 | Begging the Question - David Edgar (part 1) Excellence, instrumentalism and social theatre. |
 | Refuting Theist Arguments - Begging the Question Refuting Theist Arguments -- Begging the Question One common argument used by many fundamentalist theists to try to prove the existence of their deity, or to try to prove that their holy book is the word of their deity, is a fallacy known as begging the question. Begging the question is a logical fallacy in which the conclusion is assumed in one of the premises. For example, a Christian might say: "It says in the Bible that God exists. Since the Bible is God's word, and God never speaks falsely, then everything in the Bible must be true. So, God must exist." The problem with this argument is obvious to those of us who are familiar with basic principles of logic. The conclusion is that god exists, but to arrive at that conclusion the Christian already assumed that the bible is the word of god (i.e. assumed that god exists). Clearly this is a circular line of reasoning. Some reasons why many theists do not see the flaws in their reasoning are: -They have been indoctrinated into only believing their religion (i.e. they are blinded by their absolute conviction in their religion) -They are arguing from emotion and desire rather than an objective, logical position -They have been taught to believe in the word of their holy texts over logic, science, and reason (i.e. they have been brainwashed into thinking that logic cannot be trusted) To theists who try to prove the existence of their deity using their holy texts, or who try to prove that their holy texts are the word of their deity because the texts say so, now you know why your logic is fallacious and circular. |
 | Dear Christians, You Ask and I'll Beg the Question -Atheist Greeneto makes a bunch of points...while begging the question. Remember, we don't interpret "facts" or "evidence" apart from an interpretive grid, also called a worldview. To listen to a FREE 3 part debate by my hero, Greg Bahnsen with the former atheist Gordon Stein (former because he's dead), click this link: http://veritasdomain.wordpress.com/2006/12/05/greg-bahnsen-vs-gordon-stein-the-great-debate/ Also, I'm a fan of Matthew Slick of CARM ministries. This is a helpful breakdown of the Transcendental argument for God, aka "TAG" http://www.carm.org/atheism/transcendental_outline.htm Here is a great YouTube vid by Paleocrat introducing atheists to their conflicting standards http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q3H1hkMWUdQ&feature=PlayList&p=17578AAF9410F2F5&index=3 |
 | Begging the Question? Am I really begging the question? |
 | Begging the Question All religiously originating evidence offered in support of the existence of a creator just begs the question and are therefore all just errors in reason. |
 | Logical Fallacies in Christian Arguments: Circular Arguments Logical Fallacies in Christian Arguments series. Part 1: circular arguments William Lane Craig's video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2xNsR_tTF8I note: I accidently misquoted Craig. When I said "moral values" in premise 1 I should have said "objective moral values". This has been corrected in the overlay title in the video. Premise 1: When Paul is speaking he is speaking the truth Premise 2: Paul is speaking - Therefore Paul is not lying. Premise 1: If God does not exist objective moral values do not exist. Premise 2: Objective values do exist - Therefore God exists Premise 1: The world has specific properties that make life possible Premise 2: These properties are fine tuned. Premise 3: Only God has the ability to do the fine tuning - Therefore God does exist. Premise 1: Some occurences can only be explained with an act of God Premise 2: I saw such occurences. - Therefore God does exist. Premise 1: Jesus' acts have been witnessed Premise 2: Jesus is God's son - Therefore God exists. Begging the question logical fallacies christian arguments circular begging the question god faith atheism capnoawesome religion belief jesus christ |
 | Begging the Question - David Edgar (part 2) Excellence, instrumentalism and social theatre. |
 | Logical Fallacies Part 1 Watch for these Logical Fallacies: 1. Ad hominem - Attacking the individual instead of the argument. 2. Appeal to force - The hearer is told that something bad will happen to him if he does not accept the argument. 3. Appeal to pity - The hearer is urged to accept the argument based upon anappeal to emotions, sympathy, etc. 4. Appeal to the popular - the hearer is urged to accept a position because a majority of people hold to it. 5. Appeal to tradition - trying to get someone to accept something because it has been done or believed 6. Begging the Question - Assuming the thing to be true that you are trying to prove. It is circular. 7. Circular Argument - see Begging the Question Division - assuming that what is true of the whole is true for the parts. 8. Equivocation - The same term is used in an argument in different places but the word has different meanings. 9. False Dilemma - Two choices are given when in actuality there could be more choices possible. (In our example of Biblical Inspiration, the answer is that the originals have the inspiration and the copies are virtually inspired. That is to say, the copies are inspired inasmuch as they correctly reproduce the original.) 10. Guilt by Association - Rejecting an argument or claim because the person proposing it likes someone is disliked by another. 11. Non Sequitur - Comments or information that do not logically follow from a premise or the conclusion. 12. Poisoning the well - Presenting negative information about a person before he/she speaks so as to discredit the person's argument. 13. Red Herring - The introduction of a topic not related to the subject at hand. 14. Special Pleading (double standard) - Applying a different standard to another that is applied to oneself. 15. Straw Man Argument - Producing an argument to attack that is a weaker representation of the truth. 16. Category Mistake - Attributing a property to something that could not possibly have that property. If you are discussing the topic of God with someone at least be sure that they and yourself are discussion properly. Music Angels and Airwaves "Heaven" Photos curtsey of www.google.com Content Matt Slick www.carm.org |
 | Re: Begging the Question? The "question" in begging the question is indeed a question. Anything that isn't proven true can be a "question" according to this fallacy. Therefore: You can't use "common ancestry" *at all* in an explanation for how the fusion is evidence for common ancestry. I really hope that makes sense. |
 | ABIOGENESIS are we begging the question? why do we continue to look only for a naturalistic version of how the fist life assembled? |
 | Petitio Principii: a textbook definition Circular reasoning or begging the question is an informal logical fallacy known as Petitio Principii. Here is a definition taken from the pages of a standard textbook on the subject. |
 | Refuting the People on Richard Dawkins.net (Ep 2) Here's the argument that all this is about: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f_y0CZa86jw Here's the Richard Dawkins forum where I'm debating my argument at http://richarddawkins.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=18&t=38556&p=1033927#p1033927 In this episode, I look at whether or not I need to assume that the mind is non-physical before I prove it. That, if true, would mean that I am guilty of the fallacy of Begging the Question. I'm not guilty of it though, and this video illustrates why. Really, even Shirakawasuna has admitted that I am not, and says that people shouldn't use that objection. It's almost comical. |
العربية
中国
Français
Deutsch
Ελληνική
हिन्दी
Italiano
日本語
Português
Русский
Español
