Objection by Implication

by Max Andrews

All too common with the debates on intelligent design, evolution, the existence of God, the historicity of the resurrection, string theory, quantum mechanics, and many more, many people object to theories and conclusions because they don’t like the implication.  For example, if the resurrection of Jesus is true, there is an immediate implication to the existence of God if it cannot be accounted for by naturalistic means.  If intelligent design is true there is an intelligent causation to the order in the universe.  There are certainly theistic implications associated with ID.  Conversely, there are many problematic implications for certain quantum interpretations.  If the level three or four multiverse exist then there are deleterious implications for the existence of mind/body dualism.  Objecting to anything based on a rejection of implication is fallacious, it commits the fallacy of an illicit conversion.

Illicit conversion makes an illicit ordering of propositions.  For a statement to be true there must be logical sequence of propositions.  Statement A-B-C contains the necessary sequence of propositions to have truth value.  If the statement is ordered A-C-B there is an illicit conversion in the reasoning.  To give this some illustration:  there is evidence for a level three multiverse (A), the level three multiverse exists (B), and there are implications that humans do not have minds because the particle interactions that spawn new universes may eliminate immaterialism (C).  One cannot object to the logical conclusion of an argument based on implications.  That would be illicitly placing the implications logically prior to the conclusion.  So the next time anyone says that intelligent design isn’t true because the implications are that there’s a God don’t forget about the illicit conversion.  Though the objector may not explicate their objection this way, dig it out from the argument and show the fallacy.


One Comment to “Objection by Implication”

  1. You, my friend, have hit the nail on the coffin. I believe the following seven things are necessary for finding truth: A. Basis of Truth: You must accept the seven pillars of truth; the seven pillars of truth are 1.Logic 2.Philosophy 3.Open Mindedness 4.Honesty 5.Faith 6.Morality 7.Elohim. Now, notice number 3 and 4: Open Mindedness and Honesty. The people you describe do not have numbers 3 and 4, because they refuse to accept the implications of the truth that was clearly in front of their eyes. So, instead, they have to try and find some cheap way to justify their belief by using some flawed logic that seems on the surface at least in their eyes to defend their position, but this flawed logic is usually based on some kind of fallacy or miscontrueing of the facts.

    I will say this though: if the resurrection of Yahushua is true, this does not mean God exists, as you yourself point out. Scientists are coming very close with being able to control death to an extent, to the point of bringing people back from the dead within a certain timeframe. Outside of the timeframe, it seems impossible for humans to resurrect, but perhaps not. At any rate, the existence of God i think is proven to be necessary logical in other areas. But, if one were to ignore those essential areas that I am referring to, then one could argue that the resurrection of Yahushua does not in any way prove the existence of God; it would only prove in the existence of resurrection, and the ability of one to be able to control death to an extent. Hypothetically speaking, Yahushua could have gained amazing knowledge of the universe, and simply utilized this advanced level of knowledge in such a way to falsely portray Himself as more significant than what He actually was. Please note that I do not believe this happened, but I merely pose this to demonstrate to the objector that Yahushua resurrecting would indeed bear implications that would be contrary to the atheists current worldview, but need not necessitate a worldview contrary to the atheistic one solely on the basis of the factual truth of Yahushua resurrecting from the dead. I believe however, that miracles aren’t actual contrary to the laws of science, they are just contrary to the knowledge of those laws that we currently know, or at least they cannot be explained or understood sufficiently by the current level of knowledge of the laws of science that we have, but does not in any way mean it is impossible scientifically, or naturally. There need not be a division between naturalism and God so long as it is understood that naturalism is only in existence because of God.

    When you say theistic implications associated with ID, i assume you mean the existence of a Creator that is God as opposed to atheist which rejects the existence of a god. The reason i mention my assumption is that there is also the possibility of deist, which isn’t quite the same as theist, but probably in this context of your usage of “theist” would fit under the definition of theist.

    I do want to stress one thing, however: technically things should be rejected by implication if the implication is illogical. What I mean is, if we were to state that absolute truth did not exist, we would be claiming something that is self-defeating and contradictory in its implication. Thus, by virtue of its illogical, contradictory, and fallacious implication, it is to be rejected. I do understand what you mean though, but just thought i’d throw that out there in case it was confusing others. Basically, what you mean is that objecting something because you don’t like the implications of such a thing being true. This is a sure fallacy, whereas fallacious implications of something ought indeed to be rejected by very virtue of them being fallacious.

    Awesome post =).

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: