ChrisL68
Riley Skinner
- Joined
- Mar 16, 2011
- Messages
- 31,091
- Reaction score
- 3,502
Not at all. I'm pointing out that you committed a logical fallacy. I am showing that your argument is not reliable. Your conclusion is correct, but attempting to reach that conclusion using only scientific observation is not logically possible.
The argument you are putting forward is akin to me saying I know God exists because God created the earth and whoever created the earth must exist. That is not a logically valid argument because in attempting to prove God exists I am presupposing his existence.
Likewise, in attempting to prove that the future will resemble the past you are presupposing that the future will resemble the past.
No, my presupposition is based on facts. That the future has resembled the past and therefore will almost certainly will again. Your presupposition isn't based on fact. You only know that the earth exists and there is a ton of evidence that the earth as it exists today wasn't created by a supernatural being.
A good analogy is that we have a giant bowl with a million balls in it. All are red. You ask me what ball do I think I will pull out. I say red. You ask me my reasoning and say that I think I will pull out red because all of the balls in the bowl are red. I can't prove that I am going to pull out a red ball or anything else in the future since it hasn't happened yet.
You say that you are going to pull out a white ball. I ask you reasoning and you say that since the bowl and the balls are there they had to be created by some supernatural entity that really likes white balls and therefore you will pull out a white ball.
Furthermore, you say both of our beliefs are equally valid from a logical standpoint since I can't prove that I am going to pull out a red ball. Those beliefs are not equally valid from a logical standpoint.
Last edited: