Searching for GOD...

[Alan Burns]

So, we can treat Christianity as just being a matter of opinion then?

Christianity is based upon perceived evidence from past and present.

Future consequences are a matter of honest opinion, based upon current knowledge, and can't be offered as proof.

[torridon]

My post was illustrating possible consequences.
It was not intended as a proof of anything.

You may disagree with my version of the consequences, but that is a matter of personal opinion.
Nothing to do with fallacy.

Here you are in #30233 :

Can you not foresee the dreadful consequences if societies followed this short sighted view of reality based upon very limited human scientific knowledge?

If we try to use our limited knowledge of science to reject the Christian faith, we also are in danger of rejecting the profound wisdom espoused in the New Testament which has formed the foundation of our Western society.  There will be no concept of sin or evil.  Nothing is right or wrong.  We can do anything we want, because we have no real choices anyway.   Can you not see the dreadful consequences?  Not only will we lose sight of eternal salvation, we will create a living hell on earth.

Looks like Project Fear used as an argument against accepting what science has revealed.  Never been a fan of science denying, myself.

[Alan Burns]

Here you are in #30233 :

Can you not foresee the dreadful consequences if societies followed this short sighted view of reality based upon very limited human scientific knowledge?

If we try to use our limited knowledge of science to reject the Christian faith, we also are in danger of rejecting the profound wisdom espoused in the New Testament which has formed the foundation of our Western society.  There will be no concept of sin or evil.  Nothing is right or wrong.  We can do anything we want, because we have no real choices anyway.   Can you not see the dreadful consequences?  Not only will we lose sight of eternal salvation, we will create a living hell on earth.

Looks like Project Fear used as an argument against accepting what science has revealed.  Never been a fan of science denying, myself.

I am not denying what science has discovered.

I dispute the mistaken conclusion that science can be used to show that human beings have no freedom to consciously choose what they want to do.

I dispute the extrapolation of current scientific knowledge to presume that there will eventually be a full explanation for how conscious awareness can be derived from material reactions.

And I warn of the consequences of trying to use these dubious conclusions based upon limited knowledge of reality to presume that God does not exist.

[Gordon]

Christianity is based upon perceived evidence from past and present.

Nope: this is you adding a spurious qualifier again: this time we have 'perceived' added to 'evidence' just as before you added 'physical' to determinism - please stop. If you have evidence for Christianity then present it, along with the relevant methods/theories, then we can critique it. You can start with evidence for 'souls', which you've yet to present.

Future consequences are a matter of honest opinion, based upon current knowledge, and can't be offered as proof.

Depends on how these consequences are presented: for instance there could be a risk assessment involved, or perhaps even the absence of a risk assessment being a risk, or there could be firm evidence that things might improve - such as a promotion at work with corresponding salary increase. However, when someone says stuff like...

If we try to use our limited knowledge of science to reject the Christian faith, we also are in danger of rejecting the profound wisdom espoused in the New Testament which has formed the foundation of our Western society.  There will be no concept of sin or evil.  Nothing is right or wrong.  We can do anything we want, because we have no real choices anyway.   Can you not see the dreadful consequences?  Not only will we lose sight of eternal salvation, we will create a living hell on earth.

...then it may indeed be opinion, but it is an opinion expressed as an argument, and the argument as expressed is fallacious. Mind you I'm happy to confirm that you aren't offering 'proof' for Christianity - nice of you to concede that your opinions aren't proof, which makes them fair game.

By the way what is the reference for this 'exception' you are claiming?

[Gordon]

I am not denying what science has discovered.

I dispute the misplaced conclusion that science can be used to show that human beings have no freedom to consciously choose what they want to do.

I dispute the extrapolation of current scientific knowledge to presume that there will eventually be a full explanation for how conscious awareness can be derived from material reactions.

And I warn of the consequences of trying to use these dubious conclusions based upon limited knowledge of reality to presume that God does not exist.

It seems you just can't help yourself, Alan!

