Argument for God's existence.

gaara4158

Gen Alpha Dad
Aug 18, 2007
6,437
2,685
United States
✟196,179.00
Country
United States
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Bad science, a few hundred years ago the majority of scientists believed God created science, does that make popular opinion correct?
I've already answered that. The scientific consensus is the best provisional explanation of natural phenomena. Your appeal to the errors scientists have made in the past requires you to accept the scientific consensus of the present, since we only know they were wrong in the past from the current scientific consensus. So that particular argument is self-refuting.

And again, this doesn't make the scientific consensus true necessarily, but it does mean you can't dismiss it as a "bandwagon fallacy" as you are so fond of doing.
 
Upvote 0

createdtoworship

In the grip of grace
Mar 13, 2004
18,941
1,758
West Coast USA
✟33,173.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
I've already answered that. The scientific consensus is the best provisional explanation of natural phenomena. Your appeal to the errors scientists have made in the past requires you to accept the scientific consensus of the present, since we only know they were wrong in the past from the current scientific consensus. So that particular argument is self-refuting.

And again, this doesn't make the scientific consensus true necessarily, but it does mean you can't dismiss it as a "bandwagon fallacy" as you are so fond of doing.

so because we can only know scientists error because of the current consensus, that means that the future consensus will prove current science wrong. So basically it's saying that science itself is not a source for truth. It is an aid in finding truth, but not a source for true information. You even admit, that science cannot prove a single well known fact.
 
Upvote 0

gaara4158

Gen Alpha Dad
Aug 18, 2007
6,437
2,685
United States
✟196,179.00
Country
United States
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
so because we can only know scientists error because of the current consensus, that means that the future consensus will prove current science wrong. So basically it's saying that science itself is not a source for truth. It is an aid in finding truth, but not a source for true information. You even admit, that science cannot prove a single well known fact.
The future consensus may prove the consensus wrong, but not necessarily. That’s why science works in provisional models, not metaphysical truth. As for proof, that’s not something that applies outside of mathematics and logic. Well-known facts are, however, evidenced via scientific methodology. So I don’t know where you’re going with that one.

Anyway, please stop telling people that appeal to scientific consensus is a bandwagon fallacy. We have established that it is not.
 
Upvote 0

Ed1wolf

Well-Known Member
Dec 26, 2002
2,928
178
South Carolina
✟132,665.00
Country
United States
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Single
Meh, I don't care about this one so much anymore. It's just semantics. You can call it a forfeit on my end if that sort of thing is important to you, I don't really care. What I'd really like to explore is what your answer to my question from this post will be:
No, I did not say the universe is the Final cause. The material cause is not known since it cannot be detected by humans. To us it appears the universe was made from nothing. Which is also what the bible teaches in Hebrews 11:3.
 
Upvote 0

Moral Orel

Proud Citizen of Moralton
Supporter
May 22, 2015
7,379
2,641
✟476,748.00
Country
United States
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Married
No, I did not say the universe is the Final cause. The material cause is not known since it cannot be detected by humans. To us it appears the universe was made from nothing. Which is also what the bible teaches in Hebrews 11:3.
I was just trying to fill in the blanks. If we're going with Aristotle's conception of causality we need all four, right? If we don't have all four then we're imagining some other concept of causality, certainly no "Law of Causality" like you said. But here it seems you're saying there was no material cause.
 
Upvote 0

Moral Orel

Proud Citizen of Moralton
Supporter
May 22, 2015
7,379
2,641
✟476,748.00
Country
United States
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Married
As for proof, that’s not something that applies outside of mathematics and logic.
Can we all stop saying this, please? Math and logic are based on unproven axioms too. If we don't accept the colloquial use of the word "proof" to mean "give a convincing amount of evidence", which I know is subjective, then the word doesn't have any meaning left. It's a worthless semantic point, and quite frankly, I think it qualifies as a Red Herring.
 
  • Useful
Reactions: zippy2006
Upvote 0

gaara4158

Gen Alpha Dad
Aug 18, 2007
6,437
2,685
United States
✟196,179.00
Country
United States
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Can we all stop saying this, please? Math and logic are based on unproven axioms too. If we don't accept the colloquial use of the word "proof" to mean "give a convincing amount of evidence", which I know is subjective, then the word doesn't have any meaning left. It's a worthless semantic point, and quite frankly, I think it qualifies as a Red Herring.
Mathematical and logical axioms may not themselves be proven, but the formal use of the word proof has a useful meaning in indicating what logically follows from certain sets of analytical propositions. Due to the limitations of subjectivity, we can’t have that kind of certainty with synthetic propositions, so it’s no more arbitrary or meaningless than the difference between analytical and synthetic propositions themselves.

