The Genetic Fallacy

[CatholicSoxFan]

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.

Special pleading is only a fallacy when the distinction is made without a good reason, which is what we offer, namely that God exists necessarily, and the universe can not, because it had a beginning.

 

[CatholicSoxFan]

I doubt you came to believe because of theistic arguments.

That's why I said that the reasons why I believe are not how I came to believe.

 

[CatholicSoxFan]

Why aren't there any other Christians participating, on a Christian forum? I mean, I'm fine being shorthanded, this is kind of fun, but c'mon, people!

 

[PsychoSarah]

Why aren't there any other Christians participating, on a Christian forum? I mean, I'm fine being shorthanded, this is kind of fun, but c'mon, people!

I guess they haven't noticed it? Or they think your position is stupid

 

[CatholicSoxFan]

I guess they haven't noticed it? Or they think your position is stupid

I guess they're on other forums?

 

[PsychoSarah]

I guess they're on other forums?

They are in this one a lot too. They are everywhere. I am shocked you are the only one in this thread.

 

[Ana the Ist]

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

It can't. Present god as an explanation for something, I'll create a fictional idea for the same explanation and they are already on equal footing. Without evidence of either, it's no more rational to assume one over the other.

 

[variant]

Special pleading is only a fallacy when the distinction is made without a good reason, which is what we offer, namely that God exists necessarily, and the universe can not, because it had a beginning.

We have no way of knowing whether or not God or the universe are required necessarily.

For that we would need detailed explanations on the universes supposed beginning that we do not have.

The special pleading is the basic assumption of a specific metaphysics, which is unwarranted.

 

[variant]

That's why I said that the reasons why I believe are not how I came to believe.

If the rational apologetics you speak of mainly only convinces people who already believe to continue to believe then it doesn't escape the geographic issue pointed out earlier.

You are buttressing a position you already held from childhood, not demonstrating it in an objective way.

 

[PsychoSarah]

We have no way of knowing whether or not God or the universe are required necessarily.

For that we would need detailed explanations on the universes supposed beginning that we do not have.

The special pleading is the basic assumption of a specific metaphysics, which is unwarranted.

Translation: stating that in order for the universe to exist there must be a creator is not a proven fact.

 

[variant]

Translation: stating that in order for the universe to exist there must be a creator is not a proven fact.

Am I being that difficult?

 

[CatholicSoxFan]

If the rational apologetics you speak of mainly only convinces people who already believe to continue to believe then it doesn't escape the geographic issue pointed out earlier.

You are buttressing a position you already held from childhood, not demonstrating it in an objective way.

An argument is good or bad independently of whether it convinces people or not.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Am I being that difficult?

You are a little verbose.

 

[variant]

An argument is good or bad independently of whether it convinces people or not.

Well we can't measure the objective truth of the argument (demonstration problem again).

I am just saying that the problem of geography isn't solved because you can come up with a rational argument that you think justifies the beliefs you held from childhood.

 

[PsychoSarah]

An argument is good or bad independently of whether it convinces people or not.

No, the strength of an argument is directly associated with how convincing it is, because that is the purpose of an argument.

 

[CatholicSoxFan]

No, the strength of an argument is directly associated with how convincing it is, because that is the purpose of an argument.

I think "sound" (for deductive arguments) and "cogent" (for inductive arguments) are better words to use.

 

[CatholicSoxFan]

Well we can't measure the objective truth of the argument (demonstration problem again).

I am just saying that the problem of geography isn't solved because you can come up with a rational argument that you think justifies the beliefs you held from childhood.

If it's a rational argument, it does justify the conclusion. And by the way, this kind of argumentation can be used for all kinds of things; the problem of geography can be used against anything from the heliocentric model, to democracy, to natural rights, to all kinds of things. If you were born in ancient Sparta, you would probably believe that if a child is not good for society, the child should be left to die. If you were born in Soviet Russia, you'd think that communism is better than democracy.

 

[PsychoSarah]

I think "sound" (for deductive arguments) and "cogent" (for inductive arguments) are better words to use.

I think I like to be understood without people having to look up the meanings of the words I use. Plus, inductive and deductive are often confusing because they sound similar and are subtly different.

 

[Chany]

For a valid/strong argument (valid is deductive, strong is inductive), it must comply have two things: it's conclusion must follow from it's premises, and all of it's premises must be true.

It then convinces people that way. A good argument's form has nothing to do with people accepting it or not.

 

[variant]

If it's a rational argument, it does justify the conclusion.

And that's the problem, even if you limited it to just among philosophers you're not going to find many serious ones taking the cosmological arguments very seriously as justifying your conclusion.

They really only convince believers who are looking for some rational grounding for their beliefs.

And by the way, this kind of argumentation can be used for all kinds of things; the problem of geography can be used against anything from the heliocentric model, to democracy, to natural rights, to all kinds of things.

Don't think I have thought ahead here?

It can and should. It helps demonstrate which concepts are the most subjective.

If you were born in ancient Sparta, you would probably believe that if a child is not good for society, the child should be left to die. If you were born in Soviet Russia, you'd think that communism is better than democracy.

That is my point. Your idea seems to be regionally based like those ideas, meaning it is basically subjective.