A sincere question to believers in a creator God…
Jun 2, 2019 00:39:49 #
JW wrote:
Just a quick reminder of logical fallacies, folks:
An Appeal to Authority is a fallacy with the following form:
Person A is (claimed to be) an authority on subject S.
Person A makes claim C about subject S.
Therefore, C is true.
An Appeal to Authority is a fallacy with the following form:
Person A is (claimed to be) an authority on subject S.
Person A makes claim C about subject S.
Therefore, C is true.
Appeal to Improper Authority?
Jun 2, 2019 00:43:34 #
Canuckus Deploracus wrote:
Appeal to Improper Authority?
Appeal to any authority. You can't say it's true because someone said so, no matter their expertise. If you want to argue their logic or facts, present them with logical support from your argument.
Seems like everybody in this thread has started using that fallacy.
Jun 2, 2019 00:52:26 #
JW wrote:
Appeal to any authority. You can't say it's true because someone said so, no matter their expertise. If you want to argue their logic or facts, present them with logical support from your argument.
Seems like everybody in this thread has started using that fallacy.
Seems like everybody in this thread has started using that fallacy.
Appeal to authority is fine...
Having doctors back up a medical opinion is not a fallacy...
Appeal to improper authority is a fallacy...
Having a priest back up a medical opinion is not fine....
The problem comes when one presents someone as a proper authority without allowing for bias....
There are plenty of Muslims with degrees in theology... But I doubt many Christians would accept their arguments...
Having a fundamental Christian scientist argue against evolution would obviously be fallacy prone... As would having an fundamentalIst Athiest scientist argue for it....
The argument should be able to stand on its own... But support from proper authority can prop up the argument...
I agree that both sides here are relying on fallacies to support their own side of the argument...
Jun 2, 2019 01:29:33 #
JW wrote:
Where did this come from?Just a quick reminder of logical fallacies, folks:
An Appeal to Authority is a fallacy with the following form:
Person A is (claimed to be) an authority on subject S.
Person A makes claim C about subject S.
Therefore, C is true.
An Appeal to Authority is a fallacy with the following form:
Person A is (claimed to be) an authority on subject S.
Person A makes claim C about subject S.
Therefore, C is true.
Jun 2, 2019 01:59:05 #
Canuckus Deploracus wrote:
Appeal to authority is fine... br br Having doct... (show quote)
No, appeal to authority is not fine. Look up logical fallacies for yourself. Logical fallacies are two things; errors in logic and/or invalid proof in an argument.
If you want to use a point made by someone else, make the point yourself and provide proof that the point is valid. It is not automatically valid just because a noted authority said so. Just name an authority and you lose a formal debate. Informally, you demonstrate a lack of personal understanding of the topic.
"The argument should be able to stand on its own... But support from proper authority can prop up the argument..."
Exactly, the argument has to stand on its own. Naming an authority for support is valid as long as you have proven the point made by the authority. You lose by just saying, 'he's an expert and he says what I say so I'm right'.
Jun 2, 2019 02:00:33 #
Blade_Runner wrote:
Where did this come from?
The discussion is degenerating into meaninglessness. Just posted a reminder. If you are asking where I got the information, look up logical fallacies.
Jun 2, 2019 02:05:58 #
JW wrote:
I know what logical fallacies are. What prompted you to bring them up.The discussion is degenerating into meaninglessness. Just posted a reminder. If you are asking where I got the information, look up logical fallacies.
Check out topic: Friday Funnies: Trigger Alert
Jun 2, 2019 02:56:11 #
JW wrote:
The discussion is degenerating into meaninglessness. Just posted a reminder. If you are asking where I got the information, look up logical fallacies.
Yes . . . this discussion has degenerated into meaninglessness. And we all seem to be guilty of it . . . it's sad to see this too. We had some 'on topic' comments together earlier on. The thing about religion, I have found, is that it seems to be more philosophical and perhaps emotional . . . which doesn't lend to any real logic or scientific explanation. Although people do seem to want to have more substantial justification for why they believe what they believe. You did ask why do we need more . . . and I sense it has something to do with knowing by more than blind faith. Yet it also seems to boil down to faith in the end.
....again, just my opinion!
Jun 2, 2019 03:13:27 #
Blade_Runner wrote:
I know what logical fallacies are. What prompted you to bring them up.
Their burgeoning use.
Jun 2, 2019 03:13:55 #
Jun 2, 2019 04:05:21 #
Check out topic: Just In: Michael Cohen's testimony can be used against him.
Jun 2, 2019 06:31:34 #
bggamers
Loc: georgia
nwtk2007 wrote:
So blade, no offense, do these artifacts actually prove the things in the Bible, like miracles, healing, etc. Healers were a dime a dozen, prophets cheaper, exorcists every where. Some of these people of the Bible were real, no doubt. So was George Washington, but come back in a thousand years and you'll find people who believe he chopped down a cherry tree but refused to lie about it.
there is a bible called Archaeological study bible new international version as your studying the bible it gives you info about what the archeologist have found to prove this section it very interesting what they are saying in effect is they are using the bible like a map to help them find places they were not able to find before
Jun 2, 2019 09:28:48 #
Blade_Runner wrote:
No offense taken. br br url=https://www.magiscen... (show quote)
I only checked tbe first two...
There is no evidence that could prove a miracle in either one...
The first attempted to explain the validity of Christ's miracles through the accounts given in the Bible...
The second tried to base validity on archaeological evidence that the locations of the miracles existed....
One would do better to turn to th Catholic Church and some of its Holy relics...
Jun 2, 2019 09:34:40 #
Nickolai wrote:
Lee Strobel is the author of A case for Christ which I found to be ludicrous since all the witnesses were Theologians and priests and various religious figures presenting their case from a witness stand but not one cross examination. He is a writer and his education is in law not science.
I hate to agree with you...
But I too read Lee Strobel's "A Case for Christ"...
It was one of the most biased and poorly written books I have ever come across...
I expected much better from it... But I was gullible during my younger years... Christianity is ill served by such poor footsoldiers....
Jun 2, 2019 10:00:59 #
Canuckus Deploracus wrote:
I hate to agree with you...
But I too read Lee Strobel's "A Case for Christ"...
It was one of the most biased and poorly written books I have ever come across...
I expected much better from it... But I was gullible during my younger years... Christianity is ill served by such poor footsoldiers....
But I too read Lee Strobel's "A Case for Christ"...
It was one of the most biased and poorly written books I have ever come across...
I expected much better from it... But I was gullible during my younger years... Christianity is ill served by such poor footsoldiers....
There is a book I read back in the late 70's or early 80's . . . "Evidence That Demands A Verdict" By Josh McDowell. I can't remember exactly but I seem to remember that it was written as if it was a college thesis.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.