GK Chesterton on Protestant Logic

[simonthezealot]

Like taking candy from a baby!

Be more specific, please. What point do you want to debate?

See the...
Formal debate proposals

 

[simonthezealot]

See the...
Formal debate proposals

http://christianforums.com/t7211072-romes-universal-authority-known-for-all-ages.html

 

[simonthezealot]

Like taking candy from a baby!

Be more specific, please. What point do you want to debate?

Pride before the fall?

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Pride before the fall?

Chester is busy with the Calvinists right now.

http://christianforums.com/t7182476-do-these-verses-fit-with-calvinism.html

 

[thereselittleflower]

Simon, who would be the judge of who wins the debate?

 

[thereselittleflower]

it's not an attack on your beliefs at all. It's pointing out that you can't make something fact, by claiming it as such.

oh, really? because I never stated that something wasn't fact, because I didn't believe it! Care to take your double standard down a notch?

Just trying to be clear as to what does and does not constitute legitimately arguing that something is not a fact.

I really, really wish you wouldn't use logical fallacy arguments. You don't understand them, and you don't use them the way they are meant to be used.

Sorry, I see absolutely no evidence to support such a claim . . this is a polemical argument attacking my personal understanding and has nothing to do with anything . . it lacks substance . . . just another example of logical fallacy - Ad Hominem - Against the Person. The thread is not about me, and I am not the topic. It doesn't attack the validity of my arguments.
That's why it is logically invalid.

I think it would be very helpful to the thread to avoid such arguments.

you never see evidence, unless it has Nihil Obstat engraved on it.

This is an example of polemical ad hominem, arguments against the person. Ad Hominem do nothing to strengthen the arguments of one's position.

An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin: "argument to the man", "argument against the man") consists of replying to an argument or factual claim by attacking or appealing to a characteristic or belief of the person making the argument or claim, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument or producing evidence against the claim. The process of proving or disproving the claim is thereby subverted, and the argumentum ad hominem works to change the subject.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem
​

If anything they demonstrate the weakness of it, for only those arguing from a weak position to begin with find it necessary to repeatedly engage in ad hominem, etc as we find in such a response as above:

It is most commonly used to refer specifically to the ad hominem abusive, or argumentum ad personam, which consists of criticizing or personally attacking an argument's proponent in an attempt to discredit that argument. It is also used when an opponent is unable to find fault with an argument, yet for various reasons, the opponent disagrees with it.


Ad hominem arguments are always invalid in syllogistic logic, since the truth value of premises is taken as given, and the validity of a logical inference is independent of the person making the inference


The argumentum ad hominem is a genetic fallacy and red herring, and is most often (but not always) an appeal to emotion.
​

Now we look at what was claimed again:

you never see evidence, unless it has Nihil Obstat engraved on it.

Obviuosly against the person, and ad hominem. . .. .

I wasn't the one bringing up the evidence in this thread. Do you KNOW what Occams razor is? (I'll give you time to google it.) It is a progression of logic. RCC interpretation of key passages violates the premise. IF you are going to use logic as your argument, you have to come to grips with this.

I see no evidence at all being presented here . . just unsubstantiated claims . . .

TLF:
You claim that the Catholic positon doesn't pass the "logic test" but you have yet to prove this . . mostly all I see in your responses are claims. I can't remember the last time I saw any actual evidence in your responses to us . . .​

Until you have something more than claims, I see no point in taking such a claim as you made above seriously . . .

Umm . . . . this is about burden of proof. It is about the claims being made in resopnse to the arguments by Catholics here, the post I am responding to being an example.

What this response above engages in is the logical fallacy known as shifting the burden of proof.

Again, this type of response is seen when one is arguing from an inherently weak position that is difficult to defend.

The tactic is very well explained thusly:

To shift the burden of proof onto your opponent, start off by asking them to explain why they believe what they believe. This sounds quite like quite a benign request, but as soon as they start to offer reasons for their position, they are taking a positive stance and so accepting the burden of proof. Once they do that, you've got them.

http://www.fallacies.info/burdenofproof.html​

This is why I won't accept the shift in the burden of proof.

Simple.


All I did is point out the very real lack of actual evidence to back up the claims being made in posts addressing Catholics in this thread.

The burden of proof is belongs to those who attack our position to prove their claims with actual evidence.

