Fallacies

General Terms that Apply to All Fallacies

  • Deductive Fallacy: A fallacy of deductive reasoning is committed. This is a very broad term that would include all deductive fallacies.
  • Fallacy / Paralogism : The word, “fallacy” (in this book) refers to any method, tactic, statement, etc. by which the distinction between reality and make-believe is blurred. These are the terms that include all fallacies of all types. Just as with other words, there are many definitions of the word, “fallacy.” Some people become very religious about defending their particular definition. However, words must express something that allows us to come closer to knowing reality. The definition given here is useful for understanding “fallacy” in a way that you can use for your life.
  • Flimflam: A trick or deception, especially a swindle or confidence game involving skillful persuasion or clever manipulation is used. It may involve any number of fallacies. Sometimes, flimflam is linked to illicit means to get money.
  • Propositional Fallacy: An error is made in a compound proposition. A proposition is a truth claim statement.

Secularist Fallacy

  • Secularist Fallacy / Naturalist Fallacy / Materialist Fallacy: An assertion is made on the basis of an axiomatic thinking fallacy, and smokescreens may or may not be used to hide the fact that the assertion is unsupported. This is the Secularist fallacy because is it only a problem for Secularists or people who are thinking like Secularists.

Axiomatic Thinking

  • Allness Fallacy: Statements are made that imply totality, finality, or unequivocal certainty beyond what can be known, beyond what is revealed.
  • Asserting a Universal Negative without Divine Revelation: It is believed, implied, or asserted that something does not exist (or doesn’t happen, never happened, is not known by anyone anywhere, etc.). That is a claim that something doesn’t exist anywhere in the material realm or the spiritual realm in any sense. Asserting a universal negative requires omniscience. Only God is omniscient. He has revealed a few universal negative. Asserting a universal negative without Divine revelation is always an unsupported assertion, axiomatic thinking fallacy.
  • Amazing Familiarity / Extraordinary Knowledge: A premise or assertion is presented that would be impossible to know except by Divine revelation. Often, such claims are made while denying the existence of God, eliminating the option of Divine revelation.
  • A-Priorism: A method of reasoning is used that begins with abstract principles to come up with facts rather than beginning with facts that lead the way to conclusions. The word, “facts,” is often persuasively defined to mean interpretations of observations that are based on a certain preferred set of assumptions. The preferred set of assumptions are an example of a-priorism.
  • Arbitrary Thinking: It is believed, implied, or asserted that reasoning can be based on random choice or personal whim, rather than true premises, sound logic, and conclusions that follow from the premises. You wouldn’t think this would be very convincing, but there are many effective ways to conceal arbitrary thinking. All assumptions, though drawn from worldviews, are arbitrary, since worldviews cannot be verified to represent reality. Arbitrary thinking is always irrational.
  • Argument from Omniscience: A claim is made that could not possibly be known. The reason this is a fallacy is that only God is omniscient. There is no fallen human who can make this claim.
  • Axiomatic Thinking / Pretending / Unsupported Assertion / Alleged Certainty / Appeal to Common Sense / Bare Assertion / Unprovable Statement / Groundless Claim / Failure to State Premises / Assumption As Fact / Made-Up Stuff: Pretending is used to assert that a groundless fabrication is part of reality. “I assume” would be more accurately stated as “I pretend.” Assumptions/presuppositions (made-up stuff) have zero truth value. An assertion is made without any support or evidence for the assertion or any attempt to provide a reason. This is especially deceptive when the statement makes the conclusion appear certain when, in fact, it is not. Something is claimed to be true when it is something made up (this is a form of lying). All fallacies resolve to presenting things that are not known true as if they were true. This made-up stuff usually comes out of the worldview, an inner fake reality that is fabricated in the mind, so it seems real rather than made up. Made-up stuff has zero truth value. It is irrational to base reasoning on made-up stuff. It is arbitrary thinking, which is not a sane way to think.
  • Big Lie Technique / Staying on Message: A lie is confidently and continually repeated in spite of all evidence against it. The idea is that any lie will be believed by many people if it is repeated often enough to a large audience. It helps to have the media (or a group of people in the corporate structure or government) who will repeat what you say as if it were truth. This is the counterfactual fallacy with political savvy and purposeful deception.
  • Bold-Faced Lie, or Bald-Faced Lie: A lie is told openly and plainly. This is not a veiled lie. This is a lie that is like bold-faced text in a book. The teller of the lie may not know it’s a lie. In fact, error is spread much more effectively by those who don’t know that they are lying than by those who do know. This open lie is also known as a bare-faced lie. As a man without a beard is bare-faced, so, this lie is told without shame and brazenly.
  • Claim of Unknowables: It is believed, implied, or asserted that something or someone is universally unknowable. This is a universal negative, and it is irrational to make such a claim unless it is revealed by God that the thing cannot be known. Some things can be known by Divine revelation that cannot be known by scientific observation.
  • Counterfactual Fallacy / Assertion Contrary to Fact / Lie / Untruth: An outright lie is used as a premise or just put forward as a conclusion without any premise, when statements are made or hypotheses are put forward that are contrary to known facts. It may be mixed with some truth to make it more deceptive, but the overall effect is that a lie is told.

All lies originate from Satan. John 8:44 The Secularist is certain that Satan doesn’t exist because the Secularists have filtered Satan out of their worldviews, and they are then able to assume that Satan doesn’t exists based on their worldviews. And, Secularists can prove that Satan doesn’t exists by the logical fallacy of appeal to ridicule.

  • Crackers in the Pantry: A claim is made that is checkable. When checked, the claim is false. The name comes from a claim that there are crackers in the pantry. The simple way to find out is to look in the pantry. The uncheckable lies are harder, for instance, billions of years, space aliens, or the flying spaghetti monster.
  • False Accusation / Finding a Fault Where None Exists / False Error: A problem, error, or mistake is alleged, but no evidence proves that the problem, error, or mistake exists. Sometimes, when Secularists are confronted with the reality of the Secularist fallacy, They will resort to ad hominem attacks, trying to find some fault with the messenger.
  • False Prophecy: A claim is made, especially some future event. The person may claim Divine inspiration, but, much more often, they just claim common sense, evidence (phantom evidence), the Bible (phantom Scripture), or science (phantom science), when what is actually declared is nonsense.
  • Hypothesis Contrary to Fact / Argumentum Ad Speculum / Speculative Fallacy / “What If” Fallacy / Wouldchuck: A hypothesis is put forward but the hypothesis cannot be true.
  • Ipse dixit /Just Because Fallacy / Trust Me / Mother Knows Best Fallacy / Because I Said So / You’ll See: An arbitrary dogmatic statement is made and the speaker/writer expects the listener/reader to accept it as valid without conclusive evidence.
  • Negative Proof Fallacy / Proving a Negative Fallacy: A claim is made (without Divine revelation) that something does not to exist anywhere, at any time, or in any realm. This is asserting a universal negative. Related: Prove It to Me, Proving Non-Existence.
  • Presumption: Evidence or a conclusion is presupposed or presumed even though it doesn’t exist in the real world or isn’t shown to exist. Premises or conclusions are put forward based on presumption or presupposition.
  • Presupposition: What started as an assumption becomes a dogmatically held belief that is considered to be true without challenge, entirely skipping the evaluating facility of the mind and being accepted it as a fact without consciously thinking about it.
  • Pulling From Air / Pulling Facts From the Air / PFA: Facts are just made up, pulled from the air.

 

 

Smokescreens to Hide Axiomatic Thinking

  • Abuse of Statistics / Lying with Statistics / Statistical Fallacy Misused Statistics / Statistical Fallacy: Rather than using reason to evaluate the issue, statistics are abused to assert a falsehood. It must be emphasized that no statistics can yield anything more than inductive reasoning, which is not concrete or definitive anyway.
