Bad arguments for your views

[noons]

We all like to be right. However, we also know that even if a certain position is true, it does not mean that every argument for said position is a good one. In fact, we've all probably heard some embarrasingly lousy arguments for positions that we ultimately agree with.

So, since we have a new philosophy section, I have decided to open a thread for us to share some really bad arguments for our own beliefs. There is only one rule: it has to be something that you have either read somewhere else, or something that could at least plausibly be used in a discussion.

[gymnopodie]

Pascal's Wager?

[noons]

Pascal's wager is an argument for Theism and Christianity. Are you either of those?

This thread is for bad arguments in favor of positions that you agree with.

[humphreyclarke]

How about argumentum ad Hitlerum - Hitler was bad therefore atheism is bad - Hitler was a Catholic therefore Catholics are bad, the Pope was in the Hitler youth therefor the Pope is a Nazi etc..etc..

The solar system is perfect for the emergence of life - therefore the universe is designed.

Liar, Lord , Lunatic

[krkey1]

Hey Humphrey

I 100% agree with the first argument you stated being crap but I certainly think the 2nd one can be tied in with design and if you eliminate legend then the trilemnia is a good argument

[merkavah12]

Creationism and the "Fossils were planted by the Devil" argument.

[davedodo007]

Multiverse theory.

For a start it's not a theory and calling it one cheapens the usage of the word. It's a hypothesis if they want it to become a theory they have a lot more work to do.

Even if found to be true isn't all it's doing is adding another step to an already complicated and maybe even an unanswerable question. I think Occam had something to say about that. Even if the maths and physics hold up it is still unfalsifiable. In the end it is no better then invoking god as the cause of our universe and the infinite regress that follows.

[krkey1]

The multiverse is metaphysics and I think it is as much a leap of faith as God. Secondly, the mulitverse does not deal with the question at all why does something as opposed to nothing exist, we still have the problem of something from nothing. Thirdly lets say for argument sake we have just enough multi verses to make our universe 100% guaranteed we still have a fine tuning issue; how did it work out that the big bang made just the right amount of universes and no more. Lastly if we have an infinite amount of universes then basically everything that can rationally exist exist and every possible outcome happens. Oddly enough this proves Hinduism in a way.

As it is my problem with the multiverse and the argument the universe came from nothing is that fact it seems to destroy reason. Something from nothing is a self evidence principle and if it can be violated what else can be violated? If we have an infinite amount of universe with everything existing and every possibility happening this reduces existence to the absurd.

As it is it does not seem we have an infinite amount of universes with everything that is possible occurring. For example my bedroom to the best of my knowledge does not have a multi dimensional time traveling unicorn in it, at least I think.

[syzygy]

I think the most common bad argument for the existence of God is this: Everything that happens is preceded by an event that is its cause. If there were an infinite series of such events, then there would be no first cause. Without a first cause there can be no following causes. Therefore there can't be an infinite series of causes, and the first cause is God.

[jim_s]

Bible codes.

[krkey1]

I think that argument does demonstrate the logical need for a first cause, and now the argument is just what was it.

[acornuser]

Humphrey may enjoy Stephen Colbert ranking Nazi's for the argument ad Hitlerum...

www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/372155/january-25-2011/nazi-ometer