Faulty Reasoning

A Christian thinks he can detect faulty reasoning in my writing.

Yeah, right.

Greetings, I found your attempt to explain your disbelief in God interesting and I wish I personally had more time to debate and thereby help to enlighten your thinking processes, however I do not.

One area where I may be of assistance though is the part where you describe the questions that you say Christians cannot answer. Those who may try to answer your queries are not quite up to snuff on logic either.

The questions themselves are entirely faulty logically. Most are completely irrelevant. Most make about as much sense as saying “ice floats on root beer and this clearly proves that no god exists”. One of your questions asks something to the effect: why did God leave no or such poor historical evidence of the resurrection or even of Jesus’ existence? To understand this you must go to the Biblical definition of faith. (Will leave that research to you, there is a concise definition of faith in the New Testament). Then you follow that up with some statement similar to: surely if there was a god he would have provided better evidence. Wow that is a pretty big assumption for a mortal to make of God!

Logically it is just that an assumption, with no basis.

Therefore, first things first. In order to present a more logical argument allow me to recommend, to you, a study of critical and creative thinking. I.e. Applied Logic 101. Certainly this is not meant as a personal attack; please do not receive it as such. Most arguments I hear from most people, Christians or otherwise are truly illogical.

Critical and Creative thinking was the best and most important college course I ever took.

The only downside was realizing, after logical enlightenment, that most of what most people say is nonsense.

However the reward of learning to think clearly and logically is priceless.

Lee Strobel is a very logical thinker and writer. The name of his book, by the way is “The case for Christ” not against Christ. So I ask you why would he interview any one who is non believer? Would that not be the task of an author of a case against Christ?

May God bless us all.

George

Your message seems completely devoid of logical arguments and yet purports to show that I am not logical.

No logical fallacies were exposed or explained by it just the usual Christian attack that I'm not thinking straight (I mustn't be because I don't agree with you and you're a Christian) I should read the Bible (some bit of it somewhere that you can't be bothered to point out) and think a bit clearer and that if I did that I would then know where I went wrong. You can't actually put your finger on where I went wrong but as I don't agree with you I must have, somewhere. The opposite conclusion is unthinkable, so you don't think it.

A statement that starts with the word "surely" is hinting clearly that it is inviting a refutation not that it is logically beyond contestation. Nobody ever says "surely 2 plus 2 is 4". Do they, surely?

--
Martin Willett

http://mwillett.org

Thanks for your reasonable attempt to refute the fact that I state that most
of the questions and statements I read in your article are logically flawed.
I wish I had saved the whole article so I could show you the fallacies line
by line in good time since you took time to read my reply. However I don't
even remember for certain where I ran across the article. I also don't
recognize your name as the author that could be due to my poor memory. I do
however relish good logical argument, which has nothing to do with being
Christian. I don't have much data but will use what I have from your
writing and mine. What got me going, as I remember, was some statement about
there being three or four questions that Christians can never seem to
answer. What I said was that most of the questions were logically flawed to
begin with.
It has been so many years for me that I would have to go back and re study
the structure of hypothetical syllogism to refute your questions by the
numbers but here is the best I can do at the moment. So here are two
points that are typical of the whole article I read that was a criticism of
Lee Stroble's book "The Case for Christ"
These two points are typical of the logical fallacies that the whole article
was constructed of.

One question was something similar to this: Why did God leave no or such
poor evidence of the resurrection or even of Jesus' existence? .

Firstly the question is very answerable and the fact that you don't find
folks that can answer it is because, as I said, most folks will just be
defensive and not logical. The answer to the question is in the Bible as I
pointed out to you and the chapter and verse are listed below.
Hebrews 11:1 (New International Version)
New International Version (NIV)
Copyright (c) 1973, 1978, 1984 by International Bible Society

Hebrews 11
By Faith
1Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not
see.

So you see the answer to your question is that God left plenty of evidence
for those of us who have FAITH.

Also it is stated many times in the Bible that we (believers) accept God and
Christ on FAITH.

Secondly the statement

Then that is followed up with a statement similar to this

:surely if there was a god he would have provided better evidence.

The answer to the first question is also refutation of this statement, if
you choose to call it a statement.

I call this a logical error because it is an assumption that one understands
the mind of God and knows what God would have done to prove his own
existence.

An assumption with no basis is a logical error.

An example of an assumption with basis would be.

I have before me in a container an odorless colorless almost tasteless
liquid that I have drawn from the tap in my kitchen. I can assume that this
is water.

