Reasoning Errors

[JD16]

That's correct. However, since we're on a forum for discussion I'm not simply rejecting your statement, without evidence, as I could. For the sake of argument I'm accepting your statement and asking you for evidence. However, if you have no evidemce then your statement is circular reasoning.

I'm taking the null position, I do not believe simply because it is written down somewhere, I would require more evidence than that...

edited to add, which is in response to your statement that Atheists says the bible is not true because the bible is not true....the bible is not true cause it has yet to be proven true, and we have evidence that certain parts of the bible has been proven false. That is certainly not circular reasoning

 

[Butch5]

I'm taking the null position, I do not believe simply because it is written down somewhere, I would require more evidence than that...

The thread is about logical fallacies. You made a statement indicating that the Bible can be proven wrong. Either there's evidence or there isn't. If there is you can present it and prove your statement. If there isn't then the determination that it can proven wrong is one made in your mind. If that is the case your statement is circular reasonig..

 

[Monna]

As I said, faith is just belief. Your faith or belief in something can be supported by varying amounts of evidence.

I would suggest that biblical faith is NOT "just belief" if by that you mean intellectual assent. Biblical faith/belief is inseperable from action or behaviour. Abram's faith, that was accounted to him for righteousness was that, not only did he intellectually accept that God had promised him a special territory, and posterity through Isaac, he got up and left Ur (with his father and brother) and continued after they stopped; then he was willing to sacrifice Isaac, believing that God would somehow resurrect or otherwise ensure that "through Isaac, the son of promise" he would be the father of many people. In both cases he got solid evidence that faith in God works in real life. Noah "believed God" when told there would be a flood, and he went and built an ark, probably enduring a horrendous amount of ridicule for 40 years. But THAT was biblical faith.

If you live daily with this kind of faith you are sure to get lots of evidence of God's work in the real world around you. But many people around you might not believe that what they see is God's work.

There is an interesting type of reversal or inversal of Jesus' instructions in his sermon on the mount (Matt. 5-7) on giving and fasting: do it in secret so you won't be noticed by people - God who sees in secret will reward you (Matt. 6:18). God himself works very much "in secret" so that only those with the right perspective (eyes of faith) can percieve his work for what it is, and praise him openly for it. Jesus taught only what he saw his Father do. And I suspect that there are many contributors to CF who can attest that they have seen God working "secretly" or behind the scenes, answering prayers, doing miracles that are not super public.

 

[JD16]

The thread is about logical fallacies. You made a statement indicating that the Bible can be proven wrong. Either there's evidence or there isn't. If there is you can present it and prove your statement. If there isn't then the determination that it can proven wrong is one made in your mind. If that is the case your statement is circular reasonig..

The global flood for example, there are many compelling evidence that it did not happen, geological features, fossil records..ect etc

 

[Butch5]

The global flood for example, there are many compelling evidence that it did not happen, geological features, fossil records..ect etc

Did you read my post on worldviews? Scientific evidence is evaluated based on one's world view. That's why evolution scientists and creation scientists can look at the same evidence and come to different conclusions. You see, if one doesn't believe in God then when they see the evidence they won't conclude that it is proof of creation. That's the problem with evidence. Just like if I gave some "proof" that theme Bible is true the atheist will simply come up with a different perspective that doesn't support the Bible. It's all in one's worldview. So, the question becomes which worldview can be shown to sound and logical?

 

[JD16]

Did you read my post on worldviews? Scientific evidence is evaluated based on one's world view. That's why evolution scientists and creation scientists can look at the same evidence and come to different conclusions. You see, if one doesn't believe in God then when they see the evidence they won't conclude that it is proof of creation. That's the problem with evidence. Just like if I gave some "proof" that theme Bible is true the atheist will simply come up with a different perspective that doesn't support the Bible. It's all in one's worldview. So, the question becomes which worldview can be shown to sound and logical?

I did read that, but I disagree, the evidence speaks for itself unless it can be proven false. Creation 'scientist' does not practice science, they have a bias worldview based on the bible and whatever they produce has been thoroughly rejected by the rest of the scientific world. And that has already been settled in the Supreme court back in 05. Anyways we were discussing about circular reasoning, which you claim that Atheist makes regarding the bible, and I've show you otherwise. Facts can be derived from the evidence and it is not a matter of opinion or worldview.

