-
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
-
CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.
How do we KNOW knowledge?
- Thread starter Kylie
- Start date
You have used two logical fallacies. First, you argue that since we don't have a natural explanation for the origin of the universe, that this is evidence for a supernatural origin. This is an argument from ignorance. You also use the strong anthropic principle, that the universe was designed for us. This is based on the Sharpshooter fallacy.
Upvote
0
Exactly. Oncedeceived will define up as down, left as right, and black as white. Whatever it takes to arrive at the conclusion she wants.
Upvote
0
Oncedeceived
Senior Veteran
First of all this argument was not presented in this thread only the principles of logic were presented. You are using an argument that has not been discussed in this thread and ignored my argument in this one.
Secondly, I do not present an argument from ignorance as I use what we do know to make it. Regardless, if science hasn't determined what caused the universe how do you contend that God wasn't necessary? If science can tell us that life evolved and what the processes were that allowed it, how do you know that God wasn't necessary?
How do you know? What elements am I not including?
Upvote
0
Oncedeceived
Senior Veteran
No, I didn't say that because we don't have natural explanation for the origin of the universe that it is evidence for the supernatural. You are twisting my words.
What I said was that since Science doesn't have an explanation how do YOU make the determination that God was not necessary?
I will ask again, what elements have I ignored in my argument?
Upvote
0
juvenissun
... and God saw that it was good.
- Apr 5, 2007
- 25,474
- 806
- 73
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
Very easy to invalid your idea:
You tasted (experienced) a strange spice. Do you KNOW what it is?
Upvote
0
Doesn't change the fact that you have used logical fallacies over and over and over.
"You then if you were really just following the facts would have to admit that there is no material explanation for the universe having order rather than chaos or minds being able to reason or the connection to one to the other."
http://www.christianforums.com/t7864496
Argument from ignorance that you used to try and support the existence of the supernatural.
You are shifting the burden of proof. That is a logical fallacy. You are the one claiming that God is involved. It is up to you to support your claim with evidence. Hitchen's Razor.
Please learn what the Sharpshooter Fallacy is. You claim that the universe was created for intelligent life only after intelligent life appears. You are painting the bullseye around the bullet hole.
Upvote
0
Do you?
Plenty of people have claimed to experience Zeus, Thor, Juno, and other gods. Were they wrong?
Upvote
0
ananda
Early Buddhist
At that point, either you fight for your reality (believing it to be true). Or, give in and modify your reality (embracing a new truth), discarding your former ideas as former truth.
Basically, what I'm saying is that everything I believe is true for me, until I stop believing it.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Oncedeceived
Senior Veteran
Actually you have as I've shown.
1. I am stating a fact. IF it is not a fact and you have in some way scientifically shown how the universe has order and is not chaos or how we have logic and reason which is connected with knowing the universe then you are about to have your life change immensely. You will be famous for sure.
2. There is no argument for the supernatural in that statement whatsoever.
1. I don't pattern my life or arguments to fallacies created to stack the deck in favor of the position of the one that created it.
2. I did not claim that God was involved. Provide the quote in this discussion of where I said that God WAS involved.
The Texas sharpshooter fallacy is an informal fallacy which is committed when differences in data are ignored, but similarities are stressed. From this reasoning a false conclusion is inferred.[1] This fallacy is the philosophical/rhetorical application of the multiple comparisons problem (in statistics) and apophenia (in cognitive psychology). It is related to the clustering illusion, which refers to the tendency in human cognition to interpret patterns where none actually exist.
So I repeat...what did I ignore? What patterns don't actually exist?
Where in this discussion did I claim that the universe was created for intelligent life?
Upvote
0
Requiring you to support your arguments with evidence is not a logical fallacy. Please learn how logic works.
You have used that argument on multiple occasions to support a God of the Gaps.
And now we move the section of the discussion where you pretend you never made specific claims after making those specific claims on multiple occasions. Hide it under a bushel?
"This fallacy lives up to its striking name because the Texas sharpshooter takes a random cluster, and by drawing a target onto it makes it appear to be causally determined, as if the Texan were shooting at the target. Similarly, when looking at data, there is a danger of jumping to a conclusion that a random cluster is a causal pattern. Without further testing, such a conclusion is seldom if ever justified. "
The Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy
Upvote
0
Similar threads
- Poll
