This post is strange for me. I will actually argue for the existence of God. However, due to the nature of the argument, I must also point out it's problems. I came to this idea not 10 minutes ago, whilst in the shower. I'll return to the post tomorrow, and leave a comment explaining my ideas after some thought.
God has been defined in many different ways. Common elements within these definitions are: Eternal, powerful, and affects the world/universe. There are others which are not as common, and are not important for this argument.
For a being to be powerful, it must be somehow better then it's counterparts. An adult weightlifter is more physically powerful than a child. A scientist is more mentally powerful than a person with down syndrome. In the case of God, It can affect the world either by it's mental will, or by physical modification. It can do so in a better way then ourselves, or any observed beings. All things observed to affect the world are within Space, so it stands to reason that God is within Space.
However, all living things are observed to die. So for God to be eternal, either It is the one thing which cannot, or does not die, or It exists outside of Time. If It exists outside of Time, it could spark the Big Bang, without defying physics.
I can see a few things wrong with this, can you? Post a comment of your answers before you read on. Go on. I'll wait.
...
OK, enough of that. I offered no evidence for my assertion about being powerful, I just state it as fact and move on. I also assume God is true, which has yet to be proven. I go on to use an inconsistency fallacy, wherein I state that everything observed to affect the universe exists in Space, but don't apply the same premise to Time: Everything observed to affect the Universe exists in Time. I then use the naturalistic fallacy and introduce an idea into the conclusion that wasn't in the premises (without defying physics). I feel like I'm missing something, or perhaps I screwed up which fallacies I used. If I did, please let me know, as I'm still trying to wrap my head around all the different logical fallacies.
This hopefully shows that it is easy to make an argument that sounds convincing, that actually follows false reasoning. I do hope that the next time your are presented with an argument you look for, and expose, any and all logical fallacies within it. With any luck, people will stop intentionally using them. Until next time,
crites evindentia logica.
Showing posts with label Refute. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Refute. Show all posts
Tuesday, March 8, 2011
Wednesday, November 24, 2010
Do it yourself!
Hopefully, I've inspired some of you to want to get out there and start reffuting the stupid claims of ignorant people. However, chances are, you don't know how to begin. I'll give you a quick tutorial.
First, many of the links on this page can lead to sites that are begging for refuting, don't be afraid to click.
Second, if they don't help, google it. Try to stick to a topic you understand well, like I have done in sticking to biology, and out of cosmology. If you don't feel learned enough on a subject, research it. The last thing you want to do is argue from ignorance.
Third, by now you have a site that you feel is just talking nonsense. Read into it, separating the truth from the lies. If it's all lies, that makes things easier.
Forth, begin your argument. Generally, I find it best to quickly get to the heart of the subject by saying the site your refuting. There are other ideas about this, some like a long-winded intro, where they can build suspense. Others feel a joke is necessary. Do what feels right, though be wary of falling into the boredom trap.
Fifth, frame your argument. Don't just say everything wrong with the site. organise your thoughts, flowing almost seamlessly from one point to the next. That is the hardest part.
Finally, finish your argument with a brief conclusion. I suck at these, but I feel that a good witicism about the offending site is a great way to finish, leaving readers on a high note. If done well, not only will readers be in a good mood, they'll also feel annoyed at the refuted site, and others like it, prompting them into action. This is success in my books.
Post your newly finished artwork in whatever style you like; blog, forum, youtube, facebook... the list goes on. So now you know, don't just sit there, click the links, or go google some ignorance.
Until next time
Fui fides tantum in testimonium.
First, many of the links on this page can lead to sites that are begging for refuting, don't be afraid to click.
Second, if they don't help, google it. Try to stick to a topic you understand well, like I have done in sticking to biology, and out of cosmology. If you don't feel learned enough on a subject, research it. The last thing you want to do is argue from ignorance.
Third, by now you have a site that you feel is just talking nonsense. Read into it, separating the truth from the lies. If it's all lies, that makes things easier.
Forth, begin your argument. Generally, I find it best to quickly get to the heart of the subject by saying the site your refuting. There are other ideas about this, some like a long-winded intro, where they can build suspense. Others feel a joke is necessary. Do what feels right, though be wary of falling into the boredom trap.
Fifth, frame your argument. Don't just say everything wrong with the site. organise your thoughts, flowing almost seamlessly from one point to the next. That is the hardest part.
Finally, finish your argument with a brief conclusion. I suck at these, but I feel that a good witicism about the offending site is a great way to finish, leaving readers on a high note. If done well, not only will readers be in a good mood, they'll also feel annoyed at the refuted site, and others like it, prompting them into action. This is success in my books.
Post your newly finished artwork in whatever style you like; blog, forum, youtube, facebook... the list goes on. So now you know, don't just sit there, click the links, or go google some ignorance.
Until next time
Fui fides tantum in testimonium.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)