Common fallacies that the apologist NEEDS to KNOW vol.1

[domokunrox]

As I said in another thread, I promised that I was going to take 1 skeptic's rhetoric before he was banned here and pretty much point out why the arguments don't work. This thread is designed as a 1st volume and as a free reference for everyone here.

One thing I wanted to point out here is that when dealing with anyone who is saying that your views and conclusion is false (one way or another). I INSIST that we all keep this in mind and HOLD EVERY SKEPTIC TO THIS STANDARD.
Truth denying is truth affirming because in order to detect falsehood, you MUST allegedly KNOW truth. Otherwise, their objection is an Argument from ignorance. So, INSIST that the skeptic has evidence for his view (which is not often properly expressed) and hold him/her to his own (often unreasonable) standards. Okay? Here we are

Even if the world isn't 6,000 years old, what evidence is there for Intelligent Design?

Begging the question AND Bad Reasons fallacy
Argument A for the conclusion C is fallacious. 
Therefore, C is false.

Science has been disproving rain gods, sun gods, hurricane gods.

Non sequitur, "It does not follow" that God, as it is understood, does not exist

If there is something we don't know, we should not claim that "god did it".

Straw man fallacy AND Begging the question

The Christian Bible gives perfectly good people the right to do evil acts inspired by God's will (The Bible). Google: I killed in the name of God or the Bible.

Appeal to Consequences of a Belief and Non sequitur "It does not follow"

Also, physics led to the development of the atomic bomb. Should we stop teaching physics as well?

Most of the accounts state that the tomb was empty. So what? Isn't the most logical explanation that the body was removed from the tomb?

False. The tomb of Jesus was guarded by highly trained Roman soldiers (World class, 1st rank military). If the Roman guards failed to secure the body from being stolen by ANYONE, they would have faced execution.

Given Jesus was the Son of God, why did it take forty years for the first Gospel to show up?

Irrelevant. There are MANY famous figures in ancient history whose biographies were written WELL AFTER their death (50-400 years). Many of them were written by 1st class historians, Roman historians, etc. Luke is one of them.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

I hear this one a lot, and I believe this claim came from someone in the UK of all places. Go figure. "Extraordinary" in this instance here is ARBITRARY. Or designed for moving goal posts.
Its a 1 term fallacy
Examples:
Good claims require good evidence
Bad claims require bad evidence
Horrible claims require horrible evidence

Ultimately, this statement is question begging

Have you read the studies about eye witness testimony?
There have been several cases of hundreds of people reporting a UFO siting in one night that turned out to be the planet Venus

Non sequitur and False analogy

(Insert some quote by Bart Ehrman here about the bible)

Appeal to misleading authority



You're welcome. I'll try to compile as much fallacious arguments as I come across them and add them here for everyone. You are all also welcome to discuss other arguments that have been circulating around.

[BryanH]

False. The tomb of Jesus was guarded by highly trained Roman soldiers (World class, 1st rank military). If the Roman guards failed to secure the body from being stolen by ANYONE, they would have faced execution

You are saying that in a corrupted roman empire those soldiers or someone else higher up the ranks couldn't have taken bribe. I beg to differ. Be serious...

Irrelevant. There are MANY famous figures in ancient history whose biographies were written WELL AFTER their death (50-400 years). Many of them were written by 1st class historians, Roman historians, etc. Luke is one of them.

You can write anything about anyone whenever you want. That doesn't mean that you are truthful and accurate. At the same time you must take into account subjectivity and POV.

[domokunrox]

You are saying that in a corrupted roman empire those soldiers or someone else higher up the ranks couldn't have taken bribe. I beg to differ. Be serious...

Corrupt? You must be joking. The centurion, nor the soldiers in the company would have taken a bribe. Again, you show very little knowledge of roman military. The soldiers sent out to the outskirts of the roman empire had to be the most loyal ones of them all.

I ask you, since this is evidently your claim. Who bribed the guards/centurion? Unless you have any evidence for the claim, you are simply contriving the situation to hold a tenuous position. Not to mention that roman historian Tacitius pretty much says your position is false.

Be serious Bryan.

You can write anything about anyone whenever you want. That doesn't mean that you are truthful and accurate. At the same time you must take into account subjectivity and POV.

Subjectivity and POV have been accounted for. Luke has proven his truthfulness and accuracy and it lines up with roman records and history. If it is your claim that Luke is wrong or Roman records and history is wrong, the burden of proof is on you to prove otherwise. Not the other way around. Again, unless you have any proof for your speculations, the only thing you are doing is contriving the situation in order to hold your tenuous position.

[BryanH]

Corrupt? You must be joking. The centurion, nor the soldiers in the company would have taken a bribe. Again, you show very little knowledge of roman military. The soldiers sent out to the outskirts of the roman empire had to be the most loyal ones of them all.

