Ask AI on The InternetAsk Another Question Browse Other Questions
Question: Are there any fallacies in the following philosophical argument? 1) God loves the whole world. 2) The whole world includes all people, so God loves all people. 3) Whoever God loves, he desires to save. 4) Since God loves all people, he desires to save all people. 5) God is omnipotent. 6) Since God is omnipotent, any person that God desires to save, he can save. 7) If God can not save a person, then there is something more powerful than God's ability to save that person, therefore proving God is not omnipotent. 8) Thus, it is proven that God will save all people.
The given argument contains a few issues that could be considered fallacious: 1. Equivocation fallacy: The term "save" might have different meanings or interpretations, and this argument does not clarify how exactly it is being used in each premise. Saving could refer to spiritual salvation, protection from harm, ensuring happiness, etc. Using an ambiguous term might weaken the argument. 2. Fallacy of composition: The argument assumes that because God loves the whole world (which includes all people), He must also love every individual person. This makes an unjustified leap from the collective to the individual, which is not necessarily true. 3. Non sequitur: The conclusion (8) that "it is proven that God will save all people" does not necessarily follow from the premises. Premises 5 and 6 state that God is omnipotent, and God can save any person that He desires to save. However, the premises do not necessarily establish that God actually will save all people, just that He could if He wanted to. The argument thus requires additional information or reasoning to arrive at that conclusion.
Think your answer is better than the AI's? Post it below.
If you want your question answered by an AI, click here.