Christianity continued....

This is a very interesting argument, to say the least. I am not offended, and I will not retaliate by degrading the person who posted this, but I am going to take an extensive amount of time now, and show what mistakes he made in his argument. 

In high school, the school I went to was a "classical" school, meaning I was taught Latin, Logic, Rhetoric, etc. extensively. Luckily, but I don't really know why, I still have all of my notes, tests, and quizzes, so I will be using them to assist me as well.

I will first list the names of the individual fallacies he made, followed by the definition, example, and application of each individual fallacy.

Hasty Generalization: This is a conclusion based on insufficient or biased evidence. In other words, you are drawing a conclusion based on a sample that is not large enough. The fallacy follows this type of reasoning:

Example: 

1) Y% of all observed A's are B's.

2) Therefore, Y% of all A's are B's.

Application:

In the 1st line of the argument, it says that whoever (Y%) uses logic incorrectly (A's) is a moron (B's), and since EX4life (Y%) used logic incorrectly (A's), the conclusion is drawn that he is, therefore, a moron (B's). 

The fallacy is committed when not enough "A's" are observed to warrant the conclusion. The arguer would have had to present some sort of reliable information, stating the sample number of people that have used logic incorrectly (with that sample size being large enough to support the whole number of people), and had to have shown how the incorrect use of logic made them a moron. By only including me in that sample, it commits the fallacy of Hasty Generalization.

Biased Sample Fallacy: When a person draws a conclusion about a population based on a sample that is biased or prejudiced in some manner. It is very similar to Hasty Generalization, and uses the same reasoning:

Application:

A sample is biased or loaded when the method used to take the sample is likely to result in a sample that does not adequately represent the population from which it is drawn. By narrowing down the argument of whether God exists or not, by saying that it would be published in many major science journals, would be making the mistake of a biased sample. As stated several paragraphs up, the scientific community has "pushed out" creationism, giving one reason as to why there's not much "buzz" on the topic. But I will say now, that there have been publications in major science journals about the existence of God, creation, etc, and will go into detail about that at the end.

Appeal to Biased Authority: In this sort of appeal, the authority is one who actually is knowledgeable on the matter, but one who may have professional or personal motivations that render his professional judgment suspect. 

Example: "To determine whether fraternities are beneficial to this campus, we interviewed all the frat presidents."

Application: To determine whether God exists, there must have been major science journals, publishing such a proof. But, again, the "scientific community" has degraded, lashed out, and driven away many creationists; forcing the conclusion of the existence of God on the basis of a group of people that have adamantly rejected what the proof is trying to prove. Indeed, it is important to get "both viewpoints" on an argument, but basing a substantial part of your argument on a source that has personal, professional, or financial interests at stake may lead to biased arguments (But as I said, I will show that the existence of God, creation, etc has been published in major science journals, later on).

Ad Hominem: An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument. This argument has the following form:

Example:

1) Person A makes claim X.

2) Person B makes an attack on Person A.

3) Therefore, A's claim is false.

Application:

Person A (Me) said that God exists (claim X). The arguer (Person B) states that somebody who uses logic incorrectly is a moron, continuing to say that I am a moron because I (Person A) used logic incorrectly, making my argument false. The reason why an Ad Hominem (of any kind) is a fallacy is that the character, circumstances, or actions of a person do not (in most cases) have a bearing on the truth or falsity of the claim being made.

Non Sequitur: Any argument that does not follow from the previous statements. Usually what happens is that the writer leaps from A to B and then jumps to D, leaving out step C of an argument. 

Application: In this particular argument, the writer starts by stating that anybody who uses logic incorrectly is a moron. But the next three lines of the argument go off on a tangent about why my logical proof is wrong, based on the lack of the publishing of my claim in science journals; only to end the argument by concluding that I am a moron. His conclusion is that I am a moron, and yet he is trying to prove 2 different points here.

Irrelevant Conclusion: This fallacy occurs when an arguer adapts an argument purporting to establish a particular conclusion and directs it to prove a different conclusion. 

One of the most common forms of Irrelevant Conclusion is the"Red Herring." A red herring is a fallacy of distraction, and is a deliberate attempt to change the subject or divert the argument from the real question at issue to some side-point. 

Example: 

1) Topic A is under discussion.

2) Topic B is introduced under the guise of being relevant to Topic A (when Topic B is actually not relevant to Topic A).

3) Topic A is abandoned.

Application: I presented an argument for the existence of God (Topic A). My arguer presents his logical proof (Topic B) to show that God does not exist; doing so by showing and concluding that I am a moron. To make the conclusion that I am a moron is not relevant to the topic of whether God exists or not.

Appeal to Ignorance: Arguments from ignorance infer that a proposition is true from the fact that it is not known to be false. The arguer basically says, "Look, there's no conclusive evidence on the issue at hand. Therefore, you should accept my conclusion on this issue." 

Example: "People have been trying for centuries to prove that God exists. But no one has yet been able to prove it. Therefore, God does not exist." The arguer is trying to use the lack of evidence as support for a positive claim about the truth of a conclusion.

Application: In line B, it says that if my proof was correct, it would be such a "earth-shattering" discovery, that it would be published in many major science journals. Line C goes on to say that such a proof has never made it into any credible scientific journals. Therefore, the proof in question is false. He is trying to use the lack of evidence for the existence of God in scientific journals to conclude that God does not exist.

Stacking the Deck: Finally, in this fallacy, the speaker "stacks the deck" in his favor by ignoring examples that disprove the point, and listing only those examples that support his case. 

Application: Again, by saying that the proof of God's existence has never been inserted into any credible scientific publication is simply not true. First of all, it would be hard to find every "credible scientific publication," to see if such a proof has, or has not been made. But to say it never has been (or ever will be), is just not the case, and here is where I will show why.

What I am going to do now is list some (this is just scratching the surface on how many people I could list) of the credible people throughout history that have given evidence for the proof of God's existence, and/or have contributed other things directly to science, relating to God and Christianity (I am going to list the name, date born, and give the name of the book, journal, discovery, etc of each individual).

Hunaynibn Ishaq (born 809): Assyrian Christian physician, translating Greek scientific works and the author of Ten Treatises of Ophthalmology. He also wrote "How to Grasp Religion," which involved the apologetics for his faith. 

Hugh of Saint Victor (born 1096): Influential mystic and philosopher who embraced science as a tool for approaching God. His work presents knowledge of reality as redemptive of fallen man; and technology as source of physical relief and able to help reunite man with divine wisdom.

Michael Stifel (born 1486): Monk and mathematician. HisArithmetica integra contained important innovations in mathematical notation and a table of integers and powers of 2. He also wrote on Biblical prophecies.

John Napier (born 1550): Scottish mathematician known for inventing logarithms, Napier's bones, and being the popularizer of the use of decimals. He was also a staunch Protestant who wrote on the Book of Revelation.

Isaac Newton (born 1643): He is regarded as one of the greatest scientists and mathematicians in history. Newton's study of the Bible and of the early Church Fathers were among his greatest passions.

Carolus Linnaeus (born 1707): He is known as the "father of modern taxonomy" and also made contributions to ecology. Natural theology and the Bible were important to his Systema Naturae and Systema Vegetabilium.

Leonhard Euler (born 1707): A significant mathematician and physicist. In mathematics and physics, there is a large number of topics named in his honor, many of which include their own unique function, equation, formula, identity, number (single or sentence), or other mathematical entity. Euler's work touched upon so many fields that he is often the earliest written reference on a given matter. He wrote Defense of the Divine Revelation against the Objections of Freethinkers and is also commemorated by the Lutheran Church on their Calendar of Saints on May 24th.

Samuel Vince (born 1749): Cambridge astronomer and clergyman. He wrote Observations on the Theory of the Motion and Resistance of Fluids and The Credibility of Christianity vindicated. He won the Copley Medal in 1780.

Olinthus Gregory (born 1774): He wrote Lessons Astronomical and Philosophical in 1793, and became mathematical master at the Royal Military Academy. An abridgment of his 1815 Letters on the Evidences of Christianity was done by the Religious Tract Society.

Adam Sedgwick (born 1785): Anglican priest and geologist whose, A Discourse on the Studies of the University discusses the relationship of God and man. In science he won the Copley Medal and Wollaston Medal.

Michael Faraday (born 1791): A Glasite church elder, he discussed the relationship of science to religion in a lecture opposing Spiritualism.

Philip Henry Gosse (born 1810): Marine biologist who wrote Aquarium (1854), and A Manual of Marine Zoology (1855-56). He is more famous, or infamous, as a Christian Fundamentalist who coined the idea of Omphalos (theology).

George Stokes (born 1819): A minister's son, he wrote a book on Natural Theology. He was also one of the Presidents of the Royal Society and made contributions to Fluid dynamics.

Mihajlo Idvorski Pupin (born 1858): Serbian-American physicist, chemist, and inventor. He won the Pulitzer Prize for Biography or Autobiography in 1924. His The New Reformation: From Physical to Spiritual Realities concerns religion and spirituality. He also wrote the forward to Science and Religion: A Symposium.

Pavel Florensky (born 1882): Russian orthodox priest who wrote a book on Dielectrics and wrote of imaginary numbers having a relationship to the Kingdom of God.

