[Serious] Fallacies & Strategies

[R00tKiT]

There is no necessary reason for God to create us. We could have not existed. 

I asked you how you know, and you just re-stated your claim.
Want to try again? Especially in the light of the fact that you cant know if your god is good or bad. How do you know it was not necessary for your god to create us because he is good (or bad)? How did you rule out that being good (or bad) does not include the necessity to create humans?

I thought I didn't need to spell out the obvious. If God necessarily has to create humans, then He can't be a deity.. the latter being usually defined as a necessary being, isn't contingent on anything. It follows that God doesn't need to create anything.  As you can see, this has nothing to do with the deity being good or bad, the deity is self sufficient by definition.

So again, it certainly doesn't follow from God being benevolent/malevolent that He should create us. I am not sure why this is difficult for you.

Not true. Theists constantly tell us that god is good, and that he is the fount of morality, blahblahblah. "God is good, all the time", etc.

All those statements are judgements. And they're all vapid, according to your logic. For all you know, you are worshipping a demon, apparently.

Well then I don't think we mean the same thing by the term 'judgment'. The theists you're referring to are just rehearsing the articles of their faith, which they believe come from God verbatim. Therefore, they're reporting to you what they think God said about Himself. 

And I think omnipotent demons have better ways to get what they want than disguise themselves as benevolent deities. Being compelled to hide your identity/powers/nature is a hallmark of weakness, even between people. 

All religions are described by articles of faith.  You'll have to pick a lane at some point though.  We either can or can't know whether a god is good or evil.  Speculation, revelation, observation... it doesn't really matter which vehicle.  

All the aforementioned vehicles naturally lead one to think God is benevolent. I mean, neither you nor I are hanging out naked in the street right now, while starving. It's idiotic for a healthy person, with enough nutrients and shelter to get through the day, to argue for malevolent beings and unnecessary evil.

Revelation is crystal clear about the character of God. In Islam, there are as many as 99 names of God, each pointing to a property or character of the divine.

[Thumpalumpacus]

The theists you're referring to are just rehearsing the articles of their faith, which they believe come from God verbatim. Therefore, they're reporting to you what they think God said about Himself. 

Well, what one thinks is indeed a judgement, so this is a distinction without a difference.

And I think omnipotent demons have better ways to get what they want than disguise themselves as benevolent deities. Being compelled to hide your identity/powers/nature is a hallmark of weakness, even between people. 

Who said the hypothetical demon you may be worshipping is omnipotent? I sure didn't. I pointed out that you, by your own logic, have no way of knowing that you're not worshipping a demon -- not because that hypothetical demon is omniscient, but because you've already admitted that you don't have all the facts at your command.

You can't really argue "we don't know, because we believe he's omniscient", and then claim to know whether what you're worshipping is omniscient or not.

Put shortly, if you can't know the panoply of your god's decisionin', you can't know if he is actually a god or not. So just believe what you believe.

Remember: you cannot know what goes into your god's decisions, according to your own argument. It follows that you cannot know if he knows everything, or simply knows more than you ... or simply doesn't exist.

[The Architect Of Fate]

The theists you're referring to are just rehearsing the articles of their faith, which they believe come from God verbatim. Therefore, they're reporting to you what they think God said about Himself. 

Well, what one thinks is indeed a judgement, so this is a distinction without a difference.

And I think omnipotent demons have better ways to get what they want than disguise themselves as benevolent deities. Being compelled to hide your identity/powers/nature is a hallmark of weakness, even between people. 

Who said the hypothetical demon you may be worshipping is omnipotent? I sure didn't. I pointed out that you, by your own logic, have no way of knowing that you're not worshipping a demon -- not because that hypothetical  demon is omniscient, but because you've already admitted that you don't have all the facts  at your command.

You can't really argue "we don't know, because we believe he's omniscient", and then claim to know whether what you're worshipping is omniscient or not.

Put shortly, if you can't know the panoply of your god's decisionin', you can't know if he is actually a god or not. So just believe what you believe.

Remember: you cannot know what goes into your god's decisions, according to your own argument. It follows that you cannot know if he knows everything, or simply knows more than you ... or simply doesn't exist.

Indeed how does he know that playing the role of a benevolent being is not the best way if he himself is not omniscient? And how does he know omniscience isn't just a lie conjured by the demon to make itself look more powerful or how does he know the demon is just so prideful that it thinks it is omniscient when it isn't

[R00tKiT]

Who said the hypothetical demon you may be worshipping is omnipotent? I sure didn't. I pointed out that you, by your own logic, have no way of knowing that you're not worshipping a demon -- not because that hypothetical  demon is omniscient, but because you've already admitted that you don't have all the facts  at your command.

You can't really argue "we don't know, because we believe he's omniscient", and then claim to know whether what you're worshipping is omniscient or not.

Put shortly, if you can't know the panoply of your god's decisionin', you can't know if he is actually a god or not. So just believe what you believe.

Remember: you cannot know what goes into your god's decisions, according to your own argument. It follows that you cannot know if he knows everything, or simply knows more than you ... or simply doesn't exist.

I think you're entirely missing the context of this thread. We assume we know God exists here for the sake of this discussion, usually for independent reasons that have nothing to do with his benevolence/malevolence. And by God we mean the object of worship as defined in classical theism, e.g. omnipotent and omniscient.

With this in mind, you don't get to say : "the purported demon isn't omnipotent" because in this case we're no longer under this hypothetical, and we need to have a separate discussion about the existence of God. And I assume, of course, that you have no independent reasons for believing a non-omnipotent demon exists.