Also to me a statement that starts out "surely" is not an invitation to
anything it is merely a confirmation of the facts to follow. No facts
followed your "surely" but rather an illogical assumption. An assumption
with no basis.

So on and so forth the article I read was as full of logical holes as a
sieve.

Best regards.

George

Do you understand the mind of God? (Should that be Mind? Do all God's organs and characteristics deserve a capital letter? Does that include farts and toenails?)

It seems to me that religious people will often describe in great detail what is in the mind of God, or was in the mind of God but as soon as an awkward question is asked the crystal ball becomes clouded as there is a doubter in the room and of course they would never be so presumptuous as to say what is in the mind of God. In other words if they are confident of their answer convincing people they will use it, if not they will smile serenely and say they can't answer it as they being mere mortals can't see into the mind of God. Those people who can perform the trick of sincerely believing that they are not prevaricating and bullshitting when they do this but are understanding the Mystery on a higher level will be the ones who advance in the church's (or cult's) hierarchy.

Of course I can't know what is in the mind of a god who I do not know. There is no way that I can logically prove that such a god does not exist because any apparent contradictions cannot be regarded as contradictions by the believers. God Exists. Therefore if logic says he doesn't exist logic is at fault. Faith is more important than logic. Debating with people who use such tactics is as much fun as playing "Superman and robbers", with an older kid playing Superman and you being the robber.

I find Christians trying to use logic as hypocritical as Nazis using human rights lawyers.

One little question for you: why did the apostles need to see hard evidence of the resurrection but everybody else was expected to accept it on faith? (But few did until the Emperor told them to) If believing the story with faith is the key why did the story happen at all? The apostles weren't believing with faith, not the kind of faith you have, were they? Either faith is better than evidence, in which case you are more faithful/gullible than the apostles, or it isn't, and most Christians get a bum deal. You have no way of verifying anything. You take your story from somebody who told you, thinking they were doing their duty to God to tell you in such a way that you don't ever doubt it. You can look up accounts of what happened in a book and you are taught that any apparent contradictions in those accounts are not contradictions. When it helps that the words are taken metaphorically that is the way you read them, when it helps to take them literally that is the way you take them and of course you do not for one moment see that as intellectually dishonest. Believing in what you have been told to believe is the most important thing you can do with your life. You will do whatever it takes. You will believe whatever absurdities are required for you to believe and you will do so all the while pretending to be humble and believing your own conceit.

--
Martin Willett

http://mwillett.org

Very interesting this dialog started as some comments by me when I saw an
illogical attack on an author I respect and you questioned some generalities
I stated and asked for specifics then when I gave them to you your follow up
is two more logical fallacies called "argumentum ad hominem" and "red
herring".. Meaning that you went off topic by attacking Christians.

OK answer to your question which is two parts and actually disjunctive. So
let me separate the two parts and give you logical answers.

Why did the apostles need to see hard
evidence of the resurrection?

Because there were many false prophets in that time and many Jews were
looking for the messiah and there was much disagreement as to when the
messiah would come and what he would do. So then as now there were many
skeptics and rightly so I might add.

But everybody else was expected to accept
it on faith? (But few did until the Emperor told them to) If believing

Once the apostles were convinced they set about to spread the gospel based
on fulfillment of prophecy and their own experiences.

As for this statement I could not agree with you more. There are just tons
of people out there who are spouting things they know little about. In fact
it is a sad truth for Christianity that there are tons of preachers out
there that know little about which they speak.

I find Christians trying to use logic as hypocritical as Nazis using
human rights lawyers

As for this statement. Please this is beneath your intelligence. When you
say "Christians" that is really a sweeping generalization (oops another
logical fallacy) and really think about what you said about the Nazis. Who
do you think would jump to their defense immediately? Why the ACLU of
course.

. Believing in what you have been told
to believe is the most important thing you can do with your life

You could not be further from wrong on this one. No Sir, I can testify that
my faith is built solidly on experience and being led by God's spirit
through the Bible, which took about two and a half years of intensive study.
I am not a scholar and cannot quote much scripture but I have been through
the Bible and understand what I need to understand.

