|
 |
On 1/19/2014 3:16 PM, Warp wrote:
> Patrick Elliott <kag### [at] gmail com> 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.
>
And not just because, when they conduct them the answer seems to be, "We
got his answering machine, or something, so he didn't answer them."
--
Commander Vimes: "You take a bunch of people who don't seem any
different from you and me, but when you add them all together you get
this sort of huge raving maniac with national borders and an anthem."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
