A proper understanding of logical fallacies will improve the quality of debate

Actually, the evidence shows only one of my quotes to be questionable, not half.You ask "If I was to produce a matching list of scientists that were not converted by the Big Bang theory, would it counter your claims?"No. You have heard of inertia, correct? It seems to hold in the mental realm as much as in the physical realm. That is what makes conversions so rare.However, I try to adjust my views when I am confronted with new evidence - just as Sandage adjusted his views when he realized the big bang was a one-time event. Too bad the practice is not more common.

quote:

---

My comment regarding "evidence in the form of logic" was poorly worded. The evidence we start with is the fact the singularity is a mathematical concept not a physical concept, meaning the singularity cannot exist in an infinitely hot and infinitely dense but unexpanding state for any period of time. It is an idea I see promoted by some but has no justification in the field of physics.

---

I must admit that I don't recall anyone promoting this idea. It seems to be a strawman (which of course, would be a fallacy).

quote:

---

Once the singularity came into existence, it began to expand.

---

If the singularity "came into existence" there must be a time prior to it's existence. Weren't you arguing that there was NO time prior to it's existence ?

quote:

---

This understanding forms the premise and leads inexorably to the idea of a creator who is outside of spacetime.

---

How ? Surely it is possible that the cause of the singularity, if there is one, could exist in the time prior to the singularity.

quote:

---

The only way to avoid the existence of such a creator is to hold to another view of the beginning of the universe, such as colliding branes - a view for which there is zero observational support.

---

So branes are equal to your creator on observational support and arguably better on theoretical support. Looks like branes are the better bet.

She's right. All our wives are right! But don't give up - after all, you've found someone on the Internet who is wrong, and we can't let that go on! Keeping the focus on fallacies instead of the Big Bang, I see one error and one fallacy. The error: Anyone here promoting the singularity as a physical reality is definitely in the minority. I don't think there can be many here with this particular misconception. I haven't noticed anyone in this thread or the Big Bang Theory Supports a Belief in the Universe Designer or Creator God thread advocating this idea.The fallacy: Your facts, as near as anyone here can tell, do not lead to your conclusions.Your conclusion also leads to an infinite regression. Who created the creator? And who created the creator's creator? And who created the creator's creator's creator?--Percy

Understanding logical fallacies is great, but of little use in the creationist vs. scientist debate.The reason for this is creationists' invariable use of faulty or erroneous data, or sheer speculation, as if it were fact--all the while ignoring anything that conflicts with their beliefs.Here is a link to a typical creationist article, this one on C14 dating (pdf format): Problems with Carbon DatingRegarding C14 dating, this article makes about every mistake possible, and introduces such imaginary factors as a water canopy, huge changes in cosmic radiation, and a young earth. It is very typical of what passes for creation "science."Given all of this, does anyone really care if their logic is properly used?It is garbage in, garbage out whether the logic is proper or not.

This sounds rather more like Sandage being influenced by the lack of a Big Crunch, rather than the existence of a Big Bang I will acknowledge that there does seem to have been some influence upon Sandage's conversion here, so I suppose that you are actually not too far off.I still think that your use of this quote is an appeal to an inappropriate authority though. This kind of comment by Sandage is in direct contradiction to your general argument, especially this one; This is in direct contradiction to the argument for which you were attempting to use Sandage as backing. Whatever effect Sandage might have been influenced by the Big Bang or other cosmology, he clearly disagrees with you about the idea that cosmology actively supports a designer. That makes your use of his quotations a bit of a bait and switch trick on your part; Sandage certainly thought that the universe was compatible with a designer - but no-one has really disagreed with you about that. In fact it has already been pointed out to you that it is impossible to even conceive of a universe that is not compatible with creation by an omnipotent supernatural being. You certainly failed to provide any examples when challenged to do so.The part of your argument that actually proved controversial, the only bit that anyone really disagreed with you about, was that we could find support for a designer from cosmology, and there, Sandage provides you with far less support. I fail to see how an individual who said "Knowledge of the creation is not knowledge of the creator," or "astronomers may have found the first effect, but not necessarily thereby the first cause sought by Anselm and Aquinas" can be used to support your more extreme claim. It appears instead to contradict it. That leaves you with no valid reason to cite Sandage, save to impress us all with his credentials, thus an illegitimate appeal to an inappropriate authority.You also appear to have forgotten this item, which PaulK introduced; It is obvious that no such consensus exists amongst legitimate experts (in this case physicists) that Big Bang cosmology supports design. That you can cite a handful of physicists that do think think this in no way legitimises the use of their authority in such an argument. You haven't demonstrated that this kind of thinking is anything other than a fringe element. One can always point to a handful of eccentrics, but that does not make their authority legitimate. Because it's not relevant? Because it doesn't matter how personal difficult Sandage's conversion experience was? But equally it underlines how Sandage's position is different to yours. He admits that belief requires a leap of faith, akin to pascal's Wager. Your position, that cosmology actively supports a designer goes further. Sure. Perhaps you would like to explain how quoting a tiny smattering of scientists in support of religious claims can be anything other than an appeal to authority. It seems a rather blatant example to me, especially as scientists in general are rather well known to be less religious than the general populace. Or maybe you would like to explain how "It must be {x} because otherwise is inconceivable." is something other than an appeal to ignorance?Mutate and Survive

It is definitely an error to think that just because something is logical it must be right. Reality trumps logic every time.

