Argument From Non Sequitur

Encountered a "new" argument that we haven't addressed? Post it here.

Argument From Non Sequitur

Postby bijane » Tue Sep 13, 2011 6:18 pm

This is the most annoying argument type I have ever heard: it's impossible to argue against for the simple fact that there is nothing to argue against. Sometimes they rely on blatant falsehoods masquerading as progressions, and those are the ones I frankly hate.

For example, one I've recently heard is essentially 'no natural laws can exist without God', but I can't think of any way to express this except for 'um..no', because there's no way to express a reason for it.

Has anyone else encountered similar things, or has any tips on dealing with them?
Disproving the Bible in a signature:
Revelations 22:18 ...If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book
Revelations 23:1 And God said 'hi'.
(I'm still fine)
bijane
 
Posts: 95
Joined: Thu May 05, 2011 7:39 pm
Location: United Kingdom

non sequitur either way

Postby dobbie » Tue Sep 13, 2011 7:33 pm

byBijane:
one I've recently heard is essentially 'no natural laws can exist without God',


Image
Well, the way I see it, it's a proposition or assertion. That is it's only the beginning of an argument or truth claim. It's not a complete argument.

So the standard follow-up questions are:

1) What makes you say that? What's your reason?

2) Why do you believe it?

The theist's answers to the two questions given above are usually the ones in which those questions are either ignored or met with silence.

If there is a reply, however, it will eventually lead to the following one: "The Bible says so, and I believe it on faith." So the discussion has arrived at a dead end.

The most anybody can hope to get from the topic is an agnostic-theist answer in which the theist confesses ignorance but maintains belief. "I don't really know whether natural laws can exist without the Bible God, but I believe they cannot."

And the non-believer, too, only has an agnostic-atheist answer but maintains a non-biblical position. "I don't really know whether natural laws can't can exist without a god, but I can't find any evidence for it."
dobbie
 
Posts: 362
Joined: Tue Jan 20, 2009 6:31 am
Location: California

Re: non sequitur either way

Postby DukeTwicep » Wed Sep 14, 2011 4:01 pm

dobbie wrote:And the non-believer, too, only has an agnostic-atheist answer but maintains a non-biblical position. "I don't really know whether natural laws can't can exist without a god, but I can't find any evidence for it."


This sounds like an incomplete argument also. I may not find any evidence for if natural laws can or cannot exist without a god. But there was no reason to assume god in the first place. I think my answer would be, "As I find no evidence, empirical or argumentative, to assume that a god exists I assume that natural laws Can exist without a god. If you have a deistic, agnostic approach, that is still no reason to assume that god exist. You cannot assume that god exists out of a 50/50 circumstance (disregarding the ultimate 747 gambit)."
It's as you say non sequitur, there's no evidence for it, and therefore you can't do much more than move on to more intelligent arguments.
DukeTwicep
 
Posts: 51
Joined: Thu Sep 08, 2011 10:45 pm


Return to New Arguments

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest