Why deductive arguments for/against God often fail

[2PhiloVoid]

These days, we see way too many freshman attempts to discredit (or sometimes buttress) the Biblical conceptions of God by way of mere deductive arguments.

In the following video, Christian philosopher, Greg Ganssle, briefly explains 'why' it is the case that so many merely deductive arguments don't effectively provide the conclusive punch line that their proponents assert they do, either way ...

... trust me, this beats me having to pull off several Logic textbooks from my shelf and attempt a pedantic and no frills explanation.

PHILOSOPHY - Epistemology: Argument and Evidence​

​

​

... ... this is why deduction isn't enough or often fails: we have to also use Induction and /or Abduction to support our premises.​

 

[zippy2006]

Good video. I definitely agree that one needs to defend premises, and that this is the bread and butter of argument. I have harped on this before.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Good video. I definitely agree that one needs to defend premises, and that this is the bread and butter of argument. I have harped on this before.

Yes, you definitely have.

 

[Stephen3141]

I'll skip the videos.

If you have an assertion and an argument for it, write it.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I'll skip the videos.

If you have an assertion and an argument for it, write it.

NO!!! There's no need to reinvent the bicycle. What is said has been said. If you don't like how it's presented in this thread, then mosey along, Stephen.

If you don't want to deal with Greg Ganssle, that's just too bad!

I'm not playing your game. Besides, you'd lose if you played mine.

 

[jacks]

Interesting video, with some great points. My only thought on it is, that unlike the scenario of a crime, that can have many alternatives; the God Exists vs God Doesn't Exist only has two. And when the assertion of God Doesn't Exist is made not only must the premises presented be defended, so too must a host of additional alternative premises be made. (To explain reality without a God.) For example: That something can come from nothing, life can spring from non-life, macro evolution is possible, all miracles have a scientific bases, etc. etc. In other words the list of premises For a God is fewer than premises required to prove there is no God.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I'll skip the videos.

If you have an assertion and an argument for it, write it.

IF there is an argument here, it is that in order for Christian Philosophy to proceed---that is, for discernible and cogent arguments to be made---then the basics of both human thought and the diversity of rational lines of argumentation have to be accounted for and understood before they are used, even if used for essentially weak but still true arguments.

What I see, all too often, are cheap attempts at deductive arguments in Theology (and even from Anti-Theology) strewn around in society, very rarely passing on the level of Validity alone. And even when they are valid, they're even more rarely Sound ...

This state of things as they are is not acceptable for any Christian Philosopher and, moreover, it is not something he/she has to accept simply due to the fact that "well, people are that way because they don't want to have to learn the conceptual environs of Deduction, Induction, Abduction, or of any other mode of applied logic and/or praxis."

It's almost as if some people think that because they are given "freedom" from having to learn Logic (or Theory), they are then free from the consequences of what that ignorance can bring. Would you agree?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Interesting video, with some great points. My only thought on it is, that unlike the scenario of a crime, that can have many alternatives; the God Exists vs God Doesn't Exist only has two. And when the assertion of God Doesn't Exist is made not only must the premises presented be defended, so too must a host of additional alternative premises be made. (To explain reality without a God.) For example: That something can come from nothing, life can spring from non-life, macro evolution is possible, all miracles have a scientific bases, etc. etc. In other words the list of premises For a God is fewer than premises required to prove there is no God.

That's a useful angle of feedback, but in response I'd say that your answer doesn't address the actual details and qualities, or definite outcomes of procedure and justification inherent, respectively, to attempts at Deduction, Induction or Abduction, or of Pragmatic/Instrumentalist assumptions where the Bible or God are concerned.

Additionally, while you didn't specifically mention it by name, Occam's Razor has been epistemically blunted as of late, so alluding to it or even relying upon it doesn't by any necessity identify where the firmest answers are, or where the full justifications are, for those answers when engaging assertions either for the existence of God or against His existence.

 

[zippy2006]

And when the assertion of God Doesn't Exist is made not only must the premises presented be defended, so too must a host of additional alternative premises be made. (To explain reality without a God.) For example: That something can come from nothing, life can spring from non-life, macro evolution is possible, all miracles have a scientific bases, etc. etc. In other words the list of premises For a God is fewer than premises required to prove there is no God.

Well, these are not premises, they are counterarguments. If an atheist gives an argument for the non-existence of God then a theist could respond with one of these counterarguments, but the atheist does not need to address every counterargument to his conclusion before giving an argument for his conclusion.

And if you or anyone wants to make an argument based on "Occam's Razor" (as Philo seems to correctly perceive), then that argument itself needs to be defended, along with its premises. The point is that there aren't really any shortcuts to be had in these matters of debate.

