The "Name That Fallacy" Game

[Washington]

From AiG.

"But there is [an] internal argument for the accuracy of Scripture, based on the character and attributes of God, and this argument is supreme.

The Scriptures claim that God Himself breathed out Scripture (using human instruments, 2 Peter 1:21) and that it can be trusted to be His Word. His wisdom is infinite, and He is all-powerful and holy, so everything He says is trustworthy, accurate, and without error. Since God’s work will image His own nature, the accuracy of Scripture is guaranteed.

The Scripture has authority because God has all authority. And because God is the author of all Scripture (2 Timothy 3:16), Scripture is authoritative. God is the basis for the Bible’s authority. Since God has ensured the transmission of the message of His Son and since He reinforces this message by His own authority, mankind has only two choices: to obey Him or reject Him. The fact that God gave us the Scripture is the reason we know that it is accurate and that it is exactly what He wants us to have. And because God has spoken it, we can be confident in the Scripture’s authority. It is true and represents faithfully His offer and promise of forgiveness and eternal life to those who meet His criteria of belief in His Son."

source
​

 

[plindboe]

That's too easy. The game is probably directed at christians though, so I'll refrain from revealing the answer.

Peter

 

[Bushido216]

Not a philosopher by trade, but I'd guess that it begs the question... or to put in Jack McCoy speak, assuming facts not in evidence.

 

[JGL53]

Well, with all the times the word "authority" is used, I'm going to guess it's an example of argument from authority.

 

[SUM]

Deleted post.

 

[SUM]

Nope I don’t see any fallacies here. Well except for:
Appeal to a non-existent authority
Appeal to widespread belief
Argument ad nauseam
Hypothesis contrary to fact
Least plausible hypothesis
Argument by scenario
Disproof by fallacy
and
Pious fraud
That’s all I can think of off the top of my head.

 

[Aces High]

Nope I don’t see any fallacies here. Well except for:
Appeal to a non-existent authority
Appeal to widespread belief
Argument ad nauseam
Hypothesis contrary to fact
Least plausible hypothesis
Argument by scenario
Disproof by fallacy
and
Pious fraud
That’s all I can think of off the top of my head.

It's not an appeal to a non-existent authority fallacy, in that case every single argument in relation to religion would be considered fallacious. I've yet to see anyone refute every single religious argument and label it fallacious, so I think I'll hold back in subscribing to this claim for now.

It's not a hypothesis contrary to fact fallacy either, there's nothing to suggest that any of what that passage says is true, though neither can anyone dismiss it didn't happen unless there is some kind of verification to contradict it.

Can you point out the least plausible hypothesis in question here? I certainly can't see it.

I'm also having difficulty understanding how it's argumentum ad nauseam as well as argument by scenario in this particular case, sure, it's very repetitive, and it is definitely a case of argumentum ad nauseam. Argument by scenario though? I don't think so.

As for your disproof by fallacy, are you trying to say you agree with their conclusion?

As for pious fraud, that's not a fallacy, dishonest? Yes.

Do you even know what these fallacies you listed are? It doesn't seem that you do, go revise. Oh and you missed one, circular reasoning.

Given the number of fallacies you listed here, of which many are bogus, I'm inclined to think it's the basis for a strawman argument, make sure you don't commit one yourself in an attempt to disprove another party

 

[SUM]

Ahh… you hurt my feelings. Anyway all these are fallacies and they do apply here, although I will say some may apply loosely. Besides I was just having fun but now I guess I’ll have to defend my claims.

It's not an appeal to a non-existent authority fallacy, in that case every single argument in relation to religion would be considered fallacious.

That’s what I was trying to say.

It's not a hypothesis contrary to fact fallacy either, there's nothing to suggest that any of what that passage says is true, though neither can anyone dismiss it didn't happen unless there is some kind of verification to contradict it.

The article is implying that what is written in scripture is fact therefore a hypothesis contrary to fact.

Can you point out the least plausible hypothesis in question here?

How about the fact that a non-existent authority breathed out scripture through people. Do you consider that the most feasible answer? I would say it’s the least. I’m going to go out on a limb here and say man wrote scripture without the aid of some mythical deity.

Argument by scenario though? I don't think so.

Well think again. You think the author is not trying to tie unrelated material together?

As for your disproof by fallacy, are you trying to say you agree with their conclusion?

The conclusion was reach in a blatantly fallacious way. If you don’t see that I can’t help you.

As for pious fraud, that's not a fallacy, dishonest? Yes.

I didn’t mean for that to be under my list of fallacies. It was meant to be a separate comment but that wasn’t clear.

Do you even know what these fallacies you listed are? It doesn't seem that you do, go revise. Oh and you missed one, circular reasoning.

This comment was hateful and unnecessary not to mention an ad homineum.

Given the number of fallacies you listed here, of which many are bogus, I'm inclined to think it's the basis for a strawman argument, make sure you don't commit one yourself in an attempt to disprove another party

Never mind the strawman. Do you make a habit of using ad homineum arguments to prove your point?

[/font]

 

[Jnwaco]

lol, wouldn't that be an appeal to ridicule fallacy instead of ad hominem?

 

[Hentenza]

Thread closed for review