Tuesday, March 11, 2008
Break it down. His argument is something to the effect that
- The bible says God exists.
- The bible is book.
- You based your belief on a book.
- There, you have to believe in God -- the conclusion of my book.
What's wrong with that?
Well, let's see if we can fill in the blanks with something to make it untrue. For example, would you agree with this statement?
- The book Star Wars says that Darth Vader is Luke Skywalker's father.
- The Star Wars book is a book.
- You based your belief on a book.
- Therefore, you have to believe that Darth Vader truly is Luke Skywalker's father.
Ah, I think I'm getting it.
The Fool goes on to explain that the study of logical fallices identifies a number of common, incorrect thought patterns.
Bar Rat #1 is guilty of an "invalid syllogism." (Remember this, it will come in handy in Book III....)
At other times in other arguments, Bar Rat #1 is guilty of:
Appeal to ignorance A logical fallacy in which lack of proof to the contrary is put forth as proof to the affirmative. "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."
Bar Rat would say:
"You have no evidence that God doesn't exist. Therefore, God exists."
But, by using the same faulty logic, one could argue:
"Life on other planets does not exists. Never, through thousands of years of research and study by the revered scientists, have we been able to produce a single shred of evidence to suggest that life exists outside of Earth. Not NASA. Not Einstein. No one."
It sounds pretty persuasive.
It's also unadulterated horse crap.
mused at 7:27 pm
________________________________________