[_ Old Earth _] Logic: "Begging the Question"

[Sparkey]

There's a site that I'm new to and find very helpful so I thought that I'd introduce it with a subject that I'm familiar with but enjoyed the explanation given there. Logical fallacies such as the one I'll quote and link have interested me and have helped me in that certain thirst for knowledge which inspired 2,302 "Why, Daddy? Why?" questions per child per day having been asked the world over.

This one is about "Logic" but don't let that scare you. The subject is being taught from a Christian perspective. Here's a little bit quoted directly from an Article entitled, "Logical Fallacies: The Fallacy of Begging the Question":

I once did a telescope session with a small group of people, including a four-year-old boy who was particularly interested in astronomy. I asked this young budding astronomer if he believed in alien spaceships. “Of course,†he said. I then asked him why he believed in alien spaceships. I’ll never forget his clever response: “How else would the aliens get here?†Pretty logical isn’t it? The aliens would never be able to get to earth without a spaceship. So, clearly, there must be alien spaceships!

This is a wonderful example of a very common error in reasoningâ€â€the fallacy of begging the question. This fallacy is committed when a person merely assumes what he or she is attempting to prove or when the premise of an argument actually depends upon its conclusion. In this case, our young student was attempting to prove the existence of alien spacecraft by taking it for granted that aliens have traveled to earth. But that is essentially the point in question. This young aspiring astronomer was reasoning in a circle.

The author goes on to cite other examples of "circular reasoning" <a.k.a. "Begging the Question" fallacy>:

• [list:3o3s5z68]
• “The Bible cannot be true because it teaches that the earth is only thousands of years old; whereas, we know the earth is billions of years old.â€Â
• “Creation cannot be true because you would have to ignore all that scientific evidence.â€Â[/*:m:3o3s5z68]
• “It makes no sense to deny evolution; it is a well-established fact of nature.â€Â[/*:m:3o3s5z68]

[/*:m:3o3s5z68][/list:u:3o3s5z68]

The author doesn't stop there though and I was amused to see my favorite argument soundly defeated by the very same reasoning: “The Bible must be the Word of God because it says it is. And what it says must be true, since God cannot lie.†Not too many people are bold enough to confront me directly when I restrain my comment to a single statement of belief, "My God ain't no liar." Even Dr. Lisle affirms the truth of this belief saying, "Of course, it is quite true that the Bible does claim to be the Word of God, and it is also true that God does not lie. But when one of these statements is used as the sole support for the other, the argument commits the fallacy of begging the question."

Here then is the full article ---> CLICK HERE <---

I hope it is both educational and enjoyable,
~Sparrow

 

[Barbarian]

The author goes on to cite other examples of "circular reasoning" <a.k.a. "Begging the Question" fallacy>:

o “The Bible cannot be true because it teaches that the earth is only thousands of years old; whereas, we know the earth is billions of years old.â€Â
o “Creation cannot be true because you would have to ignore all that scientific evidence.â€Â
o “It makes no sense to deny evolution; it is a well-established fact of nature.â€Â

The first is a simple misconception. It assumes incorrectly that the Bible says the Earth is only thousands of years old.

The second is a category error. It assumes that creation and reality are mutually exclusive.

The third is simply a fact. There is a huge amount of evidence for it, sufficient to make it foolish to deny.

 

[Sparkey]

Do you have better examples off hand maybe?

 

[Barbarian]

"My God ain't no liar." is often a conflation of one's own word with that of God.

 

[Sparkey]

You can say what you mean. It's okay.
If you are trying to say that I'm remiss in my quoting of scripture - point to what and where.
Why pussyfoot around? That's not like you.

Do you have better examples of Begging the Question or criticisms only? Do you have positive criticisms? I've not seen much evidence of it so far.

Simply stated, "Begging the question" is a form of logical fallacy in which a statement or claim is assumed to be true without evidence other than the statement or claim itself. Isn't your statement, "... is often a conflation of one's own word with that of God," a rather good example of Begging the Question? Hey! Maybe that's what you meant to do. Sry. I'm slow sometimes.

Cordially,
~Sparrowhawke

 

[Barbarian]

You can say what you mean. It's okay.

I do. Trust me, I err in being too blunt.

If you are trying to say that I'm remiss in my quoting of scripture - point to what and where.
Why pussyfoot around? That's not like you.

If I meant to say it, I'd say it.

Do you have better examples of Begging the Question or criticisms only?

"If that wasn't illegal, then it wouldn't be prohibited by law."

Simply stated, "Begging the question" is a form of logical fallacy in which a statement or claim is assumed to be true without evidence other than the statement or claim itself.

More precisely, it's assuming what you propose to prove.

Isn't your statement, ("My God ain't no liar.") is often a conflation of one's own word with that of God," a rather good example of Begging the Question?

No. That is an observation. Petitio Principii is always presented as a logical argument.