Logic and the Message - Revision history

Admin: /* Other logical errors or issues you may run into */

2026-06-17T20:27:38Z

Other logical errors or issues you may run into

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:27, 17 June 2026
Line 126:		Line 126:
	=Other logical errors or issues you may run into=		=Other logical errors or issues you may run into=

	~~The~~ Logical Fallacies		==Logical Fallacies==

	* '''Dismissal Without Reasoning''': Rejecting a claim without providing any counterargument or evidence.		* '''Dismissal Without Reasoning''': Rejecting a claim without providing any counterargument or evidence.
Line 132:		Line 132:
	* '''Begging the Question''': Assuming one's own conclusion is true ("I know better") to prove that the opposing evidence must be false. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]		* '''Begging the Question''': Assuming one's own conclusion is true ("I know better") to prove that the opposing evidence must be false. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]

	The Cognitive Biases		==The Cognitive Biases==

	* '''Dunning-Kruger Effect''': A psychological phenomenon where people with limited knowledge overestimate their own expertise.		* '''Dunning-Kruger Effect''': A psychological phenomenon where people with limited knowledge overestimate their own expertise.
Line 138:		Line 138:
	* '''Egocentric Bias''': Relying too heavily on one's own perspective and experiences over objective data. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]		* '''Egocentric Bias''': Relying too heavily on one's own perspective and experiences over objective data. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]

	The Invincible Ignorance Fallacy		==The Invincible Ignorance Fallacy==

	This ~~is the most precise term for this situation. It~~ occurs when a person simply '''refuses to engage''' with evidence. They repeat their original assertion regardless of how much proof is presented against it. ~~[1, 2]~~		This occurs when a person simply '''refuses to engage''' with evidence. They repeat their original assertion regardless of how much proof is presented against it.

Admin: /* Other logical errors or issues you may run into */

2026-06-17T20:26:39Z

Other logical errors or issues you may run into

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:26, 17 June 2026
Line 125:		Line 125:

	=Other logical errors or issues you may run into=		=Other logical errors or issues you may run into=

			The Logical Fallacies

			* '''Dismissal Without Reasoning''': Rejecting a claim without providing any counterargument or evidence.
			* '''Ad Hominem (Reverse)''': Attacking the source (scholarly institutions) as inherently untrustworthy instead of addressing the data.
			* '''Begging the Question''': Assuming one's own conclusion is true ("I know better") to prove that the opposing evidence must be false. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]

			The Cognitive Biases

			* '''Dunning-Kruger Effect''': A psychological phenomenon where people with limited knowledge overestimate their own expertise.
			* '''Confirmation Bias''': Filtering out objective facts that contradict personal beliefs.
			* '''Egocentric Bias''': Relying too heavily on one's own perspective and experiences over objective data. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]

			The Invincible Ignorance Fallacy

			This is the most precise term for this situation. It occurs when a person simply '''refuses to engage''' with evidence. They repeat their original assertion regardless of how much proof is presented against it. [1, 2]

Admin at 20:26, 17 June 2026

2026-06-17T20:26:09Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:26, 17 June 2026
Line 123:		Line 123:

	In each of these cases, there is a mistake of asking, “What came before the first?” or “What caused the first cause?” If it is first, then nothing came before. The category ‘before’ does not apply to the category ‘first.’ It is logically impossible. God is the first cause of all things; he is eternal and uncreated. Adam and Eve were the first parents. Lucifer caused his own sin by his own will; nothing outside of him made him do it. There was no moment before time began; there was no time before the first moment of time. There was just eternity.<ref>Norman L. Geisler and Ronald M. Brooks, Come, Let Us Reason: An Introduction to Logical Thinking (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1990), 108–109.</ref>		In each of these cases, there is a mistake of asking, “What came before the first?” or “What caused the first cause?” If it is first, then nothing came before. The category ‘before’ does not apply to the category ‘first.’ It is logically impossible. God is the first cause of all things; he is eternal and uncreated. Adam and Eve were the first parents. Lucifer caused his own sin by his own will; nothing outside of him made him do it. There was no moment before time began; there was no time before the first moment of time. There was just eternity.<ref>Norman L. Geisler and Ronald M. Brooks, Come, Let Us Reason: An Introduction to Logical Thinking (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1990), 108–109.</ref>

			=Other logical errors or issues you may run into=


	{{Bottom of Page}}		{{Bottom of Page}}

Admin: /* Straw Man */

2026-05-27T00:17:53Z

Straw Man

← Older revision		Revision as of 00:17, 27 May 2026
Line 111:		Line 111:
	*[[Is God fair?\|Argument against Christianity]]		*[[Is God fair?\|Argument against Christianity]]

			=Category error=

			A category mistake is when things from one category of ideas or items are confused with an unrelated category of items or ideas. This is an “apple-and-oranges” error because it mixes up two ideas that don’t belong together. It says, “Accept this (apple) because it falls into that (orange) category.”

			What kinds of things get confused? Just about anything. But a good example might be the categories of color and taste: “What does blue taste like?” As you can tell, this is a meaningless question, because colors don’t have taste. This kind of mistake happens often in questions about God, because he is often in a category all by himself.

			*“Who were Adam’s parents?”
			*“Who made God?”
			*“What caused Lucifer to sin?”
			*“What happened the moment before time began?”

			In each of these cases, there is a mistake of asking, “What came before the first?” or “What caused the first cause?” If it is first, then nothing came before. The category ‘before’ does not apply to the category ‘first.’ It is logically impossible. God is the first cause of all things; he is eternal and uncreated. Adam and Eve were the first parents. Lucifer caused his own sin by his own will; nothing outside of him made him do it. There was no moment before time began; there was no time before the first moment of time. There was just eternity.<ref>Norman L. Geisler and Ronald M. Brooks, Come, Let Us Reason: An Introduction to Logical Thinking (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1990), 108–109.</ref>

	{{Bottom of Page}}		{{Bottom of Page}}

Admin: /* False dilemma or false dichotomy */

2020-11-21T16:43:53Z

False dilemma or false dichotomy

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:43, 21 November 2020
Line 34:		Line 34:
	Artificially reducing a set of possibilities to two, usually while casting one of the two in such a negative light that the “obvious” choice is the other one.		Artificially reducing a set of possibilities to two, usually while casting one of the two in such a negative light that the “obvious” choice is the other one.

	::“''There, you see all of these contradictions in the Bible. I can’t explain them, can you? So are going to throw your Bible away? If you’re going to leave the message over something like that, just go ahead and throw your Bible away''.”		::“''There, you see all of these contradictions in the Bible. I can’t explain them, can you? So are you going to throw your Bible away? If you’re going to leave the message over something like that, just go ahead and throw your Bible away''.”

	This is a manipulative favorite when speaking to bible believing Christians. The pastor knows they believe the Bible and aren’t going to throw it away, therefore many will make a decision that they are also, not going to leave the message, for no reason at all! The apparent contradictions in the Bible can and have been logically explained, while many questions about the message appear to be a result of William Branham's [[Credibility\|credibility]] or [[The Municipal Bridge Vision\|failed prophecies]].		This is a manipulative favorite when speaking to bible-believing Christians. The pastor knows they believe the Bible and aren’t going to throw it away, therefore many will make a decision that they are also, not going to leave the message, for no reason at all! The apparent contradictions in the Bible can and have been logically explained, while many questions about the message appear to be a result of William Branham's [[Credibility\|credibility]] or [[The Municipal Bridge Vision\|failed prophecies]].

	=Moving the Goalposts=		=Moving the Goalposts=

Admin: /* Ad hominem */

2020-11-21T16:43:26Z

Ad hominem

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:43, 21 November 2020
Line 14:		Line 14:
	Here is an example of an ad hominem argument that was presented by a message minister:		Here is an example of an ad hominem argument that was presented by a message minister:

	::“''~~you~~ watch, its these carnal, spiritual babies, that couldn’t get the pastor to do what they wanted, it’s them that’s out there attacking the word of the hour. Don’t you lend an ear to that garbage!''”		::“''You watch, its these carnal, spiritual babies, that couldn’t get the pastor to do what they wanted, it’s them that’s out there attacking the word of the hour. Don’t you lend an ear to that garbage!''”

