Logical Fallacies - just for your information

[By Grace]

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.

I am wondering why you are attempting to bring Scripture into a discussion that has no basis in Scripture? This is NOT a theological discussion. It is a discussion about logical reasoning, and good communications among posters. In all candor and quite honesty, it seems as if you may be:

1) attempting to moderate the thread
2) bringing into the discussion a red herring because there is nothing in Scripture that deals with logical fallacies.​

,
No, I am not attempting to tell you how or what to post, but I am reporting back to you what I am seeing in your posts.

 

[smaller]

I am wondering why you are attempting to bring Scripture into a discussion that has no basis in Scripture? This is NOT a theological discussion.

It certainly was directed to how 'believers' posts between each others, noted by many posters already. Even with charges laid back and forth.

Why do you want to pick on me?

 

[By Grace]

It certainly was directed to how 'believers' posts between each others, noted by many posters already. Even with charges laid back and forth.

This topic DOES have believers participating; it is a given. However believers do not always talk to each other about theology. There are certainly more things going on, for example Brexit, or Hillary or Trump or our favorite professional sports team. Since there is no need to interject Scriptures into discussing Tom Brady's suspension, or the Philadelphia Eagles, I am wondering why you are doing it here?

Why do you want to pick on me?

I am truly sorry that you feel that way.
Your imagination may be active, but to post that sort of thing is to indicate that your imagination is not always accurate.

 

[smaller]

Whatever. Your chiding was not necessary or required.

Post starter and intro, IF you read it:

"When we discuss our views we do our best to make a logical presentation of how we come to our conclusions or why we disagree with someone else's conclusion. But we don't always get the logic right. So, it seemed good to me (as Luke said)-"

 

[reba]

This topic DOES have believers participating; it is a given. However believers do not always talk to each other about theology. There are certainly more things going on, for example Brexit, or Hillary or Trump or our favorite professional sports team. Since there is no need to interject Scriptures into discussing Tom Brady's suspension, or the Philadelphia Eagles, I am wondering why you are doing it here?

WIP has written out the purpose of this site

ChristianForums.net Mission Statement:
ChristianForums.net aspires to provide a place where Christians can come together in fellowship for encouragement, inspiration, and strength to help build each other up and grow in our walk of faith through honest and open discussion, study, reflection, and prayer.

ChristianForums.net desires to serve non-Christians, seeking answers to questions about Christianity, by sharing the gospel of Jesus Christ so they too may acquire the hope, joy, and peace that come from fellowship with the saving grace of our Lord, Jesus Christ.

There is no reason not to interject Scripture while posting on a Christian site. Really ? objecting to Scripture ..... Scriptures are welcome at CFnet in any and all forums.

 

[OzSpen]

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

Who said? Logical fallacies describe erroneous reasoning and not 'the most important thing' on the www.

 

[By Grace]

Whatever. Your chiding was not necessary or required.

The chiding is only in your imagination, Smaller.

This is a discussion forum, and it is the nature of a discussion for different people to offer different opinions. That is just the way things are. Would it be reasonable for me to get hurt feelings because you do not like the Philadelphia Eagles? Of course not!

 

[Obadiah]

... Would it be reasonable for me to get hurt feelings because you do not like the Philadelphia Eagles? Of course not!

Oh, but sooooo many people DO! Childish as it is, so many people do!

 

[By Grace]

There is no reason not to interject Scripture while posting on a Christian site. Really ? objecting to Scripture ..... Scriptures are welcome at CFnet in any and all forums.

Since you stated earlier that you are posting here as a poster, and not an Administrator, I will address you as the former, and not the latter.

This has several logical errors in it:

Primary is the fact that you are taking something completely out of context.
Second is the fact that you are interjecting something completely alien into the discussion, and doing that is called a red herring.

It certainly was directed to how 'believers' posts between each others, noted by many posters already. Even with charges laid back and forth.

What I posted was a reply directed to Smaller when he was attempting to put Scripture into every post he made

There are certainly more things going on, for example Brexit, or Hillary or Trump or our favorite professional sports team. Since there is no need to interject Scriptures into discussing Tom Brady's suspension, or the Philadelphia Eagles, I am wondering why you are doing it here?

I am sure that you agree that any discussion on those topics do not have to have Scripture-based posts. There are of course some that DO need to have that done; it is part of the tos, but that requirement does NOT apply here. There is no sticky for that; therefore I was correct in what I stated.

Second, without warrant, you accuse me of "objecting to Scripture". I posted nothing of the sort, and I request that since you made a public accusation that you publicly retract that accusation. What I was doing was addressing a particular situation, namely the posts of Smaller, and saying "It is not necessary to include Scripture."

That is surely a different thing than "objecting to Scripture" which you accuse me of doing.

 

[By Grace]

Oh, but sooooo many people DO! Childish as it is, so many people do!

Did the Devil make you post that?

It is a true saying that there are some sports fans in Philadelphia who are just like the Liberty Bell.
Cracked
2

 

[Mike]

We may need to restrict the ability of certain members to post in this thread. Stop talking about other members and how they are participating. Get back to the OP and address the topic.

 

[OzSpen]

Did the Devil make you post that?

It is a true saying that there are some sports fans in Philadelphia who are just like the Liberty Bell.
Cracked
2

By Grace,

Why do you think it is difficult for some Christians to grasp the nature of logical fallacies, to recognise how they use them, admit they use them, and then say, 'Thanks for showing me that. Now I realise how I'm interfering with a logical discussion between us. Will you help me stop using such fallacies?'