I will briefly give you my testimony. I was raised in the Christian faith.
I saw much hypocrisy in the church and by the time I was 15 years old turned
my back on organized religion. I never doubted the existence of a creator
because I believed then as I do now that if one looks at the complexity of
this earth and life thereon and thinks that it all appeared randomly from
nothing for no reason then one is a fool. I did however disagree and
disassociate with all organized religion and all they teach. I walked
without God in my life for about the next 34 years. I lived through a war
and four marriages. I was not a malicious or dishonest person but certainly
without God and very self-destructive. In my early forties I went through
a rough divorce began to drink heavily and even started using drugs, which I
was always pretty much against.
I was very suicidal for about four years. I think my life was near the
end. Then I picked up my Great Grandmothers autobiography, written around
1920 (which was found in an old house in a tin box in Louisiana as the last
generation to live in her house before it's demolition was moving out.) Only
about 128 pages but this lady, who was a Methodist minister, was able to
explain scripture and miracles to me like no one else could ever hope to.

This was actually God speaking to me through my Great Grandmother who was
born around 1865 and died around April of 1930.

Some people will say God does not make deals... That is False. He made
many covenants with folks in the Old Testament and the folks always broke
them and suffered.
I made a deal with God and actually I wasn't making any deal but in reality
I was accepting His deal.
I have seen many miracles in my life and having walked without God and then
walked with God (or to take it out of religious terms) Lived with God out of
my life and lived with God in my life. I certainly have seen this mountain
from both sides. I was immediately delivered, rescued, cured, or however
you wish to say it from alcohol, cocaine, and tobacco addictions. I was
immediately enlightened to the purpose of life, and truly understood the
meaning of amazing grace. If you have never read the story of the apostle
Paul then you won't know what I mean by a "Damascus road experience" But I
will pray for you that you will have one someday.

So you see, my friend I am not a dyed in the wool life long Bible thumper.
I have walked many paths and probably one similar to yours at one time. I
have earned $200k per year and I have been on the street. Only one thing
really matters and I hope I never have to walk without God again.

I was facilitating a divorce support group once and a gentleman said
something like "depending on God is a bunch of hooey I will run my own
life" This man was a very successful businessman nearing retirement and was
being destroyed health wise, financially, and spiritually but he was
determined to run his own life. Then I said to him
"yes you are running things and are you satisfied?"

Regards

George

Matthew 7:3

--
Martin Willett

http://mwillett.org

Matthew 7:3 is indeed applicable to the daily life of any true Christian.
Continuous self- examination is required. Then recognition, definition, and
admission of wrong behavior or thought and then finally a "repentance" or
turning away from the wrong or incorrect behavior or thought and returning
to the correct path attempting always to live according to the BOOK.
Therefore I seek forgiveness for my failings and faithfully attempt with all
my being to live according to God's instruction. Which actually can be
boiled down to two great commandments. Living by the two great commandments
will automatically instill the original Ten Commandments in ones spirit.

If you do not know the two great commandments Let me encourage you to find
them. They are in the new testament.

However this entire dialog began because I took exception to an illogical
attack on a very logical treatise by author Lee Strobel, which has nothing
to do with Matthew 7:3, that is unless you are encouraging me to look at my
own logical errors. So if that is the case as you asked me to be specific
about pointing out logical fallacies or "faulty reasoning" instances, which
I did, then I ask you to which logical error of mine are you referring.

Best Regards

George

You want me to point out your faulty reasoning. Here goes, I don't expect it to be an exhaustive account:

The whole point of my question was its two part nature. You answered neither part well and ignored the vitally important link between them claiming it to be somehow offside or something according to some rules you pull out of your arse whenever it suits you.

Why did the apostles need to see hard evidence? Lame answer given. In the light of that answer why does that reasoning not apply to other people? If other people can accept the truth of the propositions without any direct evidence why are the apostles an exception? No answer given.

You seem to have simply decided that the questioning was not legitimate, perhaps because it did not conform to the shape of arguments you know how to win.

"Fulfilment of prophesy" is weasel wording meaning they made their story fit the prophesies. Occam's Razor deals with this very neatly. It is far simpler to assume the story that apparently fulfils the "prophesies" which had been in the public domain for centuries was made up specifically in order to do so rather than postulating a supernatural explanation. Think about it, if you heard a story about a child with piercing blue eyes called Damien who had the number 666 on his back what would you conclude was the most likely explanation:

a] This was the Antichrist, fulfilling the prophesies contained in the book of Revelations and The Omen

b] It's a load of bullshit, even if you saw the mark you would believe it was a tattoo unless a dermatologist of your choosing could convince you otherwise

I find Christians trying to use logic as hypocritical as Nazis using human rights lawyers

Subject of the sentence: me.
Verb: find.
Nature of sentence: a belief statement, a statement of my belief

Where is your grounds for criticism?

Definition of Christians: people who claim to be followers of Jesus Christ

I don't use your definition of True Christians ™, that would be to commit the logical fallacy known as no true Scotsman. (Fallacies are still false even if you don't know what they're known as)

A sweeping generalization about my own belief cannot be dismissed as a fallacy, unless you happen to know my mind better than I do.