 

[Butch5]

I did read that, but I disagree, the evidence speaks for itself unless it can be proven false. Creation 'scientist' does not practice science, they have a bias worldview based on the bible and whatever they produce has been thoroughly rejected by the rest of the scientific world. And that has already been settled in the Supreme court back in 05. Anyways we were discussing about circular reasoning, which you claim that Atheist makes regarding the bible, and I've show you otherwise. Facts can be derived from the evidence and it is not a matter of opinion or worldview.

You're proving my point that your argument is circular. You said, "the evidence speaks for itself". That is the fallacy of reification. Evidence doesn't speak. It takes a mind to interpret evidence, a mind with a worldview. You said, "Creation 'scientist' does not practice science,". Based on whose definition of science? Your's? Also this is an arbitrary statement, I could claim the opposite. You said, "they have a bias worldview based on the bible". And evolutionists have a biased world view based on evolution. Again, it's an arbitrary statement. You said, "whatever they produce has been thoroughly rejected by the rest of the scientific world." Do you mean the rest of the scientific world that rejects the Bible? Again, circular reasoning. You said, "And that has already been settled in the Supreme court back in 05." this is the fallacy of "appeal to authority". The Supreme Court is not an authority on Science and cannot settle scientific questions. Yes, we were discussion "circular reasoning". It seems we're discussing more fallacies now. However, you haven't shown anything other than fallacies. Facts can be derived from evidence, but it is a question of worldview. That can easily be seen when two different people view the same evidence and come to different conclusions.

 

[JD16]

You're proving my point that your argument is circular. You said, "the evidence speaks for itself". That is the fallacy of reification. Evidence doesn't speak. It takes a mind to interpret evidence, a mind with a worldview. You said, "Creation 'scientist' does not practice science,". Based on whose definition of science? Your's? Also this is an arbitrary statement, I could claim the opposite. You said, "they have a bias worldview based on the bible". And evolutionists have a biased world view based on evolution. Again, it's an arbitrary statement. You said, "whatever they produce has been thoroughly rejected by the rest of the scientific world." Do you mean the rest of the scientific world that rejects the Bible? Again, circular reasoning. You said, "And that has already been settled in the Supreme court back in 05." this is the fallacy of "appeal to authority". The Supreme Court is not an authority on Science and cannot settle scientific questions. Yes, we were discussion "circular reasoning". It seems we're discussing more fallacies now. However, you haven't shown anything other than fallacies. Facts can be derived from evidence, but it is a question of worldview. That can easily be seen when two different people view the same evidence and come to different conclusions.

Lets take it from the top, I said..to say that the bible is true because the bible say its true is circular reasoning,...you replied that Atheist does the same thing regarding the bible, that we state the bible is not true because the bible is not true,...and I've gone on to show you that that is not what Atheists do regarding the bible as we have external evidence regarding the bible being factually incorrect. Regardless of how the evidence is interpreted, I have show you that when it comes to the bible, Atheist do not employ circular reasoning. Do you still dispute that?

 

[Butch5]

Lets take it from the top, I said..to say that the bible is true because the bible say its true is circular reasoning,...you replied that Atheist does the same thing regarding the bible, that we state the bible is not true because the bible is not true,...and I've gone on to show you that that is not what Atheists do regarding the bible as we have external evidence regarding the bible being factually incorrect. Regardless of how the evidence is interpreted, I have show you that when it comes to the bible, Atheist do not employ circular reasoning. Do you still dispute that?

Yes. What you have shown is that people who don't believe the Bible have shown the Bible isn't true. Well, no one would expect someone who doesn't believe the Bible is true to show that it is. Your argument is circular. The evidence you provide supports your view because that's the way you view it. You believe the Bible isn't true so any evidence that is presented to you is evaluated from the perspective that the Bible isn't true. That means that evidence supporting the Bible is not even a concept to consider.

A worldview is a made up of experiences and beliefs that one forms over time. Everything one interprets is evaluated based on these beliefs and experiences.

Suppose I said, "I saw aliens in my yard last night". Someone who believes in life on other planets may interpret my statement to mean that beings from space were in my yard last night. Someone who doesn't believe in life on other planets would interpret my statement to mean that people from a different county were in my yard last night. Two people draw different conclusions from the same statement based on what they "already" believe. They both have the very same evidence, the statement I made, yet they both drew different conclusions based on their worldview, what they already believed to be true.

