AF Hall of Fallacies

[Soldat Du Christ]

[Tonus]

[downbeatplumb]

What are the chances of the universe coming into existence?
100% coz its here.
That wasn't so hard was it.

[Thumpalumpacus]

And remember -- those odds are often computed serially when it comes to EbNS, when in fact they should be computed in parallel. Getting a particular number while rolling one die is one-in-six odds; but you'll improve your chances by adding dice to the toss.

[Astonished]

I didn't read back through the last 10 pages so forgive me if this was already addressed.

What would you call the fallacy that would occur from someone who, if they got a skeptic to admit that the deistic god concept had validity, and then immediately proceeded to say that it necessarily meant that all of the other theistic characteristics they want to tack on to it were also valid (or true) without any lead-up to them in the previous conversation?

[robvalue]

I'd call that conflation.

It's treating two concepts as if they are the same, and transferring properties between them. In this case, the property that has been "established" for the deistic God is that it exists. They are then treating their specific God as the same thing, so it also exists.

It's also called "bait and switch" for this kind of example, where you swap out one thing for another and hope no one notices.

[Thumpalumpacus]

That sounds like a non sequitur to me ... an unsupported leap.

[robvalue]

Agreed, it is that too

[Astonished]

Agreed, it is that too

Yeah. I mean, the bait and switch works if you swap the simplistic concept out for the more complex theistic flavor of the month, but I thought about it more like where, okay, we've got our foot in the door, now we're going to shove all this junk mail through before you can shut it. That way the originally (conditionally or provisionally) accepted premise remains rather than being swapped out, although maybe it just sounds different in my head than how you guys presented it. I would think that would have a different kind of name, maybe one I've heard before, but can't seem to recall what precisely it would be, or maybe it is just what you've already mentioned.

[robvalue]

There is a name for this kind of technique, where you bombard someone with so much crap that they can't respond to it all and end up overwhelmed: "Gish gallop". The person's confusion and inability to address it all is taken as victory.

It's often employed by scummy money making apologists like Ray Comfort.