The Genetic Fallacy

[CatholicSoxFan]

Are you suggesting that God of the Gaps is reasonable evidence of God?

I am saying that it is a strawman, and that if you look at the fine-tuning and cosmological arguments (both the Kalam and the Leibniz), they are not the god of the gaps. Silverman, in his debate with Frank Turek, even tried to say that the moral argument was the god of the gaps.

 

[variant]

I am saying that it is a strawman, and that if you look at the fine-tuning and cosmological arguments (both the Kalam and the Leibniz), they are not the god of the gaps. Silverman, in his debate with Frank Turek, even tried to say that the moral argument was the god of the gaps.

Any time you simply assert God the only explanation for some currently unknown phenomena you would be asserting a God of the Gaps.

The cosmological arguments for one do indeed do this.

 

[CatholicSoxFan]

While I'll admit the genetic fallacy is annoying, I honestly don't see it much (although I don't doubt you do) so it's difficult for me to say that it's always used incorrectly.

I do think it's interesting that you used the words "deduce the most rational explanation" while describing the "god of the gaps" fallacy. What exactly do you mean? You do realize that the "supernatural" can never be considered the "most rational explanation" for anything at all...don't you? If the supernatural cannot be demonstrated in any way, then it remains nothing more than bare assertion...and bare assertion is no more "rational" than any other bare assertions.

You are assuming materialism, by saying that since something can not be empirically demonstrated, it therefore can never be the most rational conclusion.

 

[variant]

You are assuming materialism, by saying that since something can not be empirically demonstrated, it therefore can never be the most rational conclusion.

Anna said "demonstrated in any way".

 

[CatholicSoxFan]

Any time you simply assert God the only explanation for some currently unknown phenomena you would be asserting a God of the Gaps.

The cosmological arguments for one do indeed do this.

What currently unknown phenomena? That we haven't yet discovered how something can come from absolutely nothing? You do understand that's a logical absurdity, right?

 

[variant]

What currently unknown phenomena?

We don't know how the cosmological constant is set for one.

Fine tuning relies on this sort of ignorance to assert God.

That we haven't yet discovered how something can come from absolutely nothing? You do understand that's a logical absurdity, right?

If everything requires a cause so would God. Or the people might have the same assumptions you do that something has always existed.

 

[CatholicSoxFan]

Anna said "demonstrated in any way".

Well, that assumes from the outset that all theistic arguments fail, which is not at all established; many an atheist has said that "ALL these arguments have been refuted OVER AND OVER AGAIN", but that doesn't make it so.

 

[CatholicSoxFan]

Right, but the point of referencing the fact that people generally believe based on the prevailing religions of their region is to give them pause before formulating their lives around an ideology that's typically the product of culture and circumstance, rather than an employment of valid epistemology. A fallacy would be committed here only if said atheist interlocutor said that your belief is false on account of this. Thus, if a person comes to the conclusion that the Earth is round solely based on authority when that same person could easily verify this, regardless of having arrived at the right answer objectively, that person would have no way of actually knowing whether they were right or not. The same person could have easily accepted that it was flat and be convinced that it was true. Consider that all believers of the various faiths think they are right. What's needed is a clear epistemology to begin to uncover the truth, and mere authority and faith isn't going to get you there.

I know, we should be using logical arguments to arrive at the best conclusion, not logical fallacies.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Well, that assumes from the outset that all theistic arguments fail, which is not at all established; many an atheist has said that "ALL these arguments have been refuted OVER AND OVER AGAIN", but that doesn't make it so.

Just because people don't have a solid explanation for something doesn't mean god did it.

 

[variant]

Well, that assumes from the outset that all theistic arguments fail, which is not at all established; many an atheist has said that "ALL these arguments have been refuted OVER AND OVER AGAIN", but that doesn't make it so.

Theistic arguments tend to fail under most rational and evidential standards.

We can't actually prove your arguments false because we have no conditions under which you would accept that they were false.

If what you were presenting were a theory it would be unfalsifiable, that is the problem.

And it isn't our problem.

 

[durangodawood]

I know, we should be using logical arguments to arrive at the best conclusion, not logical fallacies.

The reasoning you describe is not a logical fallacy.

 

[CatholicSoxFan]

We don't know how the cosmological constant is set for one.

Fine tuning relies on this sort of ignorance to assert God.



If everything requires a cause so would God. Or the people might have the same assumptions you do that something has always existed.

Neither P1 of the Kalam nor P1 of the Leibniz argument say that "everything has a cause." This is another oft-repeated strawman.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Neither P1 of the Kalam nor P1 of the Leibniz argument say that "everything has a cause." This is another oft-repeated strawman.

If not everything has a cause, then why does the universe or life have to have one and not god?

 

[CatholicSoxFan]

The science of geography yes, but not, "I believe X because I live in Y part of the world".

Ideas like say, science or mathematics aren't usually regional, people believe them because of how useful they are at explaining things.

You are confusing the cause for why you believe something with the reasons why you believe something.

 

[variant]

Neither P1 of the Kalam nor P1 of the Leibniz argument say that "everything has a cause." This is another oft-repeated strawman.

They require the assumption.

Or they require that the universe need an external cause.

Always special pleading is required.

God is argued as a special case in any rule one would like to apply to the universe in order to assert God.

 

[variant]

You are confusing the cause for why you believe something with the reasons why you believe something.

Am I? What forces would you propose to explain why religion sorts by geography?

 

[CatholicSoxFan]

If not everything has a cause, then why does the universe or life have to have one and not god?

If the universe didn't have a cause, it would have to be necessary (P1 of the Leibniz argument, which is a form of the Principle of Sufficient Reason.) The evidence for the beginning of the universe flies right in the face of this notion, however.

 

[CatholicSoxFan]

Am I? What forces would you propose to explain why religion sorts by geography?

Huh? By "reasons", I mean things like the theistic arguments, not the cause of how I came to believe in God.

 

[variant]

If the universe didn't have a cause, it would have to be necessary (P1 of the Leibniz argument, which is a form of the Principle of Sufficient Reason.) The evidence for the beginning of the universe flies right in the face of this notion, however.

The closer we get to that proposed event the less we know.

 

[variant]

Huh? By "reasons", I mean things like the theistic arguments, not the cause of how I came to believe in God.

I doubt you came to believe because of theistic arguments.