Arguments theists use for God: a list of fallacies

[pjkeeley]

Found this and decided to share. Author unknown. Written from an atheist perspective...  

When you see them in their most base form like this, it's easy to see the flaws in their logic.

    # TRANSCENDENTAL ARGUMENT, a.k.a. PRESUPPOSITIONALIST (I)
    (1) If reason exists then God exists.
    (2) Reason exists.
    (3) Therefore, God exists.

    # COSMOLOGICAL ARGUMENT, a.k.a. FIRST CAUSE ARGUMENT (I)
    (1) If I say something must have a cause, it has a cause.
    (2) I say the universe must have a cause.
    (3) Therefore, the universe has a cause.
    (4) Therefore, God exists.

    # ONTOLOGICAL ARGUMENT (I)
    (1) I define God to be X.
    (2) Since I can conceive of X, X must exist.
    (3) Therefore, God exists.

    # ONTOLOGICAL ARGUMENT (II)
    (1) I can conceive of a perfect God.
    (2) One of the qualities of perfection is existence.
    (3) Therefore, God exists.

    # MODAL ONTOLOGICAL ARGUMENT
    (1) God is either necessary or unnecessary.
    (2) God is not unnecessary, therefore God must be necessary.
    (3) Therefore, God exists.

    # TELEOLOGICAL ARGUMENT (I), a.k.a. DESIGN ARGUMENT
    (1) Check out the world/universe/giraffe. Isn't it complex?
    (2) Only God could have made them so complex.
    (3) Therefore, God exists.

    # ARGUMENT FROM BEAUTY, a.k.a. DESIGN/TELEOLOGICAL ARGUMENT (II)
    (1) Isn't that baby/sunset/flower/tree beautiful?
    (2) Only God could have made them so beautiful.
    (3) Therefore, God exists.

    # ARGUMENT FROM MIRACLES (I)
    (1) My aunt had cancer.
    (2) The doctors gave her all these horrible treatments.
    (3) My aunt prayed to God and now she doesn't have cancer.
    (4) Therefore, God exists.

    # MORAL ARGUMENT (I)
    (1) Person X, a well-known Atheist, was morally inferior to the rest of us.
    (2) Therefore, God exists.

    # MORAL ARGUMENT (II)
    (1) In my younger days I was a cursing, drinking, smoking, gambling, child-molesting, thieving, murdering, bed-wetting bastard.
    (2) That all changed once I became religious.
    (3) Therefore, God exists.

    # ARGUMENT FROM CREATION, a.k.a. ARGUMENT FROM PERSONAL INCREDULITY (I)
    (1) If evolution is false, then creationism is true, and therefore God exists.
    (2) Evolution can't be true, since I lack the mental capacity to understand it; moreover, to accept its truth would cause me to be uncomfortable.
    (3) Therefore, God exists.

    # ARGUMENT FROM FEAR
    (1) If there is no God then we're all going to not exist after we die.
    (2) I'm afraid of that.
    (3) Therefore, God exists.

    # ARGUMENT FROM THE BIBLE
    (1) [arbitrary passage from OT]
    (2) [arbitrary passage from NT]
    (3) Therefore, God exists.

    # ARGUMENT FROM INTELLIGENCE
    (1) Look, there's really no point in me trying to explain the whole thing to you stupid Atheists â€" it's too complicated for you to understand. God exists               whether you like it or not.
    (2) Therefore, God exists.

[Martian]

This is mainly parody. These aren't the real arguments that theists make. But it is fun to read.

[SteveS]

 Bravo pj - these were funny (but sadly, variants of them are presented as "real" arguments).

The most common argument I've encountered is the "personal incredulity" one.

George H. Smith has a long radio debate with Greg Bahnsen on YouTube where Greg Bahnsen uses the Presuppositionalist argument (to highly annoying effect).  This was honestly the first time I heard someone argue this one ---- that reason and logic are part of god, so anyone who uses reason or logic is inherently a Christian.  This is .... utterly ridiculous!  If anyone's interested, here's the link to the first part of the debate, but be forewarned this is very annoying and hard to listen to:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i3mc_yBW7ao

[rlrose328]

This is mainly parody. These aren't the real arguments that theists make. But it is fun to read.

It may be mainly parody, but I've heard the majority of those exact statements used to support god's existence.  Sad but unfortunately true.

[Will]

Replace "argument from" with "fallacy of" and you're absolutely right.