That is lacking in such responses to us as I am dealing with here.

http://www.dictonary.com/default.pk?tsearch=Polemics&search_button.x=52&search_button.y=8

This link is offered to defend the claimed definition of polemic given in the previous post with instruction to go to the link.

Here is the actual definition found at the link:

Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) Pronunciation[puh-lem-ik, poh-] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun
1. a controversial argument, as one against some opinion, doctrine, etc.
2. a person who argues in opposition to another; controversialist.
–adjective 3. Also, po·lem·i·cal. of or pertaining to a polemic; controversial.
​

It doesn't match what was claimed, repeated below for comparison:

UB:
Polemics: the branch of theology dealing with the history or conduct of ecclesiastical disputation and controversy​

I'm not asking you. I'm telling you. Your "not beliving it is a fact doesn't make it not a fact" has been rebutted. accept it or not, I don't care.

If one is rebutting it, then that means one disagrees with the statement:

not believing it is a fact doesn't make it not a fact​

That statememt is true on its face. If one is rebutting it, then one is contradicting a true statement. Nothing more.

It's coming from an opposing viewpoint to your own, so I'm damn sure I know what you'll consider it.

What should one consider a rebuttal of a statement that is obviously true on its face?

[URL"http://www.dictonary.com"]www.dictonary.com[/URL]. I'm sure you can read it for yourself. EVERYTHING we do on here, when we debate, is polemic. You use it as an insult and accusation, but it's really no such thing.
I don't think so . . . .

Not sure why this needs to be addressed again, however, please don't speak for me. It may be everything some do here, but there is no "we" about it.

Additionally, here is further information on the definition of polemics and what it means and indicates when one is engaging in it:

The NEW OXFORD Dictionary of ENGLISH (2003 Edition)

polemic
noun a strong verbal or written attack on someone or something: his polemic against the cultural relativism of the Sixties | [MASS NOUN] a writer of feminist polemic.
(usu. polemics) the art or practice of engaging in controversial debate or dispute: the history of science has become embroiled in religious polemics.
adjective another term for POLEMICAL.
DERIVATIVES
polemicist noun
polemicize (also -ise) verb.

ORIGIN mid 17th cent.: via medieval Latin from Greek polemikos, from polemos ‘war’.

The NEW OXFORD Thesaurus of ENGLISH (2003 Edition)

Polemic (noun)
1 this is not just a polemic against injustice
DIATRIBE, invective, denunciation, denouncement, rant, tirade, broadside, attack, harangue, verbal onslaught; reviling, railing, decrying, condemnation, brickbats, flak, criticism, censure, lecture, berating, admonishment, admonition, abuse, stream of abuse, battering, stricture, tongue-lashing, vilification, vituperation, obloquy, fulmination, castigation, reprimand, rebuke, reproof, reproval, upbraiding; informal knocking, blast; Brit. informal slating; rare philippic.
2 (polemics) skilled in polemics
ARGUMENTATION, argument, debate, contention, dispute, disputation, discussion, controversy, altercation, faction, wrangling; formal contestation.

Polemical (adjective)
Brunner published a polemical tract against Barth
CRITICAL, hostile, bitter, polemic, virulent, vitriolic, venomous, waspish, corrosive, biting, caustic, trenchant, cutting, acerbic, sardonic, sarcastic, scathing, acid, sharp, keen, tart, pungent, stinging, astringent, incisive, devastating, piercing; rare acidulous, mordacious.
​

I compltetely distance myself from such a claim as this is what "we" engage in here all the time.

whatever, TLF.

of course you can't think of one post with "actual evidence."

Attempting to defend the lack of actual evidence with a "whatever, TLF", doesn't accomplish anything constructive. It does not in any way substitute for presenting actual evidence or diminish the the fact there has been no actual evidence to back up the claims made against the Catholic position in posts between us answering mine.

I don't spout RCC party line "evidence" so you will never see it. Neither do anyone else who posted evidence in this thread.

We are not talking about those who disagree with us providing evidence to support our position. That would be quite silly of us to do and since no one even suggested this be done, this is simply another example of the llogical fallacy of the strawman to deflect from the fact that no actual evidence has been provided to support your claims!