Who would defend Nazis is not relevant, I was not commenting on the morality or consistency of defenders of Nazis but of Nazis. It would be hypocritical for Nazis to rely on human rights lawyers because they themselves would not listen to such pleadings or such people if they were in power. And it is hypocritical for Christians to use logic because any line of reasoning which suggests that Christianity is illogical is ignored and a call to faith or prayer made to disguise the blow.

That's about as far as I got before I decided you are not worth bothering with. You use logic like the drunk uses a lamppost, for support not for illumination.

Martin Willett

http://mwillett.org

I am sorry but now you have gone so far of the deep end that nothing at all in this message was anywhere near reasonable.

If you really want answers to your questions you will havd to take time to study first century Grecco Roman culture and Judeaism.

The prophesies Jesus fulfilled were more than a thousand years old not from some stupid pop culture movie. Do you think for a minute that anyone will know what the movie If you are willing to give the same status to some stupid Hollywood fantasy horror movie as you are ancient prohetic writngs then there is not much hope for you to ever achieve any reasonable discovery.

Also if you do not know where the rules of logic I subscribe to come from nor understand them you will have to do what I suggested in my very first writing and that is to take a course or make a serious study of critical and creative thinking.

The logical analysis comes from bout 500 BC, some from Aristotle and some from Plato and the formulae are still in use by scholars around the world today.

You see Lee Stroble is an excellent logician. When he started his book "the Case for Christ" he was an atheist, or at least an agnostic. Actually he set out to make a case against Christ and was converted by the evidence he found in the process.

Have you actually read his book?

Best Regards

George

Have you actually read his book?

Of course not. Have you read my disclaimer? The disclaimers and warnings I put all over the page where you got my email address from. No, obviously not.

You are determined to believe that my reasoning is faulty, when I demonstrate that it is not you ignore me. Fine. I didn't start this conversation, you did. You jumped in without doing any basic research and expected to be able to crush me with your faith and your so-called logic. It is not going to work without the hooting and baying mob that isn't really there. You're not in the Bible Belt, you're in cyberspace, and nobody else can hear them scream.

You obviously have a very limited grasp on logic if you think you can argue with an atheist and use the Bible as a source of authority or use "the test of time" as a valid reason for believing in myths which are held to be true as a matter of faith. Faith and logic don't mix.

Logic: 1 + 1 = 2 unless you can demonstrate otherwise...

Faith: 1 + 1 + 1 = 3 = 1 and he was born a stable with the baa lambs and you can torture me to death and I won't say otherwise and if you do that means I was right. Amen.

Your grasp on logic is truly pathetic:

if you do not know where the rules of logic I subscribe to come from nor understand them you will have to do what I suggested in my very first writing and that is to take a course or make a serious study of critical and creative thinking.

No, I won't. I don't know where they come from. I am not sure that what you think you know could be discovered or is worth discovering, I don't particularly want to know. I don't have to do anything. Not knowing does not imply needing and wanting to know. There may be some technical term to explain the flaw in your logic there but frankly I think it's simply easier to say that you're a fuckwit and leave it at that.

By the way, whether or not you read the following caution that appears on my website it still applies:

I assume all material submitted may be published at my discretion.
If you do not want any part of your message published
DON'T SEND IT.

and this one

Honestly, did you read the cautions on that page?

Hit your back button and read it properly.

Any email sent by people who seem to have taken no notice

of the cautions will be published and mercilessly mocked.

This is your final warning.

I don't think could be much clearer.

"Lee Strobel is a very logical thinker and writer. The name of his book, by the way is “The case for Christ” not against Christ. So I ask you why would he interview any one who is non believer? Would that not be the task of an author of a case against Christ?"

This seems to contradict this assertion:

You are obviously rather dumb if you believe this on the basis of reading the cover notes of a book sold to American Christians. How many books have you read that were written by the famous atheist logician Lee Strobel? How many people have you met who were converted to atheism by Lee Strobel? How many famous atheists stopped inviting famous atheist Lee Strobel to their cocktail parties when he became a Christian? How many books on any subject other than Christianity has Lee Strobel ever sold?

Here's some clues

Books by Lee Strobel

Reckless Homicide? Ford's Pinto Trial (1980) (Be the first person to review this item.)

Nobody wants to review this book? Don't they know Lee Strobel is a great logician?