I’m fine with sticking to the colloquial usage of the word proof, but then we’d have to get people to stop saying science doesn’t prove things. That may prove difficult since there are some pretty good sources taking that stance.
 
Upvote 0

createdtoworship

In the grip of grace
Mar 13, 2004
18,941
1,758
West Coast USA
✟33,173.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
The future consensus may prove the consensus wrong, but not necessarily. That’s why science works in provisional models, not metaphysical truth. As for proof, that’s not something that applies outside of mathematics and logic. Well-known facts are, however, evidenced via scientific methodology. So I don’t know where you’re going with that one.

Anyway, please stop telling people that appeal to scientific consensus is a bandwagon fallacy. We have established that it is not.
You have proven it is in fact a bandwagon fallacy by your posts as I have repeatedly revealed, and thank you for truly revealing the extent you are willing to go to defend your position. That of absolute denial of obvious fallacy. No lie, this could not be going any better.
 
Upvote 0

gaara4158

Gen Alpha Dad
Aug 18, 2007
6,437
2,685
United States
✟196,179.00
Country
United States
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
You have proven it is in fact a bandwagon fallacy by your posts as I have repeatedly revealed, and thank you for truly revealing the extent you are willing to go to defend your position. That of absolute denial of obvious fallacy. No lie, this could not be going any better.
Tell yourself what you like. If you cannot defend your position from my continued refutations, I do accept your surrender.
 
Upvote 0

Moral Orel

Proud Citizen of Moralton
Supporter
May 22, 2015
7,379
2,641
✟476,748.00
Country
United States
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Married
Mathematical and logical axioms may not themselves be proven, but the formal use of the word proof has a useful meaning in indicating what logically follows from certain sets of analytical propositions.
Whatever you prove in math and logic is only provisionally true, as long as the axioms you accept happen to be true. Same thing with science.
I’m fine with sticking to the colloquial usage of the word proof, but then we’d have to get people to stop saying science doesn’t prove things. That may prove difficult since there are some pretty good sources taking that stance.
Contextually there are a lot better ways to refute that point when people make it. For instance, hasn't Grady used scientific consensus to establish that the universe has a beginning? And hasn't he also said that scientists have "proved" spontaneous generation is impossible? If he has a problem with scientists "proving" things and then us looking to a consensus to establish a likelihood that they're correct, he needs to stop doing it. The old canard of "proof is for math and logic and alcohol" needs to be retired.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

gaara4158

Gen Alpha Dad
Aug 18, 2007
6,437
2,685
United States
✟196,179.00
Country
United States
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Whatever you prove in math and logic is only provisionally true, as long as the axioms you accept happen to be true. Same thing with science.
Yes, but the provisional axioms in logic are linguistic while the provisional axioms in science are about reality. Logical axioms aren’t things that might “happen” to be true, they are things that are considered true by definition as a template for meaningful use of language. They don’t say anything about reality. Logical proofs are demonstrations of the relationships between different words and concepts. It would be meaningless to consider that any of the axioms used in logic — and by extension, the conclusions of valid and sound logical arguments — might be false.
This isn’t the case for science; the axioms used in science make declarations about reality that reality is under no obligation to follow. We thus cannot have the same unimpeachable confidence in conclusions we reach by science that we can have in conclusions reached by logic alone. This is why the distinction matters.

Even with all this, the only reason we trot out this distinction is in response to science-deniers bringing up the point that science doesn’t prove anything, as though that means scientists just make guesses at what reality is like and publish those guesses as dogmatic truth. It’s a lot like the confusion generated by the difference between the colloquial and scientific usages of the word “theory.” It’s worth explaining.
Contextually there are a lot better ways to refute that point when people make it. For instance, hasn't Grady used scientific consensus to establish that the universe has a beginning? And hasn't he also said that scientists have "proved" spontaneous generation is impossible? If he has a problem with scientists "proving" things and then us looking to a consensus to establish a likelihood that they're correct, he needs to stop doing it. The old canard of "proof is for math and logic and alcohol" needs to be retired.
Obviously he needs to stop, and I’ve already clubbed him for appealing to the scientific consensus in an attempt to discredit scientific consensus as something worth appealing to. But if he has heard that science doesn’t prove anything, he should be taught why that old canard is used everywhere and what it means and doesn’t mean for his position.
 
