Natural-Law Argument and Begging the Question

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

Natural-Law Argument and Begging the Question

Postby sepia » Wed Jun 27, 2012 9:02 pm

I think, I can show, that the secound premise of the Natural Law Argument is begging the question:

All laws have a law giver

1) This is a law itself. (For example you can write it like the 1. Law of thermodynamics: The number of all Laws is equal to the number of all created laws)
2) Therefor it describes itself.
3) Therefor it needs a law giver to exist.
4) The existence of such a law giver is questioned.
5) Therefor we can't exclude, that laws can exist without lawgiver.

If I am correct, I think this will be a good addition to the article of the iron chariots wiki.
sepia
 
Posts: 112
Joined: Sat Jun 02, 2012 2:38 pm
Location: austria

Re: Natural-Law Argument and Begging the Question

Postby dobbie » Wed Jun 27, 2012 10:25 pm

I'm not addressing the logic flaw in the natural law argument here.

Instead I'll just say that naturally the big question is how the foundations of the cosmos (laws of physics as we know them) came.

But nevertheless it’s long way from demonstrating that the foundations came from the Bible God.

Somehow I doubt that any theist ever evokes the natural law argument without the Bible in mind.

Thus the natural law argument has a long way to go before it guarantees anything about the Bible.
dobbie
 
Posts: 362
Joined: Tue Jan 20, 2009 6:31 am
Location: California

Re: Natural-Law Argument and Begging the Question

Postby DjVortex » Thu Jun 28, 2012 5:22 am

It really puzzles me how so many christians seem to be completely incapable of understanding that they are making not just one, but two giant (and absolutely unjustifiable) leaps in logic, even when assuming that their premise is correct (which in itself is most certainly not a given).

First giant leap in logic (making the hypothetical assumption that the premise "something must have set up the laws of nature" is correct): That something must have been a theistic god. Basically the only argument given for this leap in logic is "it makes sense to me".

Second giant leap in logic: That theistic god is their concept of god (iow. the god of the bible).

The arguments for the second leap in logic are always the same old tired "archaeology, fulfilled prophesies, Jesus' death, blaa blaa" without realizing that even if all those were true (which they mostly aren't, but even if they were), they would still tell us absolutely nothing even about the existence of a god, much less about him creating the laws of the universe.

They just seem incapable of understanding that those leaps in logic are completely unjustified. I once asked a theist the question "what kind of god?" and he happily proceeded to describe (his concept of) the god of the bible, as if it were a self-evident connection between his logic that a god exists, and that it must have been the god of the bible. He could not understand the disconnect between those two propositions, no matter how much I tried to explain it to him.
DjVortex
 
Posts: 218
Joined: Mon Sep 05, 2011 9:45 am

Re: Natural-Law Argument and Begging the Question

Postby DjVortex » Sat Jul 14, 2012 6:34 am

DjVortex wrote:It really puzzles me how so many christians seem to be completely incapable of understanding that they are making not just one, but two giant (and absolutely unjustifiable) leaps in logic, even when assuming that their premise is correct (which in itself is most certainly not a given).


Btw, there's another double-leap that many believers do, even if we assume that their original premise is correct (which most likely it isn't, but let's just assume):

Ghosts exist -> there's life after death -> God exists.

This is a really common argument, and it's utterly fallacious.

Even if what's usually meant by "ghosts" (in other words, usually-humanlike apparitions that defy scientific explanation) did exist (they most probably don't, but as said, let's just assume they do), the two leaps in logic are still completely unjustified. If we don't know what these alleged apparitions are, how can we deduce that they are dead people's souls, or other type of afterlife entities? We can't. There's nothing to justify such a leap in logic. If we don't know what they are, then we don't know. Deducing anything from an unknown is an argument from ignorance.

And of course the second leap in logic is even a bigger one. Even if the first leap happened to be correct, it would still not automatically justify the second one.
DjVortex
 
Posts: 218
Joined: Mon Sep 05, 2011 9:45 am

Re: Natural-Law Argument and Begging the Question

Postby dobbie » Sat Jul 14, 2012 7:18 am

Natural law and ghosts.

Yes, this comment of mine will be off topic, so I’ll be quick about it. Once, I ask this woman who is a staunch adherent of evolutionary theory: is there any such thing as ghosts? So she answers that probably there are ghosts now that she thinks about it.

So I ask how ghosts can exist. And she says that they can be a product of evolution of species. That is, humans can become ghosts after death thanks to evolution.

Thus if ghosts can be pawned off on God according to the impression of some people, they can also be pawned off on evolution according to the impression of others. Nothing to substantiate either impression, just beliefs.
dobbie
 
Posts: 362
Joined: Tue Jan 20, 2009 6:31 am
Location: California


Return to New Arguments

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: mamiert11 and 1 guest

cron