The “anything is possible” logical fallacy

[watsup]

“Appeal to Possibility​

Description: When a conclusion is assumed not because it is probably true or it has not been demonstrated to be impossible, but because it is POSSIBLE that it is true, NO MATTER HOW IMPROBABLE.”

Appeal to Possibility

When a conclusion is assumed not because it is probably true, but because it is possible that it is true, no matter how improbable.

www.logicallyfallacious.com

This is a logical fallacy that is used quite often by the God believers (and the agnostics) when they run out of truly logical debate points. There are a number of variations of it. For instance, over in “The New Atneism” thread, Rich claims that: “Reality contains countless unknowns, possibilities, and unexplained phenomena” and also that “No evidence does not mean no existence. All it means is that we've not found any evidence yet, not that we're never going to” and, of course, that “absence of evidence is not evidence of absence”. All of these statements are just subsets of the “anything is possible” logical fallacy IN DEBATE since there is no truly REALITY-BASED, LOGICAL way to answer them. These and similar statements are not meant to further debate but rather to fairly immediately stifle it.
So has to combat the debator who often uses the “APPEAL TO POSSIBILITY logical fallacy?

 

[OrphanSlug]

Equating believers and agnostics right out of the gate more or less kills your argument.

 

[watsup]

Equating believers and agnostics right out of the gate more or less kills your argument.

Not if they both use subsets of the “appeal to possibility” logical fallacy. For instance, the average agnostic will claim that “it is not possible to know” whether there is a god or not. As an atheist, I find that just so much fence-sitting. You have often heard by personal take on my atheism: No evidence, no god. Both believers and agnostics then tell me that “you can’t possibly know that for certain”, which I consider as falling under the aforementioned logical fallacy.

 

[Noodlegawd]

“Appeal to Possibility​

Description: When a conclusion is assumed not because it is probably true or it has not been demonstrated to be impossible, but because it is POSSIBLE that it is true, NO MATTER HOW IMPROBABLE.”

Appeal to Possibility

When a conclusion is assumed not because it is probably true, but because it is possible that it is true, no matter how improbable.

www.logicallyfallacious.com

This is a logical fallacy that is used quite often by the God believers (and the agnostics) when they run out of truly logical debate points. There are a number of variations of it. For instance, over in “The New Atneism” thread, Rich claims that: “Reality contains countless unknowns, possibilities, and unexplained phenomena” and also that “No evidence does not mean no existence. All it means is that we've not found any evidence yet, not that we're never going to” and, of course, that “absence of evidence is not evidence of absence”. All of these statements are just subsets of the “anything is possible” logical fallacy IN DEBATE since there is no truly REALITY-BASED, LOGICAL way to answer them. These and similar statements are not meant to further debate but rather to fairly immediately stifle it.
So has to combat the debator who often uses the “APPEAL TO POSSIBILITY logical fallacy?

Yes, it's a logical fallacy. "X is possible" is a claim which needs to be demonstrated, not an infallible premise.

 

[pinqy]

Not if they both use subsets of the “appeal to possibility” logical fallacy. For instance, the average agnostic will claim that “it is not possible to know” whether there is a god or not. As an atheist, I find that just so much fence-sitting. You have often heard by personal take on my atheism: No evidence, no god. Both believers and agnostics then tell me that “you can’t possibly know that for certain”, which I consider as falling under the aforementioned logical fallacy.

No evidence for any proposed god, does not mean we can conclude that no gods exist. It does mean we have no reason to believe any do. Is there anything that makes it impossible for some entity that would qualify as a god to exist? Nope. But neither is there any reason to think one does until/unless evidence is demonstrated.

 

[Drowning Man]

“Appeal to Possibility​

Description: When a conclusion is assumed not because it is probably true or it has not been demonstrated to be impossible, but because it is POSSIBLE that it is true, NO MATTER HOW IMPROBABLE.”

Appeal to Possibility

When a conclusion is assumed not because it is probably true, but because it is possible that it is true, no matter how improbable.

www.logicallyfallacious.com

This is a logical fallacy that is used quite often by the God believers (and the agnostics) when they run out of truly logical debate points. There are a number of variations of it. For instance, over in “The New Atneism” thread, Rich claims that: “Reality contains countless unknowns, possibilities, and unexplained phenomena” and also that “No evidence does not mean no existence. All it means is that we've not found any evidence yet, not that we're never going to” and, of course, that “absence of evidence is not evidence of absence”. All of these statements are just subsets of the “anything is possible” logical fallacy IN DEBATE since there is no truly REALITY-BASED, LOGICAL way to answer them. These and similar statements are not meant to further debate but rather to fairly immediately stifle it.
So has to combat the debator who often uses the “APPEAL TO POSSIBILITY logical fallacy?

