Question

...
Alex

Fallacies involved in arguing for God or mythological characters

I've been thinking about the following arguments for a while:

 

Person 1: Just like how the PhD thesis of Stephen Hawking is evidence that he was intelligent, so too, in a similar way, the universe is evidence that whatever the cause behind it is intelligent and extremely powerful, and that's what we call God.

 

Or how about this...

 

Person 2: Of course God is the Holy Trinity! Don't you see the triunity of time (past, present and future) and dimensions? That clearly demonstrates the nature of God!

 

I instinctively do know that there are some fallacies involved here but I can't seem to identify them. If someone can point them out (and especially debunk the methodology used in these examples) then that will be much appreciated.

 

Note: does this link and what it contains have anything to do with the issue here? religions.wiki/index.php/. . .

asked on Saturday, Dec 04, 2021 02:41:22 PM by Alex

Top Categories Suggested by Community

Comments

Want to get notified of all questions as they are asked? Update your mail preferences and turn on "Instant Notification."

Uncomfortable Ideas: Facts don't care about feelings. Science isn't concerned about sensibilities. And reality couldn't care less about rage.

This is a book about uncomfortable ideas—the reasons we avoid them, the reasons we shouldn’t, and discussion of dozens of examples that might infuriate you, offend you, or at least make you uncomfortable.

Many of our ideas about the world are based more on feelings than facts, sensibilities than science, and rage than reality. We gravitate toward ideas that make us feel comfortable in areas such as religion, politics, philosophy, social justice, love and sex, humanity, and morality. We avoid ideas that make us feel uncomfortable. This avoidance is a largely unconscious process that affects our judgment and gets in the way of our ability to reach rational and reasonable conclusions. By understanding how our mind works in this area, we can start embracing uncomfortable ideas and be better informed, be more understanding of others, and make better decisions in all areas of life.

Get 20% off this book and all Bo's books*. Use the promotion code: websiteusers

* This is for the author's bookstore only. Applies to autographed hardcover, audiobook, and ebook.

Get the Book

Answers

...
Jason Mathias
0

"Person 1: Just like how the PhD thesis of Stephen Hawking is evidence that he was intelligent, so too, in a similar way, the universe is evidence that whatever the cause behind it is intelligent and extremely powerful, and that's what we call God."

This would be a non sequitur fallacy because the premise of Stephen Hawkins PHD does not have anything to do with the universe being intelligently created or not by a God. The premise and conclusion are not related at all and does not follow. Therefore its a non sequitur. It also might be a false equivalence fallacy trying to equate Stephen Hawking's phD and intelligent design. Its also ironic that the argument argues that Stephen Hawking is intelligent therefore God when Stephen Hawking said he believed there is no God. 

"Person 2: Of course God is the Holy Trinity! Don't you see the triunity of time (past, present and future) and dimensions? That clearly demonstrates the nature of God!"

This one is such a mess its hard to even analyze. Maybe an argument by gibberish might be in order. "Of course God is the Holy Trinity" is not evidence or a demonstration, its perhaps a kind of circular reasoning fallacy like a complex question fallacy or a begging the question fallacy. "Dont you see" is probably a fantasy projection of some sorts. 

 
answered on Saturday, Dec 04, 2021 03:46:19 PM by Jason Mathias

Jason Mathias Suggested These Categories

Comments
...
0
Alex writes:

I think you might have misunderstood what Person 1 was trying to say. What that argument does is that it considers the PhD of Stephen Hawking as a  reflection  of his intelligence and then it makes an analogy to apply that same reasoning to the universe (that the universe  reflects  the nature of the cause behind it)

 

And that’s essentially what I’m trying to scrutinize.

posted on Saturday, Dec 04, 2021 04:11:27 PM
...
0
Jason Mathias writes:

[To Alex]

Ok yeah I realized that shortly after I had already posted. I would say its a fallacy of composition because it assumes that since the part (Hawking) is intelligent, therefore the whole (universe) must be intelligent as well. Or perhaps a faulty comparison fallacy. 

It could also be a false dilemma way of thinking since the assumption only leaves the two options of either a intelligent God, or not a intelligent God. Another option could be that the universe is intelligent but without a God. God is not necessarily needed for the universe to be intelligent. Intelligence emerges out of networks of interacting parts. Such as atoms, chemicals neurons in a brain, or atoms on a planet etc. It just seems like there could be many different possibilities. 

[ login to reply ] posted on Saturday, Dec 04, 2021 04:45:49 PM
...
Mchasewalker
0

Person 1 is a faulty induction, or fallacy of composition that posits that something is true of the whole because it is true of the part.

As Dr. Bo writes:

Description: Inferring that something is true of the whole from the fact that it is true of some part of the whole.  This is the opposite of the fallacy of division.

Logical Form:

A is part of B.

A has property X.

Therefore, B has property X.

All creatures are God’s creation

My dog is the stupidest animal in creation.

Therefore, God must be just as imbecilic.

answered on Saturday, Dec 04, 2021 03:48:59 PM by Mchasewalker

Mchasewalker Suggested These Categories

Comments