John Ambrose Fleming (born 1849): In science he is noted for the Right-hand rule and work on vacuum tubes. He also won the Hughes Medal. In religious activities he was President of the Victoria Institute, involved in the Creation Science Movement.

Max Planck (born 1858): He won the 1918 Nobel Prize in Physics and is considered the founder of Quantum mechanics. He was raised an observant Lutheran and was an elder in his church from 1920 to his death. In 1937 he delivered the lecture, "Religion and Natural Science," stating that both religion and science require a belief in God.

E.T. Whittaker (born 1873): Converted to Catholicism in 1930 and member of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences. His 1946 Donnellan Lecture was entitled on Space and Spirit: Theories of the Universe and the Arguments of the Existence of God. He also received the Copley Medal and had written on Mathematical physics.

Aldert van der Ziel (born 1910): He researched Flicker noise and had the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers named an award after him. He was also a conservative Lutheran who wrote The Natural Sciences and the Christian Message.

Sir Robert Boyd (born 1922): A pioneer in British space science who was Vice President of the Royal Astronomical Society. He lectured on faith being a founder of the "Research Scientists' Christian Fellowship" and an important member of its predecessor Christians in Science. He was connected to the University College London.

Richard Smalley (born 1943): A Nobel Laureate in Chemistry known for buckyballs. In his last years he renewed an interest in Christianity and supported Intelligent design. He taught at Rice University.

C.F. von Weizsacker (born 1912): German nuclear physicist who is the co-discoverer of the Bethe-Weizsacker formula. His The Relevance of Science: Creation and Cosmogony, concerned Christian and moral impacts of science. 

Stanley Jaki (born 1924): Benedictine priest and Distinguished Professor of Physics at Seton Hall University, who won a Templeton Prize and advocates the idea modern science could only have arisen in a Christian society.

Allen Sandage (born 1926): An astronomer who did not really study Christianity until after age forty. He wrote the article A Scientist Reflects on Religious Belief and made discoveries concerning the Cigar Galaxy.

John T. Houghton (born 1931): He is the co-chair of the Intergovenmental Panel on Climate Change and won a gold medal from the Royal Astronomical Society. He's also former Vice President of Christians in Science.

R.J. Berry (born 1934): He is a former president of both the Linnean Society of London and the Christians in Science group. He also wrote God and the Biologist: Personal Exploration of Science and Faith (1996). He also taught at University College London for over 30 years.

Henry F. Schaefer, III (born 1944): He wrote Science and Christianity: Conflict or Coherence? and is a signatory of A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism. He was awarded the American Chemical Society Award in Pure Chemistry in 1979.

Francis Collins (born 1950): He is the current director of the National Institutes of Health and former director of the US National Human Genome Research Institute. He has also written on religious matters in articles and in Faith and the Human Genome he states the importance to him of "the literal and historical Resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, which is the cornerstone of what I believe." He wrote the book The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief.

... What I am going to do now is list some present-day folks, who have set out to prove the existence of God, as well as provide the definitions of types of arguments that try to prove God's existence, followed by the people that have made said argument:

Dennis Marcellino (born 1948): He is the author of seven books, including "THE PROOF that God exists and the Bible is true" (2009), and "Why Are We Here?" (2007). He is an American musician, speaker and author of psychology, philosophy, theology and political books. He currently tours as a speaker, musician, and does media appearances. He wrote and produced the documentary "Conclusive Proof of God."

Hugh Ross: In 1994, Astrophysicist Dr. Hugh Ross gave a Seminal Presentation entitled, "Origin of the Universe, New Scientific Evidence for the Existence of God."

Josh Peete: Joshua Peete was formally trained in philosophy at California State University, Sacramento. He currently serves as a credentialed teacher in California, and author of "Proving God Exists Through The Examination of Our Universe."

Thomas Aquinas: Not a present-day scientist or theologian, but contributed directly to the argument of God's existence. He was an immensely influential philosopher and theologian in the tradition of scholasticism. He was the foremost classical proponent of natural theology. He's had much influence on Western thought, and a lot of modern philosophy was conceived as a reaction to his ideas, particularly in the areas of ethics, natural law, metaphysics, and political theory. Thomas believed that the existence of God is neither obvious nor improvable. In the Summa Theologica, he considered in great detail five reasons for the existence of God.

Christian Apologetics: Is a field of Christian theology that presents a rational basis for the Christian faith, to defend the faith against objections and misrepresentation, and to expose error within other religions and worldviews. Apologists base their defense of Christianity on historical and archaeological evidence, theological and philosophical arguments and scientific investigation. It continues today with the efforts of many authors and speakers from various Christian traditions, such as James White, John F. MacArthur, Lee Strobel, Josh McDowell, C.S. Lewis, Ken Ham, Kent Hovind, J.P. Moreland, Kirk Cameron, and many others.