I think you're using this wrong.

The examples given for the logical forms are:

X is possible.

Therefore, X is true.


X is possible.

Therefore, X is probably true.

In terms of Agnostics, the logical form would be:

X is possible.

Therefore, -X is not true (or, X is possible).

That's not part of your site's logical fallacies.

 

[tshade]

“Appeal to Possibility​

Description: When a conclusion is assumed not because it is probably true or it has not been demonstrated to be impossible, but because it is POSSIBLE that it is true, NO MATTER HOW IMPROBABLE.”

Appeal to Possibility

When a conclusion is assumed not because it is probably true, but because it is possible that it is true, no matter how improbable.

www.logicallyfallacious.com

This is a logical fallacy that is used quite often by the God believers (and the agnostics) when they run out of truly logical debate points. There are a number of variations of it. For instance, over in “The New Atneism” thread, Rich claims that: “Reality contains countless unknowns, possibilities, and unexplained phenomena” and also that “No evidence does not mean no existence. All it means is that we've not found any evidence yet, not that we're never going to” and, of course, that “absence of evidence is not evidence of absence”. All of these statements are just subsets of the “anything is possible” logical fallacy IN DEBATE since there is no truly REALITY-BASED, LOGICAL way to answer them. These and similar statements are not meant to further debate but rather to fairly immediately stifle it.
So has to combat the debator who often uses the “APPEAL TO POSSIBILITY logical fallacy?

Like : "The election was stolen" argument..................

 

[btthegreat]

Sigh. I have been through all this so many times. A lot of people 'roll their eyes' when they see someone calling themselves an Agnostic Atheist. It just seems to make such a big deal about the most obvious truth. We don't know for sure and we are not likely to. Its hard to argue against it, but really if its so obvious what's the point including it?

The honest reasons I insist on plopping it in there are twofold.
1. It gives a little reassurance to theists that I might not be as difficult to deal with as some other atheists they find on sites like this. If you willingly admit you don't know, maybe you aren't quite as smug in your approach to the other side.

2. that acknowledgment up front, sets a tone that lacks vanity, and pride that is sorely, no desperately needed in virtually every single thread and post in this entire subforum! Can you imagine how much better these discussions would go, if everyone drank a few sips of a concoction made up of equal parts humility, ambivalence and uncertainty before they began their next oration on God, religion or the lack of either? When I say the obvious in 'agnostic atheist ' it means I have already taken my first shot of this drink and put that shot glass down before I type my first post. That 'anything is possible' line is not a logical fallacy. But it can represent an attitude which showcases a a modesty if you will, that is most refreshing in religious debates.

Yes, clearly its an example 'virtue signaling' at it most conspicuous, most transparent . But damn, we could use a lot more of those signals, than what we usually are drowning in by page 2 of these posts!

By the way, this is one of those 'hit and run posts' in that I am not going to debate this content. I have allowed myself to be dragged into justifying too many of these posts on this topic recently. I am just not.

 

[watsup]

I think you're using this wrong.

The examples given for the logical forms are:

X is possible.

Therefore, X is true.


X is possible.

Therefore, X is probably true.

In terms of Agnostics, the logical form would be:

X is possible.

Therefore, -X is not true (or, X is possible).

That's not part of your site's logical fallacies.

Or quite getting it. Expand, please.

 

[Drowning Man]

Or quite getting it. Expand, please.

The logical forms of this fallacy are:

If something is possible => It must be true
or
If something is possible => It's probably true

This is born out by the description as well as the examples which follow these logical forms.

Just for fun, here are the exceptions: "There are no exceptions. Possibility alone never justifies probability"
And the tip: "Catch yourself every time you are about to use the word “impossible”. Yes, there are many things that are logically and physically impossible, and it is a valid concept and word, but so often we use that word when we really mean “improbable”. Confusing the impossible with the improbable or unlikely, could, in many cases, destroy the possibility of great success."

The agnostic is NOT saying, "If God is possible, it must be true" nor "If God is possible, it is probably true"
The agnostic is saying, "If God is possible, then we cannot say it is impossible or doesn't exist."
That is NOT covered by the Appeal to Possibility fallacy that you posted.

 

[soylentgreen]

The logical forms of this fallacy are:

If something is possible => It must be true
or
If something is possible => It's probably true

This is born out by the description as well as the examples which follow these logical forms.

Just for fun, here are the exceptions: "There are no exceptions. Possibility alone never justifies probability"
And the tip: "Catch yourself every time you are about to use the word “impossible”. Yes, there are many things that are logically and physically impossible, and it is a valid concept and word, but so often we use that word when we really mean “improbable”. Confusing the impossible with the improbable or unlikely, could, in many cases, destroy the possibility of great success."

