Logic and Fallacies

Discussion in 'Other Christian Denominations' started by Revmitchell, Jan 24, 2013.

  1. Revmitchell

    Revmitchell
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2006
    Messages:
    38,320
    Likes Received:
    786






    Here we see an example of both an inductive fallacy and a formal fallacy.

    It is an inductive fallacy because there is no real support or data to prove the claim. There is only an assumption based on a personal view of logic.

    1.There is no scriptural support to prove man being born with sin

    2. It is only assumed if 1. is true then man should be able to choose to never sin. But this assumption leaves out other possibilities that are equally reasonable whether true or not.

    3. It fail to define free will and assumes there is only one single broad understanding of it.

    It is a formal fallacy because of unstated assumptions and broad generalization.

    We cannot reasonably hold everyone who does not hold to original sin under the same umbrella. This is a mistake reformed folks make very often. Much like trying to single everyone out into two single camps either Calvinist or Arminian. These are also fallacies created in order to prove everyone else who does not fall into the reformed camp wrong.


    Now I started this thread not to pick on any single post but in response to the notion that the biggest problem on this board is a lack of logic. Honestly no one should be against logic or critical thinking. But logic can be taken to unreasonable levels that itself creates fallacies and sidesteps the Holy Ghost.

    We need to be careful when we think we have figured out just how everyone else is wrong. Lest we fall into our own trap and error. (Not that the people quoted have such an agenda)
     
  2. mont974x4

    mont974x4
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2012
    Messages:
    2,565
    Likes Received:
    1
    I see a lot of people post that others are posting fallacies. However, they rarely address the real issues and do nothing to actually further discussion.


    "It's a (insert name) fallacy".


    I say...so what?! If your unable or unwilling to address the subject of the discussion and instead choose to just go around pointing out fallacies then you do nothing but make yourself look like a smarmy school teacher and is a waste of time.

    If you don't like the assumptions being made then make your case, share your view, or otherwise engage in as reasonable a dialogue as possible.
     
  3. Revmitchell

    Revmitchell
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2006
    Messages:
    38,320
    Likes Received:
    786
    Did you read the last couple of sentences? Honestly I was not trying to offend you or even pick on your posting specifically. I just non discriminantly picked a couple of recent posts to make a bigger point.
     
  4. mont974x4

    mont974x4
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2012
    Messages:
    2,565
    Likes Received:
    1
    Brother, I did read it. I am sorry I did not specify in my earlier post. I had been thinking about that (what I posted) for a couple of days now. I read threads and someone does a drive by fallacy accusation with no comment and no addressing the issue of the actual thread and, honestly, I was annoyed.

    I'm sorry.
     
  5. Revmitchell

    Revmitchell
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2006
    Messages:
    38,320
    Likes Received:
    786
    Yea, but someone thinks that the biggest problem on the board is a lack of logic. My point is that logic can be just as abused and often is as anything else. To point it out as the largest problem on the board is one a fallacy itself. It seems some place a higher value on logic than they do any reliance on the HG.
     
  6. mont974x4

    mont974x4
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2012
    Messages:
    2,565
    Likes Received:
    1
    I see.
    Do you think this applies?

    2Ti 3:6 For among them are those who enter into households and captivate weak women weighed down with sins, led on by various impulses,
    2Ti 3:7 always learning and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.
     
  7. Yeshua1

    Yeshua1
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2012
    Messages:
    17,041
    Likes Received:
    48
    main problem in this entire discussion is that we can assume some truthsd to be self evident, as the Bible clearly staes that we are ALl sinners by birth, confirmed by choice!

    And the obligation to prove/expalin freew ill nnot on thsoe holding to biblical truths, as bible again clearly states that we do not have 'free will" as adam had when he chose wrongly!
     
  8. Revmitchell

    Revmitchell
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2006
    Messages:
    38,320
    Likes Received:
    786
    No,sir we cannot if we are going to have a reasonable discussions and then call another position something other than truth. The idea that you hold the truth and others do not therefore you do not have to substantiate your claim is not credible and never promotes reasonable discussion.

    inductive fallacy

    unsubstantiated, begs the question, inductive fallacy
     
  9. Gerhard Ebersoehn

    Gerhard Ebersoehn
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2004
    Messages:
    8,870
    Likes Received:
    3
    Reliance on the HG?!

    You don't think THAT is assuming? Rather 'logic' - human, fallible 'logic', for me!
     
  10. Yeshua1

    Yeshua1
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2012
    Messages:
    17,041
    Likes Received:
    48
    If we are not born as sinners, why did jesus have to die in our place to atone for the wrath of God that abides upon us?

    And IF we can freely chose toaccept/reject christ, why do we even need the Holy spriit to work to save us?
     
  11. Revmitchell

    Revmitchell
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2006
    Messages:
    38,320
    Likes Received:
    786

    I did not say we were not.

    Here we have a verbal fallacy. This statement assumes there is only one single definition of "freely choose". I do not believe in the definition of freely choose as you appear to here.
     
  12. Gerhard Ebersoehn

    Gerhard Ebersoehn
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2004
    Messages:
    8,870
    Likes Received:
    3
    So sane and reasonable conclusions for me, the typo's don't even bother me ...
     
  13. Yeshua1

    Yeshua1
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2012
    Messages:
    17,041
    Likes Received:
    48
    Do you agree that we are all sinners, and unless the Lord reveals Jesus to us, to "open our eyes", we would not come to Him naturally?


    BOTH calvinists/Arminians affirm that!



    That is what I meant by "some see us able to freely choose still!"
     
    #13 Yeshua1, Jan 28, 2013
    Last edited by a moderator: Jan 28, 2013
  14. Revmitchell

    Revmitchell
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2006
    Messages:
    38,320
    Likes Received:
    786
    I do


    I would have to see their argument.
     
  15. Yeshua1

    Yeshua1
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2012
    Messages:
    17,041
    Likes Received:
    48
    Check the ones that deny original /Imputed Sin, for they would see us as basically same as Adam was before the fall, able to freely chose jesus or freely reject Him!
     

Share This Page

Loading...