RE: The Bible is the claim, not the evidence
December 13, 2013 at 6:19 pm
(This post was last modified: December 13, 2013 at 6:20 pm by Mister Agenda.)
(December 13, 2013 at 5:33 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: This is true in formal deduction but inductive reasoning uses this form actually.
In inductive reasoning, we reason from details to generalities. The path from 'the universe exists' to 'God made it' is not inducively valid.
(December 13, 2013 at 5:33 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: 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.
And begging the question.
(December 13, 2013 at 5:33 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: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
Please enlighten me as to which formal fallacy committed. It's only polite to specify. Ken Ham is not a felon, but if he were, me being one still wouldn't make me Ken Ham. For the purposes of the example, it does not matter whether the premise is true, it matters whether the conclusion follows. But P1 WAS a mistake on my part, I was actually thinking of Kent Hovind, thanks for catching that. P2 is also false, thankfully!