The agnostic is NOT saying, "If God is possible, it must be true" nor "If God is possible, it is probably true"
The agnostic is saying, "If God is possible, then we cannot say it is impossible or doesn't exist."
That is NOT covered by the Appeal to Possibility fallacy that you posted.

Except that there is absolutely no reason you can give in order to start a sentence with the word "if god is possible." Except of course to use the hidden premise of If something is possible => It's probably true

 

[KevinKohler]

“Appeal to Possibility​

Description: When a conclusion is assumed not because it is probably true or it has not been demonstrated to be impossible, but because it is POSSIBLE that it is true, NO MATTER HOW IMPROBABLE.”

Appeal to Possibility

When a conclusion is assumed not because it is probably true, but because it is possible that it is true, no matter how improbable.

www.logicallyfallacious.com

This is a logical fallacy that is used quite often by the God believers (and the agnostics) when they run out of truly logical debate points. There are a number of variations of it. For instance, over in “The New Atneism” thread, Rich claims that: “Reality contains countless unknowns, possibilities, and unexplained phenomena” and also that “No evidence does not mean no existence. All it means is that we've not found any evidence yet, not that we're never going to” and, of course, that “absence of evidence is not evidence of absence”. All of these statements are just subsets of the “anything is possible” logical fallacy IN DEBATE since there is no truly REALITY-BASED, LOGICAL way to answer them. These and similar statements are not meant to further debate but rather to fairly immediately stifle it.
So has to combat the debator who often uses the “APPEAL TO POSSIBILITY logical fallacy?

All discussion relating to religion, and the existence of a creator being or force...is an appeal to possibility.

 

[Drowning Man]

Except that there is absolutely no reason you can give in order to start a sentence with the word "if god is possible." Except of course to use the hidden premise of If something is possible => It's probably true

Er...wrong.

If a god is possible, then it is not impossible.
If a god is possible, then it is possible.
If a god is possible, then the strong atheist's stance that a god is impossible, is wrong.

 

[watsup]

Er...wrong.

If a god is possible, then it is not impossible.
If a god is possible, then it is possible.
If a god is possible, then the strong atheist's stance that a god is impossible, is wrong.

Sorry, but still don’t see a huge difference between the statements that “it is not impossible” and “it is wrong to claim that it is impossible” (and thus its not).
And besides that, it is a misinterpretation of atheism to claim that it says that “god is impossible”. Rather, an atheist is simply saying that since there is no evidence, then certainly none of the gods that have been proposed to this point are extant. I agree with post #11 in that simply bringing up the words “possible” or”impossible” with regards to as discussion about “god” has no real meaning and fits into the logical fallacy of appeal to possibility. Atheists, like scientists, are interested in EVIDENCE for theories and statements and concerns about “possibility” are simply a sideshow with no real merit.

 

[Drowning Man]

Sorry, but still don’t see a huge difference between the statements that “it is not impossible” and “it is wrong to claim that it is impossible” (and thus its not).

But they are statements that you can make that don't imply that something merely possible, is therefore true or probable. That's what I was responding to.

And besides that, it is a misinterpretation of atheism to claim that it says that “god is impossible”. Rather, an atheist is simply saying that since there is no evidence, then certainly none of the gods that have been proposed to this point are extant.

Are you saying that something can both be not extant, and possible? I suppose if you claim that a "God" or set of gods once existed, but no longer do...but that's not something I've ever heard an atheist claim.
You take umbrage to an agnostic pointing out that "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence". But it is true and certainly does not invoke the logical fallacy that you posted about.

You may not like the fact that it's true. You may feel that it is a meaningless distinction. But, it doesn't fit the form of, "if X is possible, it is true" or "if X is possible, it is probable".

I agree with post #11 in that simply bringing up the words “possible” or”impossible” with regards to as discussion about “god” has no real meaning and fits into the logical fallacy of appeal to possibility.

You can agree with post 11 all you want, but the fact is, that as per the site that YOU posted, it doesn't fit.

Atheists, like scientists, are interested in EVIDENCE for theories and statements and concerns about “possibility” are simply a sideshow with no real merit.

Atheists, like scientists, should also be interested in being precise. Both with what they say (if something is possible, claiming it is not is wrong), and with the definitions of the logical fallacies that they invoke.

 

[soylentgreen]

Er...wrong.

If a god is possible, then it is not impossible.
If a god is possible, then it is possible.
If a god is possible, then the strong atheist's stance that a god is impossible, is wrong.

Why am I considering an imaginary friend is possible in the first place.

 

[KevinKohler]

Er...wrong.