To see why this logical fallacy is so popular and attractive, one only has to look here:

http://www.fallacies.info/strawman.html

The odds are that your opponent is quite a reasonable person, advancing a quite a reasonable view. Most people are pretty reasonable most of the time. This makes your job of proving them wrong harder.
For this reason, it's often a good idea to start off by deploying a "straw man", a caricature of their view that's easier to refute than what they really believe. Why attack your opponent's true position when you can attack a pale imitation?
The easiest way to construct a straw man is to exaggerate.

Suppose, for example, that your opponent is a parent or spouse telling you that you should do the washing up. What request could be more reasonable than that? You'll never disprove that.

So change their argument. Twist their words so that they suggest that you should always do the washing up, that doing the washing up is your job. Now that's hardly fair is it!? Having started off looking reasonable, your opponent is now saddled with an indefensible position.

​

This is why we point them out and do not accept them.

So I ask, where is the evidence to support the claims being made against the Catholic position?

Where is the actual evidence to support those claims?

I've news for you. You are not automatically right. Your opinion is not more valuable than others. You have no authority to proclaim what you believe as unwavering truth, and everyone else as neccessarily wrong.

Just more strawman and ad hominem with polemics. (See the Oxford defintions above)

and for the love of everything good, LEARN to use logical fallacies properly, if you are going to use them at all.

Nothing has been demonstrated with evidence that I use them incorrectly, so before I can be expected to take anything like the above seriously, first the burden for proof to prove this claim must be met WITH ACTUAL EVIDENCE.

I have already given ample evidence that I am using them correctly.

Where is the evidence I am not?

So far, it is evident I am spot on given the evidence of such fallacies in the argmentation presented in the post above.

(now you can start chirping about "ad hominem" It will be funny to watch you misuse that one as well.)

Just another polemical ad hominem attack . . . nothing more.


I await the actual evidence to meet the burden of proof for the claims made about the Catholic positon in the above post as well as prevous ones in exchanges between us.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

Simon, who would be the judge of who wins the debate?

May God give you strength sister... Simon is a tough nut to crack.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

Pride before the fall?

Sounds like a story I heard from somewhere....

 

[JacktheCatholic]

For the great Gaels of Ireland Are the men that God made mad, For all their wars are merry, And all their songs are sad.

HERETICS:
After belabouring a great many people for a great many years for being unprogressive, Mr. Shaw has discovered, with characteristic sense, that it is very doubtful whether any existing human being with two legs can be progressive at all. Having come to doubt whether humanity can be combined with progress, most people, easily pleased, would have elected to abandon progress and remain with humanity. Mr. Shaw, not being easily pleased, decides to throw over humanity with all its limitations and go in for progress for its own sake. If man, as we know him, is incapable of the philosophy of progress, Mr. Shaw asks, not for a new kind of philosophy, but for a new kind of man. It is rather as if a nurse had tried a rather bitter food for some years on a baby, and on discovering that it was not suitable, should not throw away the food and ask for a new food, but throw the baby out of window, and ask for a new baby.

 

[Uphill Battle]

Just trying to be clear as to what does and does not constitute legitimately arguing that something is not a fact.



Sorry, I see absolutely no evidence to support such a claim . . this is a polemical argument attacking my personal understanding and has nothing to do with anything . . it lacks substance . . . just another example of logical fallacy - Ad Hominem - Against the Person. The thread is not about me, and I am not the topic. It doesn't attack the validity of my arguments.
That's why it is logically invalid.

I think it would be very helpful to the thread to avoid such arguments.



This is an example of polemical ad hominem, arguments against the person. Ad Hominem do nothing to strengthen the arguments of one's position.

An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin: "argument to the man", "argument against the man") consists of replying to an argument or factual claim by attacking or appealing to a characteristic or belief of the person making the argument or claim, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument or producing evidence against the claim. The process of proving or disproving the claim is thereby subverted, and the argumentum ad hominem works to change the subject.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem
​

If anything they demonstrate the weakness of it, for only those arguing from a weak position to begin with find it necessary to repeatedly engage in ad hominem, etc as we find in such a response as above:

It is most commonly used to refer specifically to the ad hominem abusive, or argumentum ad personam, which consists of criticizing or personally attacking an argument's proponent in an attempt to discredit that argument. It is also used when an opponent is unable to find fault with an argument, yet for various reasons, the opponent disagrees with it.