Inside the Mind of Unchurched Harry and Mary (1993)

What Jesus Would Say (1994)

God's Outrageous Claims (1998)

The Case for Christ (1998)

The Case for Faith (2000)

Surviving a Spiritual Mismatch in Marriage (2002)

The Case for a Creator (2004)

The Case for Easter (2004)

Experiencing the Passion of Jesus (2004)

The Case for Christmas (2005)

Discussing the Da Vinci Code : Exploring the Issues Raised by the Book and Movie (2006)

One book written by the atheist journalist (with a wife who had recently been converted to Christianity) Lee Strobel, that isn't about God at all. The following year he converts to Christianity and doesn't publish another book for 12 years and never subsequently writes about anything except religion.

That isn't exactly the way you put the story across, is it?

--
Martin Willett

http://mwillett.org

Don’t you see you have just made my point? The man started out to make a logical case against the probability of Christ being real.

Stroble is a lawyer and a journalist and was an atheist.

He set out originally to prove a case against Christ. He started interviewing theologians (believers in Christ) like a lawyer doing his discovery, deposing witnesses in order to shoot holes in their testimonies. He did not bother to interview any atheists because atheists historically don’t have any evidence of anything but instead operate on the assumption that because they see no evidence of the existence of God that he therefore does not exist. As Stroble interviewed the “witnesses” he was convinced by the evidence that Christ is real and thus the book had to become the case for Christ and rather than against..

Here is the logical error in simple form

I do not see ( or experience) any evidence that God exists, therefore God does not exist.

Using feeble erroneous logic one might think this a reasonable statement. WRONGO!

Here is the same argument that may help you see some light and the error.

I did not hear the sound of the tree falling in the forest ( no eveidence) , therefore the tree did not make any sound when it fell!

The problem with this logically feeble argument is that it makes the FALSE assumption that the existence of the sound depends on experience of or existence of evidence.

If you cannot grasp this simple concept then I fear I will never be able to communicate any abstractions to you.

By the way I researched that Scotsman fallacy that you mentioned and that has nothing to do with logic what so ever. That is some crap that someone made up who does not understand logic at all.

To say that someone is not a “true” Christian is no fallacy at all, but I will agree not really a very good statement.

More correctly stated, what it means is the person claims to be a Christian but really is not (or at least is not behaving as one should).

There are many false or counterfeit Christians.

Anyway I never started out to argue the existence of God or not with you. I merely commented on the lack of logic that someone else used when trying to critique Strobels book.

I conclude with this. Do you believe in electricity?

No, I have not just made your point. I demolished yours, which you have not noticed, because you believe your points are incapable of disproof because your faith protects them. Arguing with somebody who is certain they can never be defeated is futile. The only way to defeat an enemy like that is to kill all their followers first, then kill them. A debate only works with people who are prepared to accept they have been in error.

I am prepared to accept I have been in error, but only when I have. If you were to be presented with evidence that Paul made up the entire story of Jesus you would not accept it, under any circumstances. Therefore debating with you is futile.

You fail to accept the most likely explanations in the case of the story of Jesus. You know all about cult leaders and charlatans such as L Ron Hubbard, David Koresh and Joseph Smith. These are transparently liars who managed to convince a small number of impressionable people of their sincerity with the strength of their personality. In the case of Koresh all those followers died with him and so did his proto-religion. But Joseph Smith was survived by a small number of sincere but misguided believers who went on to slowly turn a cult of lunatics into an increasingly respectable church. Now everybody has to give lip service to the idea that Mormons are sincere and have a respectable faith, but just look at the crap they believe in!

The story of Jesus is every bit as outlandish, derivative and clearly fictionalized as the stories of the Angel Moroni. The early members of the church are all, according to their own accounts, heroes and martyrs. According to non-Christian historical sources the tale of Christianity begins with a few not particularly special trouble-makers, nobody spotted Jesus when he was alive, the earliest non-Christian account of Jesus was written by a man who was born at least a year after the putative crucifixion. Do you need me to outline what logic decrees about the reliability of a pre-foetal "eye-witness"?

I do believe in electricity. I have seen it in operation. I have felt it. I have paid for it. I have seen what happens when it isn't there. I have seen it applied and removed. I have controlled it. I have not met anybody who doubts that it exist or that people who doubt it are incapable of moral choices.

Do you believe in fairies?

Martin Willett

http://mwillett.org

Atheism \| Politics \| Memes \| Mind \| Matters \| Interact \| Feedback \| Email \| Links \| Search \| Debate \| Home
© 1999 - 2008 by Martin Willett.	mwillett.org: Debate Unlimited