What is wrong with this argument?
June 1, 2007 by Andy
What is wrong with these pictures?
As our perception may be deceived by a clever picture our thinking may be deceived by a clever argument.
In light of our weekly evangelism, our favorite atheist once again came by with his challenges. With all of his atheistic rhetoric learning he “believes” that his argument are “clever” and therefore has refuted the Christians. How could one be so arrogant that he truly believes his argument to be rational and logical when he doesn’t believe that the laws of logic are not universal? It is interesting to find out (when asked) that he does not even know the basic laws of logic (i.e law of identity, excluded middle, non-contradiction, etc - even inductive and deductive reasoning) and yet appeal to these laws to refute us.
What is ironic is that this atheist would refute the goodness of God but he himself does not believe in an absolute goodness. He would refute the Bible that it is filled with contradictions but believes that contradictions are not illogical.
Amazing is it not?
An atheist who does not believe in an absolute “right” or “wrong” would tell us that we are wrong.
An atheist who does not believe in an absolute morality would tell us that Christians are immoral.
An atheist who does not believe that evil exist would tell us that God is evil.
- Here is a quick introduction to logic.
- Simplified introduction to logic.
- Our browse from our blog on the links shown.
Who is this atheist you are referring to?
Can you provide a link to the conversation you are discussing?
Joe,
I hate to say this, but after some of your last couple of comments, you have some serious reading comprehension: Did you read the whole thing?
If you did, riddle me this, where did the conversation take place?
I believe the problem is the lack of context in your posts. The nearest thing to a hint as to where this conversation occurred is the line: “In light of our weekly evangelism”.
From this I was supposed to discern what? My first thought was that this had occurred in your blog at some point during the week, so I looked though for a post that matched the description “weekly evangelism”, but I couldn’t find it. Since I don’t know who “we” is, there is no way I can tell what you are referring to.
I assume from this reply that this is some event that occurred at an actual physical meeting and not on the internet, but I have no way of being sure of that either.
Are you going to answer the question I asked, or just belabor your opinion of my intelligence?
Your first thought was mistaken. Your second thought was correct. It was a physical encounter and not an internet encounter.
He “came by” to talk to us.
Thanks for clarifying. It is unfortunate that he is representing atheists so poorly. He seems like a moron.
I guess we’ll leave it at that.
I’m about to take off from this blog and work on some materials.
Joe, I hate to say this but most atheists I know have extremely weak arguments. Logic doe not seem to be their strong suit. Many of them believe in a material universe and deny anything that cannot be empirically verified. This, of course, would include God. It would also include, thoughts, ideas, concepts, etc… Math does not deal with empirical objects either. The point has no width or length. What does the nuber 3 taste like? What is the color of justice? How does reason smell. Many modern atheists and agnostics use the word reason to mean empirical validation. Traditionally, it has meant logical deduction. Emporocosm is a dead, bankrupt philosophy. Atheists never seem to want to tell us where they get their moral standards of right and wrong from. The very scientific method itself is based on a logical fallacy, the fallacy of asserting the consequent:
X implies Y
Y is true
Therefore X is true
This is a logical fallacy.
If John F. Kennedt were decapitated y a guillotine (X)
John F Kennedy would be dead (Y)
Johb F. Kennedy is dead (Y is true)
There for John F. Kennedy was decapitated by guillotine (X is true.) In the words of the old songe, “It ain’t necessarily so.”
How does this apply to the sacred cow known as the scientific method? As follows:
X If my hypothesis is true
Y my experiments will have a certain result,
My experiments do have that certain result
(or Y is true)
Therefore my hypothesis must be true (Xi is true)
This is a logical fallacy. Thanks for reading, RLJ
Firstly, let me agree with the general theme of this thread: Yes, people who use faulty logic are wrong and often ignorant to what they are saying.
However, those who ask flawed question are just as ignorant. For starters, mathematics IS an emperical science sense numbers are just as ‘real’ as the sensations that your brain gives you when you see you mother or wife or whoever. Secondly, the length of a point makes no sense what so ever to even think since it is antithetical to the definition of a point. A point’s ‘length’ is not an indecernable quantity that mathematics fails to observe, it just doesn’t exist. Lastly, questions such as ‘what does the number 3 tastes like’ are obsurd. You have greatly equivocated something. I understand what you think you are getting at but you are falsely relying on the fact that inorder to have something be emperical it must cater to one or more of the human senses. Certainly logic can just be thought and so is emperical.
Thus, I would say that even if you claim that the apparent lack of emperical proof of something (which I might add that I agree they do exist) implies a greater being, you should not resort to ignorant questions about other subjects/believe (what ever you want to call it). Otherwise, you are just as ignorant as those you are criticizing.
By defining empirical as anything that “can just be thought,” you defined empirical as the very opposite of its own definition.
Of course that explains why you defined math and logic as empirical.
Ignorant,
1.)”However, those who ask flawed question are just as ignorant.”
What flawed question? Find it, don’t just assert it.
2.) “For starters, mathematics IS an emperical science sense numbers are just as ‘real’ as the sensations that your brain gives you when you see you mother or wife or whoever.”
That’s what you said but can you marshal forth a philosopher of mathematics that claim what you claim, that mathematics is an empirical science? Lol. This statement shows that you are rather naiive with the debate concerning the nature of mathematics.
3.) “Lastly, questions such as ‘what does the number 3 tastes like’ are obsurd. You have greatly equivocated something.”
Read the statement in its context please, for the gentleman who said this was trying to give an illustration of the form of the fallacy that atheists typically commit, rather than it being his own argument. I’m beginning to have a low threshold on your sloppiness.
4.)”I understand what you think you are getting at but you are falsely relying on the fact that in order to have something be emperical it must cater to one or more of the human senses.”
If you understand the thinking that have been articulated here, please summarize it. I’d like to see if you understand it.
Do you even know what the definition of empirical is? Obviously you do not by what you stated. Define to me what is empirical knowledge. Then document to me where you get this definition, because it rather is an awkward semantic game you are playing.
5.)” Certainly logic can just be thought and so is emperical.”
Vague. What do you mean? In what fashion is logic empirical? After you have bring your precision in your statements, prove it to me empirically then.
6.) “You should not resort to ignorant questions about other subjects/believe (what ever you want to call it).”
Again, what ignorant questions? Asserting it again and again is no subsitute for showing they are ignorant questions.
7.) “Otherwise, you are just as ignorant as those you are criticizing.”
Who is “you”? SLimjim, Andy, Dizzy, Joe the atheist or Richard? Here’s a thought: Be specific.