  • Abusive Ad Hominem / Character Assassination / Smear Campaign / Throwing Stones: Rather than using reason to evaluate the issue, the person or persons having an opposing view are defamed, mocked, or dishonored as an argument against their position. Sometimes, an attempt is made to discredit the person through tactics such as name-calling or character assassination rather than addressing the evidence.
  • Accident Fallacy / A Dicto Simpliciter Ad Dictum Secundum Quid: A rule is applied generally, ignoring the fact that there are exceptions to the rule.
  • According to the Rules Fallacy: It is asserted that an action is right or a statement is true because it conforms to formal or official rules (laws, standards, protocols, or procedures); however the specific case at issue is an exception or not specifically covered by the rules.
  • Ad Hoc Rescue / Ad Hoc Hypothesis / Just-So Story: A story is made up to explain away evidence that conflicts with a favored story in order to save the favored story. Some part of a worldview is out of sync with reality, so, facing facts that contradict the worldview, ad hoc stories are made up to rescue the worldview, that is, to explain away reality.
  • Ad Hominem Ridicule: Rather than using reason to evaluate the issue, an appeal to ridicule fallacy is committed where the person is ridiculed rather than the idea. The appeal to ridicule fallacy occurs when ridicule or humor is used rather than rational thinking.
  • Ad Hominem Tu Quoque: An attack is made against the person while claiming that the other person has the same problem as the attacker. This generally comes up as a reaction to exposure of a major flaw in the attacker’s argument. The one who has been exposed attacks the other person, organization, idea, etc., while projecting their own problem on the other person/organization/idea. This is almost a knee-jerk fallacy when Secularists find out that the Secularist Trilemma eliminates the possibility that they can come to a conclusion rationally. They must always do so based on made-up stuff, usually accompanied by smoke and mirror gimmicks to hide the fact that everything is based on made-up stuff. Once they realize their problem, they usually attack the messenger who told them about this and try to project their problem on to Divine revelation in a tu quoque fallacy. Not only is it a tu quoque fallacy, but it is also a equating opposites fallacy.
  • Ad Ignorantiam Question: A question (sometimes unanswerable such as a request to prove a universal negative) is used as proof for or against a claim rather than giving a reason to believe or disbelieve the claim.
  • Ad Misericordiam / Appeal to Pity / Appeal to Sympathy / Appeal to Misery: Pity is used rather than truth to support a conclusion.
  • Ad Personam Fallacy: Personal preferences, dislikes, or weaknesses are used as reasons to believe.
  • Affirming a Disjunct / Fallacy of the Alternative Disjunct / False Exclusionary Disjunct / Affirming One Disjunct / the Alternative Syllogism / Asserting an Alternative / Improper Disjunctive Syllogism / Fallacy of the Disjunctive Syllogism / Fallacy of Exclusion: An assumption is believed or asserted that if one of two options is true then the other must be false when that is not the case. There are some cases where one of two things must be true but both cannot be true, and these would not commit this fallacy.
  • Affirming the Consequent / Fallacy of the Undistributed Middle Term / Converse Error Fallacy / Fallacy of the Converse: The middle term of a categorical syllogism is not distributed. Invalid Form: “If A is true then B is true. B is true. Therefore, A is true” Five year old: “If there were monsters under my bed, I would be afraid. I’m afraid. So, there are monsters under my bed.” According to the rules of logic, a term is “distributed” when a sentence says something about everything the term designates. A syllogism is invalid if both middle terms are undistributed.
  • Against Self-Confidence / Argumentum Ad Fidentia: Self-confidence is attacked in place of a sound argument. This is not the same as asking a person to say how they know something. This is trying to shake confidence without reason. See Creating Misgivings.
  • Agnostic Definist Fallacy: The word, “Agnostic,” is persuasively defined to hide any resistance to God. This is a specific type of definist fallacy that has recently become popular among Secularists. The purpose is proselytizing. The Atheist uses the definist fallacy is to set up a deceptive failure to state position fallacy in which that Atheist attempts to just continue to try to find some weakness in a person who knows Jesus Christ. The attitude is, “I ask questions of you forever, but you dare not ask for any evidence of my beliefs—since I don’t have any.” The Secularists knows he or she cannot defend his or her belief, so this fallacy is used to pretend there is no position to defend. The Secularist merely spends his or her time trying to poke holes in the beliefs of Christians. By the way, the deceptive definition doesn’t stop the hidden dogmatic assumption of “no God.” It merely denies that the assumption is there while still dogmatically holding to the assumption. The assumption just becomes a hidden presupposition that underlies all of the Secularist’s reasoning. God reveals that all people know that He exists and that they know about His justice, so this particular definist fallacy is an assertion contrary to fact (asserting made-up stuff that is known to be a lie).
  • All-Or-Nothing Mistake: A continuum is stated as a black and white issue.
  • Alternative Advance / Lose-Lose Situation: More than one choice is supposedly offered, but the choices offered are actually the same choice.
  • Alternative Syllogism Fallacy: One of two choices is true, and it is known that one of those choices is true, so it is concluded that the other choice is false. If there is not enough information to declare the second choice to be false, it can’t be declared false. Perhaps both choices are true.
  • Ambiguity / Vagueness / Doublespeak / Fuzzy Talking: Communication is unclear, whether intentional or accidental.
  • Ambiguity Effect: Several options are given, but most are left with an ambiguous description. The option that is more fully defined is more likely to be chosen, so this is a way of controlling by leaving out information about all choices except the favored choice.
  • Ambiguous Assertion: Claims are sufficiently vague as to allow more than one interpretation. Sometimes, statements are so vague the audience is forced to guess what was meant. This uses the P. T. Barnum effect.
  • Ambiguous Collective: A collective term (“we,” “everyone,” “the people”) is used without defining exactly who or what is included in the term. It’s always better (though not always practical) to be more specific, and misunderstanding can result from not being specific. Sometimes, the ambiguous collective is used for deceit, to give a false impression or to bypass the part of the mind that does critical thinking. “Experts agree that . . .” “Scientists have confirmed that . . .”
  • Ambiguous Middle / Ambiguous Middle Term: The middle term of a syllogism has more than one possible meaning. Example: “We can easily observe evolution (The middle term, ‘evolution,’ means ‘adaptations and mutations’) taking place. Molecules turning into humans over millions of years is evolution (The middle term, ‘evolution,’ has just changed meanings to mean ‘microbes turning into people’). Therefore, we have observed molecules turning into humans over millions of years.”
  • Anchoring: Certain terms, having more than one meaning, are continually used to plant seeds of association (where no real association exists) in a way that molds that inner worldview of others without them ever knowing that a hypnotic technique is being used. When two things are repeatedly associated with each other, the human mind begins to automatically react when one of the things is brought to mind. For instance, if you repeatedly eat snacks when watching TV, turning on the TV will trigger an urge to eat snacks. This is a Neuro Linguistic Programming technique.
  • Anecdotal Evidence Presented as Scientific Evidence / Personal Testimony Presented as Scientific Evidence: A personal testimony or an anecdote is presented as if it were using scientific method. This fallacy only applies when a generalization is made based on a personal experience. The personal experience is not the problem. The problem is when rationalization goes beyond the personal experience. It is an unwarranted extrapolation. Personal experience (experimentation) is valid proof, especially when backed up by the personal experiences of many people. Any assumptions or human interpretations that are added to experimentation are mere assumptions, which would come under the logical fallacy of axiomatic thinking. Though the human mind can be deceived, what you have seen, experienced, handled with your hands, whether spiritual of material, these are more certain than theories in textbooks or made-up stories on TV.
  • Anonymous Authority / Appeal to Anonymous Authority: The source of an authority is not mentioned. All appeal to authority as a final word is fallacious unless the authority cannot be wrong and cannot lie.
  • Anti-Concreteness Mentality Fallacy / Attributing Abstractness to the Concrete / Mistaking an Entity for a Theory / Mistaking Reality for an Assumption: Facts or entities are treated as perceived concepts, theories, assumptions, or abstractions. A reality is declared to be an assumption, concept, theory, or abstraction by unsupported assertion.