If a god is possible, then it is not impossible.
If a god is possible, then it is possible.
If a god is possible, then the strong atheist's stance that a god is impossible, is wrong.

Wat?

 

[Drowning Man]

Why am I considering an imaginary friend is possible in the first place.

Good question. But my point isn't that things nearly "possible" are all that interesting nor should we act upon them.

It's possible that there are invisible purple unicorns that fly out of my butt when I fart. Yeah...and so? Doesn't mean much, does it? I totally agree with you. Holding out that something is just merely possible isn't holding out much at all.

BUT, as I said, that's not my point.

My point was that simply saying something is possible, and therefore we shouldn't say that it's impossible, isn't a logical fallacy as the OP claims.

 

[Drowning Man]

Wat?

How can you be hard of hearing on a message board?

 

[KevinKohler]

How can you be hard of hearing on a message board?

No, it was the failed logic.

 

[Drowning Man]

No, it was the failed logic.

OK, I'll bite. How was it failed?

 

[RAMOSS]

The logical forms of this fallacy are:

If something is possible => It must be true
or
If something is possible => It's probably true

This is born out by the description as well as the examples which follow these logical forms.

Just for fun, here are the exceptions: "There are no exceptions. Possibility alone never justifies probability"
And the tip: "Catch yourself every time you are about to use the word “impossible”. Yes, there are many things that are logically and physically impossible, and it is a valid concept and word, but so often we use that word when we really mean “improbable”. Confusing the impossible with the improbable or unlikely, could, in many cases, destroy the possibility of great success."

The agnostic is NOT saying, "If God is possible, it must be true" nor "If God is possible, it is probably true"
The agnostic is saying, "If God is possible, then we cannot say it is impossible or doesn't exist."
That is NOT covered by the Appeal to Possibility fallacy that you posted.

Just suitcase you don't know something is possible or not doesn't mean it is possible.

Nor does it mean it's impossible. It just means it is unknown.

 

[OrphanSlug]

Not if they both use subsets of the “appeal to possibility” logical fallacy. For instance, the average agnostic will claim that “it is not possible to know” whether there is a god or not. As an atheist, I find that just so much fence-sitting. You have often heard by personal take on my atheism: No evidence, no god. Both believers and agnostics then tell me that “you can’t possibly know that for certain”, which I consider as falling under the aforementioned logical fallacy.

The problem is in the definition of appeal to possibility (or probability) as a fallacy.

The only real difference between theists and atheists is the element of belief, one is based on belief the other is based on the absence of belief, but they both make declarations that cannot really be proved in the absolute. They both claim they are right, and claim the other is wrong, and how? Propositions.

For there to be any logical fallacy of any form that would imply an emphasis on syllogism, an argument to arrive at a conclusion that is based on at least two proposition as the organization of some reasoning.

Both theists and atheists put forth an argument on the big question of the existence of God or Gods that they consider is strengthened by propositions, generally to arrive at some conclusion. Both will consider the conclusion logical even if they are the exact opposite of one another. No matter if a logic fallacy occurs or not from the argument, it is the proposition that gets them there.

Agnostics do not put forth propositions, and why should they? There is no logical conclusion offered, and other than offering we cannot know within the present confines of human understanding that does not in itself equate to a logical fallacy.

It is like asking if we are alone, as "intelligent life," in this universe. Someone agnostic to the question will offer we cannot know yet, no reason to rule it in or out.

However, someone believing in the idea and another steadfast against the idea have made a conclusion probably based on some set of propositions to get there and odds are in that example both end up making logical or argument fallacies to get there.

Quit asking someone who does not play the game to take credit for playing.

 

[Drowning Man]

Just suitcase you don't know something is possible or not doesn't mean it is possible.

Nor does it mean it's impossible. It just means it is unknown.

Hmmm... I'm not sure I agree.

If I say that something possibly exists, that in no way suggest that it actually does, it merely says that it's possible. It might exist and it might not. That is, in effect, the "unknown" state that you're talking about.

But, if I say that something doesn't exist, that requires that I know something...that it doesn't, in fact, exist. It is a declarative claim about the existence of something. That claim would require knowledge about the universe and that the thing in question, does not exist within the universe.

 

[RAMOSS]

Hmmm... I'm not sure I agree.

If I say that something possibly exists, that in no way suggest that it actually does, it merely says that it's possible. It might exist and it might not. That is, in effect, the "unknown" state that you're talking about.

But, if I say that something doesn't exist, that requires that I know something...that it doesn't, in fact, exist. It is a declarative claim about the existence of something. That claim would require knowledge about the universe and that the thing in question, does not exist within the universe.

Just because you think something possibly exists doesn't mean it does possibly exist. It could be that it can NOT exist, but you just don't know it.