Uniformity in nature, and the problem of induction.

a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb


Your premise of an atheists belief via reductio ad absurdum is false because your argument is based in all of these following fallacies in one way or another.

confirmation bais
shifting the burden of proof
circular reasoning
argument from ignorance
circular cause and consequence
suppressed correlative
false dilemma
homunculus fallacy
kettle logic
mind projection fallacy
moving the goalposts
reification
wrong direction

The simple fact is it is “impossible” to prove the existence of the creator God and there is no logical reason to do so if there is a creator God.The fallacies to make such postulation are numerous( I only sighted a few).Woodcarver has sighted your main fallacy.If you were being intellectually (and ethically) honest you would concede you are incorrect and move on however I am positive your will not for precisely the same fallacies you are postulating.Therefore having any kind of argument with you about this subject is futile.

I'll say it again then. We know rocks don't float because we can study rocks.
You cannot study god therefor you cannot make assumptions or any claims about his properties.

Both of your arguments there require evidence and inductive reasoning. You are not basing your claim that disbelief in god reduces a person's point of view to absurdity on anything except your own belief in god and your inability to accept the lack of evidence.

Point A: God exist because the denial of his existence leads a person to a point of absurdity.

This is a positive claim which puts the burden of proof on you.

(If you deny this claim then you must show that its denial doesn't lead to a point of absurdity)

This is you shifting the burden of proof onto me. Attempting to force me to prove a negative. Which is a fallacious argument.


You are misusing the RAA argument. What you are doing is using the argument from ignorance. Otherwise you would be able to prove with evidence and inductive reasoning that to deny the existence of god actually does reduce my world view to a point of absurdity. Not just saying that it does.

I can do this all day.
a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

a reply to: Woodcarver
I'm confused mostly.

Am I right in thinking that OP is presupposing a creator (in this case Christian God) to lead to rationality?

In this context surely could replace the Christian God with whatever the hell I wanted? I mean I could say spaghetti monster allows me to make sense of the world as the noodly appendage created all things to make sense. Alternatively, what is to stop me claiming physics, dark energy, procedural mathematics, or any other presupposition to lead to an argument about things making sense?

I feel I'm deeply misunderstanding, because from my perspective all that's really happening is someone is asking a difficult question and then saying, 'I don't have to answer ... because God.' I'm very confused.

a reply to: Woodcarver

Maybe we should just end this here because your not even reading my responses. I have already proven that you are reduced to absurdity.(WHOLE OP) You are not here to actually talk about knowledge, as you have many times said things I answered in the post before you.



"You are misusing the RAA argument. What you are doing is using the argument from ignorance. Otherwise you would be able to prove with evidence and inductive reasoning that to deny the existence of god actually does reduce my world view to a point of absurdity. Not just saying that it does. "

Wrong again you must not read english well. The point of an RAA is to assume a position (In point A I assumed the position of Christianity and Point B I assumed the position of atheism) Point A makes a statement in order to show that the denial of that statement leaves you with an absurd response. This is not shifting the burden of proof. You asked, What evidence of God do you have? I said, that if you don't presuppose God your left with absurdity(thats based on the whole OP)

Its not shifting the burden of proof. I have made a completely logical argument for the existence of God as I have already shown the naturalistic world view is reduced to absurdity. Since I have already shown that to you it shouldn't be hard for you to understand that I am not just making that claim because I can't Imagine it another way. I am making that claim that unless you can prove there is an alternative answer for escaping absurdity that is not GOD you must provide it as the purpose of a RAA is not to prove something exist but that a statement is true, because its denial would leave you with a FALSE ABSURD result.

I mean if that statement isn't true it should be easy to show that it is not true by producing evidence of non-absurdity after the rejection of that STATEMENT....

a reply to: Rex282

Confirmation bias, also called myside bias, is the tendency to search for, interpret, or prioritize information in a way that confirms one's beliefs or hypotheses.

Haven't done that in anyway. All of the information I have presented is accurate, and it is true that as of right now the naturalistic world view is absurd based on the lack of justification for pretty much everything thing they do....

The point of a RAA is to show the denial of a claim reduces you to absurdity.

circular reasoning only comes into play when you try and answer the question. The question itself is not circular reasoning.

Its not an argument from ignorance. I am not saying God exist because it hasn't been shown that he doesn't exist. I am saying Without God, a persons world view is reduced to absurdity. (Already shown the naturalistic world view to be absurd) You have yet to produce any justification from your world view as to why we should trust anything your saying because anything and everything that you can talk about will be a concept of some kind which is based solely on induction..

circular cause and consequence (This is an inductive argument so you first need to produce justification for inductive reasoning) My case also doesn't relate to this. "The denial of God's existence leads you to absurdity."(AS PER OP) God is not both the cause and consequence. Cause: Denial of God's Existence. Consequence:Absurdity. God doesn't have to exist in order for the naturalistic world view to be reduced to absurdity, that just is on its own as per OP. The OP never mentions God until the end, and I used the work of an atheist to construct it.

