Logical Fallacies - just for your information

[OzSpen]

Please be more specific.
What is being silent?

BTW that is a major fallacy that I see on other sites among the "alternative religions".
The only thing that silence on an issue proves is silence on THAT issue.

'Argument from silence' is a logical fallacy. This link explains it:

Description: Drawing a conclusion based on the silence of the opponent, when the opponent is refusing to give evidence for any reason.

Logical Form:

Person 1 claims X is true, then remains silent.

Person 2 then concludes that X must be true.

Example #1:

Jay: Dude, where are my car keys?

Bob: (says nothing)

Jay: I KNEW you took them!

Explanation: Refusal to share evidence is not necessarily evidence for or against the argument. Bob’s silence does not mean he took the keys. Perhaps he did, or perhaps he knows who did, or perhaps he saw a tyrannosaurus eat them, or perhaps he just felt like not answering.​

Oz

 

[smaller]

That's because your and my hearts have been changed by the living Christ through the Holy Spirit.

However, that does not prevent our using logical fallacies in discussions and these fallacies need correcting. It's possible for born-again Christians to engage in erroneous reasoning. New life in Christ does not prevent illogic in action.

True. Logic might dictate that illogic also serves Him.

 

[By Grace]

You are correct Jim. Sometimes a statement or argument can be identified by more than one logical fallacy.

DID ANYONE NOTICE?

This thread has been moved to another forum with different rules than in the Apologetics threads.It is called "The Lounge"

From what I read at the top of the page, "Settle in for some casual conversation and fellowship! ", it seems as if the mod may not be open to "I agree" or "That is not correct" type of posting.

 

[By Grace]

Ex: The scripture does not explicitly say that Jesus never married. The fact that scripture doesn't say; "He never married." in so many words, is not evidence of any possibility that He MIGHT have married.
When the scriptures say nothing about a subject, the only conclusion one may draw from them is nothing.

Thanks, but that is not what I was asking. I made the reply to the mod free
Free said: ↑
Argument from silence.

I was asking to what he referred because I did not see that fallacy demonstrated on the thread.

 

[OzSpen]

True. Logic might dictate that illogic also serves Him.

Since when did the God who invented logic through propositional revelation in Scripture, invent illogic for his use? That would be an oxymoron. God requires that he communicate to us in sentences in Scripture that need to be logical for comprehension.

 

[OzSpen]

DID ANYONE NOTICE?

This thread has been moved to another forum with different rules than in the Apologetics threads.It is called "The Lounge"

From what I read at the top of the page, "Settle in for some casual conversation and fellowship! ", it seems as if the mod may not be open to "I agree" or "That is not correct" type of posting.

I did notice, but I'll wait to see if apologetic back and forth 'conversation' is allowed. Conversation, in my understanding, allows agreement and disagreement. Is that not allowed here in The Lounge?

I find it cagey when a moderator moves a thread from one forum to another and doesn't advise that this has been done.

Oz

 

[jasonc]

Appeal to emotion.Was that listed already?

 

[OzSpen]

Appeal to emotion.Was that listed already?

Why don't you provide us with a description of this fallacious reasoning?

 

[jasonc]

Why don't you provide us with a description of this fallacious reasoning?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_emotion

Also that has a link reduction to Hitler.I was thinking the statements often used by leftists in America where often distraction from a real answer.ie a person is a fascist if they don't believe in transgender bathrooms, they should marry gays,illegal immigration/open borders.

 

[smaller]

Since when did the God who invented logic through propositional revelation in Scripture, invent illogic for his use?

I covered the "logical" understanding for this in an earlier post. None of us see in full, we only see in part and as through a glass darkly, so "complete logic" is not available for us to have.

Even simple logic dictates that incomplete logic is not entirely logical. There is even a divine produce that arises from incomplete logic called HOPE. So, ask me again if that's Divinely Logical? I'd have to say, uh huh.

That would be an oxymoron. God requires that he communicate to us in sentences in Scripture that need to be logical for comprehension.

