Patrick Elliott <kag### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> However, any "defined" version, like.. the most common form of 
> the Christian version, which performs miracles, reacts to prayers, etc., 
> and thus has a tangible impact, of some kind, has "testable" attributes. 

The problem with those "tests" is that they are based on no less than
two logical fallacies. Those tests are fallacious because they are of
the form:

1) If God exists, he answers to prayers and performs miracles.
2) Prayers get answered and miracles happen.
3) Therefore God exists.

This is a textbook example of "affirming the consequent." The obvious
objection to the logic is that even if premise 2 were true, it could
have a source other than God. How does one know that the prayer answers
and miracles are not coming from something else than a god? Without
further evidence it's not possible to say.

The other logical fallacy here is, of course, that the first premise
is completely unjustified. Even if a god exists, we can't know if he
answers prayers or performs miracles. This has not been demonstrated.

Neither of the premises can be shown as being true, and even the
conclusion is a logical fallacy. These "tests" fail miserably.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message