Ill stop here and let you explain yourself a bit, but remember if your going to appeal to induction you need some justification for it first...oh wait everything you have said appeals to our use induction and the belief in the uniformity of nature as rational...but you have no way of justifying those as true beliefs. You believe they are true because you know my God, and you are suppressing that Truth and its ok.

a reply to: Woodcarver

We know rocks don't float because we can study rocks

Well you must not have studied them as much as me cause I have seen them floating in space, but I still understand that they have weight. (Also your relying on induction want to justify you use of that?)

The purpose of Science man is to deduce as much as you can until you can induce a general law to which there are no exceptions as far as we have observed. So you believe rocks don't float on earth because you believe that causality in the future will occur as causality in the past and present, but you have no deductive reason for believing this and therefore you cannot say you know that rocks have weight, but you can believe that on pure blind illogical faith all day.

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
Reductio ad absurdum. God exist because refuting he exist leaves you with absurdity. (Reductio ad absurdum)

I don't think you know what that really means.

I'm seeing a lot of defective reasoning using circular logic and confirmation bias. While I DO believe there is a God, the Reductio ad absurdum can't be used to defend that belief and neither can inductive reasoning be exclusively used in favor of there being a God. Atheists can also use inductive reasoning in an effective manner AGAINST there being a God as outlined in the Christian Bible and the Islamic Qu'ran.

Reductio ad absurdum - is a common form of argument which seeks to demonstrate that a statement is true by showing that a false, untenable, or absurd result follows from its denial. Read Here

Confirmation Bias - Confirmation bias, also called myside bias, is the tendency to search for, interpret, or prioritize information in a way that confirms one's beliefs or hypotheses. Read Here

Inductive Reasoning - reasoning in which the premises seek to supply strong evidence for (not absolute proof of) the truth of the conclusion. Read Here

And for good measure I'll add

Circular Logic/reasoning - is a logical fallacy in which the reasoner begins with what they are trying to end with. Read Here

How do former born again Christians fit into your argument? While they may not be living a life with God, God is still with them, because at one point in their life they accepted him as their Lord and Savior.

a reply to: WakeUpBeer
The 'once saved always saved' argument. Some fundamentalists say that once someone is 'saved' then they can't be lost later. If someone leaves fundamentalist Christianity then they either are backsliders and will come back later or they were never really saved to begin with. 'Once saved always saved' is seriously bad theology. And the excuses made in regard to those who leave, that they were never really saved to begin with, are CYA and really silly IMHO.

a reply to: Pinke

In this context surely could replace the Christian God with whatever the hell I wanted? I mean I could say spaghetti monster allows me to make sense of the world as the noodly appendage created all things to make sense.

Sure you could replace God with an supernatural entity you chose, but then we would have the question of why you put your faith in that entity? The Bible is proven to be a reliable historical document by archaeology over and over again, and everytime its confirmed people just ask for more and more proof. The Resurrection of Christ has far to much evidence backing it up in history, many skeptical historians will agree that there is a lot of evidence pointing to this little fact.

Alternatively, what is to stop me claiming physics, dark energy, procedural mathematics, or any other presupposition to lead to an argument about things making sense?

Because presupposing any of those things requires that you presuppose inductive reasoning and uniformity in nature to justify our use of inductive reasoning and uniformity in nature and therefore are begging the question. Which means your statement might be logically consistent but proves nothing.

Basically its the same as:

Why do mushrooms make you hallucinate?
Mushrooms make you hallucinate because they have hallucinogenic properties.

The answer to the question is logically consistent but it proves absolutely nothing.

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
The Bible is proven to be a reliable historical document by archaeology over and over again, and everytime its confirmed people just ask for more and more proof.

That's incorrect. Archaeology and science have proven over and over again that the bible is wrong. Genesis is proven wrong via science. Noahs Ark is proven wrong via science and archeology. Exodus is proven wrong via archeology and numerous historical accounts that counter it. And there is no evidence to support that major biblical figures such as Abraham even existed let alone that the supernatural stories are true.

a reply to: Jainine

I'm seeing a lot of defective reasoning using circular logic and confirmation bias. While I DO believe there is a God, the Reductio ad absurdum can't be used to defend that belief and neither can inductive reasoning be exclusively used in favor of there being a God.