  • Apophasis: Apophasis is mentioning by not mentioning. It is appearing to disagree with a point while actually emphasizing it. It is pretending to deny while actually affirming. “Some people say blah, blah about Charlie, but I refuse to talk about it.”
  • Appeal to Accomplishment: It is believed, implied, or asserted that accomplishment equals authority. Someone’s level of accomplishment is used as a premise rather than presenting a premise that supports the conclusion.
  • Appeal to Age / The Wisdom of the Ancients / Appeal to Youth: It is believed, implied, or asserted that age equals authority. Someone’s age, young or old, is used as a premise in support of a certain conclusion rather than presenting a premise that supports the conclusion.
  • Appeal to Anger / Appeal to Spite / Argumentum Ad Odium / Appeal to Hatred / Appeal to Loathing / Appeal to Outrage: Anger is used as a premise rather than sound reasoning with a true premise to support the conclusion.
  • Appeal to Authority / Faulty Appeal to Authority / Argumentum Ad Verecundiam / Argument from Authority: A truth claim is made based on a person or other source (movie, publication, book, etc.) making the claim rather than on a true premise. This is a fallacy unless the source has absolute knowledge, cannot lie, and cannot be wrong. There are human authorities on various subjects, but none of them can provide absolute authority for two reasons. None of them have absolute knowledge of their own area of expertise. None of them is incapable of being wrong or misrepresenting. The only Authority that is absolute is God Himself. And, because of the Secularist Trilemma, there is no way, other than Divine revelation, to rationally say that anything is known.
  • Appeal to Faulty Authority / Faulty Appeal to Authority / Argument from False Authority / Appeal to Improper Authority / Appeal to Unqualified Authority / Unqualified Source: A truth claim is made based on a person or other source (movie, publication, book, etc.) who is not an expert in the field rather than on a true premise. This is a fallacy unless the source has absolute knowledge, cannot lie, and cannot be wrong. There are human authorities on various subjects, but none of them can provide absolute authority for two reasons. None of them have absolute knowledge of their own area of expertise. None of them is incapable of being wrong or misrepresenting, and people with expertise often have an agenda—they are seldom absolutely objective and unbiased. The only Authority that is absolute is God Himself. And, because of the Secularist Trilemma, there is no way, other than Divine revelation, to rationally say that anything is known.
  • Appeal to Bribery / Appeal to Motives in Place of Support: An incentive, possibly financial, is a major part of the reason for believing something. This is a form of appeal to self-interest.
  • Appeal to Celebrity: The celebrity status of a person or thing is used as a premise, either implied or stated, for some conclusion. This is a form of the logical fallacy of false appeal to authority.
  • Appeal to Charm / Appeal to Personality: Personal charm and entertainment are used as reasons to believe rather than rational thought. The advertisement is funny and cute, so you buy the terrible product. The professor has a great presentation style, so you accept pure nonsense as if it were fact.
  • Appeal to Coincidence / Appeal to Luck / Appeal to Bad Luck: A certain effect or result is attributed to chance even though the evidence strongly points to an actual cause. For example, matter, the laws of nature, logic, the cosmos, life, and all the various forms of living things are attributed to chance when there is a rational explanation in the Divine revelation that comes from God.
  • Appeal to Common Folk / Plain Folks / Appeal to the Common Man / Argumentum Ad Populum: It is believed, implied, or asserted that fitting in equals authority. Rapport is tied closely to matching either expectations or the person who is the target of the message. A person tries to appear more like the people he or she is trying to convince of some conclusion rather than supplying true premises in support of the conclusion.
  • Appeal to Common Practice / Everybody’s Doing It: It is believed, implied, or asserted that whatever the perceived majority of people are doing must be OK or even preferred. This may be the majority of a very small group of people or the majority of the overall population. Peer pressure and what people are doing around you has an influence on your own thoughts, words, and actions. This is related to the Cool Idolatry fallacy.
  • Appeal to Complexity: It is believed, implied, or asserted that if something is complex then it’s OK to assert whatever you like. Lack of understanding of a topic is brought as “proof” that one argument is as good as another.
  • Appeal to Confidence: It is believed, implied, or asserted that confidence equals authority. Personal inner belief is the reason for believing. This is quite different from the kind of faith that God speaks of through the Bible, which is the faith of God. The faith of God comes when God speaks into the innermost mind.
  • Appeal to Control of News Media: It is believed, implied, or asserted that the majority opinion of the news media equals authority. The fact that human beings are creating the news media, with their own political, social, and religious (often Secular or Naturalistic) agendas, is ignored. The preponderance of news articles in a tightly controlled news media are used to defend the same opinions that are sacred cows of that news media. This is a form of circular reasoning. The news media is a powerful voice. There are group-held paradigms, and the power is used to demonize any who hold conflicting opinions.
  • Appeal to Contempt: It is believed, implied, or asserted that contempt equals authority. An open show of scorn, distain, disrespect, hatred, loathing, or any such emotion, is substituted for real evidence and rational thought.
  • Appeal to Control of Scientific Funding: It is believed, implied, or asserted that government funding proves the validity of some idea and that the lack of government funding proves lack of validity. The lack of government scientific funding is used as evidence against any who threaten the sacred cows of those who control the funding. This is a form of circular reasoning. Those who control the funding will fund only those projects with which they agree. That proves nothing about either the projects with which they agree or with which they disagree.
  • Appeal to Control of Scientific Journals: It is believed, implied, or asserted that scientific journals are controlled by people who have all knowledge and are objective, fair-minded, and without agendas. This is often coupled with an assumption that only certain scientific journals are the true scientific journals. The lack of related articles in a select grouping of scientific journals is used as evidence against any who threaten the sacred cows of those who control those particular scientific journals. This is a form of circular reasoning.
  • Appeal to Definition / Appeal to the Dictionary / Definist Fallacy / Persuasive Definition: A word is defined in a way that persuades the audience to believe the conclusion but doesn’t really prove the conclusion to be true. In these cases, the definition of a term, word, or concept is used in a way that hinders reason or communication.
  • Appeal to Desperation: It is believed, implied, or asserted that desperation equals authority. A person uses the fact, or supposed fact, that something must be done, and the proposed conclusion/solution is the something that must be done.
  • Appeal to Emotion / Emotional Appeal / For the Children / Save the Planet / Play On Emotions: An emotion-inducing statement is used to support a conclusion rather than a true premise.
  • Appeal to Extremes: A premise or conclusion of another person is taken to an extreme that was not intended by the person who originally stated the premise or conclusion.
  • Appeal to Fake Hope: Fake hope becomes the reason for believing something. This is related to wishful thinking. The real hope that God gives is a vision of reality, of how things will be in the future. Real hope cannot be humanly generated but must come as a gift from God.
  • Appeal to Fear / Argumentum In Terrorem / Ad Metum: It is believed, implied, or asserted that fear is a reason to believe. Someone uses fear to coerce someone into accepting some statement. There are many ways that fear is used to persuade. In time, those who have been persuaded through fear often forget that they only accepted the rationalizations because of fear tactics, and they then become avid proponents using appeal to fear on others.
  • Appeal to Flattery / Apple Polishing / Wheel Greasing / Stroking / Stroking the Ego: Flattery is used to disrupt that ability of one or more other people to make rational decisions regarding truth or validity. A closely related fallacy is Appeal to Pride (Argumentum Ad Superbiam, Appeal to Vanity).
  • Appeal to Force / Argumentum Ad Baculum / Argument to the Cudgel / Appeal to the Stick / Appeal to the Stick / Appeal to Power / Coercion: Coercion or force is used to bring compliance rather than sound reasoning. “Get on board, or get out.” You can choose not to believe, but there will be consequences. This is not always a fallacy. Sometimes, for reason of maintaining discipline, authority must be enforced with power. You can observe this in governments, all of which are given that power by God. Some governments misuse this power, however. Parents are given this power. God has this power. The Church, according to the order God reveals through Scripture, has this power. In all these cases, there are limits to the legitimate use of this power and the limits are established by God. In no case does appeal to force result in a rational reason to believe. Parents, for instance, need to also teach their children why things are a certain way. They have to assure that their children get to known Christ personally and have Him lead them moment by moment. The best time for this is at the youngest age. Then they will believe because they have the kind of faith that comes from the Word (utterance) of God.
