B
butxifxnot
Guest
An inexhaustive list of logical fallacies.
http://www.logicalfallacies.info/
First of all, note this:
http://www.logicalfallacies.info/relevance/fallacists/
Just because a proposition is backed up by a fallacy does not make the proposition false: it simply means the evidence supporting it is invalid.
I am absolutely fascinated by logic and feel it is the only way discussions can be made on abstract topics such as intangible truths and abstract truths.
That said, if anyone is interested, I'd like to exercise some logic, outside of directly arguing the Bible (there're threads for that already. =P)
Let's start with a couple classics:
If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?
The inference is that since "sound" can only exist when it is heard, that the mere existance of a person to experience it defines whether or not something existed. This confounds us as rational thinkers, because we know for a fact that "things" exist whether someone is there to testify to it or not. So where does the paradox come from?
The answer to the paradox is simple: the statement is guilty of an equivocation fallacy.
http://www.logicalfallacies.info/ambigu ... ivocation/
Simply, an equivocation is when two definitions of one word are used to simultaneously address one issue. In this case, "sound" is being used in two different way to argue the same inference: that the existance of "sound" is dependant on perception. In reality, the sound waves (pressure waves) exist whether an ear is present to interpret the event or not. Our perception of the sound waves are all that vary.
Can God make a circle square/can God make a rock too big for Him to lift?
The problem, of course, is that God is omnipotent, yet here are scenarios in which we cannot perceive Him accomplishing the challange.
Believe it or not, (and this is one I've taken on only recently, so I'd love to discuss it) this is guilty of a No True Scotsman Fallacy.
http://www.logicalfallacies.info/presum ... -scotsman/
Suspend your adherence to reality: say God were to make a circle square. No matter what, we would insist that the challenge was not accomplished, because the resulting shape would not fit our definition of what a square is.
Although this is hard to envision (because we all know what a square is), this is actually a very abstract "no true Scotsman" fallacy.
As for "Can God make a rock too big for Him to lift," it is a NTS fallacy, but the real issue is in the paradoxical nature of the question itself. It'd be like me asking you "Can you have the inability to do something which you have the ability to do?" Anyone know what this logical issue would be called? Where the gpremise contradicts the conclusion/problem? I actually have no idea...
-Peter
http://www.logicalfallacies.info/
First of all, note this:
http://www.logicalfallacies.info/relevance/fallacists/
Just because a proposition is backed up by a fallacy does not make the proposition false: it simply means the evidence supporting it is invalid.
I am absolutely fascinated by logic and feel it is the only way discussions can be made on abstract topics such as intangible truths and abstract truths.
That said, if anyone is interested, I'd like to exercise some logic, outside of directly arguing the Bible (there're threads for that already. =P)
Let's start with a couple classics:
If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?
The inference is that since "sound" can only exist when it is heard, that the mere existance of a person to experience it defines whether or not something existed. This confounds us as rational thinkers, because we know for a fact that "things" exist whether someone is there to testify to it or not. So where does the paradox come from?
The answer to the paradox is simple: the statement is guilty of an equivocation fallacy.
http://www.logicalfallacies.info/ambigu ... ivocation/
Simply, an equivocation is when two definitions of one word are used to simultaneously address one issue. In this case, "sound" is being used in two different way to argue the same inference: that the existance of "sound" is dependant on perception. In reality, the sound waves (pressure waves) exist whether an ear is present to interpret the event or not. Our perception of the sound waves are all that vary.
Can God make a circle square/can God make a rock too big for Him to lift?
The problem, of course, is that God is omnipotent, yet here are scenarios in which we cannot perceive Him accomplishing the challange.
Believe it or not, (and this is one I've taken on only recently, so I'd love to discuss it) this is guilty of a No True Scotsman Fallacy.
http://www.logicalfallacies.info/presum ... -scotsman/
Suspend your adherence to reality: say God were to make a circle square. No matter what, we would insist that the challenge was not accomplished, because the resulting shape would not fit our definition of what a square is.
Although this is hard to envision (because we all know what a square is), this is actually a very abstract "no true Scotsman" fallacy.
As for "Can God make a rock too big for Him to lift," it is a NTS fallacy, but the real issue is in the paradoxical nature of the question itself. It'd be like me asking you "Can you have the inability to do something which you have the ability to do?" Anyone know what this logical issue would be called? Where the gpremise contradicts the conclusion/problem? I actually have no idea...
-Peter