|
I was listening to a pastor speak when this one passage caught my attention. "There are events in the physical world that cannot be explained. Therefore it is PROOF that there is a supernatural being whom dictates how the world operates". (Dont ask me how i remember it, it was just so supremely absurd to me)
The above statement is both a logical fallacy as well as a bellweather on the education and common sense of religious figures in our society today.
I cannot agree with or disagree against the first part of the statment. "There are events in the physical world that cannot be explained." I am firmly rooted in the notion that science, while still primitive, will one day answer all the questions that human beings have to answer. Science provides a reliable method based on observation, logical reasoning and experimentation, for human beings to answer their quesions. While many of humanities quesions (ie. How was the universe formed, How was life seeded on earth ) cannot be explained as of now, i believe that future generation's will have the adequate technology to answer these question. But i digress. I cannot disagree or agree with that first statement because i have no independant access to the event described. (i.e i have never seen a "miracle") However the adjoining sentence "Therefore it is PROOF that there is a supernatural being whom dicates how the world operates" frankly makes no logical sense.
By explaining "part A" (There are events in the physical world that cannot be explained.) with "part B" (Therefore it is PROOF that there is a supernatural being whom dictates how the world operates) is ridiculous and a gross perversion of logic. If you dont understand something (Part A) YOU DONT UNDERSTAND IT. It is perfectly fine to say you dont understand something. However by saying Part B answers Part A is stupid and illogical. Saying that a lack of evidence proves the presence of a supernatural being is a contradiction and is akin to saying "I cant explain something , THEREFORE i can explain something".
PART A (There are events in the physical world that cannot be explained) -> PART B (Therefore it is PROOF that there is a supernatural being whom dictates how the world operates)
=
"I cant explain something" -> "Therefore i can explain it"
What you cannot answer is an anomaly. Nothing more. Just because you cannot answer something does not immediately make it "touched" by a supernatural being. It is just that. "You cannot explain it".
 
|
This is a very common "tactic" used, Dawkins refers to it as the "God of gaps". Whenever there is something that science has not figured out religious groups will jump at the chance to fill the "gap" with God. It is pretty annoying and overused but is clearly illogical; as you stated, just because science does not yet know the answer, doesn't mean that their theory is automatically correct.
|
"...who dictates how the world operates." "Whom" should be used when the individual in question is an object (either direct or indirect, or the object of a preposition).
But I agree with you. Religious people make things up so others believe them.
|
This is called faith.
Unfortunately telling this is stupid or non-logical isnt exactly right, at best you can say that "this is logically incorrect". To be honest this is just a faith based statement disguised under a pseudo-logic (incorrect) argument.
|
make sense, except that what if that think you cant explain is actually explained by a supernatural (god) and just because u have perceived notion that it is impossible doesnt mean it isnt... no person can say anything really that is absolute there always exist a possibitly of something else. Any how if you are talking about science it is evident it is finely tuned to support life and the system works quite well. To demonstrate a simple example has science made food better, well no more people are obese, have diabetes, and also die from a heart stroke. We have modified our food so much that it hardly resembles what was first on this planet that were are getting from little to no nutrition. The question really should be is there things beyond our understanding or do we continuely fail to understand these things which are believed to be beyond our understanding...
|
The real mystery is why you felt the need to share this revelation with the world. Yeah, there are a lot of people who make unsound arguments. Try to tune them out.
Also, parts of this sound like they were directly lifted from a youtube video that was recently posted =/
|
Korea (South)17174 Posts
looks like this guy just watched that video and is claiming all its points for himself
lolol
plagarizing on tl.net blogs ftw
|
This just in: Religion is a con job (omg)
|
Your argument has a logical fallacy in it.
Taking the word of one pastor you heard from long ago whose name and the time and place the statement was made you don't recall as something that represents all people of the Christian faith is problematic.
No Christian would grant you that assumption.
EDIT
Now I've read the rest of your post...