	An ad hominem attack attempts to counter an opponent’s claims by attacking the character, motives, or other attributes of those on the other side of an argument or position, rather than addressing the argument itself.		An ad hominem attack attempts to counter an opponent’s claims by attacking the character, motives, or other attributes of those on the other side of an argument or position, rather than addressing the argument itself.

Admin: /* Straw Man */

2019-12-02T17:18:48Z

Straw Man

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:18, 2 December 2019
Line 90:		Line 90:

	=Straw Man=		=Straw Man=
			[[Image:Facepalm statue.jpeg\|right\|thumb\|250px]]
	The basic form of a strawman argument is:		The basic form of a strawman argument is:

Admin: /* Ad hominem */

2019-12-02T17:17:13Z

Ad hominem

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:17, 2 December 2019
Line 10:		Line 10:
	=Ad hominem=		=Ad hominem=

	~~The following~~ ad hominem argument ~~(and many variations of it) have been~~ presented ~~on numerous occasions~~ by message ~~ministers~~:		"Ad hominem" in Latin literally means ''‘to the person’''. It is an attack not against the position that the person holds but against the person themselves

			Here is an example of an ad hominem argument that was presented by a message minister:

	::“''you watch, its these carnal, spiritual babies, that couldn’t get the pastor to do what they wanted, it’s them that’s out there attacking the word of the hour. Don’t you lend an ear to that garbage!''”		::“''you watch, its these carnal, spiritual babies, that couldn’t get the pastor to do what they wanted, it’s them that’s out there attacking the word of the hour. Don’t you lend an ear to that garbage!''”

	~~Attempts~~ to counter an opponent’s claims by attacking the character, motives, or other attributes of those on the other side of an argument or position, rather than addressing the argument itself~~, is referred to as an ad hominem attack (Latin for "to the man" or "to the person")~~.		An ad hominem attack attempts to counter an opponent’s claims by attacking the character, motives, or other attributes of those on the other side of an argument or position, rather than addressing the argument itself.

	~~Not~~ only ~~is this a logical fallacy that addresses none~~ of the issues that have been raised, but it also lumps all ex-message believers into a narrow, negative stereotype that is, by its very generality, reckless, irresponsible, and false.		The example above not only fails to address any of the issues that have been raised, but it also lumps all ex-message believers into a narrow, negative stereotype that is, by its very generality, reckless, irresponsible, and false.

	=Equivocation=		=Equivocation=

Admin: /* Ad hominem */

2019-12-02T16:55:37Z

Ad hominem

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:55, 2 December 2019
Line 10:		Line 10:
	=Ad hominem=		=Ad hominem=

	The following ad hominem argument (and many variations of it) have been presented on numerous occasions:~~that we have heard~~		The following ad hominem argument (and many variations of it) have been presented on numerous occasions by message ministers:

	::“''you watch, its these carnal, spiritual babies, that couldn’t get the pastor to do what they wanted, it’s them that’s out there attacking the word of the hour. Don’t you lend an ear to that garbage!''”		::“''you watch, its these carnal, spiritual babies, that couldn’t get the pastor to do what they wanted, it’s them that’s out there attacking the word of the hour. Don’t you lend an ear to that garbage!''”

Admin: /* The Red Herring */

2019-12-02T16:54:32Z

The Red Herring

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:54, 2 December 2019
Line 57:		Line 57:

	=The Red Herring=		=The Red Herring=
			<youtube width='440' height='320'>http://youtu.be/WjjTMBNDU2M</youtube>
	<~~mediaplayer~~>http://youtu.be/WjjTMBNDU2M</~~mediaplayer~~>

	A red herring is an issue or fact that is introduced to deliberately mislead or distract a person from the actual concern that is being questioned. A red herring is a logical fallacy that leads people towards a false conclusion. A red herring might be intentionally used as part of a rhetorical strategy (i.e. there are no real arguments against the position being put forward), or it could be inadvertently used during argumentation as a result of poor logic.		A red herring is an issue or fact that is introduced to deliberately mislead or distract a person from the actual concern that is being questioned. A red herring is a logical fallacy that leads people towards a false conclusion. A red herring might be intentionally used as part of a rhetorical strategy (i.e. there are no real arguments against the position being put forward), or it could be inadvertently used during argumentation as a result of poor logic.