That is what we're dealing with. You've already rejected my evidence before I even presented any. Did you prove it wrong? No, you just rejected it. You discredited the scientists, but you didn't prove them wrong.

 

[JD16]

Yes. What you have shown is that people who don't believe the Bible have shown the Bible isn't true. Well, no one would expect someone who doesn't believe the Bible is true to show that it is. Your argument is circular. The evidence you provide supports your view because that's the way you view it. You believe the Bible isn't true so any evidence that is presented to you is evaluated from the perspective that the Bible isn't true. That means that evidence supporting the Bible is not even a concept to consider.

A worldview is a made up of experiences and beliefs that one forms over time. Everything one interprets is evaluated based on these beliefs and experiences.

Suppose I said, "I saw aliens in my yard last night". Someone who believes in life on other planets may interpret my statement to mean that beings from space were in my yard last night. Someone who doesn't believe in life on other planets would interpret my statement to mean that people from a different county were in my yard last night. Two people draw different conclusions from the same statement based on what they "already" believe. They both have the very same evidence, the statement I made, yet they both drew different conclusions based on their worldview, what they already believed to be true.

That is what we're dealing with. You've already rejected my evidence before I even presented any. Did you prove it wrong? No, you just rejected it. You discredited the scientists, but you didn't prove them wrong.

How is my argument circular when I've used evidence outside the bible to discredit it? I'm only responding to your statement the Atheist reject the bible as true based on the bible itself, which I've repeatedly shown you otherwise. The only thing circular is this conversation which is getting nowhere. The only point I'm stating is that the reason why Atheists reject the truthfulness of the bible is not based on the bible itself, which then prove that the argument is not circular regardless of how you try to spin it. If you want to argue on why the bible is true or not, that is another topic and not meant for this thread. G'day Sir

 

[Butch5]

How is my argument circular when I've used evidence outside the bible to discredit it? I'm only responding to your statement the Atheist reject the bible as true based on the bible itself, which I've repeatedly shown you otherwise. The only thing circular is this conversation which is getting nowhere. The only point I'm stating is that the reason why Atheists reject the truthfulness of the bible is not based on the bible itself, which then prove that the argument is not circular regardless of how you try to spin it. If you want to argue on why the bible is true or not, that is another topic and not meant for this thread. G'day Sir

I've already explained it. The evidence you gave fits your view. However, you rejected outright any evidence that I might present to the contrary. What does that say? It says to me that you're not willing to hear any opposing evidence. That in itself is a fallacy. Then you indicated that any evidence from creation scientists (opposing evidence) is invalid because those scientists are bias towards the Bible. Hello, the scientists you presented are biased against the Bible, they're biased towards the Bible being true. So, you've rejected any evidence that I might present as biased and then at the same time presented evidence in your favor that is biased toward you view. This is actually the fallacy of cherry picking.

I didn't say atheists reject the Bible based on the Bible. I said they reject the Bible based on their own determination that the Bible isn't true. The premise is that the Bible isn't true. The conclusion is that the Bible isn't true. It's a circle.

Since you posted those videos let me ask you, how do you account for the uniformity of nature?

 

[JD16]

I've already explained it. The evidence you gave fits your view. However, you rejected outright any evidence that I might present to the contrary. What does that say? It says to me that you're not willing to hear any opposing evidence. That in itself is a fallacy. Then you indicated that any evidence from creation scientists (opposing evidence) is invalid because those scientists are bias towards the Bible. Hello, the scientists you presented are biased against the Bible, they're biased towards the Bible being true. So, you've rejected any evidence that I might present as biased and then at the same time presented evidence in your favor that is biased toward you view. This is actually the fallacy of cherry picking.

I didn't say atheists reject the Bible based on the Bible. I said they reject the Bible based on their own determination that the Bible isn't true. The premise is that the Bible isn't true. The conclusion is that the Bible isn't true. It's a circle.

Since you posted those videos let me ask you, how do you account for the uniformity of nature?

We have already derailed this thread enough, if you like, start another thread and I discuss it with you further.

 

[zippy2006]

3. Misleading Definitions
- Related to confirmation bias. You utilize the misuse of a definition as if it is the correct definition because it fits your belief and do not change when the correct definition is given and no other evidence or sound reason is given to change it... "Atheist means faith in the non existence of god.. " le sigh..