I ask you, since this is evidently your claim. Who bribed the guards/centurion? Unless you have any evidence for the claim, you are simply contriving the situation to hold a tenuous position. Not to mention that roman historian Tacitius pretty much says your position is false.

Then what about the frame of time between when the body was placed in the tomb and the actual arrival of the guards? Since you don't like my corruption story... Maybe you would like a more plausible one.

Subjectivity and POV have been accounted for. Luke has proven his truthfulness and accuracy and it lines up with roman records and history. If it is your claim that Luke is wrong or Roman records and history is wrong, the burden of proof is on you to prove otherwise. Not the other way around. Again, unless you have any proof for your speculations, the only thing you are doing is contriving the situation in order to hold your tenuous position.

Well, the long time which had passed between the event and the actual writing is problematic if you want to claim accuracy.


P.S.: It's funny you mention Tacitus. You and me both know that the "Annals" where Jesus is mentioned is not the original writing of Tacitus, but actually from transcripts which were written where Dom?

[domokunrox]

Then what about the frame of time between when the body was placed in the tomb and the actual arrival of the guards? Since you don't like my corruption story... Maybe you would like a more plausible one.

No Bryan. Your corruption story isn't simply because "I don't like it". Your corruption story makes no sense. Its not even plausible, and rational given what we know about the Roman empire.

Now, what you're trying to present is a discrepancy between when the body was guarded. Jesus was guarded BEFORE he was executed, on Calvary til death, during body burial preparation, into the burial tomb, and guarded until the body was missing from the tomb. There was not a single gap in guard coverage. Again, the centurion knew what was expected of him, and his company knew what was expected of them.

This "guard gap" theory or "Roman soldier guarding an empty tomb or body switch" theory does not hold up.

Well, the long time which had passed between the event and the actual writing is problematic if you want to claim accuracy.

So, you're equating that the greater time between the said event until today, the less accurate our knowledge of the event actually is?
By what rule of inference have you been able to come to such a conclusion? In what way does your statement show that the length of time relate to the strength of its accuracy?

There are several sources for what happened there
Matthew
Mark
Luke
John
Roman records (Tacitus)
Rabbinical writings (The Talmud)

There is also the archeology evidence.
They ALL agree on some very fundamental facts.
Jesus was doing "magic", healing people, raising the dead, etc
He was captured
Prefect Pontius Pilate said he was innocent, but carried out an execution anyway
He was executed
He was buried
His tomb was guarded
His body is missing

P.S.: It's funny you mention Tacitus. You and me both know that the "Annals" where Jesus is mentioned is not the original writing of Tacitus, but actually from transcripts which were written where Dom?

No, Bryan. John Wilson Ross is the ONLY person who thinks the Annals were forged. His theory is that an italian man in the 16th century taught himself how to write like a 1st century Roman historian.
Nope, didn't happen. Again, your contrived situation is simply there to hold a tenuous position.

Got anything else, Bryan?

[BryanH]

Look Dom, I'm not going to argue with you anymore because there is no point in that.

***I have already participated in discussions on this forum about the gospels. All of them were written decades after the event and evidence is contradictory in establishing the real "writer" of any of the gospels; besides that, there are contradictions between gospels in regard to certain details. So there goes your accuracy...

***You say that Tacitus' "Annals" weren't forged. Maybe... You don't know that. I was just saying that we don't have the original work of Tacitus, but only a transcript written 500 years ago in a Christian monastery.

You choose to believe in magic over facts. Ok. You prefer something less plausible to something more plausible.

We have religious fanatics today. What makes you think that back then there weren't any ready to act and do what ever?

[Danieltwotwenty]

I really don't think this Bryan guy is interested in Chritianity at all. All he ever seems to want to do is tear down and destroy even repeating his tired old arguments that have already been defended.

Bryan I can only speak for myself but I am sure the others will agree, we don't believe because of a thread of logic or evidence or because the Bible says so. I believe because our God is a living God and I see his works in my life and the people who surround me, I know God exists 100 percent, and that is why I view the Bible as correct because he has personally told me so, I believe in Jesus because he lives and breathes inside me and guides me towards truth.

If you are not interested and have made up your mind that you don't want God in your life, then why persist on this forum, this just makes no sense to me unless you have an ulterior motive which we have yet to discover.


Dan

[tetelesti]

One thing I wanted to point out here is that when dealing with anyone who is saying that your views and conclusion is false (one way or another). I INSIST that we all keep this in mind and HOLD EVERY SKEPTIC TO THIS STANDARD. Truth denying is truth affirming because in order to detect falsehood, you MUST allegedly KNOW truth. Otherwise, their objection is an Argument from ignorance. So, INSIST that the skeptic has evidence for his view (which is not often properly expressed) and hold him/her to his own (often unreasonable) standards.

