|So again, you avoid answering the question. Perhaps you do not know the answer? Yes I could look it up, but the whole reason to have a discussion is to explain things to people who may not know that which you reference. My personal experience has always been that people who do not explain things but choose to try bamboozling their counterpart with terminology, often do not understand what they are argueing enough to explain it in plain English.
Music-mommy, you asked me what the logical fallacy was, and I told you. I am happy to continue this discussion, but not if you are planning to be offensive. Can we continue to discuss this in a civil manner, or can we not?Post hoc ergo propter hoc
--translated, after this, therefore because of this--is the logical fallacy which is the secular scientific method. It has also been written as 'A occured, then B occured; therefore, A caused B'. The upshot of it is that in order to dogmatically declare that A caused B, one has to have more evidence than simply 'B happened after A', even if B happened consistently every time A was performed. The upshot of all this for secular science is that there is no philosophical
justification for empiricism. While it makes common sense that A causes B (say, 'heating water causes it to boil'), there is no logical proof of it. The doctrine of occasionalism circumvents this difficulty (which was best expressed as Hume's Problem of Induction), by saying that while A and B are correlated, the cause of B is ultimately God's intervention.
...Using logic? I'm not sure what you're asking. If you want a full-blown exposition of Christian presuppositional theology, that's rather outside the scope of this thread, but I can recommend my husband's book The Wisdom of God at bnonn.blogspot.com, or the works of Gordon Clark or Vincent Cheung.
|Because "wrong" supposes that there is a "right" or "correct" answer. An informal fallacy is an argument pattern that is wrong due to a mistake in its reasoning. I think the problem here is that I don't think there is a correct or right answer sometimes where as you seem to.
Hang on--are you saying there isn't a correct answer to the question 'Does God exist'? Also, your definition of 'informal fallacy' is wrong.
|You say definitively that God has always existed, to me this is an informal fallacy as it is flawed in its reasoning. For there is no reasoning behind this except the belief that He exists.
Only arguments can be fallacious (in the logical sense of the word). If there is no reasoning behind the statement 'God exists', it is not an argument but an assertion--and while assertions can be right or wrong, they cannot be fallacious. The proof of the pudding when it comes to assertions is how well they comport to reality, whether or not they are self-refuting, and how they relate to first principles (unless they are first principles, in which case it's whether or not they can provide a valid and internally consistent metaphysic and epistemology).