Well just saying you see those thing doesn't actually mean they are there so point them out. I don think you understood anything I said in the OP. Inductive reasoning isn't used in favor of there being a God. Inductive reasoning and uniformity in nature are justified by there being a God. This is not saying people who dont believe in god can't use inductive reasoning. Its saying they can't justify why they use it and why they believe in uniformity in nature, and without justification you only believe and cannot know as per OP....

a reply to: Jainine

I thought there was scripture backing it up. Of course I think the "salvation can be lost" side also had some piece of scripture to back up their position as well.

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
Its saying they can't justify why they use it and why they believe in uniformity in nature, and without justification you only believe and cannot know as per OP....

Sure they can justify inductive reasoning and deductive reasoning. You have a preconceived outcome of your inductive reasoning. Confirmation bias. So your inductive reasoning is contaminated. Atheists can use inductive reasoning the same as theists can. Inductive reasoning can be used by theists and non-theists alike, and the level of contamination by preset beliefs determines the validity of the reasoning.

originally posted by: WakeUpBeer
I thought there was scripture backing it up. Of course I think the "salvation can be lost" side also had some piece of scripture to back up their position as well.

Both sides can cherry pick scripture to suit their chosen beliefs. The side that says 'once saved always saved' points out that Jesus said He wouldn't lose any that God gave Him to His care. But I could easily pull up theological arguments and scripture quotes that are just the opposite to OSAS. Read more - HERE

a reply to: Jainine

Archaeology and science have proven over and over again that the bible is wrong.

Genesis is proven wrong via science.

Willing to be you are misinterpreting Genesis and have never looked into the Hebrew.\

Noahs Ark is proven wrong via science and archeology.

Wrong again. Polystrata forest and extremely elevated fish fossils. Look into evidence for nephilim. For every evidence you can give it didn't happen Christians can give it did..

Exodus is proven wrong via archeology and numerous historical accounts that counter it

Exodus doesn't have any evidence backing it up yet I will agree with that, but neither did the HIttie or King David and we now know that they were real, and King David is a descendant of Abraham, and there is a lot of evidence surrounding the Abraham story that has been unearthed.

Rejecting all supernatural claims in history is a philosophical bias and no good historian allows there philosophical bias to get in the way of good history which is why skeptical historians will admit there is a lot of evidence for the Resurrection of Christ.

a reply to: Jainine

Sure they can justify inductive reasoning and deductive reasoning. You have a preconceived outcome of your inductive reasoning. Confirmation bias. So your inductive reasoning is contaminated. Atheists can use inductive reasoning the same as theists can. Inductive reasoning can be used by theists and non-theists alike, and the level of contamination by preset beliefs determines the validity of the reasoning.

I didn't say atheist couldnt use inductive reasoning, I said they can't justify it and there beleif in uniformity in nature which I should have to say this cause the OP is all about this.......you are not grasping the argument at all and its apparent by your response. You need to go re-read the OP.

But I could easily pull up theological arguments and scripture quotes that are just the opposite to OSAS

The Christians I know normally quote ephesians, but the entire page you sourced disagrees with what you said....

13 In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise,

14 Which is the earnest of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession, unto the praise of his glory.

a reply to: Jainine

It has nothing to do with them never really being saved. The only way you can lose your salvation is to give it back. If you know how salvation is achieved this should make perfect sense.

originally posted by: WakeUpBeer
a reply to: Jainine

I thought there was scripture backing it up. Of course I think the "salvation can be lost" side also had some piece of scripture to back up their position as well.

Hebrews 6

4 For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted the heavenly gift, and have become partakers of the Holy Spirit, 5 and have tasted the good word of God and the powers of the age to come, 6 if they fall away, to renew them again to repentance, since they crucify again for themselves the Son of God, and put Him to an open shame. 7 For the earth which drinks in the rain that often comes upon it, and bears herbs useful for those by whom it is cultivated, receives blessing from God; 8 but if it bears thorns and briers, it is rejected and near to being cursed, whose end is to be burned.

Thank you for reply OP.

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: Pinke
Sure you could replace God with an supernatural entity you chose, but then we would have the question of why you put your faith in that entity?

I won't really address the historical argument here, but for me this just puts me back to square one? I could use God or whatever logic I chose, but the correct answer is that I don't know. Even presenting this logic as Deist I'm not sure I'm further forward. Does God guarantee a logical world for example? Does no God guarantee no logic? Could mathematical requirements imply an innate logic in the first place?

Let me know if I'm following the arguments properly. I think I've got it now, but it still not following all the way for me.

Why do mushrooms make you hallucinate?
Mushrooms make you hallucinate because they have hallucinogenic properties.

The answer to the question is logically consistent but it proves absolutely nothing.

So it's basically ...

1. Nature makes sense (uniformity etc)
2. Because of this, we can use inductive reasoning
3. Nature must have a creator or we would be saying 'nature makes sense because it makes sense'
4. Therefore a creator exists?

It seems whatever I put in 4, I still need more presuppositions to make that work?