"Post Hoc, Propter Ergo Hoc" (after this, therefore because of this) Fallacy comes to mind. This is a fallacy where you assume that, just because, X occurred after Y, then X must've occurred as a result of Y. For example, assuming that, just because you prayed for one big thing to happen and the big thing happened doesn't mean the big thing happening was a result of your prayer.

My favourite is the fallacy fallacy haha assuming that because an argument contains a logical fallacy the conclusion must be wrong.

Lava is hot because a dragon under the Earth heats it all up

Dragons don’t exist therefore lava cannot possibly be hot!

Is this a fallacy though or just a false premisse?

actually yeah I think you’re right my bad. I mean, the second line is still a fallacy. If the first line responder had said something like “you should believe me because I’m an animal biologist” then it’s purely the fallacy fallacy in response as this would use the appeal to authority.

Also, I love the profile picture. If I change mine to Hobbes can we be best friends? Haha

For example, assuming that, just because you prayed for one big thing to happen and the big thing happened doesn't mean the big thing happening was a result of your prayer. — HereToDisscuss

Get your thoughts: Say a person is considered a theist or spiritual and that person regularly meditates on wisdom, and otherwise prays for revelation that helps them with certain decision making in their life. And during the course of their particular sojourn, planned or unplanned happenstance occurs, which then generally results in a higher quality of life. Is that a coincidence or revelation?

How would we find out... ?

The go-to fallacy nowadays in political discussions and on social media is Bulverism

Sure. You'll be the imaginary friend of an imaginary boy, which makes you twice removed from reality. Totally a happy place because of it.

4th wall break inside a 4th wall break... that’s like 16 walls!

Well, i was more thinking in terms of a person thinking "I prayed everyday that my mother would survive cancer, and she eventually did." Whetever theism is true or not, i would say that there is no reason to assume prayer started the proccess that led to the mother surviving cancer in this case. Such an argument still assumes there is a necessary casual relationship between the two-hence the fallacy.

As for your general example, that is a more complicated matter since then we would be talking about a thing that can't be easily explained by nature. If one is a theist, assuming that that is the result of God "guiding them" in that case would not be such a fallacy in my view as the possible casual relationship and a lack of natural explanations (or more unlikely ones) is already there.

Such an argument still assumes there is a necessary casual relationship between the two-hence the fallacy.

Having a 'necessary causal relationship' as you said, is an interesting idea. Probably more metaphysical than not. At the risk of redundancy, take for example the infamous synthetic a priori judgement from Kant: all events must have a cause. There is something there [intuition] that causes human's to utter such concepts. Yet, ironically, it's precisely those types of judgements that create discovery (in the science's).

In any case, unless I'm missing something, I don't think it would not be a logical fallacy to infer that the supernatural exists relative to both examples you gave... . Logically, I think it would fall somewhere in between the categories of phenomenology and subjective truth's.

In Copi, we find this exercise: 'In While Europe Slept: How Radical Islam Is Destroying the West from Within (2006), Bruce Bawer argues that “by appeasing a totalitarian [Muslim] ideology Europe is “imperiling its liberty.” Political correctness, he writes, is keeping Europeans from defending themselves, resulting in “its self-destructive passivity, softness toward tyranny, its reflexive inclination to appease.” A review of the book in The Economist observes that Mr. Bawer “weakens his argument by casting too wide a net,” and another reviewer, Imam Fatih Alev, says of Bawer’s view that “it is a constructed idea that there is this very severe difference between Western values and Muslim values.” ' -- and we're supposed to identify which fallacy of relevance it exhibits. the first question is whether we are being asked about the whole passage or just about what Bawer wrote. In either case I see no fallacy. What fallacy lurks here?