RE: Who throws the dice for you?
April 21, 2014 at 11:10 am
(This post was last modified: April 21, 2014 at 11:13 am by Heywood.)
(April 19, 2014 at 4:25 pm)Cato Wrote: The conclusion of God invokes the supernatural and in your argument God is only true if the supernatural is assumed. This is begging the question.
I don't have to accept 5. The alternative that I proposed is that there is a scientific explanation that we have yet to discover. As an illustration: God did not make the solar system work until Newton had an opportunity to ponder skydiving fruit.
The problem with this argument is that if there is a scientific explanation that we have yet to discover, then premise 1 or 2 or both is false. You cannot invoke this argument if you accept premise 1 and 2 as true.
(April 20, 2014 at 10:16 am)rasetsu Wrote:(April 19, 2014 at 3:40 pm)Heywood Wrote: Premise 4. If our reality is dependent on a supernatural element, then we should observe events which cannot be explained scientifically.
Premise 5. We observe events for which it is virtually impossible to explain scientifically.
Conclusion: Therefore our reality is dependent on a supernatural element.
Where is the fallacy in this argument?
This is a classic example of affirming the consequent, therefore the conclusion doesn't follow.
I agree with your criticism that the affirming the consequent fallacy exist and therefore the argument is invalid. I got sloppy.