Recently a good friend of mine(a rationalist on everything except religion) and I had a, erhm, "discussion" over wether or not religions claims to miracles were valid. After a few mentionings/examples of how the False Cause Fallacy fit his "proofs" he asked me to come up with a good structured argument for how the False Cause Fallacy disproves miricals and divine intervention. Now, I have done research, but I would like to request any of you whom are willing to aid me in constructing this argument. I understand some of you believe efforts such as this are pointless, and I respect that. However, I ask that you not try to shoot me down. Any help is appreciated.
Decent description/examples of False Cause Fallacy:
Subscription Note:
Choosing to subscribe to this topic will automatically register you for email notifications for comments and updates on this thread.
Email notifications will be sent out daily by default unless specified otherwise on your account which you can edit by going to your userpage here and clicking on the subscriptions tab.
Why are you not being "open minded" about miracles and divine intervention; when you just told me in another thread to be "open minded" about consciousness after death?
I really shouldn't grace you with an answer, as you are bringing something from one topic to another, unrelated topic, which is technically a form of trolling. But, because I'm feeling generous, I shall. There is actual proof against the existiance of God and miricals and the like(read: logic). For the other topic, there is no proof for or against the post mortem existaince of the conscience. It does not go for or against logic in any way, therefore it must be proved/disproved with science, when the technology required to do so is created.
Keeper of Worlds - "technically a form of trolling"
Please link this technical definition of trolling that you seem to have access to.
---------------------------
Keeper of Worlds - "There is actual proof against the existiance of God and miricals and the like(read: logic)".
There is no logic proof for/against god or miracles. For example: can you provide a proof that the claims of miracle healing at Lourdes are false? Can you provide a logical proof that you had (or did not have) cornflakes for breakfast?
"In Internet slang, a troll (/ˈtroʊl/, /ˈtrɒl/) is a person who sows discord on the Internet by.....by posting inflammatory,[1] extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community"
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_troll
Miracles Didn’t Happen Then, And Don’t Happen Now. If miracles occurred in Biblical times, why don’t they occur now? It is highly suspect to claim that all the shock and awe stuff was only performed for the benefit of ancient, primitive people, but denied to us modern folk, today. Miracle claims initially bear witness against themselves, as they claim to violate the very laws of nature that cannot be violated.
Existence Of Evil In The World, Both Human-Created And Natural, Is More Likely In A Godless World. An all powerful God would be able to get points across and teach lessons and improve our character without placing us in a world of such tremendous suffering. What benefit is there to the Ebola virus that eats away at people’s flesh? Why did we need Auschwitz? Couldn’t something less horrendous have gotten whatever point across that God was trying to make. For God’s existence to be compatible with the evil in the world, there would have to be no occurrence of evil that is gratuitous and beyond justification.
Divine Hiddenness: A Personal God That Wanted Loving Relationship With Human Beings Wouldn’t Be So Hidden. Why is God so stingy with direct evidence? Again, the supposed miracles that attest to a supernatural power all happened in ancient, pre scientific, times, in which there existed no means of reliable verification. These supposed miracles are not being duplicated today so that we could see that such things are possible. Scientific errors in the Bible and its other flaws, including the commanding of atrocities, all make Scripture much harder to believe. A loving God would not erect such high barriers to belief and then further compound the difficulty in believing by providing us with such strong evidential circumstances against the supernatural, such as the inviolability of the laws of nature.
I can keep going if need be.
What you submitted are arguments, not logical proofs.
Different people can take "proof" differently. For me, these are "proofs". Just as definition doesn't entirely guide a person's interpretation of a words meaning. Say what you will, but if you disagree with the definition given you are an example of that point.
Keeper of Worlds - "Different people can take "proof" differently."
Right, it means different things in different contexts. You used it in the context of logic, so I was expecting a formal logical proof.
I'm actually curious now, no sarcasm. If you are willing could you please give me more info or like to that so I can understand it better and see were I went wrong? My apologies if I seemed like an idiot.