[pjkeeley]

This is mainly parody. These aren't the real arguments that theists make. But it is fun to read.

I don't necessarily agree that it's mainly parody. Or at least, it serves more purpose than mere parody. Certainly it is written with a sarcastic bent, and I was considering putting it in the Laid Back Lounge for this reason. However, I think you're wrong on the second point; these are the real arguments theists use, if in a very simple (I would say more honest) form. When you see them put this simply it's hard not to think of them as parody, since the flaws in their reasoning are so obvious as to be absurd.

I think it's important when debating theists to know which arguments they are using, and why they are flawed. Using this list is a very simple way to identify both. For this reason I think the list is useful enough to remain here, in the philosophy board. Alternatively, if someone can find me a more detailed list that would serve this purpose more effectively, I could replace it.

I think Willravel put it best in his above reply, so I've changed the title of the post accordingly...  

[SteveS]

I'm good with keeping them here.  I accept and agree with your qualifications, pjkeeley.  These are sarcastic, but they are accurate representations of common theistic arguments.

In the radio debate link I posted, Greg Bahnsen presents the "Transcendental/Presuppositionalist" argument practically verbatim.

[Will]

Speaking to these not being used... they totally are. Fortunately, once you get a handle on what a fallacy is, you can spot them from a mile away and call people on them. The fun ones are ontological, because nine times out of ten the person using the argument doesn't have any formal education in logic. They're parroting. That's when I make the "perfect Pringle" argument (I can imagine a perfect Pringle potato-ship of infinite size and perfect delicious taste, therefore it exists).

[joeactor]

They're parroting. That's when I make the "perfect Pringle" argument (I can imagine a perfect Pringle potato-ship of infinite size and perfect delicious taste, therefore it exists).

I myself visited the Perfect Pringle... and found it to be most yummylicious...

You're right - most of these are used, and laughable.  I had better logic skills before I could walk.

As Fortold By Prophecy,
JoeActor

[SteveS]

You know joeactor, your post made me think, where in a typical primary education is a person ever introduced and instructed specifically in the principles and application of logic?  Those students who do well at math may be introduced to logic concepts in mathematics, but what about the others?  Often, we'll argue and say "that doesn't make sense", but how are we ever introduced to saying exactly why something doesn't make sense?  Its almost as though everyone is just presumed to be logical and to be familiar with logic, but this is clearly failing.  I think some philosophy of logic, or some such, should be a required class to say a person has attained a high school level education.

What could be hurt by specifically teaching logic and logical fallacies to students?  This doesn't have to be presented in a religious (or counter-religious) fashion.  Just presented as a topic in and of itself.

[McQ]

Good find, PJ. And yeah, these do get used, over and over, sadly.

[joeactor]

You know joeactor, your post made me think, where in a typical primary education is a person ever introduced and instructed specifically in the principles and application of logic?  Those students who do well at math may be introduced to logic concepts in mathematics, but what about the others?  Often, we'll argue and say "that doesn't make sense", but how are we ever introduced to saying exactly why something doesn't make sense?  Its almost as though everyone is just presumed to be logical and to be familiar with logic, but this is clearly failing.  I think some philosophy of logic, or some such, should be a required class to say a person has attained a high school level education.

What could be hurt by specifically teaching logic and logical fallacies to students?  This doesn't have to be presented in a religious (or counter-religious) fashion.  Just presented as a topic in and of itself.

Yeah, I hear ya'... I learned formal logic thru math and computer science.  It wasn't taught as a separate class.

Definitely an essential.
JoeActor

[jassi4010709]

my mechanic theory  about proveing god doesnt exist....kicks the ass of this 100 times over.

[myleviathan]

You know joeactor, your post made me think, where in a typical primary education is a person ever introduced and instructed specifically in the principles and application of logic? Those students who do well at math may be introduced to logic concepts in mathematics, but what about the others? Often, we'll argue and say "that doesn't make sense", but how are we ever introduced to saying exactly why something doesn't make sense? Its almost as though everyone is just presumed to be logical and to be familiar with logic, but this is clearly failing. I think some philosophy of logic, or some such, should be a required class to say a person has attained a high school level education.

I agree whole-heartedly. I wasn't introduced to formal logic until well into college when I took a few classic philosophy courses. We studied the works of Plato, mostly. Then Aristotle. It opened up a whole new world of thought for me. I wish I had taken something like it years before.

[Tanker]

Just remember that circular logic is a valid argument, because circular arguments are logical.