 

[jacks]

I should know better than to post in a philosophy thread, you guys quickly speak over my head and I'm never sure what rules I'm supposed to follow. I quickly see my thoughts are ill conceived and I feel totally unequipped to justify my ideas. It's back to Pets and Animal thread for me.

 

[Joseph G]

There is no mere intellectual substitute for perceiving God through faith:

Hebrews 11:6 NIV

"And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to Him must believe that He exists and that He rewards those who earnestly seek Him."

The reward?

Matthew 11:25-27 NIV

"At that time Jesus said, “I praise you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because you have hidden these things from the wise and learned, and revealed them to little children. Yes, Father, for this is what you were pleased to do."

“All things have been committed to me by my Father. No one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son and those to whom the Son chooses to reveal him."

 

[Stephen3141]

My point in not wanting to chase videos, is that it removes the discussion
of the argument, from this site.

There will be people who post pointers to other videos, that they claim
contradict your conclusion.

Then there will be people who post pointers to libraries of videos, that
they claim disprove your conclusion.

Posting pointers to videos, without summarizing the arguments in the videos,
removes the discussion of the arguments from this site.

For the same reason, I object to posts that point to some book, without quoting
the argument in the book, saying "this book proves that your conclusion is wrong".
That's not an argument. And that sort of undefined assertion doesn't belong in
a logical discussion of a topic.

(I'm not sure that the younger American generations, understand what a
logical argument is. And I would say the same for many who belong to the
anti-intellectual Christian denominations.)

 

[zippy2006]

I should know better than to post in a philosophy thread, you guys quickly speak over my head and I'm never sure what rules I'm supposed to follow. I quickly see my thoughts are ill conceived and I feel totally unequipped to justify my ideas. It's back to Pets and Animal thread for me.

Well, more simply, if an atheist argues that God does not exist the theist might think that the atheist then has a duty to explain how something could come from nothing. But the atheist may have never thought about this question. So it is a new question that the theist is posing to the atheist, and this new question (argument) might cause the atheist to change their mind.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

My point in not wanting to chase videos, is that it removes the discussion
of the argument, from this site.

I disagree completely with that view.

There will be people who post pointers to other videos, that they claim
contradict your conclusion.

And I don't mind if they do. For me, videos that are within 5 - 15 minutes in length are apropos and, in my praxis, supplemental for support. In this case, if the OP starts with a frame of reference, and that frame of reference is articulated already by a professional in a reasonably short video, I have absolutely no qualms with that. Videos are just one possible source for scholarly input.

I'm not here on CF to hear everyone's unsupported opinions; no, I expect quite the opposite: support for one's views rather than mere expositions of what any one forum poster wants to demonstrate in appearances or prowess. It's the content and substantive arguments that count most, not the form of media or prose presented.

So, while I understand you very well that the presentation of a video as a discussion point isn't your cup of tea, your particular taste can't be the one that will dominate in each and every forum thread.

Then there will be people who post pointers to libraries of videos, that
they claim disprove your conclusion.

That's fine. Then any of us can dispute with the content and arguments of that video. I don't mind. It doesn't phase me one bit.

Posting pointers to videos, without summarizing the arguments in the videos,
removes the discussion of the arguments from this site.

No, no, no it doesn't. That's a cop out retort and doesn't actually represent the reality of possible engagement with the interlocution. I don't have to accept your proposition and neither does anyone else. As for a summary, there is no bare minimum requirement on that, and as far as I'm concerned.............. I did offer a quick summary as to what the video is about in my OP. It DOESN'T require that I lay out a point by point survey of the video.

For the same reason, I object to posts that point to some book, without quoting
the argument in the book, saying "this book proves that your conclusion is wrong".
That's not an argument. And that sort of undefined assertion doesn't belong in
a logical discussion of a topic.

It sounds like you and I have utterly different academic praxis and expectations for what constitutes substantive interaction.

From my angle, it almost sounds like you simply want to deflect away the more robust arguments that other PhD Christian might have that don't coalesce with your own. ................... so, sad to say, I don't fly that way!

(I'm not sure that the younger American generations, understand what a
logical argument is. And I would say the same for many who belong to the
anti-intellectual Christian denominations.)

They can learn. .............but so too can Christians who "think" they're intellectual. The catch in this is that I don't think we should expect the recognition of truth and reality to come from the input of some one single voice or philosopher, such as yourself. No, we're stuck in a plurality that we have to sort through, and that's just the way it is. No one person gets to dominate---not me, and not you.