And I don't agree with your conclusion. You're actually talking about something that loosely connects to a still active field of philosophy. The mind/body philosophy deals with the physical vs phenomenal.
Your argument goes something like...
1. There are events that cannot be explained via physical means.
2. Phenomenal events cannot be explained by physical means.
3. Physicalism is not complete.
4. Physicalism can explain all events.
5. Therefore, those unexplainable events are not phenomenal.
6. Therefore, their explanation exists in the incomplete side of physicalism.
No Christian, or even a phenomenalist (which includes any religious person and even certain philosophers and certain agnostics) would accept assumption 4.
You need to prove that nothing exists beyond the physical world. It's also a huge, huge, huge, HUGE assumption in my opinion to say that the yet-to-be-complete physicalist picture WILL eventually lead to everything being physically reducible.
You're jumping the gun very badly. It's also a very circular argument.
|
On July 04 2009 14:50 Rekrul wrote:
looks like this guy just watched that video and is claiming all its points for himself
lolol
plagarizing on tl.net blogs ftw
Agreed.
Seriously man, there is no reason to steal these words to make yourself look cool. Especially from a video posted to THIS VERY SITE! Lmao.
|
Living by ignorance is so fun though!
|
Well if a God exists and you could reach salvation through faith then why would that God provide you with tangible proof of his existantce ? That basically nullifies the need for faith, as there's no need to believe something exists when you have a proof that it does. You would just know God exists and obey Him.
Even if his arguments are flawed and a good amount of people could disprove his logic, mentioning proof and supernatural in the same sentence, even without any solid arguments, is a good way to convince a good chunk of people. Just let it go.
|
On July 04 2009 15:00 PH wrote:
You need to prove that nothing exists beyond the physical world.
No, you don't.
|
On July 04 2009 16:29 Vedic wrote:Show nested quote +On July 04 2009 15:00 PH wrote:
You need to prove that nothing exists beyond the physical world. No, you don't.
Yes, you do.
|
On July 04 2009 16:34 PH wrote:Show nested quote +On July 04 2009 16:29 Vedic wrote:On July 04 2009 15:00 PH wrote:
You need to prove that nothing exists beyond the physical world. No, you don't. Yes, you do.
I guess if you have a rather immature intellect, you might need to do that. A rather more developed mind is able to accept that perhaps the physical world IS all there is, despite the unfortunate implications.
|
On July 04 2009 16:50 Track wrote:Show nested quote +On July 04 2009 16:34 PH wrote:On July 04 2009 16:29 Vedic wrote:On July 04 2009 15:00 PH wrote:
You need to prove that nothing exists beyond the physical world. No, you don't. Yes, you do. I guess if you have a rather immature intellect, you might need to do that. A rather more developed mind is able to accept that perhaps the physical world IS all there is, despite the unfortunate implications.
lol. It's also immature and pretentious to assume that one who disagrees with you has an "immature intellect," whatever the fuck that means solely because he disagrees with you.
|
Korea (South)17174 Posts
everyone that disagrees with me has an inferior intellect, but thats because i am the truth
i see how when other people say that it's annoying though
|
On July 04 2009 15:00 PH wrote:
You need to prove that nothing exists beyond the physical world.
Oh dear...
You can't prove that one way or another and here's why.
Saying something exists beyond the physical world is the same as saying it doesn't exist.
I.e. Pink unicorns exist beyond the physical world.
If it can't be shown to be true in this reality then it's nothing more than fantasy or blind faith.
|
That's really my point, lol. You can't assume either way. You have to prove either way.
I don't think I ever directly said that physicalism is wrong and phenomenalism is right...if I did, then I didn't mean to.
There are lots of arguments for both written by people much smarter and well read than anyone here, and it's still inconclusive. This is also a logical fallacy, but I highly doubt anyone here has a solid answer that will win me, or anyone else, over.
|
Just because you can't prove one way or the other doesn't mean the likelihood is 50-50.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