Perhaps we could call it the Dawn Bertot fallacy.

So, you have already decided that the scientists I was intending to quote are unable to adjust their views when confronted with new evidence.
How did you form that opinion? Ah - so you are capable of correcting your views but the many scientists I was going to list aren't.Anyway, all you have is anecdotal evidence which requires you to switch between an argument from authority and an argument from popularity.Edited by Panda, : No reason given.Edited by Panda, : No reason given.

K

quote:

---

I still think that your use of this quote is an appeal to an inappropriate authority though.
...
Sure. Perhaps you would like to explain how quoting a tiny smattering of scientists in support of religious claims can be anything other than an appeal to authority.

---

I don't see DT using these quotations to argue that because a number of famous scientists believe in God, or worship Jesus Christ, that either God must exist or that Christianity must be true. I don't see him saying this either explicitly or implicitly. Hence, I don't see that he is committing a logical fallacy in his use of such quotes.Rather, I think DT is using these quotes to combat some common misconceptions that are spread by a vocal minority of atheistic scientists. Folks such as Dawkins try to convince people that religious faith is an outdated, misguided, dangerous notion that should be erradicated. They claim that religious faith is the domain of the ignorant, and is incompatible with good science. For example: Many of the atheists posting here on TWeb take a similar position.In this climate, the quotes that DT has presented simply show the error of this perception. They show by example that it is possible to be a highly intellectual, leading scientist and to have strong religious faith. They don't argue that God necessarily exists, but they do show that God and science are compatible.

quote:

---

It seems a rather blatant example to me, especially as scientists in general are rather well known to be less religious than the general populace.

---

Though it is widely thought that scientists are irreligious, this is not necessarily correct. A number of major surveys have been done regarding the religious faith of scientists. I've seen at least two which have concluded that scientists are about as religious as the general population. (I suspect the results depend on how the questions are asked.) In my experience, scientists are not nearly as antagonistic toward religion as are non-scientists who think they understand a bit of science.
Edited by kbertsche, : No reason given.

I don't think anyone is disputing the former, but I don't see how they could support the position that "God and science are compatible."

quote:

---

I don't see DT using these quotations to argue that because a number of famous scientists believe in God, or worship Jesus Christ, that either God must exist or that Christianity must be true. I don't see him saying this either explicitly or implicitly. Hence, I don't see that he is committing a logical fallacy in his use of such quotes.

---

It seem pretty clear to me that he was using them to back up his claim that "Big Bang Theory Supports a Belief in the Universe Designer or Creator God". And that would be an argument from authority.

quote:

---

It seem pretty clear to me that he was using them to back up his claim that "Big Bang Theory Supports a Belief in the Universe Designer or Creator God". And that would be an argument from authority.

---

But in the OP of that thread, DT explained what he meant by "support". His focus was mainly on compatibility of science and religion. His quotes provided real-life examples to support this claim of compatibility. I didn't see him argue that because these famous scientists had religious faith, then God must necessarily exist.Edited by kbertsche, : No reason given.

It is not an argument from popularity. First, it is a supplementary argument (why don't people get that point?). Supplementary arguments are used to convince people to look at the other evidence. Second, it is based on the changing views of experts who were confronted with new information.Have you ever studied the history of science? Not every significant movement of opinion proves to be correct, but most are. The people whose views I have been quoting are at the very top of their fields. Do you, or anyone else here, show any eagerness to learn why they changed their views? No. You are only interested in scoring make believe points.

What does someone changing their views on something like God have to do with reality or science?

I disagree. You are right that DT is not arguing that the belief of famous scientists in God implies that God Exists. But he is arguing that those scientist's beliefs imply compatibility between what science teaches and what one particular segment of Christians believe. DT asks us why we refuse to learn from those scientists. How do you interpret that question?There are several problems with his argument.1) At least one of the scientists he cites admits being Christian despite noting the incompatibility with science. We can cite other scientists who hold similar views.2) It is not clear that any scientist's understanding of the compatibility between the big bang and creationism is worth a hill of beans.3) In some cases DT is completely off base. I don't see how anybody could have any doubts about Eddington having been a Quaker long before there was any scientific evidence for the Big Bang theory. I find it amusing that DT bothers to defend a contrary position, but others may find that annoying.4) The truth of the matter, for good or ill, is that the majority of scientists are atheists. Finding a few famous counter examples seems to argue that we should accept the beliefs of the famous over the beliefs of the ordinary. Which is by no means the same as showing that science supports any particular religious explanation for the universe. Yes, the explanation for the big bang does include a particularly obvious place to tack on God. Is that really what we were arguing about, or was the discussion instead about a little more than that.I don't think very many people in this forum would find the idea that scientists can have strong religious faith worth debating. I think your description of DT's arguments here are way too charitable.Edited by NoNukes, : Fix some bad apostrophes. Yuck