[Alan Burns]

By the way what is the reference for this 'exception' you are claiming?

https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/26/Appeal-to-Consequences

[Gordon]

https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/26/Appeal-to-Consequences

From this link this is what you were doing:

X is true because if people did not accept X as being true then there would be negative consequences.

when you said:

If we try to use our limited knowledge of science to reject the Christian faith, we also are in danger of rejecting the profound wisdom espoused in the New Testament which has formed the foundation of our Western society.  There will be no concept of sin or evil.  Nothing is right or wrong.  We can do anything we want, because we have no real choices anyway.   Can you not see the dreadful consequences?  Not only will we lose sight of eternal salvation, we will create a living hell on earth.

As I said - textbook stuff.

[Stranger]

I dispute the mistaken conclusion that science can be used to show that human beings have no freedom to consciously choose what they want to do.

I have never disputed that we have freedom to choose. The problem is that your interpretation of exactly what this means is proved false by logic (not science) because it results in a contradiction.

And I warn of the consequences of trying to use these dubious conclusions based upon limited knowledge of reality to presume that God does not exist.

I really don't think anybody is doing that. The reason I presume that god(s) does not exist is because I have never been given any good reason to take any of the many god ideas seriously.

[Alan Burns]

As I said - textbook stuff.

Can you not see the obvious that in using the phrase "we are in danger of rejecting ....."
I am issuing a warning of possible consequences.

[Gordon]

Can you not see the obvious that in using the phrase "we are in danger of rejecting ....."
I am issuing a warning of consequences.

You were arguing fallaciously, Alan, and not for the first time. In any event your 'in danger of rejecting' implies that what is being 'rejected' must be the case, hence the consequences you mention;

There will be no concept of sin or evil.  Nothing is right or wrong.  We can do anything we want, because we have no real choices anyway.   Can you not see the dreadful consequences?  Not only will we lose sight of eternal salvation, we will create a living hell on earth.

 

You can wriggle all you like, Alan - but your post qualifies as being fallacious using the link you yourself cited.

[Alan Burns]

You were arguing fallaciously, Alan, and not for the first time. In any event your 'in danger of rejecting' implies that what is being 'rejected' must be the case, hence the consequences you mention;
 

You can wriggle all you like, Alan - but your post qualifies as being fallacious using the link you yourself cited.

Could your opinion of what my post means be motivated by your own enthusiasm to find evidence of fallacies?  Are you being totally objective?   

[Shaker]

Nobody is enthusiastic about finding fallacies - they are, by the very definition of the term, evidence of sloppy thinking, of poor reasoning, of bad arguments badly made.

Who would be enthusiastic about finding that? Gordon - like most others here who entirely correctly identify the sundry, divers and assorted fallacies you routinely deploy day in and day out - is more objective than you can ever hope to be.

You just don't like having them pointed out to you, that's all. Nobody likes having it explained to them that their reasoning capacities are defective - who would? It's a mark of intellectual humility and hygiene, however, to accept this and take it on board and be open to learning exactly why a duff argument is a duff argument. It's the mark of rigidity of mind - dogmatism; but I guess that's your thing, really, isn't it? In the circumstances - to continue stubbornly to insist that everybody else is wrong and only you are right.

[Gordon]

Could your opinion of what my post means be motivated by your own enthusiasm to find evidence of fallacies?  Are you being totally objective?   

Nope: my opinion of your posts is based entirely on the content of your posts.

You've had your tendency to think fallaciously pointed out to you frequently, and my various posters here - that you can't accept this is just part and parcel of the problems you have when thinking about your particular take on religious faith.

[Alan Burns]

Nope: my opinion of your posts is based entirely on the content of your posts.

You've had your tendency to think fallaciously pointed out to you frequently, and my various posters here - that you can't accept this is just part and parcel of the problems you have when thinking about your particular take on religious faith.

What I detect in the answers to my posts is what Sassy implied in her opening post.  That it is obvious that many on this forum are looking for reasons not to believe, rather than actively seeking and evaluating evidence of God.

[Gordon]

What I detect in the answers to my posts is what Sassy implied in her opening post.  That it is obvious that many on this forum are looking for reasons not to believe, rather than actively seeking and evaluating evidence of God.

Then you detect wrongly, Alan: all you need do now is present some evidence for 'God' that isn't inherently fallacious or incoherent. Nice try at shifting the burden of proof - but all too obvious.
 