  • Appeal to Gravity: Personal seriousness or conscientiousness is given as proof.
  • Appeal to Guilt / Appeal to Shame: Guilt or shame are used as a reason to believe in something. This is generally used in concert with another fallacy such as unsupported assertion or outright lie. There are times when it is appropriate to be guilty and to bear shame, but not as a reason to believe.
  • Appeal to Heaven / Gott Mit Uns / Manifest Destiny / Special Covenant: It is claimed that a right is given by God, yet God did not give any such right.
  • Appeal to High Tech: It is assumed that something is true or good simply because it is the newest thing.
  • Appeal to Humor / Appeal to Ridicule / Reductio Ad Ridiculum / Appeal to Mockery: Ridicule, or mockery, is used to divert attention away from the discussion or to make anyone with opposing views appear foolish rather than rationally seeking truth.
  • Appeal to Ignorance / Argument from Ignorance / Argument from a Lack of Evidence / Argumentum Ad Ignorantiam: It is either concluded that something is false because there is no proof that it is not false, or it is concluded that something is true because there is no proof that it is not true. If you personally have no evidence, the best you can say is that your mind is open and you just don’t know.
  • Appeal to Intimidation / Proof by Intimidation: Any of the many forms of intimidation are used rather than a rational reason.
  • Appeal to Intuition: Intuition is the only reason for believing something that is either true or false. Intuition is one of the human senses and is not to be ignored. However, it must be checked using other sources of knowledge. Jesus told Nicodemus that he would not be able to see the Kingdom of God until he was born again. Spiritual birth is the beginning of spiritual senses. These senses are exercised by obeying Christ in each instance. Christ never leads in a way that is contrary to Scripture. He is not the author of confusion. If you have an intuitive leading to do anything, it will be Scriptural, and God will open the door for it.
  • Appeal to Mystery: Lack of understanding is given as the reason for believing. This usually takes the form of claiming that something is a great mystery but is true nonetheless. There is only One Who can declare something to be true without explanation; He is God. Everyone else must bring evidence.
  • Appeal to Nature / Argumentum Ad Naturam: It is believed, implied, or asserted that because something is natural it is OK or even preferred. Arsenic is natural, but don’t eat it. There is also a problem of defining what is natural. Are human beings part of nature? If so, is human activity part of nature? If not, are we into a persuasive definition fallacy?
  • Appeal to Novelty / Appeal to the New / Appeal to Modernity / Appeal to Progress / Appeal to the Modern / Ad Novitatem: It is believed, implied, or asserted that something is better or true simply because it is new.
  • Appeal to Patriotism: It is believed, implied, or asserted that truth is determined by what makes one feel and look patriotic. Often, the term, “unpatriotic,” is used in this fallacy.
  • Appeal to Poetic Language / Argument by Poetic Language: It is believed, implied, or asserted that beautiful language is proof for a conclusion or premise.
  • Appeal to Pragmatism Fallacy / Pragmatic Fallacy / Appeal to Convenience / Pragmatism / Appeal to Utility / Argumentum Ad Convenientiam: It is believed, implied, or asserted that what appears to be the easiest path/course should be taken simply because it appears easy or requiring less self-sacrifice. Pragmatists don’t consider truth to be important. However, if giving the illusion of truth by devious methods is the easiest route, pragmatism allows that kind of deception.
  • Appeal to Presentation: A conclusion is believed simply because it was presented well. This is one of the more dominant upshots of Post-Modernism. Since Post-Modernism is all about language having no real meaning and about relativism, there is no right or wrong. There are only winners and losers. A good way to be a winner is to have a flashy, entertaining presentation.
  • Appeal to Pride / Argumentum Ad Superbiam / Appeal to Vanity: The reason for acting or for believing is pride or vanity.
  • Appeal to Probability: It is believed, implied, or asserted that something is very probable, or “more compelling,” when it is only remotely possible or even impossible. This is a kind of phantom probability.
  • Appeal to Rationalism: It is believed, implied, or asserted that the human mind (particularly the mind of anyone who agrees with the person using this fallacy) is capable of generating information and knowledge without the benefit of either observation or Divine revelation.
  • Appeal to Rugged Individualism / Appeal to the Minority: An appeal is made to the personal the likes, interests, preferences, prejudices, predispositions, fears, etc. of a small nonconforming group (perhaps even one person) so they will accept a conclusion. This is a kind of appeal to the people but to a very select group that doesn’t go with the flow. It is a kind of peer pressure within a select group.
  • Appeal to Self-Interest / Appeal to Desire / Appeal to Personal Interest / Homily Ad Hominem (type of): An appeal is made to the personal likes, interests, preferences, prejudices, predispositions, fears, etc. of others so they will accept the conclusion and self-interest is the reason for believing something to be true. This is a fallacy only when those personal interests are not relevant to the truth or falsity of the argument. Argument from consequence is a negative form of this fallacy.
  • Appeal to Slogan / Argument by Slogan / Simplistic Slogans: It is believed, implied, or asserted that a slogan is (or slogans are) proof for a conclusion. Slogans are short statements with an emotional punch. They constitute an appeal to emotion.
  • Appeal to Spite: Bitterness or spite is stirred up against whomever or whatever is opposing the conclusion. This becomes surrogate evidence. Appeal to spite is a specific type of appeal to emotion.
  • Appeal to the Exotic: It is believed, implied, or asserted that something is better or more to be trusted because it comes from a distant place. Often this fallacy is coupled with the fallacy of misleading vividness to create a false aura of believability.
  • Appeal to the People / Appeal to the Public / Argumentum Ad Populum / Ad Numerum / Bandwagon / Appeal to Common Belief / Appeal to Popularity / Appeal to Mass Opinion / Appeal to Numbers / Arguing by the Numbers / Argument by Consensus / Consensus Gentium / Appeal to the Gallery / Appeal to the Majority / Appeal to the Masses / Appeal to the Mob / Appeal to the Mob Instinct / Appeal to the Multitude: It is believed, implied, or asserted that the popularity of a statement proves the truth of the statement.
  • Appeal to Tradition / Argumentum Ad Antiquitatem / Appeal to Common Practice / Appeal to Antiquity / Proof from Tradition / Appeal to Past Practice / Gadarene Swine Fallacy / Traditional Wisdom / Appeal to the Old: It is believed, implied, or asserted that past practice or tradition is a reason to believe something to be true rather than using an actual truth statement.
  • Appeal to Wealth / Argument to the Purse / Appeal to Money / Argumentum Ad Crumenam / Appeal to Poverty / Argumentum ad Lazarum: It is believed, implied, or asserted that wealth equals authority. A conclusion is said to be true because a person who endorses it has money or possessions.
  • Apples and Oranges: Things are compared in a way that doesn’t make sense. This is a fallacy of choosing the wrong point of comparison that causes confusion or a false impression. Any two or more things can be compared since there is always some point of comparison. When the comparison is made in a way that gives a false impression, it is a fallacy.
  • Arcane Explanation: An explanation is proposed while noting that it can only be understood by very few people or that it is a mystery that no one can understand. “The reason that evolution seems counterintuitive to you is because you haven’t had scientific training.” This is very similar to appeal to mystery.
  • Arguing a Minor Point While Ignoring the Main Point: A minor point, silly point, or quibble is given the focus so that the main point is ignored.
  • Argument by Denial: An attack (usually ad hominem) is made through a mechanism of pretending to pass over a matter. It is believed, implied, or asserted that the attack proves some point. Both paralipsis and apophasis are arguments by denial. Apophasis is mentioning by not mentioning. Paralipsis is mentioning by saying that it should not be mentioned. These ways of distancing the communicator from what the communicator is saying.