Ad hominem arguments are always invalid in syllogistic logic, since the truth value of premises is taken as given, and the validity of a logical inference is independent of the person making the inference


The argumentum ad hominem is a genetic fallacy and red herring, and is most often (but not always) an appeal to emotion.
​

Now we look at what was claimed again:


Obviuosly against the person, and ad hominem. . .. .



I see no evidence at all being presented here . . just unsubstantiated claims . . .




Umm . . . . this is about burden of proof. It is about the claims being made in resopnse to the arguments by Catholics here, the post I am responding to being an example.

What this response above engages in is the logical fallacy known as shifting the burden of proof.

Again, this type of response is seen when one is arguing from an inherently weak position that is difficult to defend.

The tactic is very well explained thusly:

To shift the burden of proof onto your opponent, start off by asking them to explain why they believe what they believe. This sounds quite like quite a benign request, but as soon as they start to offer reasons for their position, they are taking a positive stance and so accepting the burden of proof. Once they do that, you've got them.

http://www.fallacies.info/burdenofproof.html​

This is why I won't accept the shift in the burden of proof.

Simple.


All I did is point out the very real lack of actual evidence to back up the claims being made in posts addressing Catholics in this thread.

The burden of proof is belongs to those who attack our position to prove their claims with actual evidence.

That is lacking in such responses to us as I am dealing with here.





This link is offered to defend the claimed definition of polemic given in the previous post with instruction to go to the link.

Here is the actual definition found at the link:

Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) Pronunciation[puh-lem-ik, poh-] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun
1. a controversial argument, as one against some opinion, doctrine, etc.
2. a person who argues in opposition to another; controversialist.
–adjective 3. Also, po·lem·i·cal. of or pertaining to a polemic; controversial.
​

It doesn't match what was claimed, repeated below for comparison:

UB:
Polemics: the branch of theology dealing with the history or conduct of ecclesiastical disputation and controversy​

If one is rebutting it, then that means one disagrees with the statement:

not believing it is a fact doesn't make it not a fact​

That statememt is true on its face. If one is rebutting it, then one is contradicting a true statement. Nothing more.



What should one consider a rebuttal of a statement that is obviously true on its face?



Not sure why this needs to be addressed again, however, please don't speak for me. It may be everything some do here, but there is no "we" about it.

Additionally, here is further information on the definition of polemics and what it means and indicates when one is engaging in it:

The NEW OXFORD Dictionary of ENGLISH (2003 Edition)

polemic
noun a strong verbal or written attack on someone or something: his polemic against the cultural relativism of the Sixties | [MASS NOUN] a writer of feminist polemic.
(usu. polemics) the art or practice of engaging in controversial debate or dispute: the history of science has become embroiled in religious polemics.
adjective another term for POLEMICAL.
DERIVATIVES
polemicist noun
polemicize (also -ise) verb.

ORIGIN mid 17th cent.: via medieval Latin from Greek polemikos, from polemos ‘war’.

The NEW OXFORD Thesaurus of ENGLISH (2003 Edition)

Polemic (noun)
1 this is not just a polemic against injustice
DIATRIBE, invective, denunciation, denouncement, rant, tirade, broadside, attack, harangue, verbal onslaught; reviling, railing, decrying, condemnation, brickbats, flak, criticism, censure, lecture, berating, admonishment, admonition, abuse, stream of abuse, battering, stricture, tongue-lashing, vilification, vituperation, obloquy, fulmination, castigation, reprimand, rebuke, reproof, reproval, upbraiding; informal knocking, blast; Brit. informal slating; rare philippic.
2 (polemics) skilled in polemics
ARGUMENTATION, argument, debate, contention, dispute, disputation, discussion, controversy, altercation, faction, wrangling; formal contestation.

Polemical (adjective)
Brunner published a polemical tract against Barth
CRITICAL, hostile, bitter, polemic, virulent, vitriolic, venomous, waspish, corrosive, biting, caustic, trenchant, cutting, acerbic, sardonic, sarcastic, scathing, acid, sharp, keen, tart, pungent, stinging, astringent, incisive, devastating, piercing; rare acidulous, mordacious.
​

I compltetely distance myself from such a claim as this is what "we" engage in here all the time.




Attempting to defend the lack of actual evidence with a "whatever, TLF", doesn't accomplish anything constructive. It does not in any way substitute for presenting actual evidence or diminish the the fact there has been no actual evidence to back up the claims made against the Catholic position in posts between us answering mine.