Understanding and perfect understanding are perhaps two different subjects. I might venture our needs for complete understandings are not all that important. There are other matters, divine, that do not fit into men's logic boxes. Believers can love our Lord without complete understandings without any problem because faith and love are the tools that are employed. Love isn't necessarily logical in any case.

There are other forms of Gods Logic that we are shown. It might be more interesting to discuss some of those matters. Logic tells me we might not get far.

Here is an example of Gods Logic:

Romans 11:32
For God has bound everyone over to disobedience so that he may have mercy on them all.

go figure

 

[OzSpen]

Here is an example of Gods Logic:

Romans 11:32
For God has bound everyone over to disobedience so that he may have mercy on them all.

go figure

That's a logical statement from Rom 11:32.

 

[Free]

Thanks, but that is not what I was asking. I made the reply to the mod free
Free said: ↑
Argument from silence.

I was asking to what he referred because I did not see that fallacy demonstrated on the thread.

I was adding to what Jim Parker said in response to Edward.

 

[smaller]

That's a logical statement from Rom 11:32.

Totally agree! But it is a form of Divine Logic that the world can not see or perceive and will in fact resist and fight against, again, by Divine Sovereign Logic.

Man's logic can not go to these understandings by Divine Order. So then we encounter another [connected] chain of Divine Logic. That the Spirit is in fact against the flesh and the flesh against the Spirit. Gal. 5:17. And another, where sin abounds, Grace does much more abound, from Romans 5:20. And another connected form, that the Law exacerbates and empowers sin. Romans 7, almost the entire chapter and 1 Cor. 15:56.

I could go on at length, but the point is that a LOT of christians do not understand these forms of Divine Logic. A lot of the churches themselves don't get it. And we wonder why there are communications problems.

We see believers toss in worldly logic or man's logic or what I might call practical logic into theological conversations and try to blend it with Divine Logic and it never works.

We might also conclude from the above, a particular form of logical fallacy that applies to theological conversations that does not exist anywhere else. That is that man's logic and flesh logic and practical logic is COMPATIBLE with Divine Logic.

It's NOT. To say it is is in fact a logical fallacy.

 

[WIP]

'Argument from silence' is a logical fallacy. This link explains it:

Description: Drawing a conclusion based on the silence of the opponent, when the opponent is refusing to give evidence for any reason.

Logical Form:

Person 1 claims X is true, then remains silent.

Person 2 then concludes that X must be true.

Example #1:

Jay: Dude, where are my car keys?

Bob: (says nothing)

Jay: I KNEW you took them!

Explanation: Refusal to share evidence is not necessarily evidence for or against the argument. Bob’s silence does not mean he took the keys. Perhaps he did, or perhaps he knows who did, or perhaps he saw a tyrannosaurus eat them, or perhaps he just felt like not answering.​

Oz

How can one predict that Jay would make that assumption? Maybe his assumption would be that Bob didn't give an answer because he was unable to tell Jay where the keys are.

 

[evenifigoalone]

I did notice, but I'll wait to see if apologetic back and forth 'conversation' is allowed. Conversation, in my understanding, allows agreement and disagreement. Is that not allowed here in The Lounge?

Most topics are going to involve disagreement of some sort so I think banning that altogether would be counterproductive. At times there is a fine line between discussion and debate, the rule is mainly used when threads begin getting heated and to keep this particular section from being overwhelmed with heavier topics.

 

[OzSpen]

How can one predict that Jay would make that assumption? Maybe his assumption would be that Bob didn't give an answer because he was unable to tell Jay where the keys are.

Whichever, it's still an argument from silence fallacy.

 

[OzSpen]

Most topics are going to involve disagreement of some sort so I think banning that altogether would be counterproductive. At times there is a fine line between discussion and debate, the rule is mainly used when threads begin getting heated and to keep this particular section from being overwhelmed with heavier topics.

However, isn't the discussion of logical fallacies in this thread involving 'heavier topics'?

 

[reba]

And here i thought logical fallacies was the most important thing in the internet.

 

[jasonc]

And here i thought logical fallacies was the most important thing in the internet.

I thought Trump was

 

[reba]

I love your logic jasonc