EXPOSED: The "Divine Fallacy" is NOT Really Divine!

[Sunstone]

Like most thrill-seeking people, I know of few -- very few -- things that can compete for spine-tingling excitement with the experience of pondering a fallacy in logic.

Let's be honest, logical reasoning -- like hang gliding, mountain climbing,and running with the bulls in Pamplona -- is far too risky for most folks, but thrill seekers such as you and I -- we thrive on the risks. With that in mind, I offer you my take on the divine fallacy!

Some folks say the divine fallacy is a special case of the fallacy of arguing from incredulity. Other folks say it's only "closely related" to arguing from incredulity. So already, at the very start, we have a thrilling controversy!

But I'll leave it up to you to decide who is right. Here are the mere facts: The argument from incredulity asserts that something is true or false based solely on whether one can bring oneself to believe or disbelieve it. It has two forms:

1. I cannot imagine how P could be true; therefore P must be false.
2. I cannot imagine how P could be false; therefore P must be true.

A couple examples:

1. I cannot imagine how the existence of god could be true, therefore god must not exist.
2. I cannot imagine how the existence of god could be false, therefore god must exist.

Now, the divine fallacy is very similar. It argues that something must be the result of a certain cause because it is impossible to believe that it cannot be the result of that cause. The "certain cause" can be one of at least three things. Deity, some other supernatural thing besides deity, or space aliens. Thus, the fallacy has this form:

I cannot imagine how X could not be caused by Y, therefore X is caused by Y -- where "Y" is a god, something supernatural, or a space alien.​

You can immediately see the similarity between the divine fallacy and the second form of the argument from incredulity. The only difference appears to be the divine fallacy focuses on causation, while the argument from incredulity does not. But in both cases, the principle is the same: The fact we cannot bring ourselves to believe (or disbelieve) something is not by itself good grounds for supposing it is true or false.

Daring guy that I am, I'm going to go way out on a limb here and propose that it's utter nonsense to limit the definition of the divine fallacy to deity, other supernatural causes, or space aliens. I would argue that any argument that takes the same form as the divine fallacy is fallacious -- regardless of what the "certain cause" is. But then, I'm daring like that.

Talking about these fallacies has made me all hot and sweaty, so I've got to take a cold shower now. Meanwhile, are there any comments or questions?

 

[Axe Elf]

I cannot imagine how anyone could ever fall for the divine fallacy; therefore, no one has ever fallen for the divine fallacy.

 

[YmirGF]

I cannot imagine how anyone could ever fall for the divine fallacy; therefore, no one has ever fallen for the divine fallacy.

I might for the right price. (I'm not cheap though!)

 

[WalterTrull]

Like most thrill-seeking people, I know of few -- very few -- things that can compete for spine-tingling excitement with the experience of pondering a fallacy in logic.

Let's be honest, logical reasoning -- like hang gliding, mountain climbing,and running with the bulls in Pamplona -- is far too risky for most folks, but thrill seekers such as you and I -- we thrive on the risks. With that in mind, I offer you my take on the divine fallacy!
w
Some folks say the divine fallacy is a special case of the fallacy of arguing from incredulity. Other folks say it's only "closely related" to arguing from incredulity. So already, at the very start, we have a thrilling controversy!

But I'll leave it up to you to decide who is right. Here are the mere facts: The argument from incredulity asserts that something is true or false based solely on whether one can bring oneself to believe or disbelieve it. It has two forms:

1. I cannot imagine how P could be true; therefore P must be false.
2. I cannot imagine how P could be false; therefore P must be true.

A couple examples:

1. I cannot imagine how the existence of god could be true, therefore god must not exist.
2. I cannot imagine how the existence of god could be false, therefore god must exist.

Now, the divine fallacy is very similar. It argues that something must be the result of a certain cause because it is impossible to believe that it cannot be the result of that cause. The "certain cause" can be one of at least three things. Deity, some other supernatural thing besides deity, or space aliens. Thus, the fallacy has this form:

I cannot imagine how X could not be caused by Y, therefore X is caused by Y -- where "Y" is a god, something supernatural, or a space alien.​

You can immediately see the similarity between the divine fallacy and the second form of the argument from incredulity. The only difference appears to be the divine fallacy focuses on causation, while the argument from incredulity does not. But in both cases, the principle is the same: The fact we cannot bring ourselves to believe (or disbelieve) something is not by itself good grounds for supposing it is true or false.