[Shaker]

What I detect in the answers to my posts is what Sassy implied in her opening post.  That it is obvious that many on this forum are looking for reasons not to believe, rather than actively seeking and evaluating evidence of God.

It's like talking to a wall, isn't it?

[torridon]

What I detect in the answers to my posts is what Sassy implied in her opening post.  That it is obvious that many on this forum are looking for reasons not to believe, rather than actively seeking and evaluating evidence of God.

There you go again.  Fresh from denying your argumentam ad consequentiam, it's just a hop skip and a jump straight into a negative proof fallacy.

You just can't help yourself it seems.

[Stranger]

That it is obvious that many on this forum are looking for reasons not to believe...

Rational people need a reason to believe in any proposed god, they don't need to find a reason not to. The total lack of any reasons to take any god stories seriously is quite sufficient.

...rather than actively seeking and evaluating evidence of God.

Why go looking for evidence for any one of the vast number of god myths? If there is a god (or some gods) and it (they) have some important message to impart to us, why isn't it obvious?

[Alan Burns]

Rational people need a reason to believe in any proposed god, they don't need to find a reason not to. The total lack of any reasons to take any god stories seriously is quite sufficient.

Why go looking for evidence for any one of the vast number of god myths? If there is a god (or some gods) and it (they) have some important message to impart to us, why isn't it obvious?

It is obvious to me and many fellow Christians who have come to know God.

I find it puzzling why a person who has discovered God should be given less credibility than people who claim to have discovered the non existence of God.

[SteveH]

So, we can treat Christianity as just being a matter of opinion then?

Well, obviously. What else could it be?
Alan was right: he was not committing the consequentialist fallacy.

[Alan Burns]

There you go again.  Fresh from denying your argumentam ad consequentiam, it's just a hop skip and a jump straight into a negative proof fallacy.

You just can't help yourself it seems.

You are trying to make a fallacy from my declared observation, which in no way can be interpreted as an attempt at proof.

You might disagree with my observation, but this is no grounds for calling fallacy.

[Gordon]

Well, obviously. What else could it be?

Quite - and in that sense, as opinion, Christianity would be no more relevant than whether or not someone finds ballroom dancing to be entertaining.

However, Alan doesn't see it that way since he has a long history here of claiming that 'souls' interact with our brains and that prayer works, and he portrays both of these as being matters of fact and not matters of opinion. I was querying what he said, in that by playing the opinion card as a failed escape route from his use of this particular fallacy he would seem to be contradicting his previously argued position.

Alan was right: he was not committing the consequentialist fallacy.

Nope: Alan was wrong, and the link to a description of this fallacy that he himself posted gives an example of a format of this fallacy use that matches Alan's post #30233, confirming that he did indeed use a fallacious argument in this post (see my #30256). 

[Gordon]

You are trying to make a fallacy from my declared observation, which in no way can be interpreted as an attempt at proof.

You might disagree with my observation, but this is no grounds for calling fallacy.

Arguments don't have to claim 'proof' to be fallacious and the link you yourself posted in order to claim an exception from the fallacy ironically provides an example of this particular fallacy that matches your post #30233, as noted in my #30256: therefore, as noted, you clearly did use this particular fallacy (among many others, and over many posts).

[torridon]

You are trying to make a fallacy from my declared observation, which in no way can be interpreted as an attempt at proof.

You might disagree with my observation, but this is no grounds for calling fallacy.

Gordon is right in his above post; it is not necessary for it to be an 'attempt at proof' to qualify as a fallacy. Any attempt at persuasion using fallacious or logically incoherent reasoning is a fallacy.  Whether is succeeds or not is by the point

[torridon]

I find it puzzling why a person who has discovered God should be given less credibility than people who claim to have discovered the non existence of God.

And without pausing for breath, here you go again, straight out with the negative proof fallacy.  You and clear headed thinking just do not seem good bed partners. You are innocently parading a false equivalence here.  We can discover things through observation and evidence, but it is not the case that we discover non-things through the absence of evidence.  In the absence of supporting evidence, the god claim merely remains an unjustified claim.