Let me start with a true story:
I was in a meeting at work and there was some delay and some small talk started and somehow the topic of proof came up. I looked up and said, no you can't prove X, it is impossible to prove most statements in the real world (I don't remember what X was now, it is unimportant to what happened later). Someone replied: I can prove I have a CD in my laptop. I said: go ahead. He proceeded to eject a large silver disc the size of a CD from his laptop's drive and waved it around the room. Everyone in the room agreed that he had proved he had a CD in his laptop except me. I objected that if he had in fact proved he had had a CD in his laptop then it would be impossible for us to be wrong, and I suggested that perhaps he palmed the CD and fooled us into thinking it came out of his laptop (like a magicians trick). This was not a popular statement and appeared to end the conversation, he went to return the disc to his laptop and while he was reinserting it, he paused and a horrible look came over his face. He then wailed: oh no, it is not a CD it is a DVD!
You see, when something has been proven it can NEVER be wrong. It was not possible for him to prove he has a CD (or a DVD for that matter) in his laptop. To prove something like this you must typically exhaust every possible way it might be wrong, and this is generally not possible in the real world. As the saying goes: "proof is a matter for logic, mathematics, and whiskey".
So you can't prove anything is absolutely right, yet you can't prove anything is absolutely wrong, normally speaking(read: non extraordinary situations)
Right, unless you are talking about logic or mathematics (of course there are ways, such as proof by contradiction). A good way to spot a proof is they tend to start with axioms/postulates.
So, if I may ask, what exactly would a formal logical proof look like/be?
Postulate 1: All dogs have hair.
Postulate 2: Joe has a dog named Spot.
Conclusion 1: Spot has hair.
You will notice that the conclusion can NEVER be wrong, so long as the postulates are true. This is why it is important to list the postulates (typically first).
In that case, let me try.
P1:God exists.
P2:God is a benevolent, omnipotent being.
P3:A benevolent, omnipotent being, by definition, would not want evil and suffering to exist.
P4:A benevolent, omnipotent being, by definition, could prevent anything they did not want.
P5:Therefore, if God exists, evil and suffering should not.(from P2,3, and 4)
P6:Evil and suffering exists.
P7:Therefore, a benevolent, omnipotent being cannot exist.(From all preceding P's)
C1:Therefor, God dose not exist.
let me try:
P1: A benevolent, omnipotent being, would not want evil and suffering to exist.
P2: A benevolent, omnipotent being, could prevent anything they did not want.
P3: God exists and is a benevolent, omnipotent being.
C1: ∴ Evil and suffering should not exist.
P4: Evil and suffering exist.
C2: ∴ Our postulates form a contradiction so at least one of them must be false (this argument alone isn't enough to conclude which ones should be discarded).
Ah I see. Thank you.
This, however, is were one would have to use common sense/observable phenominon. For instance, P4 cannot be false because evil and stuffing are both observable, even if they are different types of phenomenon. But, in order for God to exist, mother of the first two postulates can be removed, as that would then not fit the given descriptionof God. But, since P4 is a massively acknowledged even/ocurance, saying it is false would be the ultimate form of ignorance and denial. Therefore, one of the god describing postulates must be false. But, if this is true, which we have established it is, then no matter if one or all of them are false, by the set premisis God cannot exist.
Keeper of Worlds - "This ... is were one would have to use common sense"
Logic and common sense don't play well together.
-------------------------------------
Keeper of Worlds - "For instance, P4 cannot be false..."
do you have a proof for P4? (this is going to be recursive so it's kind of a rhetorical question as any proof for P4 will contain unproven postulates...)
So you mean to say evil and suffering don't exist? That is a claim that ANYONE would have to take with a grain of salt(or the entire container)
Ignore Nyarlathotep the troll.
Even though there are few here who want to admit he is not one, the truth is obvious for who is honest with himself enough to admit it.
From the article you linked on trolling:
"Application of the term troll is subjective. Some readers may characterize a post as trolling, while others may regard the same post as a legitimate contribution to the discussion, even if controversial. Like any pejorative term, it can be used as an ad hominem attack, suggesting a negative motivation."