Daring guy that I am, I'm going to go way out on a limb here and propose that it's utter nonsense to limit the definition of the divine fallacy to deity, other supernatural causes, or space aliens. I would argue that any argument that takes the same form as the divine fallacy is fallacious -- regardless of what the "certain cause" is. But then, I'm daring like that.

Talking about these fallacies has made me all hot and sweaty, so I've got to take a cold shower now. Meanwhile, are there any comments or questions?

Wow!! I gotta pee.

 

[Jollybear]

Like most thrill-seeking people, I know of few -- very few -- things that can compete for spine-tingling excitement with the experience of pondering a fallacy in logic.

Let's be honest, logical reasoning -- like hang gliding, mountain climbing,and running with the bulls in Pamplona -- is far too risky for most folks, but thrill seekers such as you and I -- we thrive on the risks. With that in mind, I offer you my take on the divine fallacy!

Some folks say the divine fallacy is a special case of the fallacy of arguing from incredulity. Other folks say it's only "closely related" to arguing from incredulity. So already, at the very start, we have a thrilling controversy!

But I'll leave it up to you to decide who is right. Here are the mere facts: The argument from incredulity asserts that something is true or false based solely on whether one can bring oneself to believe or disbelieve it. It has two forms:

1. I cannot imagine how P could be true; therefore P must be false.
2. I cannot imagine how P could be false; therefore P must be true.

A couple examples:

1. I cannot imagine how the existence of god could be true, therefore god must not exist.
2. I cannot imagine how the existence of god could be false, therefore god must exist.

Now, the divine fallacy is very similar. It argues that something must be the result of a certain cause because it is impossible to believe that it cannot be the result of that cause. The "certain cause" can be one of at least three things. Deity, some other supernatural thing besides deity, or space aliens. Thus, the fallacy has this form:

I cannot imagine how X could not be caused by Y, therefore X is caused by Y -- where "Y" is a god, something supernatural, or a space alien.​

You can immediately see the similarity between the divine fallacy and the second form of the argument from incredulity. The only difference appears to be the divine fallacy focuses on causation, while the argument from incredulity does not. But in both cases, the principle is the same: The fact we cannot bring ourselves to believe (or disbelieve) something is not by itself good grounds for supposing it is true or false.

Daring guy that I am, I'm going to go way out on a limb here and propose that it's utter nonsense to limit the definition of the divine fallacy to deity, other supernatural causes, or space aliens. I would argue that any argument that takes the same form as the divine fallacy is fallacious -- regardless of what the "certain cause" is. But then, I'm daring like that.

Talking about these fallacies has made me all hot and sweaty, so I've got to take a cold shower now. Meanwhile, are there any comments or questions?

I got a question.

I usually make this argument in debate when debating atheists >

Something cannot come from pure nothing because its....nothing. logically, from nothing, nothing comes.

Now, some atheists believe something came from nothing, then the something turned into everything by chance over many years.

So, my question is, when i say something cannot come from nothing, am i comitting the divine fallacy?

 

[David T]

Like most thrill-seeking people, I know of few -- very few -- things that can compete for spine-tingling excitement with the experience of pondering a fallacy in logic.

Let's be honest, logical reasoning -- like hang gliding, mountain climbing,and running with the bulls in Pamplona -- is far too risky for most folks, but thrill seekers such as you and I -- we thrive on the risks. With that in mind, I offer you my take on the divine fallacy!

Some folks say the divine fallacy is a special case of the fallacy of arguing from incredulity. Other folks say it's only "closely related" to arguing from incredulity. So already, at the very start, we have a thrilling controversy!

But I'll leave it up to you to decide who is right. Here are the mere facts: The argument from incredulity asserts that something is true or false based solely on whether one can bring oneself to believe or disbelieve it. It has two forms:

1. I cannot imagine how P could be true; therefore P must be false.
2. I cannot imagine how P could be false; therefore P must be true.

A couple examples:

1. I cannot imagine how the existence of god could be true, therefore god must not exist.
2. I cannot imagine how the existence of god could be false, therefore god must exist.