Upvote 0

Ed1wolf

Well-Known Member
Dec 26, 2002
2,928
178
South Carolina
✟132,665.00
Country
United States
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Single
Ed1wolf said:
Uhh we do know as well as science can tell us about anything, that the universe is not eternal.

cv: Uhh no. We certainly do not know this. Tell that to such public figures as Alan Guth, Sean Carroll, and others. This response is not trying to 'appeal to authority'; but to instead demonstrate that scientists are divided - and that 'there is still a lot of work to be done.'

https://www.sciencemag.org/news/201...ost-last-paper-putting-end-beginning-universe

Well according to Dr. Donald Goldsmith in the Nov. 2007 issue of Natural History the consensus of cosmologists believe that the universe had a definite beginning is not eternal.


Ed1wolf said:
ed: No, I refuted the infinite regress in my previous post. And as I stated earlier, we determine what caused something by studying the characteristics of the effect. This is exactly how black holes and dark matter were discovered.

cv: Please see above... Again, if we don't know, we don't know. It's okay to say this, verses, to instead assert a comforting proposition which makes sense to us for now ;)

See my response above. I am not saying we can know for certain, but it is plainly good solid abductive reasoning and that is what Christianity is based on contrary to popular opinion. So when someone decides to believe, they are making a step based on the latest scientific evidence and scientific reasoning.

Ed1wolf said:
I would hardly call the existence and characteristics of the universe no evidence. There is no bigger piece of evidence than that.

cv: As I have stated prior, 'the universe creating pixies did it.' Aside from books written by humans, there is no more evidence for Yahweh than from any other asserted God, written in books by humans.

No other god of any of the major religions in the history of the world has the right characteristics for creating this universe.


Ed1wolf said:
No, this is called abductive reasoning, ever heard of it? If not look it up.
cv: Again, please see above. We do not know if the universe is eternal? So it's okay to just state, we don't know yet, and may or may not ever... To instead invoke or assert an a priori, stems from the presupposition of your own personal 'faith' - which demonstrates an example of your own conformation bias. If you have not heard of this term, 'look it up'.
Again see above my response. The majority of cosmologists believe the universe is not eternal. Just because you dont want to believe in the Christian God, you should not let it color your understanding of science. Just because the universe is not eternal does not prove that He exists with certainty. It just strongly points in that direction.

cv: And yes, you are also applying an argument from ignorance, as you clearing demonstrated prior.
No, this is an argument from knowledge. What we know about the universe as an effect and how we can determine the cause of its existence by studying its characteristics.

Ed1wolf said:
I cant prove you wrong, but I can say there is no evidence for it, unlike the Christian God.

cv: Again, aside from humans writing in a book(s), what evidence is there for the Christian God specifically, that we cannot also present as 'evidence' from all the opposing God(s) you reject?
The characteristics of the universe and reality do not fit any other god as well. Plus only the Christian bible actually teaches the three main characteristics of the universe, no other religious book teaches these things. The fact that it had a definite beginning, that it is expanding, and that it is energetically winding down.

Ed1wolf said:
Again, I cant prove you wrong, but I can say there is no evidence for them, unlike the Christian God.

cv: Again, aside from humans writing in a book(s), what evidence is there for the Christian God specifically, that we cannot also present as 'evidence' from all the opposing God(s) you reject?
See above.

Ed1wolf said:
Yes, we do, all those other gods do not have the right characteristics for creating a universe like this.

cv: Prove it
Name a god and I will give you the reasons why it is unlikely to have been the creator of this universe. A god that has at least 1000 followers at one time in history. You cant just make up something like the pixies.
 
Upvote 0

Ed1wolf

Well-Known Member
Dec 26, 2002
2,928
178
South Carolina
✟132,665.00
Country
United States
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Single
Ed1wolf said:
Uhh we do know as well as science can tell us about anything, that the universe is not eternal.

cv: Uhh no. We certainly do not know this. Tell that to such public figures as Alan Guth, Sean Carroll, and others. This response is not trying to 'appeal to authority'; but to instead demonstrate that scientists are divided - and that 'there is still a lot of work to be done.'

https://www.sciencemag.org/news/201...ost-last-paper-putting-end-beginning-universe

Well according to Dr. Donald Goldsmith in the Nov. 2007 issue of Natural History the consensus of cosmologists believe that the universe had a definite beginning is not eternal.