  • Argument by Question: A question is asked (or many questions are asked) that isn’t easily answered, with the implication that, “If you can’t answer my question, then I am right and you are wrong.” It is an argument from ignorance. No one’s lack of ability to answer a question has any impact on reality.
  • Argument by Rhetorical Question: A question is asked, but an answer isn’t expected. The question is asked to imply a statement rather than to learn anything. This can be a legitimate presentation tool, but be aware of its use. Don’t just believe what someone implies by rhetorical questions without receiving genuine proof. It is a type of innuendo.
  • Argument by Selective Refutation: As a tactic, strong point, or points that clearly show the problems with a certain view, are ignored. Instead, weaker points, minor points, or points that can be clouded in confusion are refuted. More than one piece of evidence (or line of reasoning) has been put forward to support a given conclusion, but the strong evidence (or lines of reasoning) are ignored while the weak ones are refuted.
  • Argument by Vehemence: Vehemence is used as support of a conclusion instead of using reason. Vehemence can be expressed by raising the voice, speaking with more emotion, using exaggerated body language, and many other ways.
  • Argument from Consequences / Parade of the Horribles / Argumentum Ad Consequentiam / Appeal to Consequences of a Belief: It is believed, implied, or asserted that negative consequences (or positive) are a reason to reject reality. An argument is made that something is false because believing in it would have negative consequences or that something is true because not believing in it would have negative consequences. The appeal to consequences fallacy is often coupled with an absurd extrapolation. This is not to say that it is a fallacy to weigh the risks of a certain decision. When the best course of action is not absolutely known, it is common to choose lower potential risk or higher potential gain. While risks cannot determine if something is true or false, they do sometimes determine the best decision from a pragmatic perspective.
  • Argument from Design: The only argument that something is designed (think of the space shuttle) is that it looks designed. For instance, that car looks designed. It could not have popped into existence from natural processes. The Universe appears designed, and there is no other known way that it could have come into existence other than that God created it. This is all inductively reasoned. inductive reasoning cannot give definite answers as deductive reasoning does. For definitive answers about anything, proof must rest in Divine revelation—which God provides to every person who observes the Creation.
  • Argument from Fallacy / Argumentum Ad Logicam / Appeal to Logic / Bad Reasons Fallacy / Fallacy Fallacy / Fallacist’s Fallacy: It is believed, implied, or asserted that a fallacy committed by someone who holds a certain view necessarily proves that view false. It is asserted that a certain conclusion is false because one of the arguments that was presented to support it had a fallacy.
  • Argument from Hearsay / Telephone Game / Chinese Whispers / Volvo Fallacy / Rumor: A testimony other than eye-witness account is given as proof. As a general rule, the closer to the original observer, the more likely something is to be accurate.
  • Argument from Personal Astonishment: It is believed, implied, or asserted that personal astonishment equals authority. Wonder and astonishment is expressed as a reason to accept or reject a proposition.
  • Argument from Silence / Argumentum Ex Silentio: It is believed, implied, or asserted that a conclusion can be drawn from the absence of comment in historical documents such as the Bible.
  • Argument from Small Numbers / Small Sample Size Bias: A generalization is made from a small sample size. It is a hasty generalization and a statistical fallacy. It must be emphasized that no statistics can yield anything more than inductive reasoning, which is not concrete or definitive.
  • Argument from the Negative: It is believed, implied, or asserted that if one conclusion is false, then another one is automatically true. This is very similar to the black-and-white fallacy.
  • Argument to Moderation / Argumentum Ad Temperantiam / Middle Ground / False Compromise / Gray Fallacy / Golden Mean Fallacy / Fallacy of the Mean / Splitting the Difference: It is believed, implied, or asserted that somewhere between any two positions/conclusions, there is a correct or true position/conclusion. This fallacy is often seen in politics and in requests for Christians to compromise on moral issues. Often, if people will come off positional bargaining they find out that they want the same outcome. If two people will pray, God has one will concerning what should be done, so, if they both are led by the Spirit, both will have the same solution. This is not the same as compromise where neither one gets what is needed.
  • Argument to Veneration / Appeal to Respect: It is believed, implied, or asserted that respect for a person or a group is the reason to believe a proposition.
  • Argumentum Ad Hominem: It is believed, implied, or asserted that discrediting a person disproves what the person is saying. An attempt is made to discredit the person rather than addressing the evidence. These are very common. The only time it may be rational to question the person is when the person alone is the premise for the argument.
  • Argumentum ad Imaginibus: The identification of logical fallacies in one’s argument are dismissed solely because prepared graphics were used to clearly explain the fallacy.
  • Argumentum Ad Invidia / Appeal to Envy: Envy is stirred up in order to influence.
  • As Far As Anyone Knows Fallacy: It is believed, implied, or asserted that something is true because no one knows that it is not true. A premise on which a conclusion will be based is not actually known. This is very similar to the best-in-field fallacy except that it assumes personal omniscience. This is also an argument from ignorance. This is to say that no one knows of an exception, which is an assertion of a universal negative in that it asserts amazing familiarity, knowing the inner experience of the mind of every person.
  • Assuming Facts Not In Evidence: Premises are based on assumptions rather than something solid. It is very common to claim that there is evidence when what is called, “evidence,” is actually an interpretation of evidence.
  • Assuming the Cause: It is believed, implied, or asserted that one thing causes another, but the claim is merely assumed.
  • Assumption Correction Assumption: It is believed, implied, or asserted that silence means agreement. An assertion has been made but the assumptions on which the assertion is based have not been corrected; so it is assumed that the reason for the lack of correction is that the assumptions are all true. This fallacy often accompanies the tactic of tossing the elephant.
  • Assumptive Language / Grammatical Presupposition / Embedded Presupposition: Presuppositions are hidden in language. These hidden assumptions are worked into language in clever ways that, if not challenged, result in acceptance of ideas without challenge so they begin to seem like they are part of reality when they are not part of reality. Carl Sagan was a master of assumptive language.
  • Atheist Definist Fallacy: the word, “Atheist,” “Secularist,” “Agnostic,” or a similar word is persuasively defined to hide any resistance to God. This is a specific type of definist fallacy. It has recently become popular among Secularists. God reveals that all people know that He exists and that they know about His justice, so this definist fallacy is an assertion contrary to fact (made-up stuff that is known to be a lie). The purpose of the Atheist definist fallacy is to set up a deceptive failure to state position fallacy in which that Atheist attempts to just continue to try to find some weakness in a person who knows Jesus Christ. This sets up a one-sided situation where the Atheist just goes on a fishing expedition with and argument from ignorance attitude: “If you can’t answer all my questions, then your entire experience with Christ is negated.” If the person only has a rationalized faith, not the faith of God that comes by hearing Him lead and teach on a moment-by-moment basis, Atheists can be successful is turning people away from God and to their own religion.
    • One definition of the word, “Atheism,” is a belief system that is based on assertion of a universal negative and an argument from ignorance. This form of Atheism depends on the assumptions of Naturalism, Materialism, evolutionism, and Uniformitarianism.
    • Because of the problem of the universal negative, some Atheists have appealed to definition of “Atheism, claiming just not having belief. They claim that it’s not that they believe in NOT God. They simply don’t have belief. Those who go to all the work of creating this position (position of no position) seem to be very intent on arguing against God, which indicates internal inconsistency. They seem to want to be a situation where they can just poke at those who follow Christ but don’t have to defend their own positions (since they contend that they have no positions). This definition of Atheism would indicate insincerity, or, perhaps, insanity.