Now, the divine fallacy is very similar. It argues that something must be the result of a certain cause because it is impossible to believe that it cannot be the result of that cause. The "certain cause" can be one of at least three things. Deity, some other supernatural thing besides deity, or space aliens. Thus, the fallacy has this form:

I cannot imagine how X could not be caused by Y, therefore X is caused by Y -- where "Y" is a god, something supernatural, or a space alien.​

You can immediately see the similarity between the divine fallacy and the second form of the argument from incredulity. The only difference appears to be the divine fallacy focuses on causation, while the argument from incredulity does not. But in both cases, the principle is the same: The fact we cannot bring ourselves to believe (or disbelieve) something is not by itself good grounds for supposing it is true or false.

Daring guy that I am, I'm going to go way out on a limb here and propose that it's utter nonsense to limit the definition of the divine fallacy to deity, other supernatural causes, or space aliens. I would argue that any argument that takes the same form as the divine fallacy is fallacious -- regardless of what the "certain cause" is. But then, I'm daring like that.

Talking about these fallacies has made me all hot and sweaty, so I've got to take a cold shower now. Meanwhile, are there any comments or questions?

This usually is an arguement against random Accidentialism which is equally problematic in conceptual overreach into la la land. So yea religion does use bad. Logic but so what its common and this we call. normal..

The clouds manifest over the horizon randomly or by a magic dragon is really an old debate.. But is it really a debate?

 

[Sunstone]

So, my question is, when i say something cannot come from nothing, am i committing the divine fallacy?

Nope. Nothing as exciting as that. By itself, you are merely asserting a premise -- namely that something cannot come from nothing. That premise can be challenged, but it does not commit any fallacies of logic to assert it.

Now, if someone were to challenge it, and you were to defend it along the lines that you simply "cannot believe something coming from nothing, therefore something cannot come from nothing" -- if that was your argument in defense of the premise, then that would commit a fallacy of arguing from incredulity, which is closely related to the divine fallacy. And, of course, that would be exciting!

By the way, if someone were to argue that you were wrong about "something cannot come from nothing" for no better reason than they "just couldn't believe that's true" then it would be them who was committing the fallacy of arguing from incredulity.

The basic principle here is that merely whether we are able to believe or disbelieve something is possible is not by itself good grounds for asserting it is true or false.

 

[crossfire]

Is it incredulous to state that the "blue" and the "green" here are the exact same color? Can you believe it? Are you willing to investigate the possiblity?

 

[lewisnotmiller]

I got a question.

I usually make this argument in debate when debating atheists >

Something cannot come from pure nothing because its....nothing. logically, from nothing, nothing comes.

Now, some atheists believe something came from nothing, then the something turned into everything by chance over many years.

So, my question is, when i say something cannot come from nothing, am i comitting the divine fallacy?

You're making a special category, and labelling it 'God'.
Can't speak for other atheists, but my common response to 'where did it all come from' is 'Buggered if I know'.

That is figurative in Australian vernacular, btw, not literal.

So this particular atheist isn't making the Divine fallacy, and I'd suggest that you yourself arent either.

However, depending how the conversation went from there, I think there's some chance you would.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Something cannot come from pure nothing

Here's the problem: It seems to me that one of two seemingly impossible things must be true. Either there is something that never didn't exist, that is, whose history goes back in time infinitively, as if it has already crossed an infinite expanse of time to get to now, or there once was nothing, and then, something. Can you think of a third possibility? I can't.

Both of those ideas seem beyond counterintuitive. Impossible and ridiculous are words that come to mind.

Yet, it seems to me, that because there is something rather than nothing, one off these things must be the case. Do you disagree? Can you add anything to that?

Where is this going? Given what I have presented, it seems to me that one cannot look at only one of these two ideas in isolation, reject it because it is counterintuitive, and think that one has ruled something out. If you don't consider that what you are left with thereafter is no less "impossible" than what you have rejected, your analysis is incomplete.

Either "Something [did] come from pure nothing," or something that has no first moment has always existed, infinitely long already. I have no preference for either of those. I don't like either. But don't I have to choose one, or at least acknowledge that one must be true however impossible it is to believe that either could be?

 

[Revoltingest]

Here's the problem: It seems to me that one of two seemingly impossible things must be true. Either there is something that never didn't exist, that is, whose history goes back in time infinitively, as if it has already crossed an infinite expanse of time to get to now, or there once was nothing, and then, something. Can you think of a third possibility? I can't.

Both of those ideas seem beyond counterintuitive. Impossible and ridiculous are words that come to mind.

