu Dreaming Wrote: It's fallacious logic. "I can't imagine how it could happen otherwise." is the crux of his argument. He actually hasn't supported his argument at all.
There are two logical fallacies in the argument:
(2) Argument from incredulity/lack of imagination:
Quote:Arguments from incredulity take the form:
P is too incredible (or: I cannot imagine how P could possibly be true); therefore P must be false.
It is obvious that P is true (or: I cannot imagine how P could possibly be false); therefore P must be true.
These arguments are similar to arguments from ignorance in that they too ignore and do not properly eliminate the possibility that something can be both incredible and still be true, or appear to be obvious and yet still be false.
I suggest read the entire articles linked.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_fr...magination
(2) The associated fallacy is the teleological argument,aka,argument from complexity and watchmaker's argument. This often refuted argument is the basis for the intelligent design/creationist position.
Quote:Watchmaker analogy
William Paley's "watchmaker analogy" is one of the most famous teleological arguments
The watchmaker analogy, framing the argument with reference to a timepiece, dates back to Cicero, who used the example of a sundial or water-clock in his reasoning that the presence of order and purpose signify the existence of a designer. It was also used by Robert Hooke[37] and Voltaire, the latter of whom remarked: "L'univers m'embarrasse, et je ne puis songer Que cette horloge existe, et n'ait point d'horloger";[38] "I'm puzzled by the world; I cannot dream The timepiece real, its maker but a dream".[39]
William Paley presented the watchmaker analogy in his Natural Theology (1802).[40]
[S]uppose I found a watch upon the ground, and it should be inquired how the watch happened to be in that place, I should hardly think … that, for anything I knew, the watch might have always been there. Yet why should not this answer serve for the watch as well as for [a] stone [that happened to be lying on the ground]?… For this reason, and for no other; namely, that, if the different parts had been differently shaped from what they are, if a different size from what they are, or placed after any other manner, or in any order than that in which they are placed, either no motion at all would have been carried on in the machine, or none which would have answered the use that is now served by it.
—William Paley, Natural Theology[41]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teleological_argument