Ed1wolf said:
ed: No, I refuted the infinite regress in my previous post. And as I stated earlier, we determine what caused something by studying the characteristics of the effect. This is exactly how black holes and dark matter were discovered.

cv: Please see above... Again, if we don't know, we don't know. It's okay to say this, verses, to instead assert a comforting proposition which makes sense to us for now ;)

See my response above. I am not saying we can know for certain, but it is plainly good solid abductive reasoning and that is what Christianity is based on contrary to popular opinion. So when someone decides to believe, they are making a step based on the latest scientific evidence and scientific reasoning.

Ed1wolf said:
I would hardly call the existence and characteristics of the universe no evidence. There is no bigger piece of evidence than that.

cv: As I have stated prior, 'the universe creating pixies did it.' Aside from books written by humans, there is no more evidence for Yahweh than from any other asserted God, written in books by humans.

No other god of any of the major religions in the history of the world has the right characteristics for creating this universe.


Ed1wolf said:
No, this is called abductive reasoning, ever heard of it? If not look it up.
cv: Again, please see above. We do not know if the universe is eternal? So it's okay to just state, we don't know yet, and may or may not ever... To instead invoke or assert an a priori, stems from the presupposition of your own personal 'faith' - which demonstrates an example of your own conformation bias. If you have not heard of this term, 'look it up'.
Again see above my response. The majority of cosmologists believe the universe is not eternal. Just because you dont want to believe in the Christian God, you should not let it color your understanding of science. Just because the universe is not eternal does not prove that He exists with certainty. It just strongly points in that direction.

cv: And yes, you are also applying an argument from ignorance, as you clearing demonstrated prior.
No, this is an argument from knowledge. What we know about the universe as an effect and how we can determine the cause of its existence by studying its characteristics.

Ed1wolf said:
I cant prove you wrong, but I can say there is no evidence for it, unlike the Christian God.

cv: Again, aside from humans writing in a book(s), what evidence is there for the Christian God specifically, that we cannot also present as 'evidence' from all the opposing God(s) you reject?
The characteristics of the universe and reality do not fit any other god as well. Plus only the Christian bible actually teaches the three main characteristics of the universe, no other religious book teaches these things. The fact that it had a definite beginning, that it is expanding, and that it is energetically winding down.

Ed1wolf said:
Again, I cant prove you wrong, but I can say there is no evidence for them, unlike the Christian God.

cv: Again, aside from humans writing in a book(s), what evidence is there for the Christian God specifically, that we cannot also present as 'evidence' from all the opposing God(s) you reject?
See above.

Ed1wolf said:
Yes, we do, all those other gods do not have the right characteristics for creating a universe like this.

cv: Prove it
Name a god and I will give you the reasons why it is unlikely to have been the creator of this universe. A god that has at least 1000 followers at one time in history. You cant just make up something like the pixies.
 
Upvote 0

createdtoworship

In the grip of grace
Mar 13, 2004
18,941
1,758
West Coast USA
✟33,173.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Tell yourself what you like. If you cannot defend your position from my continued refutations, I do accept your surrender.
Sir, you admitted your fault by showing your desperation to ignore obvious and clear cut fallacy. All that needs to be said is that scientism does not bring forth facts. Name one fact that science proves. You cant. So saying that the majority or consensus is the bearer of truth and that they cannot be falsified, is a self refutation.
 
Upvote 0

Moral Orel

Proud Citizen of Moralton
Supporter
May 22, 2015
7,379
2,641
✟476,748.00
Country
United States
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Married
Name one fact that science proves. You cant.
Ahh, so you were wrong when you said this:
Spontaneous generation was disproved one hundred years ago
Spontaneous Generation was not disproved ever, huh?


So saying that the majority or consensus is the bearer of truth and that they cannot be falsified, is a self refutation.
You realize of course that according to your personal definition of the Bandwagon Fallacy applying to scientific consensus, then when you say this:
Famous Atheist Stephen Hawking agrees with most scientists that the universe had a beginning, and that time had a beginning: The Beginning of TIme
You've just committed the Bandwagon fallacy.

