What is wrong with this argument?
in [Logic]
|
Next: arithmetic in ZF
From: desertphile@hot mail. on 28 Mar 2005 09:37 On 28 Mar 2005 05:47:55 -0800, "Hector Plasmic" <hec(a)hectorplasmic.com> wrote: > > What is wrong with saying that God > > works in Mysterious ways? > It's equivalent to saying "I don't know if God works at > all." After all, fairies work in mysterious ways. Women work in mysterious ways, and they exist (I've been told they exist, any how). --- http://lastliberal.org Free random & sequential signature changer http://holysmoke.org/sig "In the Soviet Union, government controls industry. In the United States, industry controls government. That is the principal structural difference between the two great oligarchies of our time." -- Edward Abbey
From: George Dance on 28 Mar 2005 09:42 Acme Diagnostics wrote: > "George Dance" <georgedance04(a)yahoo.ca> wrote: > >The great philosopher-criminologist wrote: > > > >> What is wrong with saying that God works in Mysterious ways? > > > >Usually, what's wrong with it is that it's used as an ad hoc hypothesis > >to make statements about God unfalsifiable. For example: > > > >C - "God loves people and is concerned for their welfare." > >A - "He does? Then why did he let so many die in the tsunami?" > >C - "He has His reasons. You and I wouldn't understand them. But all > >the same, He loves people and is concerned for their welfare." > >A - "Well, maybe he did have some reason for the tsunami. But he lets > >little babies die every day, and there's no reason for that." > >C - "Oh, He wouldn't let that happen without a reason, either. Again, > >I couldn't possibly try to explain what those reasons are. But all the > >same, He loves people and is concerned for their welfare." > > > >I hope you get the drift - all the evidence that there isn't a god that > >loves people and cares for their welfare can be dismissed with the > >'Mysterious Ways' argument; "There's a God that loves people and cares > >for their welfare" is saved from being disproved, but at the cost of it > >actually meaning or implying anything (as it's being true is compatible > >with anything at all happening). > > > >As I see it, that's the point of the 'Mysterious Ways' argument, and > >probably why a version of it is attributed to God Himself in Job 38-40. > > Agree, and would like to add that it's a really neat one > because it is already inherent in an established belief, to wit: > that there is a creator god as described in Chapt. 1 of the > bible. That god logically and necessarily must work in > mysterious ways some of the time on days when not being > logically contradictory as required elsewhere. ROTFLMAO! (Damn; I really have to stop reading in the morning when I'm having my coffee.) > Then, any time you want to add a belief that He is concerned with > people's welfare, the "mysterious ways" unfalsifiability device > already exists. It's beautiful in its sheer simplicity! (quoting > a recent rec.humor joke about some other equally nonsensical > logic.) > > Larry
From: The great philosopher-criminologist on 28 Mar 2005 09:47 Gavan wrote: > "The great philosopher-criminologist" <bedford_park2000(a)yahoo.ca> wrote in message news:<1111967033.368785.207600(a)f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>... > > Gavan wrote: > > > "The great philosopher-criminologist" <bedford_park2000(a)yahoo.ca> > > wrote in message > > news:<1111880705.429415.226920(a)f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>... > > > > Denis Loubet wrote: > > > > > "The great philosopher-criminologist" <bedford_park2000(a)yahoo.ca> > > > > wrote in > > > > > message > > news:1111874993.415822.226320(a)l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com... > > > > > > What is wrong with saying that God works in Mysterious ways? > > > > > > > > > > Well, if it said to excuse the supposed actions of a god, then > > the > > > > one > > > > > saying it is stating that they don't actually care what the god > > they > > > > believe > > > > > in does, or what its motives are, they'll just worship it anyway. > > > > > > > > > > It's a big denial of personal responsibility. It's like saying > > "I'll > > > > follow > > > > > that Hitler guy anywhere. I know he kills Jews, but I'm sure he > > has > > > > our best > > > > > interests at heart." > > > > > > > > Well, for some people, as long as they are comforted, that is all > > that > > > > matters. > > > > > > How hypocritical that someone who espouses the virtues of an > > > organisation that proclaims peace and love for all would now say that > > > one's own comfort is all that matters. > > > > This is just in response to those that ask, "Why did God help you with > > your success while he lets someone else in another part of the world > > starve.?" > > > > I am just saying that some people say that if God wants to work like > > that, then that is okay with them. > > This sort of attitudue would be in conflict with the teachings of > almost all major religions wouldn't it? Hey, Ayn Rand believed something similar.
From: Incubus on 28 Mar 2005 12:19 Pavel314 wrote: > "The great philosopher-criminologist" <bedford_park2000(a)yahoo.ca> wrote in > message news:1111874993.415822.226320(a)l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com... > >>What is wrong with saying that God works in Mysterious ways? > > > Nothing wrong with it, although some will say that it assumes the existence > of God and that He "works", i.e., has a hand in the ongoing events in the > Universe, human affairs in particular, without so stating. > > If we restate it "If there is a God and if He intervenes in our lives, then > He works in mysterious ways," it seems that the conclusion follows from the > premises. > > Working from the standard definition of a monotheistic God, He is a being on > a much higher plane of existence, knowledge and power than we mortal folk. > It seems to follow that we would therefore be unable to follow His reasoning > in all cases. If God lets everything happen for a long-term reason, some > things will happen that we cannot understand, hence mysteriously. That is still fallacy of ad hoc hypothesis no matter how you try to rationalize it. Pastor Frank wrote: > ... "God is love" An ad hoc hypothesis is one created to explain away facts that seem to refute oneýs theory. -- http://skepdic.com/adhoc.html
From: Hector Plasmic on 28 Mar 2005 13:28
> If we restate it "If there is a God and if He intervenes in > our lives, then He works in mysterious ways," it seems > that the conclusion follows from the premises. This statement would be equivalent to "If there is a god and if it intervenes in our lives, we cannot know it." NOP. No information contained therein. |