• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Theistic Arguments and the Fallacy of Composition

Rational Agnostic

Well-Known Member
It seems to me that nearly all arguments for the existence of God commit the fallacy of composition. One obvious example is the cosmological argument which is typically framed as:

"All components of the universe are contingent; therefore the universe must be contingent" or "The law of causality applies to the components of the universe, therefore it applies to the universe itself, and the universe had a cause."

Other arguments, such as the argument from design or fine-tuning argument also seem to boil down to this, as they are typically stated as:

"Since components of the universe that show characteristics of fine-tuning (computers, cars, etc.) were fine-tuned by an intelligent designer, then since the universe shows characteristics of fine-tuning, it must have been fine-tuned by an intelligent designer."


All of these arguments commit the fallacy of composition, that is, the erroneous assumption that the whole universe which consists of the sum of all the parts of the universe must have the same properties as each individual part. To illustrate the fallacy, consider a fallacious argument constructed using the same faulty reasoning (Bertrand Russell used this to illustrate his opponent's error in a debate on the existence of God):

"Every human has a mother, therefore, the human race must have a mother."

Obviously this is a false statement, because we can't assume that the sum of all humans (the human race) has the same properties as each component (individual humans). In the same way, we can't assume that the universe has the same properties or behavior as individual parts of the universe.

It seems to me that the majority of the classic arguments for the existence of God commit this fallacy in some way.
 

Unveiled Artist

Veteran Member
Must-haves isn't good support for any god-related argument, really. I was listening to an atheist vs christian formal debate, and the christian, though he made a good argument, it was all based on "if we are there, their 'must be' a creator" rather than pointing out the logistics of how he (and christians) came to that sound conclusion regardless the other person's opinions.
 

Nakosis

Non-Binary Physicalist
Premium Member
The argument for God is faith.

A God may or may not exist. There is no way to really test for either possibility. For a logical argument to exist, I assume one would need a logical basis. The fallacy here I think would be in assuming that the argument for God is logical.

So the trick here would be to argue against the existence of God without using logic. :D
 

Bird123

Well-Known Member
It seems to me that nearly all arguments for the existence of God commit the fallacy of composition. One obvious example is the cosmological argument which is typically framed as:

"All components of the universe are contingent; therefore the universe must be contingent" or "The law of causality applies to the components of the universe, therefore it applies to the universe itself, and the universe had a cause."

Other arguments, such as the argument from design or fine-tuning argument also seem to boil down to this, as they are typically stated as:

"Since components of the universe that show characteristics of fine-tuning (computers, cars, etc.) were fine-tuned by an intelligent designer, then since the universe shows characteristics of fine-tuning, it must have been fine-tuned by an intelligent designer."


All of these arguments commit the fallacy of composition, that is, the erroneous assumption that the whole universe which consists of the sum of all the parts of the universe must have the same properties as each individual part. To illustrate the fallacy, consider a fallacious argument constructed using the same faulty reasoning (Bertrand Russell used this to illustrate his opponent's error in a debate on the existence of God):

"Every human has a mother, therefore, the human race must have a mother."

Obviously this is a false statement, because we can't assume that the sum of all humans (the human race) has the same properties as each component (individual humans). In the same way, we can't assume that the universe has the same properties or behavior as individual parts of the universe.

It seems to me that the majority of the classic arguments for the existence of God commit this fallacy in some way.


Until one completely understands everything about the universe, assumptions that it has no intelligent designer is also an error.

Quantum physics is showing the possibility of many dimensions. Limiting one's view to simply this physical universe is also another error.

Beliefs merely point the direction for one to search for the truth. So many fall into the same pattern. So many stop at beliefs, thinking that is the end of the road when, in reality, beliefs are the start on the journey.

WE are all Spiritual beings in our true natures. I have direct experience to this. Deep down many know they are spiritual beings. That is why God is important. Deep down, we all already know God whether we know we know God or not. God will no longer be a belief when you bump into God and you will already know God.

I think it is important to keep a wide open view. Being open to all possibilities whether we agree with those possibilities or not is the path to true Discovery.

Sometimes people who search find what they are searching for. The only questions remain are: do we want to search, do we want to know or are there really other issues we are working through?

Since believing has never ever been important to God, the direction of our choices are up to each of us. Perhaps, one needs to ask. What am I after? What do I really want? Why do I make the choices I do? Until one is true to oneself, one is destined to wander from the true path.


That's what I see. It's very clear!!
 

rational experiences

Veteran Member
It seems to me that nearly all arguments for the existence of God commit the fallacy of composition. One obvious example is the cosmological argument which is typically framed as:

"All components of the universe are contingent; therefore the universe must be contingent" or "The law of causality applies to the components of the universe, therefore it applies to the universe itself, and the universe had a cause."

Other arguments, such as the argument from design or fine-tuning argument also seem to boil down to this, as they are typically stated as:

"Since components of the universe that show characteristics of fine-tuning (computers, cars, etc.) were fine-tuned by an intelligent designer, then since the universe shows characteristics of fine-tuning, it must have been fine-tuned by an intelligent designer."


All of these arguments commit the fallacy of composition, that is, the erroneous assumption that the whole universe which consists of the sum of all the parts of the universe must have the same properties as each individual part. To illustrate the fallacy, consider a fallacious argument constructed using the same faulty reasoning (Bertrand Russell used this to illustrate his opponent's error in a debate on the existence of God):

"Every human has a mother, therefore, the human race must have a mother."

Obviously this is a false statement, because we can't assume that the sum of all humans (the human race) has the same properties as each component (individual humans). In the same way, we can't assume that the universe has the same properties or behavior as individual parts of the universe.

It seems to me that the majority of the classic arguments for the existence of God commit this fallacy in some way.
If you apply a car theory about a Creator, and do science and science brings to Earth, the only place where we all are....not inside a thought or the thinker, but wait a minute it is inside of you.

And you know....radiation, the effect.

And science applies science conversion and the only body that converts is Sun radiation mass as the only state science that you are really talking about.

O Earth as stone existing...yet thinking pretends it is not...no he says I will pretend that the Earth does not exist.

Then tries to think a formula for that concept...then makes sink holes in Earth, removal of the only body of God he ever discussed as a human and as a scientist and says, Oh, I have not yet fine tuned the Creator.

And cars, when that Creator essence that they use, radiation comes into Earth, the car motors stop, the lights go out...for it is a consumer.

We are a consumer also.

A consumer in shopping.
A consumer of energy.
And a consumer of other bodies.

Does that comparison in a science theorist mind claim, so we must be the Sun and then try to make Earth be the Sun and it is why you got nothing....sink holes?
 

Hawkins

Well-Known Member
It seems to me that the majority of the classic arguments for the existence of God commit this fallacy in some way.

On the other hand, the truth of God is rather simple. If God is true then how can humans get to this truth. Let's start with science first though the difference is that science is subject to repeatable examination. Let's say if the existence of black holes is true, then how can humans in majority to get to this truth! In order for humans to be informed of this truth, scientists (only a few are professed in black holes) examine the evidence with expensive tools and equipment which are not accessible by humans in majority., Humans in majority then rely actually on the "testimonies" of these few scientists to get to the fact.

Most atheistic arguments are fallacies based on the leverage of humans' lack of ability to get to direct evidence. They sound, in the above case, as if the majority can't get to the fact with evidence only available for a few who maintaining a direct contact with the fact itself. In reality however, humans in majority are relying on testimonies instead of evidence to get to a truth of any kind, including science as demonstrated above.
 
Last edited:
Top