And you are not the first user to cry 'troll' when someone posts a critical reply.
As far as im concerned, these arguments stand well enough on their logic for me to consider them proof.
"I have done research, but I would like to request any of you whom are willing to aid me in constructing this argument. I understand some of you believe efforts such as this are pointless, and I respect that. However, I ask that you not try to shoot me down. Any help is appreciated."
I'm still trying to understand what was the question here?
Is it this:
"he asked me to come up with a good structured argument for how the False Cause Fallacy disproves miricals and divine intervention. "
Is he paying you to go dig proofs to prove that "the False Cause Fallacy disproves miracles and divine intervention. "?
This is not how it works.
1)If he wants to suggest that "miracles and divine intervention." do exist or did happen, he must show some evidence for it.
2)After reasonably showing that miracles(suspension of natural events) do happen, then he must again show evidence that they actually occurred at the time he WISHES they did occur.
3)Then after that, he has to compare of how likely it was that a miracle occurred versus other occurrences.
The most likely occurrence automatically becomes what most likely happened.
This is what it means being open minded about something.
Open minded means consider all the possibilities in your examination of the facts/evidence.
As you can see your friend skipped the first and only 3 steps and yet he still claims he is open minded?
What he should have done is:
Assume that miracles do happen
Assume that a miracle occurred at that particular time.
Assume that the story we are receiving is reliable
Assume the most likely occurrence was the miracle occurrence.
Now after all those assumptions how does "the False Cause Fallacy disproves miricals and divine intervention. "?
BTW it is Miracles*
Cannot bear myself to copy paste it wrongly, I think it changed myself once already.
Jeff, I've already jumped the ship. I realize I went about it incorrectly. And, troll or not, I still aprieciate the information given by Nya just as much as the info you gave.
I do not read anything Nya writes so forgive me if I completely did not read any waste of posts that were related to his posts.
"I still appreciate the information given by Nya"
I saw you debating a troll, I just let you know how useless it is to debate a troll, now what you do is up to you.
First, entirely dismissing some based off past events puts you on a level lower than a theist.
"Wastes of posts" Opinions are like armpits. Everyone has them, and they tend to stink, but some of us put deoderant on them to keep them unoffending in smell. Maybe you should try it.
Don't think I didn't catch the "I don't care what you appreciate". Real nice, Jeff.
I find entertainment in it, and, since Nya gave me useable info, I find it worth it, and not pointless. Not quite trolllike to give useful info.
"I don't care what you appreciate". Real nice, Jeff.
Yep i tried to remove my honesty, so you might not misunderstand, but you got me.
I honestly do not care what you or anybody else appreciates or not in a debate.
Happy???
btw neither should you.
"I find entertainment in it"
I do not care.
"and, since Nya gave me useable info, I find it worth it"
I do not care, good for you.
"Not quite troll like to give useful info."
I did not claim he trolled now, i was so nice to inform you that he is a troll and he is ready to troll and change subjects to show he is always right, he is not interested in the topic at hand in most posts that I had the misfortune of reading.
For me he is a troll and i do not care if he changes his ways now, he lost his chance.
You can do what you want, it is up to you.
As I said I do not care.
If you do not care, the why exactly are you using your oh so precious "I don't give a damn" time to respond. Unless you care that I am "falling for it" and want to stop me after all. Which would be contradictory with your previous claim.
BECAUSE YOU MISUNDERSTOOD ME AS I THOUGHT YOU WOULD.
I said i do not care what you appreciate, I do care if you misunderstand me or not.
contradictory to what?
I also was very clear that it is up to you, what you do. = I DON'T care if you reply to the troll or not.
I was nice enough to inform you about the troll once, that is all.
Now do what you want.
Your correct, I did misunderstand you. And, in hindsite, I apologise for that. Now, if you give me a moment to rethink my response to your comments, I will come back with something appropriate.
Pages