I find that the colloquial definition of atheism, which almost all dictionaries include, is belief in the non-existence of God. Sure, we can humor atheists and let them define atheism as the absence of belief in a deity (which is colloquial agnosticism), but there is no reason to believe that it is the theist rather than the atheist offering a misleading definition.

Psychologically when you see no evidence for something, especially in the places you would most expect to find evidence, it is perfectly natural to believe that the thing does not exist. Such a provisional belief is probably justified if we leave minute epistemological discussions aside. And it coheres with what the average atheist would say, the one who doesn't spend hours a week debating the merits of belief in God.

In any case, it is certainly not wrong to say that atheism means belief in the non-existence of God. After all, the dictionaries include this definition and I think the majority of unselfconscious atheists would affirm it as well.

Is it a fallacy to say that absence of evidence is evidence of absence? Not necessarily, especially when absence of evidence is taken to be conspicuous. There is the absence of evidence of elephants in the room in which I am sitting, and this justifies me in believing that no elephants exist in the room. This is true given the size of elephants and the size of the room, and many atheists would hold that an analogical situation holds with God. Of course the level of certitude must be adjusted based on the strength of the argument, and a lack of evidence for some proposition must be held with less certitude than positive arguments against the proposition affords.

 

[Paidiske]

MOD HAT ON
This thread has had a clean. ​

Please note that personal attacks, while they may not demonstrate a reasoning error,
do demonstrate a character flaw, and will not be tolerated.​

MOD HAT OFF​

 

[Khalliqa]

Woah. Not sure if I was the culprit. If so, sorry!

 

[Khalliqa]

Okay I'll come back later and address the rest

 

[variant]

Did you read my post on worldviews? Scientific evidence is evaluated based on one's world view. That's why evolution scientists and creation scientists can look at the same evidence and come to different conclusions. You see, if one doesn't believe in God then when they see the evidence they won't conclude that it is proof of creation. That's the problem with evidence. Just like if I gave some "proof" that theme Bible is true the atheist will simply come up with a different perspective that doesn't support the Bible. It's all in one's worldview. So, the question becomes which worldview can be shown to sound and logical?

This is a category error, creation "scientists" are not scientists as they do not come to their conclusions via the scientific method. They start out with a belief and try to use scientific means to support it. Science is also officially neutral on subjects that it can't address with objective evidence.

God is not evidenced via scientific means. It is not an issue of "worldview" it is a matter of methodology.

If you look at the Noah flood story and dismiss the physical evidence because you believe in a creator god that can do literally anything (a completely unfalcifiable assertion), then you aren't a scientist any longer as evidence can't touch your conclusions.

If the evidence does not guide your conclusions you are not a scientist, that is what science is, a methodological means of gathering and testing evidence.

So, the question becomes which worldview can be shown to sound and logical?

It's not even a challenge. For sound arguments you need true premises which can only be done via evidence gathering.

 

[variant]

Hello, the scientists you presented are biased against the Bible, they're biased towards the Bible being true. So, you've rejected any evidence that I might present as biased and then at the same time presented evidence in your favor that is biased toward you view. This is actually the fallacy of cherry picking.

It's not just a bias, they have decided what is true and then went out and tried to show it.

When you do this, it is called confirmation bias rather than science.

I didn't say atheists reject the Bible based on the Bible. I said they reject the Bible based on their own determination that the Bible isn't true. The premise is that the Bible isn't true. The conclusion is that the Bible isn't true. It's a circle.

It's not a circle. You start out not knowing whether or not the bible is true and you look at the evidence to see whether the idea "the bible is true" is supported and you come up lacking.

As an aside I would never categorically reject the Bible as being "not true" but I merely say that one of it's main thesis "god exists" is unsupported.

 

[variant]

I find that the colloquial definition of atheism, which almost all dictionaries include, is belief in the non-existence of God. Sure, we can humor atheists and let them define atheism as the absence of belief in a deity (which is colloquial agnosticism), but there is no reason to believe that it is the theist rather than the atheist offering a misleading definition.

You should let atheists define their own beliefs or lack there of, otherwise you would be committing a straw man argument when addressing atheists as if they are a unified group by picking the definition that is easier to argue against.

 

[zippy2006]

You should let atheists define their own beliefs or lack there of, otherwise you would be committing a straw man argument when addressing atheists as if they are a unified group by picking the definition that is easier to argue against.

That's fine, as the second sentence of the quote you picked demonstrates.

The point is that I see no reason for forum-going atheists to pretend they are agnostic about God.