Not signed in (Log In)
Random Photo
(changes every 15 minutes)
Here's the scoop: Apparently supporters of Bin Laden decided to make a collage of photos of him. The Bert photo though, came from an obvious parody. Oops...
Photo by burn2shine. Caption by burn2shine.
read and rate other captions »
post your own caption »
submit a photo to caption »
Site Supported By Ads
Recent Comments

Logical Fallacies in Arguments
Posted by Tekiran on Jul 10, 2007 at 08:33 PM

Comments

holyjuan's Avatar .
holyjuan spoke on Jul 18, 2007 at 09:32 AM
23. Microphone Distancum
Placing the microphone closer to your mouth doesn't make your video better.
ChePibe's Avatar .
ChePibe spoke on Jul 30, 2007 at 10:37 AM
Interesting. Also of note is that Plato - certainly a father of logic and dialogue - in Republic specifically separates religion and cold logic. Also, an Atheist makes the same logical fallacy as he argues theists do - argument from ignorance: there is no proof that a god exists, nor can anyone present proof to that effect. Therefore, god does not exist. Believe that way if you want to, but for one to accuse another of this fallacy and then commit it himself by claiming atheism is humorous. Perhaps he thinks theists should have the burden of proof, but even then an absence of evidence is not necessarily evidence of absence.

This is, of course, not to defend the logic of a great many creationists, particularly the more assertive ones. They fell off the wagon some time ago.

Cold logic, as described here, is best for strict true/false questions. It's less effective on matters of probability.
squee's Avatar .
squee spoke on Jul 30, 2007 at 09:42 PM
Its not a logical absurdity to prove god exists. It is a logical absurdity to ask to prove he doesnt exist. You can't do that with anything nevermind god. The two are not one in the same fallacy. I can't prove god doesnt exist until you prove he does, atheists didnt make that rule.
ChePibe's Avatar .
ChePibe spoke on Jul 31, 2007 at 09:37 PM
Yet many claim to have logically proved God does not exist. Where does the burden of proof lie? What limits do you put on it? Your standard may not have been met, but this means little in the grand scheme as others have different standards of evidence. This is the "Burden of Proof" logical fallacy.

I don't think that aruging for or against the existence of a god using formal logic will actually get anywhere. It works well in areas such as law, for example, where rules regarding evidence are strictly defined according to a society's standards, and in science, of course, where falsifiability and the ability to reproduce an experiment are universally agreed on. But religion does not fit nicely into these areas. I think formal logic is simply the wrong approach.

Post A Comment

Posting as: Anonymous Coward. Please log in or register.

You are not logged in so I need to know that you are not a spam bot.
Type 6 x's into this field: