 | #7 All Bets Are Off A refutation of Pascal's Wager |
 | Evidence of God? Think about this... |
 | Detecting Logical Fallacies: Part 3 Non-Christians often use logical fallacies in order to defend their unbelief. Christians must be equipped to detect fallacious logic and dismantle it. In like manner, Christians must also be on guard so that they themselves do not use false logic. In this video, I discuss the following fallacies: Ad hominem (personal, inconsistency and circumstantial), poisoning the well, genetic fallacy, straw man, false dilemma, perfectionism, hurling elephants, slippery slope, misplaced burden of proof and begging the question. Please accept my apologies for the bad lighting (i.e., the sun on one half of me). Also, in this series I use evolution and young Earth creation in some of my examples. Just to clarify: I do not think someone has to be a young Earth creationist in order to be a genuine Christian. I do find, however, that both old Earth creation and theistic evolution are Biblically-inconsistent (as well as scientifically inaccurate). For a more thorough explanation of this, see the article by Dr. Duane Gish at http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v11/i4/christian.asp However, debating these things scientifically is not the purpose of this video series. If you post comments trying to start a scientific debate on evolution/creation, I WILL remove them. Take that debate elsewhere; this particular video series is not the place for it. REFERENCES (part III): 1. Moore, Brooke N., and Richard Parker. Critical Thinking. 8th ed. New York: McGraw Hill, 2007. If you enjoy my videos, check out some of these other great channels: 1. http://www.youtube.com/user/ProclaimHisWord 2. http://www.youtube.com/user/GEERUP 3. http://www.youtube.com/user/LaneCh 4. http://www.youtube.com/user/bberchin |
 | Can You Choose To Believe? Yes, your choices do in fact influence your beliefs. |
 | 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 |
 | The Euthyphro Dilemma Still Stands to JrsBarker Morality Without God in Garry Brodsky, et al., eds,. Contemporary Readings in Social and Political Ethics (Prometheus Books, 1984)]. Moral Arguments for Theistic Belief, in Rationality and Religious Belief, ed., C.F. Delaney (Notre Dame Press, 1979)]. John P. Reeder, ed., Religion and Morality: A Collection of Essays (Anchor, 1973), along with Philip Quinns, Divine Commands and Moral Requirements (Oxford University Press, 1978), The Case Against Christianity (Temple Univ. Press, 1991), pp. 229-251]. Last quote from [Thomas V. Morris in Francis Schaeffers Apologetics: A Critique (Moody Press, 1976, pp. 69]. |
 | Re: What is so undesirable about God? God |
 | Francis Chan - Balance Beam Francis Chan challenging us to do something with our lives. |
 | Intelligent Design Arguments Refuted Intelligent Design Arguments Refuted Why Intelligent Design is not science: http://youtube.com/watch?v=SRdVHuddA9g [5] Evolution of the eye: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_the_eye http://www.2think.org/eye.shtml http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/ridley/a-z/Evolution_of_the_eye.asp http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/01/1/l_011_01.html http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zI_oGu-2clE&feature=related http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rUOpaFVgKPw Evolution of the bacteria flagellum: http://www.talkdesign.org/faqs/flagellum.html#conc http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_flagella http://www.health.adelaide.edu.au/Pharm/Musgrave/essays/flagella.htm Evolution of blood clotting: http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/DI/clot/Clotting.html http://wiki.cotch.net/index.php/Blood_clotting http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4K_WrqNiQoU Hey everyone. This is going to be a video in which I refute three popular Intelligent Design arguments. You can find a transcript of this in the video description, as well as all of my references. The first argument is "Intelligent Design is science, not creationism." I have already thoroughly refuted this claim in my previous video entitled "Why Intelligent Design is not science." You can find a link to this in the video description. The second argument ID proponents use is that irreducibly complex systems exist, and they serve as evidence for an intelligent designer. Before going into this claim, let's define irreducible complexity. Irreducible complexity (IC) is an argument that certain biological systems are too complex to have evolved from simpler predecessors through natural selection acting upon a series of beneficial naturally occurring mutations. [1] Before addressing the claims of this argument it's important to understand that this statement in itself contains two logical fallacies. The first logical fallacy is that it is an argument from ignorance. [2] ID advocates believe a natural explanation is absent or insufficient to account for these structures, therefore an intelligent agent must have designed them. You can see the obvious problem with this statement. An example to prove this point would be that ancient civilizations worshipped the sun as a deity because they lacked a natural explanation for the sun. Science has obviously advanced to a point where we no longer need a supernatural explanation for the sun. The second logical fallacy contained in this ID argument is a false dilemma. A false dilemma involves a situation in which only two alternatives are considered, when in fact there could be other options. [3] ID proponents state an intelligent agent is the only valid explanation to irreducible complex structures. This conclusion is based upon the assumption that current evolutionary theory and intelligent design are the only two valid models to explain life. Now that we have the logical fallacies sorted out, let's move on to the argument itself. The three most widely stated examples of irreducible structures are the eye, the bacteria flagellum, and blood clotting. [5] Unfortunately for ID advocates, we now how an understanding in how these complex structures evolved naturally in gradual steps. If you're interested in learning more, I'll be including some good articles and videos refuting each so called irreducible complex structure. [4] The third argument ID advocates claim is that intelligent design is infact falsifiable. ID advocates often use examples of how Ken Miller and others attempt to falsify so called "irreducibly complex" structures such as the Bacterial Flagellum, and use that as an example of how to falsify intelligent design. The problem with this argument is that the assumption that irreducible complex structures could have only been formed by an intelligent designer. As I pointed already, this is a logical fallacy in which they are arguing from ignorance. The only thing Ken Miller is doing is showing how irreducibly complexity is falsifiable, not ID itself. The Discovery institute even admits themselves that ID is not falsifiable." It's true that there's no way to falsify the bare assertion that a cosmic designer exists." [6] Well, that's all for this video. I hope you enjoyed and thank you for watching [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irreducible_complexity http://www.talkdesign.org/faqs/icdmyst/ICDmyst.html#intro [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance http://www.skepdic.com/ignorance.html [3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dichotomy http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/false-dilemma.html [5] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irreducible_complexity#Stated_examples [6] http://www.evolutionnews.org/2006/01/intelligent_design_is_empirica.html |
 | The Expert Layman (The Practitioner) Episode 1 Where I go to the streets to introduce people to the critical thinking fallacy of the false dilemma. |
العربية
中国
Français
Deutsch
Ελληνική
हिन्दी
Italiano
日本語
Português
Русский
Español