    • Another way out of the problem of the universal negative is to define Atheism as Agnostic. Agnosticism is also asserting a universal negative, since it declares that no one can know God. This was the problem for Bill Nye when he asserted the universal negative: “You can’t know.” It is a claim of unknowables fallacy and a negative proof fallacy. Such an assertion would require the Agnostic to know the inner spiritual experience of every living person. It’s an assertion contrary to fact, since millions of people currently follow Christ. Everyone who follows Christ is led and taught by Christ on a moment-by-moment basis with varying levels of faithfulness. Some skeptics go to the extreme of saying that no one can know anything absolutely about anything . The word, “absolutely,” generally goes undefined, and this makes the claim a dodge. In essence, what the skeptic or Atheist is trying to do is to frame the discussion such that they don’t have to defend their own positions but the Christians must. With this much insincerity, having the conversation is of questionable value. Advice: block, end the conversation. Ask God to lead you to a person with a willing mind.
    • Regardless of the definition given, the definition doesn’t stop the hidden dogmatic assumption of “no God.” It merely denies that the assumption is there while still dogmatically holding to the assumption. The purpose is generally proselytizing. Misery loves company.
  • Atheist Phobia: Given the fact that the New Atheists are becoming more bold and violent against Christians, the fact that some of them are politicking to eliminate Christians, and the fact that Atheism has the most violent history of all religions against followers of Christ, some Christians have become fearful. This is wrong. Fear leads to anger and anger leads to hate. God has revealed to us that He has not given us the spirit of bondage again to fear.
  • Authority of the Select Few: It is believed, implied, or asserted that the evidence is said to be best interpreted by a group that is said to be elite or in the know. It may be true that there is a select group that is in the know; however, if they are in the know, then they can surely show the process by which they think that they know. This is not the same is having certain people who have an office of authority and responsibility to make decisions. The authority and responsibility does not guarantee perfection or infallibility.
  • Autistic Certainty: It is believed, implied, or asserted that the certainty of a conclusion is assured based on the fact that the person committing the fallacy believes the conclusion.
  • Availability Heuristic Fallacy: It is believed, implied, or asserted that whatever comes to mind is the most important information for decision-making. What are the unknowns? You don’t know.
  • Avoiding Specific Numbers: Statistics are given with one of two fuzz factors: hedging words surrounding them or using general terms. This is a statistical fallacy. It must be emphasized that no statistics can yield anything more than inductive reasoning, which is not concrete or definitive.
  • Avoiding the Issue: There is an attempt to avoid an issue that is relevant to the discussion. Often, this is done by bringing up issues or evidence that are irrelevant to the discussion. Sometimes other distractions are used, such as changing the subject or missing the point and addressing some other point.
  • Bad Statistical Data: Numbers are skewed, giving erroneous results. This is a statistical fallacy. It must be emphasized that no statistics can yield anything more than inductive reasoning, which is not concrete or definitive even if the numbers are not skewed and the data is valid and verified.
  • Bait and Switch: A word or phrase is given more than one definition in the same argument. This is a specific kind of logical fallacy of equivocation (lexical ambiguity, using terms in an ambiguous way).
  • Barefoot Fallacy: It is believed, implied, or asserted that only the government can provide a certain product or service. Many times, the governments of the world try to be the Church. In a sense, they try to become the Secular Humanist church. Rather than collecting tithes of the  Secular Humanists, they tax the general population to support the humanitarian efforts of the Secular Humanists.
  • Barking Cat / The Barking Cat Fallacy: A proposition is accepted—except for one thing, and that one thing is inherent to the proposition. When that one thing is not accepted, the proposition is necessarily not accepted. This is a specific kind of fallacy of self-refutation.
  • Barnum Effect / P. T. Barnum Effect / The Fallacy of Personal Validation / The Forer Effect: Vague descriptions are regarded as accurate, though they can be interpreted in different ways. This way, a greater number of people agree, but they are not really agreeing. Each one is interpreting what is being said in a way that wishful thinking dictates. When a politician speaks of “hope and change,” each person tends to think about the change that he or she individually hopes for. Horoscopes and fortune-telling often work this way.
  • Base Rate Neglect / Base Rate Fallacy / Neglecting Base Rates / Base Rate Bias / Prosecutor’s Fallacy / Ignoring Proportionality: Specific instances or unrelated instances are used as examples instead of using verified statistical information. This is a statistical fallacy. It must be emphasized that no statistics can yield anything more than inductive reasoning, which is not concrete or definitive.
  • Begging the Question / Vicious Circle / Chicken And Egg Argument: The conclusion of the argument is one of the premises/axioms/principles on which the argument itself rests. That is, when the conclusion, the very thing that is in question, is assumed in a premise. The use of the conclusion as the basis for the premise is usually well-concealed and difficult to detect. This is a form of circular reasoning.
  • Best-in-Field / Abductive Fallacy / Retroduction Fallacy / Retroductive Fallacy: It is believed, implied, or asserted that the “best” theory is accurate or even a good theory. The criteria for “best” may also be biased, as well, since the one that fits one’s own inner worldview seems to be the best and seems most compelling. This is the logical equivalent of the formal fallacy of affirming the consequent. Abductive argument looks for the simplest, most likely explanation. The problem is that such an explanation is not necessarily true, and “most likely” is not an objective value. That is, there is no way to logically decide what is most likely without making assumptions.
  • Bias: Prejudice, predisposition, partiality, partisanship, favoritism, or unfairness is shown either for or against something. Bias generally proceeds out of a worldview that favors one thing over another. Bias can also be motivated by greed, self-benefit, fear, external coercion, or any number of other things.
  • Biased Authority / Appeal to Biased Authority: It is believed, implied, or asserted that a biased source of information is the only legitimate (or best) source, when an expert is given as the source but not all experts in the field agree. One would be hard pressed to find any area of expertise in which all experts agree. Generally, any sentence that begins, “Experts agree . . .” is a lie.
  • Biased Calculation: It is believed, implied, or asserted that calculations can be valid when they are dependent on presuppositions. This is a statistical fallacy. It must be emphasized that no statistics can yield anything more than inductive reasoning, which is not concrete or definitive. Inductive reasoning may work for pragmatic decision-making, but it can’t determine truth. Pragmatic decision-making can easily be dead wrong, so the consequences of being wrong should be carefully considered.
  • Biased Conclusion from Statistics: Presupposition leads the conclusion beyond what can be deduced from the facts. This is a statistical fallacy. It must be emphasized that no statistics can yield anything more than inductive reasoning, which is not concrete or definitive.
  • Biased Experimental Method / Unreliable Experimental Method: The methods of doing experimental research are skewed, either intentionally or unintentionally.
  • Biased Method: The methods of getting the data are skewed, either intentionally or unintentionally. This is a statistical fallacy. It must be emphasized that no statistics can yield anything more than inductive reasoning, which is not concrete or definitive.
  • Biased Observational Method: The methods of observing and recording observations are skewed, either intentionally or unintentionally.
  • Biased Reporting of Observations: Reports of observations are not accurate because they have been filtered to fit a certain worldview or they have otherwise been inaccurately prepared.
  • Biased Reporting of Statistics: Reports that display statistical data are biased toward a certain outcome. This is a statistical fallacy.
  • Biased Statistical Method: The methods of getting the data are skewed, either intentionally or unintentionally. This is a statistical fallacy. It must be emphasized that no statistics can yield anything more than inductive reasoning, which is not concrete or definitive.
  • Bizarre Hypothesis / Far-Fetched Hypothesis: A hypothesis is advanced as the correct explanation of what can be observed; however, the hypothesis has no basis in fact and is actually just a wild story based on assumptions.
  • Blind Men and an Elephant Fallacy / Partial Information Fallacy: It is believed, implied, or asserted that partial information can be used to make dogmatic claims.
  • Blind Obedience / Blind Authority / Team Player: Doing something or believing something because you are told to. Someone does something or encourages someone else to do something that they know to be wrong and justifies it with an appeal to blind obedience. Blind obedience may be a reaction to coercion or appeals to the stick. In other words, obedience is enforced. Often, the enforcement of blind obedience is very selective. There may be great open-mindedness throughout a discipline, but enforced blind obedience regarding certain sacred cows. This enforced blind obedience leads to group-think, at least public kowtowing to the ideas of those in control. Any disagreement is never mentioned openly or the one disagreeing is marginalized and demonized, often, using the no true Scotsman fallacy. The resulting fake consensus aggravates the problem of confirmation bias, especially in the scientific community.