So I guess the reasons you've given that the universe can't come from nothing and that it even had a beginning is completely fallacious and we can throw out your illogical claims. Next.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

gaara4158

Gen Alpha Dad
Aug 18, 2007
6,437
2,685
United States
✟196,179.00
Country
United States
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Sir, you admitted your fault by showing your desperation to ignore obvious and clear cut fallacy. All that needs to be said is that scientism does not bring forth facts. Name one fact that science proves. You cant. So saying that the majority or consensus is the bearer of truth and that they cannot be falsified, is a self refutation.
Not a word of what you just said addresses my points. Now you have to read them again.

The future consensus may prove the consensus wrong, but not necessarily. That’s why science works in provisional models, not metaphysical truth. As for proof - the kind that you’re talking about - that’s not something that applies outside of mathematics and logic. Well-known facts are, however, proven in the colloquial sense of the word via scientific methodology. So I don’t know where you’re going with that one.

Anyway, please stop telling people that appeal to scientific consensus is a bandwagon fallacy. We have established that it is not.
 
Upvote 0

cvanwey

Well-Known Member
May 10, 2018
5,165
733
64
California
✟144,344.00
Country
United States
Faith
Skeptic
Marital Status
Private
Well according to Dr. Donald Goldsmith in the Nov. 2007 issue of Natural History the consensus of cosmologists believe that the universe had a definite beginning is not eternal.

I think you are missing important parts of my prior responses...

'We don't know.' As I've stated prior, the 'conclusion' is divided. My point IS... You can produce articles, and so can I. It is a divided topic, and only theoretical at this juncture.

(Disclaimer - NOT MEANT TO BE A RED HERRING) - We do not see such divided conjecture for your aforementioned 'evolution' topic. Meaning, there does not appear to exist a clear and distinctive divide between 'macroevolution' not being supported (vs) macroevolution being supported. Why? It would appear that the evidence for macroevolution is no longer a debatable topic among biologists apparently. Meaning, it appears a settled topic above biologists... Yes, there may very well exist other disputed claims within still remaining. But the fundamental premise of macroevolution does not - (unless you invite pseudo-science into the mix). However, the universe's beginning/not beginning, not so settled...

Please understand my final driving point...

If the universe is eternal, then it would be silly to invoke a creator, right?.?.?.?..

If the universe is not eternal, then you may begin to present your case :)


See my response above. I am not saying we can know for certain, but it is plainly good solid abductive reasoning and that is what Christianity is based on contrary to popular opinion. So when someone decides to believe, they are making a step based on the latest scientific evidence and scientific reasoning.

People believe in their god(s) for all sorts of reasons. But I hardly doubt science is one of the more common ones.?.?

Seems more evident that many invoke a 'god' as the explanation due to the 'god of the gaps' solution, or, argument from ignorance solution (i.e.) - 'asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false or a proposition is false because it has not yet been proven true.'


Or, 'I can't think of a better answer.' Or, other other other....

I, on the other hand, freely admit I have no clue how we got here, and leave it at that. However, when I start to follow along with the Bible, and see that it would appear that many claimed events do not appear to jive with later confirmed human discovery, I can then only place doubt as to it's true authenticity.

No other god of any of the major religions in the history of the world has the right characteristics for creating this universe.

Even IF this assertion were true, your task is very simple really.

Demonstrate the meer existence of your asserted God, and then everything we have expressed prior to, and yet unwritten, becomes irrelevant :)


Again see above my response. The majority of cosmologists believe the universe is not eternal. Just because you dont want to believe in the Christian God, you should not let it color your understanding of science. Just because the universe is not eternal does not prove that He exists with certainty. It just strongly points in that direction.

It's not that I 'don't want to believe.' I can no more choose to believe than I can choose to believe I can fly without artificial means.

Demonstrate the existence of your asserted God, and as stated above, everything we are speaking about currently really becomes trivial. But until then, I follow the evidence. And thus far, do not see evidence pointing to your very specific asserted God; let alone any other asserted god(s).

(i.e.) Just like I can assert 'universe-creating pixies'. Meaning, pixies exist! - And their sole purpose is to formulate universe(s).

No, this is an argument from knowledge. What we know about the universe as an effect and how we can determine the cause of its existence by studying its characteristics.

"Knowledge" has yet to be confirmed and acquired about a beginning (vs) eternal. Thus, again, if we don't know, we really do not have 'knowledge.'

