Political Crossfire Forums

[Lord Hargreaves]

The Logical Fallacy that is constantly used by believers to demonstrate the existence of god is Argumentum ad Consequentiam, or Appeal to Consequences.

It takes this form:

If X is true, then Y occurs.
Y is undesirable, therefore X is false

Or in the specific case of religion:

If no God exists, then there is no basis for morality / life is meaningless and not worth living / death becomes scary since it ist he end / etc
These consequences are undesirable, therefore God must exist

As we can plainly see, "desirability" is an alien concept in logic. I do not claim for a single moment that this is the case, but if the result of no one believing in God was widespread bloodshed, total anarchy, the complete breakdown of society, and mass suicide, this would still be completely insufficient - in fact irrelevant - in proving that God exists

The human and practical consequences of not believing in God are of course important and very interesting, and well worth discussion and debate. But the consequences are not relevant to the question of whether God exists, and it is irritating to say the least when they are used as such by believers

[mODULAR mAN]

I think we could do a whole post on the fallacies that religionists use.

The most common I see is the Argument from Ignorance/God of the Gaps/Argument from Personal Incredulity...


I challenge any theist/religionist/supernaturalist to make their case without using a fallacy.

[eynon]

Lord Hargreaves wrote: The Logical Fallacy that is constantly used by believers to demonstrate the existence of god is Argumentum ad Consequentiam, or Appeal to Consequences.

It takes this form:

If X is true, then Y occurs.
Y is undesirable, therefore X is false

Or in the specific case of religion:

If no God exists, then there is no basis for morality / life is meaningless and not worth living / death becomes scary since it ist he end / etc
These consequences are undesirable, therefore God must exist

As we can plainly see, "desirability" is an alien concept in logic. I do not claim for a single moment that this is the case, but if the result of no one believing in God was widespread bloodshed, total anarchy, the complete breakdown of society, and mass suicide, this would still be completely insufficient - in fact irrelevant - in proving that God exists

The human and practical consequences of not believing in God are of course important and very interesting, and well worth discussion and debate. But the consequences are not relevant to the question of whether God exists, and it is irritating to say the least when they are used as such by believers

this is why we have a philosophy forum......... :lol:

[Vexillum]

Lord Hargreaves wrote: If no God exists, then there is no basis for morality / life is meaningless and not worth living / death becomes scary since it ist he end / etc
These consequences are undesirable, therefore God must exist


Logically, the desirability of the existence of God has nothing to do with the probability of God existing. But, only a fool would bet against the probability, considering the consequences.

Psalm 14:1
The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. :)

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Vexillum wrote: Lord Hargreaves wrote: If no God exists, then there is no basis for morality / life is meaningless and not worth living / death becomes scary since it ist he end / etc
These consequences are undesirable, therefore God must exist


Logically, the desirability of the existence of God has nothing to do with the probability of God existing. But, only a fool would bet against the probability, considering the consequences.

Psalm 14:1
The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. :)

What probability? Let's assume for a moment that there is a supreme being that we might rightfully call "God." The possibility that God is the Christian God, out of the nearly infinite subset of "possible supernatural beings," approaches zero.

[Vexillum]

The Central Scrutinizer wrote: What probability? Let's assume for a moment that there is a supreme being that we might rightfully call "God." The possibility that God is the Christian God, out of the nearly infinite subset of "possible supernatural beings," approaches zero.

Do you think a god who has never made himself known to anyone has the same probability of existing as a god who is practically unchallenged by other gods for our praise?

By definition, there can only be one supreme being. So, the worst you're going to do is get His name wrong. Besides, regarding the consequences set forth in the original post, does it really matter which God, as long as you believe in God?

Now that you stipulate that God exists, I guess you're no longer an Atheist.

[ieatfood]

Vexillum wrote: Lord Hargreaves wrote: If no God exists, then there is no basis for morality / life is meaningless and not worth living / death becomes scary since it ist he end / etc
These consequences are undesirable, therefore God must exist


Logically, the desirability of the existence of God has nothing to do with the probability of God existing. But, only a fool would bet against the probability, considering the consequences.


Actually,using that logic only a fool would choose Christianity instead of Sunni Islam. You see, according to Christianity, Sunni Muslims still goto heaven. According to Sunni Islam, all Christians are going to hell. So who's the fool?

[mODULAR mAN]

Vexillum wrote: The Central Scrutinizer wrote: What probability? Let's assume for a moment that there is a supreme being that we might rightfully call "God." The possibility that God is the Christian God, out of the nearly infinite subset of "possible supernatural beings," approaches zero.

Do you think a god who has never made himself known to anyone has the same probability of existing as a god who is practically unchallenged by other gods for our praise?

By definition, there can only be one supreme being. So, the worst you're going to do is get His name wrong. Besides, regarding the consequences set forth in the original post, does it really matter which God, as long as you believe in God?

