Quick Questions, Short Answers - No Debate

Your post was excellent this time, I will say that, sir!Mainly because of the original ideas, very sophisticated! (though might be hard to employ.)The rating-system as it is, sadly, just seems to shame the Christian with strong biblical views.You might say, "oh - poor persecuted mike", but that's not my point, we should be able to award posts that don't consist of ad hominem attacks, and they shouldn't be allowed to be jeered.There are people on EvC that never insult me, no matter how much I disagree with them.On a board like this, this sytem only shows majority-opinion, most of the clicks, could be defined thus;Negative = I hate mikey, and everything he stands for, and I disagree with him all the time.
Neutral = when mikey doesn't say anything with the term, "evolution" or "atheist" in it.
Positive= when mikey becomes an evolutionist.Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.

Hi Lammy, I don't know if people have given an answer to this. Everyone is committing a fallacy in your examples.But of course, that's not always that important. The engineer and cardiologist are technically committing an appeal to consequences fallacy. But it's forgivable as they aren't talking out of their butts, they are basing their surmise on real facts, and probability, so there is a strong possibility that negative outcome P may occur if the other people don't follow their advice.With the government and the patient, they IMPLY a false conditional implication, and any false conditional implication is basically a non-sequitur.EXAMPLE;If I don't stop eating all this sugar I'm going to get diabetes real soon.This doesn't follow, even if it's true, because there is the possibility the outcome will not be diabetes.So to say, "had I not had these flu shots I likely wouldn't have gotten the flu" is unknowable, as there are two possibilities, that you may or may not.Conclusion: There aren't always names for formal fallacies, but they can still be called non-sequiturs, so you still can say to someone you think has made one of these mistakes, "no that doesn't logically follow because for all you know had the repairs not taken place the bridge would have collapsed."The important thing isn't the name of the fallacy, but that there is a fallacy. An argument can be fallacious without having a name IMHO.That's my opinion anyway.Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.

With post-hoc reasoning the fallacy occurs if the only reason to infer X was the cause, was because then afterward the outcome occurred.So because it happened BEFORE the outcome.Example: "I prayed for the sun to rise and then it did." (the examples have to be simple to match the atheist's simple understanding of prayer, because obviously atheists only have a concept of prayer which will be superficiality.)As a Christian I have prayed for rain to go away when I am on my bicycle but not in a very serious manner, just a sort of conversational nonsense. It has went away many times, it also hasn't went away many times. To only count the times it went away would be confirmation-bias.Despite atheist propaganda, I never once genuinely believed that when the rain went away it was God's hand. I think that is a very vague, insignificant example that wouldn't have much meaning to a believing Christian. Notice they never give impressive examples such as, "I had inoperative cancer they said I would certainly die then I lived and was healed." (Dodi Osteen for example)The fallacy doesn't occur if you pray for something and that thing happens, if there are more reasons to infer the prayer was answered than merely that the prayer preceded it. So even if technically we can't conclude God answered a prayer, that doesn't give any reason to believe He didn't answer a prayer if something major is happening to you and God answers.For example if a prayer is answered which goes beyond what chance would allow, there is reason to accept that it is a strong possibility that it was answered. Yes, coincidence is also a possibility, but there has to be a limit to what chance can allow, mathematically. For example, if you win the lottery jackpot 32 consecutive weeks in a row and you asked before it to win it 32 consecutive times, would you be saying it would be post-hoc reasoning?Then what would count as God answering?And that is the problem, the atheist uses things like post-hoc reasoning as a BLANKET, to cover all prayer, but this is unreasonable and they do it because of their atheist prejudice. The fact is in real life intelligent people can tell if a prayer was truly answered or not.Also there are things which happen to us spiritually which we did not pray for, which can be remarkable occurrences. There is no reason to believe God was not involved.CONCLUSION: I think atheists can use things like confirmation bias and post hoc reasoning just as technicalities. It's a way of broadly concluding all prayer is unanswered, as a sort of sweeping generalisation, where in actuality they themselves don't know that it was not answered. Also, an atheist would probably only count an answered prayer as something truly unrealistically silly like getting God to appear in a lab and only make the selected balls do a conga on video with 50 of the world's best scientists making sure the lab is sealed from all possible interference.Lol.