RE: By chance?
February 3, 2020 at 7:35 pm
(This post was last modified: February 3, 2020 at 7:50 pm by Simon Moon.)
(February 3, 2020 at 5:36 pm)SUNGULA Wrote: Relies on logical fallacies
I am not surprised.
When the use of fallacies can be made to seemingly support one's pet mythology or superstition, it is very seductive to continue to use them. Even more so, when the 'best apologists', with unjustified good reputations, use the same fallacies, it gives one even more reason to continue to use them.
"If William Lane Craig (he's got a PHd, right) makes the same argument, its got to be legit".
On a more granular level, the conclusions that come from fallacious reasoning can seem to make so much sense to the person making them. After all, we tend to live our lives using inference and induction, and they work so well. After all, today is almost like yesterday, and when we sat in that chair, or one very similar, it held me up.
The problem is, when someone tries to use inference and induction for claims that require deductive reasoning, like existential claims (existence of gods, for example), fallacies are unavoidable. Take ALL the arguments posted by theists in this entire thread, for example.
Or the Kalam cosmological argument.
You'd believe if you just opened your heart" is a terrible argument for religion. It's basically saying, "If you bias yourself enough, you can convince yourself that this is true." If religion were true, people wouldn't need faith to believe it -- it would be supported by good evidence.