Now that you stipulate that God exists, I guess you're no longer an Atheist.

See, here a theist has made any number of fallacies and logical errors.


First he asks a rhetorical question as a debating point.
Then he offers a tautology ("by definition...." - Uh, WHO'S definition? As if someone can make up a definition and then assume it's true. If I say, by definition a Unicorn has a horn and exists, does it exist because I defined it?)

Then he offers the Theists Ace-in-the-Hole (at least, in their minds): Pascal's Wager.

But Pascal's wager fails majestically as the Central Scrutinizer and ieatfood point out.

Not to mention, the evilness of a being that judges people, and sends them to eternal hell, for ill-defined rules and highly questionable revelations.

Face it, theists, you have to show that the existence of a god is more likely than not before you start preaching.

[eynon]

mODULAR mAN wrote: Not to mention, the evilness of a being that judges people, and sends them to eternal hell, for ill-defined rules and highly questionable revelations.

says who?

[eynon]

ieatfood wrote: Vexillum wrote: Lord Hargreaves wrote: If no God exists, then there is no basis for morality / life is meaningless and not worth living / death becomes scary since it ist he end / etc
These consequences are undesirable, therefore God must exist


Logically, the desirability of the existence of God has nothing to do with the probability of God existing. But, only a fool would bet against the probability, considering the consequences.


Actually,using that logic only a fool would choose Christianity instead of Sunni Islam. You see, according to Christianity, Sunni Muslims still goto heaven. According to Sunni Islam, all Christians are going to hell. So who's the fool?

Saracen thinks I'm set....... 8:)

[John]

ieatfood wrote: Vexillum wrote: Lord Hargreaves wrote: If no God exists, then there is no basis for morality / life is meaningless and not worth living / death becomes scary since it ist he end / etc
These consequences are undesirable, therefore God must exist


Logically, the desirability of the existence of God has nothing to do with the probability of God existing. But, only a fool would bet against the probability, considering the consequences.


Actually,using that logic only a fool would choose Christianity instead of Sunni Islam. You see, according to Christianity, Sunni Muslims still goto heaven. According to Sunni Islam, all Christians are going to hell. So who's the fool?

I think you got it backwards.

[mODULAR mAN]

John wrote: ieatfood wrote: Vexillum wrote: Lord Hargreaves wrote: If no God exists, then there is no basis for morality / life is meaningless and not worth living / death becomes scary since it ist he end / etc
These consequences are undesirable, therefore God must exist


Logically, the desirability of the existence of God has nothing to do with the probability of God existing. But, only a fool would bet against the probability, considering the consequences.


Actually,using that logic only a fool would choose Christianity instead of Sunni Islam. You see, according to Christianity, Sunni Muslims still goto heaven. According to Sunni Islam, all Christians are going to hell. So who's the fool?

I think you got it backwards.

How so? Are you more of an authority on the will of God? As I recall, Xians are famously sinful/flawed. I don't think we can trust a person who claims to be congenitally flawed. :wink:

[Vexillum]

mODULAR mAN wrote: First he asks a rhetorical question as a debating point.
Then he offers a tautology ("by definition...." - Uh, WHO'S definition? As if someone can make up a definition and then assume it's true. If I say, by definition a Unicorn has a horn and exists, does it exist because I defined it?)

Why are so many atheists so full of hatred of Christianity? You reply is nothing but gibberish. A definition is a tautology? :lol: :lol: :lol:

[John]

mODULAR mAN wrote: John wrote: ieatfood wrote: Vexillum wrote: Lord Hargreaves wrote: If no God exists, then there is no basis for morality / life is meaningless and not worth living / death becomes scary since it ist he end / etc
These consequences are undesirable, therefore God must exist


Logically, the desirability of the existence of God has nothing to do with the probability of God existing. But, only a fool would bet against the probability, considering the consequences.


Actually,using that logic only a fool would choose Christianity instead of Sunni Islam. You see, according to Christianity, Sunni Muslims still goto heaven. According to Sunni Islam, all Christians are going to hell. So who's the fool?

I think you got it backwards.

How so? Are you more of an authority on the will of God? As I recall, Xians are famously sinful/flawed. I don't think we can trust a person who claims to be congenitally flawed. :wink:

According to Christianity if you reject Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior...you'll end up in Hell. Islam teaches that "good" Christian will go to Heaven...so yeah...it seems like he has it backwards.

And I'm not asking ya to trust me. :wink:

[John]

Vexillum wrote: mODULAR mAN wrote: First he asks a rhetorical question as a debating point.
Then he offers a tautology ("by definition...." - Uh, WHO'S definition? As if someone can make up a definition and then assume it's true. If I say, by definition a Unicorn has a horn and exists, does it exist because I defined it?)

Why are so many atheists so full of hatred of Christianity? You reply is nothing but gibberish. A definition is a tautology? :lol: :lol: :lol:


Because deep down, they know it's the Truth.