Oz

 

[smaller]

The chiding is only in your imagination, Smaller.

This is a discussion forum, and it is the nature of a discussion for different people to offer different opinions. That is just the way things are. Would it be reasonable for me to get hurt feelings because you do not like the Philadelphia Eagles? Of course not!

What makes you think every believers logic doesn't revolve around their understandings of Gods Words and how that relates to any other lesser forms of reasoning/logic or the world in general?

 

[OzSpen]

What makes you think every believers logic doesn't revolve around their understandings of Gods Words and how that relates to any other lesser forms of reasoning/logic or the world in general?

smaller,

So that I can better understand what you are saying here, would you mind providing me with a definition of your understanding of the meaning of logic?

Oz

 

[smaller]

smaller,

So that I can better understand what you are saying here, would you mind providing me with a definition of your understanding of the meaning of logic?

Oz

I went through the exercises of Divine Logic earlier in this thread. Divine Logic, that Logic that is found in the scriptures, is different than and non-compatible to the worlds logic.

And yes, personally I walk and live my life in every aspect with Divine Logic (as I know it) presented in the scriptures in mind.

All the other logic complaints, which are legit critique of some forms/manners of communications, even in theological discussions, apply more to man's logic, which is a lesser form of logic, and inferior/incompatible forms of logic in comparison to Gods Perfect Logic.

It is His Logic that I am more interested in regardless of red herrings or strawmen or man's forms of logic if they are proven faulty to Gods Logic. And this is often the case with theology conversations. Believers do take on faulty logic, man's logic positions, and they posture them as Divine. Most often they are not and can be proven not to be Divine from the scriptures and are in fact a lesser form of logic, even though to a believer it may seem credible from a man's logic perspective.

I even gave an example of a glaring form of the misapplication of man's logic that exists within orthodoxy in my first post in the thread as an example of a totally illogical position that they hold and employ.

 

[OzSpen]

I went through the exercises of Divine Logic earlier in this thread. Divine Logic, that Logic that is found in the scriptures, is different than and non-compatible to the worlds logic.

And yes, personally I walk and live my life in every aspect with Divine Logic (as I know it) presented in the scriptures in mind.

All the other logic complaints, which are legit critique of some forms/manners of communications, even in theological discussions, apply more to man's logic, which is a lesser form of logic, and inferior/incompatible forms of logic in comparison to Gods Perfect Logic.

It is His Logic that I am more interested in regardless of red herrings or strawmen or man's forms of logic if they are proven faulty to Gods Logic. And this is often the case with theology conversations. Believers do take on faulty logic, man's logic positions, and they posture them as Divine. Most often they are not and can be proven not to be Divine from the scriptures and are in fact a lesser form of logic, even though to a believer it may seem credible from a man's logic perspective.

I even gave an example of a glaring form of the misapplication of man's logic that exists within orthodoxy in my first post in the thread as an example of a totally illogical position that they hold and employ.

That's still not providing a definition of what you understand logic to mean.

Could you please fill in this blank? 'Logic is _________________________________'

 

[smaller]

That's still not providing a definition of what you understand logic to mean.

Could you please fill in this blank? 'Logic is _________________________________'

Logic tells me this is going nowhere. Sorry.

 

[reba]

Since you stated earlier that you are posting here as a poster, and not an Administrator, I will address you as the former, and not the latter.

This has several logical errors in it:

Primary is the fact that you are taking something completely out of context.
Second is the fact that you are interjecting something completely alien into the discussion, and doing that is called a red herring.


What I posted was a reply directed to Smaller when he was attempting to put Scripture into every post he made


I am sure that you agree that any discussion on those topics do not have to have Scripture-based posts. There are of course some that DO need to have that done; it is part of the tos, but that requirement does NOT apply here. There is no sticky for that; therefore I was correct in what I stated.

Second, without warrant, you accuse me of "objecting to Scripture". I posted nothing of the sort, and I request that since you made a public accusation that you publicly retract that accusation. What I was doing was addressing a particular situation, namely the posts of Smaller, and saying "It is not necessary to include Scripture."

That is surely a different thing than "objecting to Scripture" which you accuse me of doing.

You are correct i did take my admin hat off for a while......here is the quote

Just so there is no confusion what i have posted here today is from reba the member not reba the admin..

that was written on Saturday... my logic tells we are no longer in Saturday.
Be on notice it is back on..

 

[By Grace]

We may need to restrict the ability of certain members to post in this thread. Stop talking about other members and how they are participating. Get back to the OP and address the topic.

That is vague and generalized. What exactly do you mean?

The OP is a friendly discussion about logic and its usage or lack thereof on CFnet.
Since the topic is not from the Bible, it is not necessary for the posts to follow the rules for another forum.

Because there have some posts that have gone "off the deep end" and made unsupported allegations and imagined unwarranted conclusions (meaning not supported by facts) is it then against the tos to address the issue in a cordial, non-flaming manner in order to set the record straight?

I ask this because despite the subtitle of the forum, "Settle in for some casual conversation and fellowship! " the tone of some posters has been reactionary and personal; nothing resembling the term, " casual conversation". From where I sit, it appears as if you are requesting that some posters put other posters on ignore if they merely ask questions, or attempt to address misconceptions. Is that what your are advocating?

I am posting this because general warnings are generally ignored. I am encouraging specifics.

 

[smaller]

Because there have some posts that have gone "off the deep end" and made unsupported allegations and imagined unwarranted conclusions (meaning not supported by facts)

I might consider that an illogical opinion.