- Joined
- Jul 17, 2020
- Messages
- 47,360
- Reaction score
- 26,048
- Location
- Springfield MO
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Liberal
Equating believers and agnostics right out of the gate more or less kills your argument.
“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?
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.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.
“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..................“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.
Or quite getting it. Expand, please.
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 trueThe 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.
All discussion relating to religion, and the existence of a creator being or force...is an appeal to possibility.“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?
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.
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.
Why am I considering an imaginary friend is possible in the first place.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?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.
No, it was the failed logic.How can you be hard of hearing on a message board?
No, it was the failed logic.
Just suitcase you don't know something is possible or not doesn't mean it is possible.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.
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.
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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?