  • Brainwashing: Any of a variety of techniques are used to short-circuit reason.
  • Burden of Proof Fallacy / Onus Probandi / Shifting the Burden of Proof: A claim is made (This claim is often an implied challenge to a claim of someone else.) but the person making the claim refuses to give the reasoning behind the claim; or a claim is challenged but the person challenging the claim refuses to give the reasoning behind the challenge. The fallacy is to assume an unequal burden of proof, so it’s a type of special pleading fallacy. One problem with “burden of proof” arguments is that it is impossible to prove anything to a person who doesn’t want to believe it. This is like leading a horse to water—you can’t make it drink. You can only show people how they can prove things to themselves.
  • Burden of Proof Fallacy Fallacy: It is believed, implied, or asserted that something is either true or false unless proven otherwise. This often takes the form of claiming that the person making a claim has the burden of proof and the person denying the claim has no burden of proof. However, a denial is a claim. Both sides of an issue have a burden of proof. A contrarian, a person who just likes to argue for the sake of arguing, may take the irrational and insincere position of having no position simply to avoid having to defend his or her own position. This is a tactic of trolling.
  • Butterfly Logic: Thoughts are joined in ways that are serendipity. It is logic that is hard to follow but not necessarily wrong.
  • Canceling Hypotheses: A hypothesis that should have certain consequences but does not is defended by introducing a new hypothesis that cancels the effect of the first hypothesis. This is a form of ad hoc rescue.
  • Capturing the Naïve / Argumentum ad Captandum / Argumentum ad Captandum Vulgus: Unsound reasoning is used to win popular acceptance. It is literally argument by capturing the naïve.
  • Category Mistake / Category Error: One or more qualities are assigned to an object/person/organization/concept that cannot possibly belong to it.
  • Causal Fallacy: An error is made in trying to find the reason why something happened. This term includes all causal fallacies.
  • Causal Reductionism / Causal Oversimplification / Fallacy of the Single Cause / Simplistic-Complexity: It is assumed that complex cause can be reduced to a subset of its components as if it represented the whole cause. Related: Reductionism, Understatement.
  • Changing the Subject: The topic of the discussion is changed from the topic under consideration to something else. The subject can be changed for many reasons, sometimes innocently and sometimes with malice of intent. Sometimes, this happens because of lack of focus. Sometimes, this is a clever way to avoid talking about something that is uncomfortable, such as a belief that is difficult to defend. Sometimes, this is a way to redirect a discussion to create a “win” in the eyes of an audience (politicking).
  • Cherishing the Zombie: Ideas that have been previously shown to be wrong or false are still brought out as evidence.
  • Chicken Little’s Fear and Pessimism: A vision of hope is given, yet, this hope is rejected, and fear and bitterness persist.
  • Chronological Snobbery: It is believed, implied, or asserted that current technology, knowledge, understanding, etc., is better than that from the past.
  • Circular Cause and Consequence: It is believed, implied, or asserted that the consequence of the phenomenon is its root cause. There can be a situation where a repeated bad decision can lead to a degeneration that then makes that bad decision more likely to repeat, but that is not a circular cause and consequence. The bad decision is the cause, and the degeneration can be stopped by making a better decision. When it is asserted that the bad decision is caused by the degeneration, a false sense of hopelessness or fatalism is projected, which is a circular cause and consequence fallacy.
  • Circular Generalization Fallacy: It is believed, implied, or asserted that an exception to a conclusion, that would normally mean that the conclusion was not true, is compatible with the conclusion—or even proof of it.
  • Circular Reasoning / Petitio Principii / Circulus in Demonstrando / Paradoxical Thinking / Circle in Proving / Circular Logic / Circular Argument / Circulus in Probando / Meatpoison: A person is reasoning, and the starting point of the reasoning is the same as the end of the reasoning. This is sometimes described as a logical argument where the premise depends on the conclusion and the conclusion depends on the premise. There are many types of circular reasoning, but they all bear this common characteristic.
  • Circular Reference: A series of logical arguments are stated, one depending on the other until the final argument supplies the premises of the first argument. It is believed, implied, or asserted that circular reasoning is valid if it is accomplished in multiple steps. Alternately, the multiple steps simply hide the circular reasoning, because this is a type of circular reasoning that is very difficult to detect. Most people don’t follow their own reasoning back more than a few arguments. Circular reference could be thought of as infinite regression that loops back into itself at a certain point. In the process of infinite regression, one of the premises given is a previous conclusion in the chain of thought.
  • Circumstantial Ad Hominem / Ad Hominem Circumstantiae / Appeal to Motive / Appeal to Conflict of Interest / Argument from Motives / Questioning Motives / Appeal to Vested Interest: It is believed, implied, or asserted that something is untrue because of some circumstance such as personal bias, personal gain, or self-serving interests of the person claiming it is true.
  • Circumstantial Evidence: Evidence is presented, but it is dependent on arbitrary assumptions, preconceived ideas, or imagination.
  • Claiming the Moral High Ground / Holding the Moral High Ground / Claiming the High Ground: Rather than addressing the question in a rational way, an attempt is made to imply moral, ethical, or intellectual superiority. If the question is a moral issue, this might make sense, but moral issues require absolute authority to resolve. Only God has absolute authority in moral issues. This is a fallacy of hypocrisy. Claiming the high ground is usually done by innuendo, often in a question-begging epithet. This fallacy is not to be confused with taking the high road, which is defined as doing what is right even if others are doing wrong.
  • Claiming the Neutral Position / Claiming the Default Position: This is a very common, but dishonest tactic. Secularism claims to be neutral. It is anything but neutral. Naturalism claims to be neutral, but it is a bizarre hypothesis, usually dogmatically held.
  • Cliché Thinking / Thought-Terminating Cliché: A commonly used phrase or some folk “wisdom” is used as proof.
  • Clustering Illusion: It is believed, implied, or asserted that the clustering of events that naturally takes place in a random process are not really random events. This fallacy is a statistical fallacy and usually the sample size is too small or non-representative. It must be emphasized that no statistics can yield anything more than inductive reasoning, which is not concrete or definitive.
  • Commutation of Conditionals / Fallacy of the Consequent / Converting a Conditional / Switching the Antecedent and the Consequent: It is believed, implied, or asserted that since one thing being true means that a second thing is true, that also indicates the inverse. Form: If A means the B is true, then B means that A is true. That doesn’t always follow.
  • Comparing Two Things Statistically that are not Technically Comparable / Statistical Apples and Oranges: Two unrelated, dissimilar elements are compared statistically resulting in a, unverifiable conclusion. It must be emphasized that no statistics can yield anything more than inductive reasoning, and inductive reasoning is not concrete or definitive.
  • Complex Hypothesis Fallacy / Extravagant Hypothesis: An explanation that requires more assumptions is chosen over those hypotheses that require less assumptions.
  • Composition / Exception Fallacy / Categorical Error / Category Error: The properties of parts are confused with the properties of the whole. In this fallacy, the properties of the parts are assumed to be the properties of the whole.
  • Confabulation Fallacy: Memories of the past are not accurate. This is a lie about the past, but it is not purposeful. The mind plays tricks. Your past attitudes seem more like your present attitudes than they actually were. Imagination displays false movies that are remembered as if they were real. “The older I get the better I was.” Suggestions of others are added to memories. And there are other things that go wrong with memory.
  • Confession to Hide Denial / Admitting a Small Fault to Cover a Big Denial: It is believed, implied, or asserted that conceding a minor issue or an irrelevant issue will allow dogmatic assertion of another issue. It is a false compromise fallacy. A minor issue is conceded in order to be dogmatic about a huge error. This is a fallacy of distraction.