Concerning the interpretation of scripture I've come across situations were a skeptic will claim my reasoning is flawed. I'll usually follow up with something along the lines of "So you want to tell me what this passage doesn't mean, yet you can't tell me what it does mean?" I've never looked at it as an argument from ignorance, but then again I'm completely ignorant when it comes to philosophy and shy away from philosophical debate. I really appreciate this thread and hope you continue on with volume two.

[tetelesti]

Irrelevant. There are MANY famous figures in ancient history whose biographies were written WELL AFTER their death (50-400 years). Many of them were written by 1st class historians, Roman historians, etc. Luke is one of them.

You can write anything about anyone whenever you want. That doesn't mean that you are truthful and accurate. At the same time you must take into account subjectivity and POV.

Hi Bryan,

Domokunrox's reasoning is completely sound concerning the timing of the written Gospels. Also keep in mind the plausibility of a source document resulting in the synoptic Gospels, which could have been penned rather quickly after the resurrection. But even with that aside your mistaken in any premise claiming that the Gospels were penned too late to be authentic. In fact it's quite the opposite, Jesus' biography is like no other having been penned in the Old Testament thousands of years before He was born. As Jesus said: "Then beginning with Moses and with all the prophets, He explained to them the things concerning Himself in all the Scriptures"

Who else could have had their biography written down before there born, only the true King and Savior can make such a claim. This is easy to validate on many levels, especially when examining the Gospels in light of the Old Testament. Have you've ever read the OT? It's ridicules how Jesus permeates it's pages giving us a complete picture of His life, of the cross, of His redemption. It's just ridiculously awesome! Jesus the sweetest name I know.

[domokunrox]

Look Dom, I'm not going to argue with you anymore because there is no point in that.

Bryan, you've provided no such argument to begin with. If you don't even have any explanation or evidence for your position, then it is simply dismissed. Its as simple as that, Bryan.

***I have already participated in discussions on this forum about the gospels. All of them were written decades after the event

I've already addressed this, Bryan. Look again.

Given Jesus was the Son of God, why did it take forty years for the first Gospel to show up?

Irrelevant. There are MANY famous figures in ancient history whose biographies were written WELL AFTER their death (50-400 years). Many of them were written by 1st class historians, Roman historians, etc. Luke is one of them.

There are 6 different sources ALONG WITH archeology evidence that corresponds with what happened in the Judea province while Pontius Pilate was in charge there. The burden of proof is ON YOU to prove that those sources (along with archeology data) are wrong. If you don't have an explanation or evidence for your position, then it is simply dismissed. Truth denying is truth affirming. You are either begging the question or arguing from ignorance. Which is it?

and evidence is contradictory in establishing the real "writer" of any of the gospels;

Uh, no. Its very well established that Luke authored Luke and its very possible that Luke also worked on a good section of Acts because you can see his literary style. Also, as far as Matthew, Mark, and John is concerned. We may not be completely sure as to who wrote them, but it was certainly 3 different authors who were eyewitnesses to the events.

besides that, there are contradictions between gospels in regard to certain details. So there goes your accuracy...

Assertion without evidence. Where are these contradictions, Bryan? Off the top of my head, I can only think of 1 error that Luke made and its not even a critical part of the story.

***You say that Tacitus' "Annals" weren't forged. Maybe... You don't know that.

No, we do know that he indeed wrote them. His literary style is consistent.
A 16th century italian man (who didn't even have a jesuit education, btw) could not have taught himself how to write in someone else's 1st century roman historian literary style.

Even the most skeptical of Tacitus' writings do not dispute that he wrote them. What skeptics try to contest in his writings is what he actually wrote.

Denying that Tacitus wrote it or stating that "we don't know if he did" isn't even defendable, Bryan. Its an outright IMPOSSIBLE position to hold in regards to 1st century world history.

I was just saying that we don't have the original work of Tacitus, but only a transcript written 500 years ago in a Christian monastery.

Again, a 16th century italian man (who didn't even have a jesuit education, btw) could not have taught himself how to write in someone else's 1st century roman historian literary style.
This is like saying that a person with a 21st century american education has the ability to write the history of the Song dynasty in 8th century China.

You choose to believe in magic over facts. Ok.

No Bryan. Try again.

You prefer something less plausible to something more plausible.

No Bryan. Try again.

We have religious fanatics today. What makes you think that back then there weren't any ready to act and do what ever?

Ok, so what are you claiming these religious fanatics did? We need an explanation and hopefully some evidence along with it.

You need to drop the anti-intellectual act, Bryan. Its not working out for you.

[BryanH]

@Daniel

I ask questions. That's my way of doing things. If you are bothered by that, don't answer. The fact that I ask them again and again is because I do not think I have the right answer.



@Dom

I am sorry Dom, but I do not wish to continue this discussion further with you. You keep passing the ball saying that the burden of proof is mine. Actually that is not the case. I have only pointed that there is reasonable doubt about many aspects presented in the resurrection of Jesus. You say that there is evidence which is contradictory to my point of view. So what? People have been sentenced to the death penalty with rather "clear and irrefutable" evidence so years later to find out that they killed an innocent person. The existence of evidence is sometimes useless if you use that evidence in the wrong manner and direction.

You also say that I need to have evidence for this and that. The fact that there is no evidence for a certain thing, it doesn't mean that it didn't happen. Keep that in mind, will you?

[Danieltwotwenty]

Bryan, nothing can ever be proven beyond your own senses, and even those can't be trusted.

I don't know what sort of answers you are looking for, if they are for some sort of 100 percent gaurantee then all world views will sorely disappoint, including atheism.

In the end you have to go with your heart, because all the knowledge in the world cannot convince anyone one way or the other.

We have reasonable faith to start our journey, and that is all anyone ever has.

Good luck with finding the perfect answers because it seems like a fools errand to me.


Dan

[Silvertusk]

Please can we keep this discussion civil. Disagreements are central to a good debate - but also humility and patience. This goes out to all.

[domokunrox]

I ask questions. That's my way of doing things. If you are bothered by that, don't answer. The fact that I ask them again and again is because I do not think I have the right answer.

Directed at Daniel, but still needs to be addressed.

Bryan, what you are doing here isn't "ask questions". What you are doing here is truth denying. Which I have stated over and over and over again. Truth denying is truth affirming.
When discussing a topic and what is factual about said topic. When one of us presents a conclusion with supporting premises, the other person only has 3 possible ways to communicate something.
Say yes, explain why
Say no, explain why
or say "I don't know" and accepts the best possible explanation provided or remains uncommitted on the subject

Take for instance the topic of NASCAR.
Lets say you and I were discussing NASCAR for which team won last year, and a random person comes up to both of us and states "I don't know anything about NASCAR, so we don't know who won or if they were even a NASCAR race to begin with. I can't provide a reason to believe your views on NASCAR are false"

Now, you go ahead and tell me why we would even entertain listening to this random person and accepting that we're all completely ignorant on the topic of NASCAR?

This is called argument from ignorance.

You keep passing the ball saying that the burden of proof is mine. Actually that is not the case.

No, Bryan. That actually is the case. If you have a claim that a statement is false, it IS YOUR RESPONSIBILITY to support your counter argument.

For example, If I say that the Baltimore Ravens won the superbowl on sunday, here is 6 newspapers that agree with me, the score was 34-31, etc etc.

If you disagree with me, you need to have explanation as to why. Saying "I don't know" or "I am not sure" is not reasonable by any stretch considering I have provided evidence and not just a statement alone.

I have only pointed that there is reasonable doubt about many aspects presented in the resurrection of Jesus.

No Bryan, you have provided NO REASONABLE or RATIONAL statement on the subject. You've certainly provided disagreement for the sake of being disagreeable.

You say that there is evidence which is contradictory to my point of view. So what?

So what? Because evidence matters, Bryan. If it is your intention to not address evidence presented simply because it doesn't fit with your worldview, then having a discussion with you is completely pointless. Your presence here is then just simply to propagate your worldview that is contrary to how the world may actually be. Simply not caring if your worldview is incorrect is just apathetic and has no academic value, and I will make the suggestion to have your account suspended. You might want to read the forum rules again.

People have been sentenced to the death penalty with rather "clear and irrefutable" evidence so years later to find out that they killed an innocent person.

This is called a False analogy.

The existence of evidence is sometimes useless if you use that evidence in the wrong manner and direction.

So, in what way is the evidence I have provided used in the wrong manner and direction?
You said it, so you support your argument, Bryan.

You also say that I need to have evidence for this and that. The fact that there is no evidence for a certain thing, it doesn't mean that it didn't happen. Keep that in mind, will you?

I am very aware that absence of evidence does not mean there is evidence of absence. However, that is NOT the argument you are presenting. Also, it IS NOT MY POSITION that we have no evidence as to what happened in Judea. It is my position that this is what happened, and here is the evidence.

What you are trying to pass off here is
"I don't know" AND "I disagree with your premise and conclusion"

You are arguing from ignorance
AND
Begging the question

Truth denying is truth affirming, Bryan.

[Mallz]

Wow, what an amazingly, entertaining read!!!

Domokunrox, You had no idea your point to the OP would be driven so hard in your thread, did you?

Is there any argumental fallacy that Bryan did not hit?

It can be frustrating talking to brick walls

Please continue posting, the information is appreciated, and examples humorous