[eynon]

Vexillum wrote: mODULAR mAN wrote: First he asks a rhetorical question as a debating point.
Then he offers a tautology ("by definition...." - Uh, WHO'S definition? As if someone can make up a definition and then assume it's true. If I say, by definition a Unicorn has a horn and exists, does it exist because I defined it?)

Why are so many atheists so full of hatred of Christianity? You reply is nothing but gibberish. A definition is a tautology? :lol: :lol: :lol:

not all are, but there is an element........I think John's right, it stems from fear and hatred.

[mODULAR mAN]

eynon wrote: Vexillum wrote: mODULAR mAN wrote: First he asks a rhetorical question as a debating point.
Then he offers a tautology ("by definition...." - Uh, WHO'S definition? As if someone can make up a definition and then assume it's true. If I say, by definition a Unicorn has a horn and exists, does it exist because I defined it?)

Why are so many atheists so full of hatred of Christianity? You reply is nothing but gibberish. A definition is a tautology? :lol: :lol: :lol:

not all are, but there is an element........I think John's right, it stems from fear and hatred.

Why do you guys always resort to Ad Hom's? Are you trying to psychoanalyize atheists? Are you an authority on this, too? :lol:

We are talking about Theism in general (see OP), while you may THINK you are right but Xianity is just one of many mutually exclusive religions.


BTW, A tautology is a self defining definition. "All triangles have three sides" is a tautology. A tautology also can't (by defintion) be false. "Bigfoot has large feet". Or, "God is good".

Or, "By definition, there can only be one supreme being." This is not necessarily true, except you have tried to make it true by creating a tautology to negate any opposing view.

Logic, is a wonderful thing.

[Babylon_Horuv]

Lord Hargreaves wrote: The Logical Fallacy that is constantly used by believers to demonstrate the existence of god is Argumentum ad Consequentiam, or Appeal to Consequences.

It takes this form:

If X is true, then Y occurs.
Y is undesirable, therefore X is false

Or in the specific case of religion:

If no God exists, then there is no basis for morality / life is meaningless and not worth living / death becomes scary since it ist he end / etc
These consequences are undesirable, therefore God must exist

As we can plainly see, "desirability" is an alien concept in logic. I do not claim for a single moment that this is the case, but if the result of no one believing in God was widespread bloodshed, total anarchy, the complete breakdown of society, and mass suicide, this would still be completely insufficient - in fact irrelevant - in proving that God exists

The human and practical consequences of not believing in God are of course important and very interesting, and well worth discussion and debate. But the consequences are not relevant to the question of whether God exists, and it is irritating to say the least when they are used as such by believers

I think you misunderstand the arguement. The assumption is not "God must exist because if he doesn't life is meaningless" it goes more like this. If God exists and you believe he exists you get heaven, life everlasting, etc. If God exists and you believe he does not exist you get Hell, everlasting torment, etc. If God does not exist and you believe he exists you get a better outlook on life because you have the hope of heaven, if God does not exist and you believe he does not exist you get nothing. It is an arguement for the usefulness of belief in god, not for the existance of god. (note, I am a Pagan, thus representing a third option not offered in this dichotomy)

[Babylon_Horuv]

ieatfood wrote: Vexillum wrote: Lord Hargreaves wrote: If no God exists, then there is no basis for morality / life is meaningless and not worth living / death becomes scary since it ist he end / etc
These consequences are undesirable, therefore God must exist


Logically, the desirability of the existence of God has nothing to do with the probability of God existing. But, only a fool would bet against the probability, considering the consequences.


Actually,using that logic only a fool would choose Christianity instead of Sunni Islam. You see, according to Christianity, Sunni Muslims still goto heaven. According to Sunni Islam, all Christians are going to hell. So who's the fool?

All the Christians I know say Muslims go to hell, because they don't acnowledge Christ as their savior.

[Babylon_Horuv]

mODULAR mAN wrote: John wrote: ieatfood wrote: Vexillum wrote: Lord Hargreaves wrote: If no God exists, then there is no basis for morality / life is meaningless and not worth living / death becomes scary since it ist he end / etc
These consequences are undesirable, therefore God must exist


Logically, the desirability of the existence of God has nothing to do with the probability of God existing. But, only a fool would bet against the probability, considering the consequences.


Actually,using that logic only a fool would choose Christianity instead of Sunni Islam. You see, according to Christianity, Sunni Muslims still goto heaven. According to Sunni Islam, all Christians are going to hell. So who's the fool?

I think you got it backwards.

How so? Are you more of an authority on the will of God? As I recall, Xians are famously sinful/flawed. I don't think we can trust a person who claims to be congenitally flawed. :wink:

backwards as in who is going to hell according to who. And I agree, I am pretty sure Muslims allow a place in paradise for Jews and Christians.