(December 13, 2013 at 5:14 pm)Mister Agenda Wrote: I can't speak for everyone, but I reject 'creation' as evidence for a Creator because it affirms the consequent, which is a fallacy. When an argument is based on a fallacy, its conclusion doesn't follow from its premises.
This is true in formal deduction but inductive reasoning uses this form actually.
Quote: If God, then the universe.
The universe, therefore God.
I believe his argument would actually look like this…
1. If the Universe, then God
2. The Universe, therefore God.
Which is affirming the antecedent.
Quote: If I am Ken Ham, I am a felon.
I am a felon, therefore I am Ken Ham.
Not only does this suffer from a formal fallacy but premise 1 (and premise 2 I hope) are both false. Ken Ham is not a felon.
-SW
