Is this sound logic?

Question

In a recent post a poster stated, "since we do not know all the answers, a supreme being is the only logical answer."

Do you see any problems with this?

Answer 1

Yes. It's called argumentum as ignorantium, or an argument to ignorance. we don't know x, therefore y must be true. Logical fallacy.

Answer 2

Yes, I do see a problem. No, it is not sound logic. Just because you have a finite set does not imply the existence of an infinite set of either cardinality 0 or cardinality 1.

We know we have a subset of a larger set, divided into the partitions "known" and "unknown." However, we cannot see the larger set, so we cannot determine the size of it.

(*GRUMBLE* I HATE when people ask one question then change the wording in their details so that the same response ends up interpreted on the other side of the question -- CONSISTENCY PEOPLE!)

Answer 3

The problem is, "since we do not know all the answers", how do we know that "a supreme being" is one of them, let alone the "only logical answer".

Answer 4

For me, initially, it replaced into neither. It replaced into extra like a discovery approximately myself, a "revelation", in case you will. i found out at some point, jointly as questioning appropriate to the subject in a theology type no much less, that, inspite of having been raised in a somewhat non secular environment, I purely did no longer have faith in God and, perhaps extra importantly, i found out that i replaced into thoroughly advantageous with the assumption of residing in a godless universe. From there, extra inquiry into the subject has somewhat in uncomplicated terms bolstered my unique discovery, and that i'm now of the recommendations that an agnostic atheism in the direction of the "God question" is relatively the only logical place possible take.

Answer 5

Yes. Just because we don't know all the answers doesn't mean an almighty supreme being is involved. (I have a deity not a SUPREME being)

Thus, the connection between religion and mythology is greater.

Answer 6

The poster does not have any proofs offered, no discussion, just a phrase that claims to be logical, but includes no logic.....

So, NO, it isn't a logical answer.

Of course, that isn't saying that it isn't true, but in the context presented, we have to ASSUME it is logical because he said.

Answer 7

Since we do not know all the answers, logically an unprovable and inevident supreme being is one of the things we don't know.

Or to put it another way, don't fill up a gap in knowledge with another gap.

Answer 8

I see many problems with it. It assumes we can assign a supernatural cause to any phenomenon which we can't explain- they did that in the old days only to subsequently find that there was a natural cause after all for many "unexplainable" phenomena. Believing blindly in a divine cause actually hindered human and scientific progress.

Answer 9

No problem at all. The Invisible Pink Unicorn is the one true supreme being. All will bow to her Mighty Horn.

Answer 10

How ridiculous! This statement casts off our responsibility to investigate the world using the scientific method. Laziness isn't a virtue.