[The Grand Nudger]

Revelation is crystal clear about the character of God. In Islam, there are as many as 99 names of God, each pointing to a property or character of the divine.

Revelation may be, but reason is not.  Are we being reasonable?

[Thumpalumpacus]

I think you're entirely missing the context of this thread. We assume we know God exists here for the sake of this discussion, usually for independent reasons that have nothing to do with his benevolence/malevolence. And by God we mean the object of worship as defined in classical theism, e.g. omnipotent and omniscient.

With this in mind, you don't get to say : "the purported demon isn't omnipotent" because in this case we're no longer under this hypothetical, and we need to have a separate discussion about the existence of God. And I assume, of course, that you have no independent reasons for believing a non-omnipotent demon exists.

You simply, by your own logic, cannot know if your belief that your god is good, or omniscient, or purple, is or is not correct -- even inside this framework you're trying to impose upon the conversation.

I notice you completely ignored my point that theists continually judge their gods as good or evil on a regular basis, even as (as you admit) they have no way of knowing it. You should perhaps answer that point? How can you judge your god to be good or evil if you don't have the same knowledge he or she has? Because that is your argument.

[Fake Messiah]

My vote for the most used logical fallacy among AF members is category error, placing the God of Classical theism (i.e. Being Itself) in the same category as a particular being among other beings. For example comparing the All with the tooth fairy.

I've been trying to explain this fallacy ever since I joined this forum, but to no avail. It's laughable that some members here don't even recognize it as a fallacy. Maybe some links to "serious" references should reassure them? Since they seem so distrustful of anything a theist might say

Even the anti-religious website RationalWiki has a "category mistake" entry
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Category_mistake

According to rationalwiki (not a christian or wahabi website, mind you), a category mistake happens when one confuses the properties of the whole with the properties of the parts, and therefore be guilty of committing two fallacies: the fallacy of composition AND the fallacy of division. 

Umm, no. You are lying again. A category mistake is about "confusing the properties of the whole with the properties of a part." As an example "Because no individual human being is powerful enough to affect the climate of Earth, anthropogenic climate change is impossible."

That does not apply if I say "tooth fairy has an equal amount of evidence for its existence as Abrahamic God - which is none".

And it still doesn't make someone wanting you to prove your god a fallacy.

What it all is is a burden of proof fallacy on your part which you are trying to avoid by projection fallacy.

[The Architect Of Fate]

I've been trying to explain this fallacy ever since I joined this forum, but to no avail. It's laughable that some members here don't even recognize it as a fallacy. Maybe some links to "serious" references should reassure them? Since they seem so distrustful of anything a theist might say

Even the anti-religious website RationalWiki has a "category mistake" entry
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Category_mistake

According to rationalwiki (not a christian or wahabi website, mind you), a category mistake happens when one confuses the properties of the whole with the properties of the parts, and therefore be guilty of committing two fallacies: the fallacy of composition AND the fallacy of division. 

Umm, no. You are lying again. A category mistake is about "confusing the properties of the whole with the properties of a part." As an example "Because no individual human being is powerful enough to affect the climate of Earth, anthropogenic climate change is impossible."

That does not apply if I say "tooth fairy has an equal amount of evidence for its existence as Abrahamic God - which is none".

And it still doesn't make someone wanting you to prove your god a fallacy.

What it all is is a burden of proof fallacy on your part which you are trying to avoid by projection fallacy.

Also, need I point out that Rational Wiki Article says it's an informal fallacy, and nowhere does it apply the fallacy to comparing God to another supernatural being with no evidence of their existence. In fact, rational wiki itself has pointed out the similarities between belief in god and imaginary figures.

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Santa_Claus

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Fairy_tales

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Mythology

[Belacqua]

Back on the second page of this thread, Neo said that it was a category error to speak of the God of classical theism as if it were an entity, like the Tooth Fairy or Santa Claus.

There are fundamental differences. For example, Santa Claus, if he existed, would have parts (feet and hands, for example) and would move around (delivering presents). But these are not characteristics of the God of classical theism.

I don't expect that anyone is much interested in learning about the thing they're arguing against. Still, in case anyone would like to know more, Edward Feser's blog describes this in a readable way.

https://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2010/09...heism.html

[The Grand Nudger]

As has been repeatedly explained, it's not actually category error to compare things. Full stop.

More pedantically... the god of classical theism is a personification of x. A personal and intervening nature is a characteristic of all theistic gods, and is also a characteristic of tooth fairies - ourselves as well...while we're at it. It may not be a person like a human person..but that hardly matters. Neither is a tooth fairy - or, at least, it wouldn;t be any safer to assume they were than to assume a god is. So even if it could be a category error to compare things...it still wouldn't be a category error to compare gods and fairies (a large number of which, ofc..actually are diminutive forms of previous gods). As both share characteristics and attributes common to each other. That this offends the sensibilities of the religious does not make it fallacious reasoning.

They're certainly free to demonstrate that a category error has been committed in upside down land, by insisting that their god, or the god of classical theism, is neither personal nor intervening, as fairies and other gods are....but I think we can see why that's a non starter for a theist, can't we? There's nothing in edward fesers blog or anywhere else that can turn a comparison between personal and intervening x's, between different mythological concepts, between assorted real or imaginary entities and forces, or between dogs and cats.... into a category error, no matter how many times you, neo, or kloro reassert as much. A thing will be just as right or just as wrong the 100th time as it was the 1st.