We are not talking about those who disagree with us providing evidence to support our position. That would be quite silly of us to do and since no one even suggested this be done, this is simply another example of the llogical fallacy of the strawman to deflect from the fact that no actual evidence has been provided to support your claims!

To see why this logical fallacy is so popular and attractive, one only has to look here:

http://www.fallacies.info/strawman.html

The odds are that your opponent is quite a reasonable person, advancing a quite a reasonable view. Most people are pretty reasonable most of the time. This makes your job of proving them wrong harder.
For this reason, it's often a good idea to start off by deploying a "straw man", a caricature of their view that's easier to refute than what they really believe. Why attack your opponent's true position when you can attack a pale imitation?
The easiest way to construct a straw man is to exaggerate.

Suppose, for example, that your opponent is a parent or spouse telling you that you should do the washing up. What request could be more reasonable than that? You'll never disprove that.

So change their argument. Twist their words so that they suggest that you should always do the washing up, that doing the washing up is your job. Now that's hardly fair is it!? Having started off looking reasonable, your opponent is now saddled with an indefensible position.

​

This is why we point them out and do not accept them.

So I ask, where is the evidence to support the claims being made against the Catholic position?

Where is the actual evidence to support those claims?



Just more strawman and ad hominem with polemics. (See the Oxford defintions above)



Nothing has been demonstrated with evidence that I use them incorrectly, so before I can be expected to take anything like the above seriously, first the burden for proof to prove this claim must be met WITH ACTUAL EVIDENCE.

I have already given ample evidence that I am using them correctly.

Where is the evidence I am not?

So far, it is evident I am spot on given the evidence of such fallacies in the argmentation presented in the post above.



Just another polemical ad hominem attack . . . nothing more.


I await the actual evidence to meet the burden of proof for the claims made about the Catholic positon in the above post as well as prevous ones in exchanges between us.

I can't respond. You'll just report it, and get it deleted.

you win again, TLF, you get to say whatever you want, others can't.

ciao.

 

[simonthezealot]

May God give you strength sister... Simon is a tough nut to crack.

Jack they've got me pegged as a
V

When it comes to church history.

Always liked the David and Goliath story.

 

[simonthezealot]

Simon, who would be the judge of who wins the debate?

I think chesterton is accepting the challenge working the details out. But its modded by the staff here.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

I can't respond. You'll just report it, and get it deleted.

you win again, TLF, you get to say whatever you want, others can't.

ciao.

I may use that in my SIGGY!!!! But never forget these infamous words by a RC:

http://christianforums.com/t5523201&page=32http://christianforums.com/t5523201&page=10

Post #140
YOU WIN!

 

[tulc]

I can't respond. You'll just report it, and get it deleted.

seems to be a lot of that going around.
tulc(might be time to bring back the "silence doesn't = agreement" sig)

 

[JacktheCatholic]

Jack they've got me pegged as a
V

When it comes to church history.

Always liked the David and Goliath story.

Bring out the ECF.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Bring out the ECF.

Ones of these days I may actually read them.

Hebrews 7:12 For being changed/translated/metatiqemenhV<3346> (5746) the Priesthood, out of necessity also, of Law a change/translation/metaqesiV <3331> is becoming/ginetai <1096> (5736),

Reve 21:6 And He said to me: "it-has-become/gegonen <1096> (5754). I am the alpha and the omega, the beginning and the end. I, to the one thirsting, shall be giving out of the spring of the water of the life gratuitously.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

Ones of these days I may actually read them.

I pray you do.

Simon is pretty good at arguing some of the ECF writings too.

 

[simonthezealot]

I pray you do.

Simon is pretty good at arguing some of the ECF writings too.

And Jack my friend you do well yourself at it, your not the typical cut n paste artist...You have a formed opinion, that threw me for a loop at first.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

And Jack my friend you do well yourself at it, your not the typical cut n paste artist...You have a formed opinion, that threw me for a loop at first.

Where is Trento when we need him!!!

 

[racer]

I've never said otherwise racer. It doesn't, however, change my position on Luther . . . . . . which is what you are refering to.

The argument was never one about inspiration . . . . .

I never cease to be amazed at how much more you know about what I'm thinking or to what I'm referring than even myself . . . Um . . . when did I mention Luther?