Guilt Trip

You sure did undergo a lot of surgeries when you were born. Most babies back in 1980 didn’t make it with the same medical conditions you had. You only had a 20% chance to live and here you are now. That's miraculous!! The fact that you're not living a righteous life according to scripture isn't showing God much gratitude, especially when you only had a 20% chance to live. 

Let's dissect the given argument to identify logical fallacies, cognitive biases, poor logic, or poor reasoning.

### Emotional Appeal (Guilt Trip)

The argument centers around making the individual feel guilty for not living a "righteous life" according to scripture, by highlighting the fact that their survival was against the odds. This is a classic guilt trip, which is an emotional appeal rather than a logical argument. Here are some specific issues:

1. **Appeal to Emotion (Pathos)**:
- **Manipulation through Guilt**: The argument is using the miraculous survival and medical conditions to instill a sense of guilt. It suggests that surviving against the odds imposes a moral obligation to live a certain way, which is an emotional rather than a rational basis for behavior.

2. **Non Sequitur Fallacy**:
- **Lack of Logical Connection**: The fact that someone had a low chance of survival does not logically lead to the conclusion that they must live a life guided by scripture. One event (survival) does not inherently relate to another (religious or moral conduct) without additional justification.

3. **False Dichotomy**:
- **Narrow Moral Choices**: Implicitly, the argument sets up a false dichotomy: either the individual lives a righteous life according to scripture, or they are ungrateful. It disregards other ways in which a person might express gratitude or live a fulfilling, moral life outside of the depicted expectations.

4. **Survivorship Bias**:
- **Ignoring Counterexamples**: The argument praises the survival of the individual without acknowledging the babies who did not survive. Focusing only on the rare success story can create an unrealistic expectation or undue pressure, overlooking the broader context and the randomness involved in medical outcomes.

5. **Ad Hominem Implicit**:
- **Targeting Personal Beliefs**: By emphasizing the individual's failure to live according to scripture, the argument implicitly targets their personal beliefs and character. This can be a form of ad hominem, diverting attention from the issue itself to personal shortcomings.

### Better Reasoning Without Fallacies

A more logically sound approach would consider:

- **Respect for Autonomy**: Recognizing that individuals have the right to make personal decisions about how they live their lives, regardless of their medical history or survival odds.
- **Multifaceted Gratitude**: Acknowledging that expressing gratitude can take many forms beyond following a specific scriptural doctrine.
- **Objective Evaluation**: Avoiding the imposition of moral obligations based on emotional manipulation, and, instead, fostering open, respectful dialogue about individual beliefs and values.

In sum, the original argument uses emotional appeal, lacks logical connections, employs false dichotomies, shows survivorship bias, and involves implicit ad hominem reasoning. A more balanced and respectful approach would focus on understanding and respecting individual choices independent of past medical challenges.

There is an obvious appeal to emotion here - bringing up the fact that someone has survived a difficult situation in an attempt to pressure them to make certain religious choices. But, the whole premise of this being a miracle at all is pretty flawed.

They start out by attributing this person's survival to surgeries that weren't available in 1980. That statement, in and of itself, places the credit for their survival pretty squarely on advancements in medical technology. There is a physical cause established, and I don't think it would be particularly reasonable to claim that an eternal God has obtained new powers in the last couple decades.

As for surviving with a 20% chance being miraculous... That's 1 in 5. Unless this is some sort of extremely rare disorder, it's inevitable that some number of patients will survive. That is both an example of survivorship fallacy . There are the 80% that didn't survive (and all the people who lived before this technology existed), why weren't they saved?

Also, those odds aren't good, but they're not extremely slim either. Your odds of rolling a die once and it coming up 6 are slimmer than that survival rate, and that is by no means miraculous.

The burden is upon the proponent to provide evidence of a god you should be thanking. But, the viewpoint in the statement is wrong. It is not that the god saved you, but that the god caused all your problems. Assuming that the god exists, you should be damning it.

“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?”  ~ Epicurus