Yet, it seems to me, that because there is something rather than nothing, one off these things must be the case. Do you disagree? Can you add anything to that?

Where is this going? Given what I have presented, it seems to me that one cannot look at only one of these two ideas in isolation, reject it because it is counterintuitive, and think that one has ruled something out. If you don't consider that what you are left with thereafter is no less "impossible" than what you have rejected, your analysis is incomplete.

Either "Something [did] come from pure nothing," or something that has no first moment has always existed, infinitely long already. I have no preference for either of those. I don't like either. But don't I have to choose one, or at least acknowledge that one must be true however impossible it is to believe that either could be?

The best way to approach such issues is to have no desire that they
be one way or the other, & to be comfortable with not knowing.

 

[Jollybear]

Here's the problem: It seems to me that one of two seemingly impossible things must be true. Either there is something that never didn't exist, that is, whose history goes back in time infinitively, as if it has already crossed an infinite expanse of time to get to now, or there once was nothing, and then, something. Can you think of a third possibility? I can't.

Both of those ideas seem beyond counterintuitive. Impossible and ridiculous are words that come to mind.

Yet, it seems to me, that because there is something rather than nothing, one off these things must be the case. Do you disagree? Can you add anything to that?

Where is this going? Given what I have presented, it seems to me that one cannot look at only one of these two ideas in isolation, reject it because it is counterintuitive, and think that one has ruled something out. If you don't consider that what you are left with thereafter is no less "impossible" than what you have rejected, your analysis is incomplete.

Either "Something [did] come from pure nothing," or something that has no first moment has always existed, infinitely long already. I have no preference for either of those. I don't like either. But don't I have to choose one, or at least acknowledge that one must be true however impossible it is to believe that either could be?

Its to me simply one or the other. Something from nothing, or something is eternal.

There is no third. There cannot be a third, its impossible. If we dont KNOW THIS, then knowledge is MEANINGLESS.

 

[Jollybear]

The best way to approach such issues is to have no desire that they
be one way or the other, & to be comfortable with not knowing.

I have a question.

You dont believe any God of any sort created the universe right? Now you say you dont know. But, by believing no God did it, you indirectly believe either something from nothing OR that energy is eternal and was not intelligent energy (e.g. God).

 

[Revoltingest]

I have a question.

You dont believe any God of any sort created the universe right? Now you say you dont know. But, by believing no God did it, you indirectly believe either something from nothing OR that energy is eternal and was not intelligent energy (e.g. God).

I don't know what preceded our universe, or how it came about.
And my disbelief that a god or gods created it is speculative
because such a thing is neither provable nor disprovable.

 

[Jollybear]

I don't know what preceded our universe, or how it came about.
And my disbelief that a god or gods created it is speculative
because such a thing is neither provable nor disprovable.

Ok, so, speculative meaning you are open to the posibility that God created it?

 

[Revoltingest]

Ok, so, speculative meaning you are open to the posibility that God created it?

It cannot be falsified, so it is possible.
But it seems absurd.

 

[Jollybear]

It cannot be falsified, so it is possible.
But it seems absurd.

Does something from nothing seem absurd?

 

[Revoltingest]

Does something from nothing seem absurd?

Only counter-intuitive....which is a common feeling in physics.
But there's no evidence that something from nothing occurred.
There are alternatives which cannot be ruled out.
If anyone claims to know what happened, they're just guessing.
I've no basis to guess.

To not only count the number of gods (ie, not 2, 3, 4 or more), & establish it
as singular, but to give it a name & traits which aren't verifiable....that's absurd.

 

[Jollybear]

Only counter-intuitive....which is a common feeling in physics.
But there's no evidence that something from nothing occurred.
There are alternatives which cannot be ruled out.
If anyone claims to know what happened, they're just guessing.
I've no basis to guess.

To not only count the number of gods (ie, not 2, 3, 4 or more), & establish it
as singular, but to give it a name & traits which aren't verifiable....that's absurd.

So, an eternal concious, intelligent energy (without giving it a name) sounds absurd, but something from nothing just sounds counter-intuitive?

 

[Revoltingest]

So, an eternal concious, intelligent energy (without giving it a name) sounds absurd, but something from nothing just sounds counter-intuitive?

You say "something from nothing" is the alternative to "God did it".
I see alternatives. And there could be even more I don't see.
So throwing certainty towards a singular named god with well
defined traits & powers makes no sense.