Quote:
Originally Posted by Concerto
Correct, and there lies the fallacy. Considering the vast majority of cases, none of these theist arguments is offered as a sufficient basis for "justifying" God's existence, but the dishonest co-optations are presented in misplaced mockery of such an intent.
Are you seriously claiming that no theists ever offer up, say, the argument from design as a sufficient basis for establishing God's existence? Enough of them certainly make the argument that I assume they think it might persuade people.
You have whatever reasons you have (call them X, Y, and Z) for believing in God. But that doesn't mean that other believers believe for reasons X, Y, and Z, and it certainly doesn't mean that other believers don't offer up ARGUMENTS for believing that you either reject or do not find sufficient.
Perhaps the FSM isn't a valid critique against any arguments YOU make for being a believer. But that doesn't mean it isn't a valid critique against arguments that some other people make that you don't find sufficient.
If it were really the case that nobody was claiming that the argument from design established the existence of God, I suspect we would have never heard of it in the first place.
Quote:
You're joking, right? This has to be an ironic instance of the assuming your conclusion fallacy. The patronizing tone makes it extra lol, so I see what you did there.
Again, Concerto, you really just show what an idiot you are every time you try to claim that everything's a logical fallacy. It's clearly a crutch you use because you can't actually make arguments.
Religious faith is a felt reality for some people. It isn't produced by looking rationally at the various options and the evidence and making a tentative conclusion in the form of a testable hypothesis.
The funny thing is that many nonbelievers understand this better than you do. But, then, maybe if you were smart enough and mature enough to construct an argument without whining about logical fallacies, you might get it.