As eluded to above, IF the universe happens to be eternal, then game over for the assertions of creationism, right? And if the universe had a beginning, we still appear no closer to the Christian God as the culprit, verses the aforementioned 'universe-creating pixies.' :)


The characteristics of the universe and reality do not fit any other god as well. Plus only the Christian bible actually teaches the three main characteristics of the universe, no other religious book teaches these things. The fact that it had a definite beginning, that it is expanding, and that it is energetically winding down.

Many assertions here. Care to elaborate?

Thus far, it would appear this set of books was written by humans, whom made assumptions and conclusions by inferring their own human discovery at the time. Anything beyond this would require evidence of the 'beyond.'


Name a god and I will give you the reasons why it is unlikely to have been the creator of this universe. A god that has at least 1000 followers at one time in history. You cant just make up something like the pixies.

The number of followers has no relevancy. As stated above... Scientists do not appear to dispute truth for macroevolution due to the evidence. Hence, why we do not see a divide among the scientific community. It does not continue to remain theoretical or speculative, like the many models for the universe being finite or eternal. My point being that the ones opposing macroevotion may more-so be doing so to instead favor a religious belief system.?.?

Maybe the true God has yet to reveal His/Her/It's presence. Or maybe, they never will. Or maybe, this God(s) no longer exists. Or maybe, only two people know about this true God. Or maybe, just maybe, we don't know....

I have a side question for you.... A scenario if you will...

A comet collides with earth. All literature, prior memory, and artifacts are destroyed. All in which remains are ~100 people stranded on a remote island with amnesia. How long do you think it will take before this small group invokes some sort of supreme deity(s) again? Meaning, is it in our nature to 'create' a creator? Is it in our nature to think we are more important than we really are? Is it in our nature to assume that something is watching over us, directing us, guiding us, etc?

All descent questions I think... But as stated prior, until you demonstrate evidence for your specific God, we are merely asserting 'truth' while demonstrating fallacious reasoning.
 
Upvote 0

createdtoworship

In the grip of grace
Mar 13, 2004
18,941
1,758
West Coast USA
✟33,173.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
please stop telling people that appeal to scientific consensus is a bandwagon fallacy. We have established that it is not.
can you prove this? I didn't think so. And neither can science. And that is my point.
 
Upvote 0

gaara4158

Gen Alpha Dad
Aug 18, 2007
6,437
2,685
United States
✟196,179.00
Country
United States
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
can you prove this? I didn't think so. And neither can science. And that is my point.
This whole conversation has been about showing that to you. I guess you forgot? Here, I’ll copy-paste it for you again and you can take another shot at it:

So this is yet another fallacy you gleefully misuse every single time. You're going to have to read Where does morality come from? again.

The difference between the bandwagon fallacy and the scientific consensus is that we actually have good reason other than mere consensus to believe the scientific community knows best on scientific matters. We know that scientists are far more educated than the average person and that they are the ones most familiar with the data and evidence, plus they are most qualified to interpret it. The bandwagon fallacy, on the other hand, contains no such premise.

The reason logical fallacies are so convincing is because they are so close to legitimate logical arguments. Scientific consensus is the legitimate argument that the bandwagon fallacy imitates to make it so appealing. You’re doing the opposite here, which is just as fallacious. You’re rejecting the legitimate argument on the grounds that it’s so close to the fallacy. Which is a little funny, but not unexpected.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

createdtoworship

In the grip of grace
Mar 13, 2004
18,941
1,758
West Coast USA
✟33,173.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
This whole conversation has been about showing that to you. I guess you forgot? Here, I’ll copy-paste it for you again and you can take another shot at it:

So this is yet another fallacy you gleefully misuse every single time. You're going to have to read Where does morality come from? again.

The difference between the bandwagon fallacy and the scientific consensus is that we actually have good reason other than mere consensus to believe the scientific community knows best on scientific matters. We know that scientists are far more educated than the average person and that they are the ones most familiar with the data and evidence, plus they are most qualified to interpret it. The bandwagon fallacy, on the other hand, contains no such premise.

The reason logical fallacies are so convincing is because they are so close to legitimate logical arguments. Scientific consensus is the legitimate argument that the bandwagon fallacy imitates to make it so appealing. You’re doing the opposite here, which is just as fallacious. You’re rejecting the legitimate argument on the grounds that it’s so close to the fallacy. Which is a little funny, but not unexpected.
yes and that post is in error. First, you don't bring up the evidence "other than the consensus" at all, so at this point, we should not even include it in this debate. Secondly, that is somewhat moving the goal posts, because you are adding things we were not talking about
 
Upvote 0