  • Confusing Advantage for Mechanism: A question about how something happened is answered by explaining that, if it happened, it would provide an advantage. Explaining that something would be an advantage is not the same is explaining how it could possibly happen. A secondary fallacy is usually committed along with this fallacy. That is the fallacy of confusing an explanation with proof. With the fallacy of confusing explanation with proof, a question about the evidence that something happened is answered by an explanation, usually partial, about how it might have happened. The ability to tell a story about how something might have happened doesn’t make it likely that it did happen. It is just a story, after all. Bill Nye committed both fallacies with his top-minnow story. Jeremy England committed both fallacies with his increasing entropy equals abiogenesis story.
  • Confusing an Explanation with Proof: It is believed, implied, or asserted that an explanation is proof. One person offers an explanation for a conclusion or event and the other person interprets the explanation as a premise (proof) for the conclusion. A common phrase is, “We have found an explanation for that.” The word, “that,” could be just about any observation. The implication is that the explanation is true. The Greeks, for instance, had an explanation for how the Sun moved across the sky. A chariot carried it across. Historical science is riddled with explanations that are viewed as proof.
  • Confusing Contradiction with Contrariety: It is believed, implied, or asserted that a contrariety (something that seems, on the surface, to make no sense) is a contradiction. Because of lack of knowledge or understanding, something seems to be a contradiction, but, in fact, is not a contradiction.
  • Confusing “if” with “if and only if”: During the course of reasoning, an “if” changes its meaning to “if and only if.”
  • Confusing Rationalized Faith with the Faith of God: It is believed, implied, or asserted that Make-believe, rationalized faith is the same thing as imparted, supernatural faith that comes from acknowledging God’s Voice. God’s faith (belief and trust—knowing that what God says is true) comes by hearing and hearing comes by the word (rhema, meaning “utterance”) of God. This faith is “the gift of God, lest anyone should boast. Some Christians do boast of their faith, but they have nothing that they have not received from God.
  • Confusion of Necessary with a Sufficient Condition: It is believed, implied, or asserted that something that is necessary for an event or condition is sufficient to assure that the event or condition will occur. This comes up often with historical science. The fact that something could not have happened unless a certain condition existed is used as proof that the thing happened. Form: A would be necessary for B. Therefore, A’s existence would be sufficient cause to assure that B happened. Yet, A’s existence would not be sufficient to assure that B happened. “If the Big Bang happened, we would necessarily have background radiation. We have background radiation. This is sufficient to assure that the Big Bang happened.”
  • Conjunction Effect / Conjunction Fallacy: A person thinks that a more specific condition is more likely than a more general condition. The conjunction fallacy is similar to the disjunction fallacy except that the conjunction fallacy mistakes a super-set for one more alternative of equal standing while the disjunction fallacy mistakes a subset or member of the more general class for an alternative of equal standing with the class.
  • Conspiracy Theory: It is believed, implied, or asserted that there is a conspiracy of one or more people, but there is no evidence for a conspiracy. The lack of evidence is explained with a second ad hoc hypothesis that they are very good at covering up the evidence. This is not to say that conspiracies don’t exist, however. Where humans are, someone is likely to be plotting something.
  • Contentions Against Christ: An argument is made against Christ. All arguments against Christ are based on arbitrary assumptions, made-up stories, and other fallacies. This is logically true because of the Secularist Trilemma.
  • Contentions Against the Bible: An argument is made against the Bible. All arguments against the Bible are based on arbitrary assumptions, made-up stories, and other fallacies. This is logically true because of the Secularist Trilemma.
  • Continuum / Continuum Fallacy / Argument of the Beard / Fallacy of the Beard / Heap Fallacy / Fallacy of the Heap / Heap Paradox Fallacy / Bald Man Fallacy / Line Drawing Fallacy / Line-Drawing / Sorites Fallacy: It is believed, implied, or asserted that there is no definable moment or point on the line between two extremes.
  • Contradictory Premises / Logical Paradox: Premise statements contradict each other, when they are mutually exclusive. It is irrational to assert or believe that two statements are both true in the same place and at the same time when they contradict one another.
  • Contrarian Argument Fallacy Abuse: A bandwagon fallacy is defended by labeling those who disagree as contrarians and accusing them of the contrarian argument fallacy.
  • Contrarian Argument Fallacy: A contrary argument is presented merely to be disagreeable, but there is no rational reason given for the argument.
  • Converse Accident / Reverse Accident: An entire rule is rejected based on the exceptions from a rule.
  • Cool Idolatry Fallacy: Reality and truth are defined as what fits into the approval of others, what is considered cool. The cool god demands that you do and believe what others define as cool. This is a type of the appeal to bribery fallacy.
  • Correlation Proves Causation / Cum Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc / Coincidental Correlation / Correlation Implies Causation: A statistical correlation between two variables is thought to be proof that one causes the other, but there is no proof that one causes the other.
  • Correlative Based Fallacy: A fallacy is committed regarding two statements when it is claimed that one must be true and one must be false. A correlative conjunction is a relationship between two statements in which one must be false and the other must be true. Examples of correlative based fallacies would include: false dilemma, denying the correlative, and suppressed correlative.
  • Corrupt Source Fallacy: Unproven information attributed to an unreliable source is used to support a proposition. If a source has been known to be in error from time to time or has not been shown to always be right, then information from that source cannot be taken as true without concrete, irrefutable evidence. Beware of the genetic fallacy in which data is dismissed because of its source when that source has not been shown to be undependable. In the final analysis, the source of the information cannot either confirm or deny the truth of the information unless that source is God. That would include God speaking through Scripture; however, it’s obvious that not everyone who reads Scripture is willing to listen to the Holy Spirit.
  • Counter-Induction: It is believed, implied, or asserted that a conclusion is supported by the opposite of what rational thought would suggest. In other words, the evidence all points to one conclusion, but it is claimed to point to a conclusion that it doesn’t support. “Though the Universe appears to be designed, it is not designed.”
  • Creating Misgivings: Tactics are used to instill irrational doubt or fear into the minds of a person or a group of people. This was Satan’s tactic when he asked Eve, “Has God said?” See against self-confidence.
  • Cutting Off Discussion: A discussion is suddenly ended by some means. When the debate mindset is being used, the best thing to do may be to end the discussion. If the mind is not open, there is no sense in discussion. However, this tactic is sometimes used to avoid an important and needful discussion.
  • Debate Rather Than Trying to Find the Truth / Debate Mindset: The emphasis is to win debates or to defeat opponents rather than to find the truth. In these cases, fallacies become key tools. Often, this results in playing to the crowd.
  • Declaring Victory / Proof by False Declaration of Victory: An announcement of victory is substituted for rational thought. This is very similar in effect to summary dismissal.
  • Defining a Word in Terms of Itself: A word is defined using the word, or a derivative of the word, in the definition. This is common in dictionaries, and it forces you to look up the derivative word or just to give up. It can result in not being able to know the definition of the word.
  • Defining Terms Too Broadly and Too Narrowly: The definition of a term is too broad in some aspects and too narrow in other aspects. This happens when the definition of the term is being used as evidence for something (a type of definist fallacy).
  • Defining Terms Too Broadly / Discarded Differentia: The definition of a term is too broad so that it includes people, items, things, or concepts that should not be included. At a certain point, the term becomes meaningless. (a type of definist fallacy)
  • Defining Terms Too Narrowly: Terms are defined so narrowly that people, items, things, or concepts are excluded when they should not be excluded. (a type of definist fallacy)
  • Dehumanizing: An ad hominem attack is made in such a way as to portray the target of the attack as not really human as a way of avoiding discussing the issue using sound reasoning.
  • Demagoguery: Attacks against others are used as a way to build up either personal popularity, a belief/philosophy, or an organization.
  • Demanding an Uneven Burden of Proof / Demanding Uneven Standards of Acceptance: It is believed, implied, or asserted that one position or conclusion requires a certain level of proof but that a conflicting position or conclusion requires no such proof. This is a form of special pleading and is generally used when debate is the goal rather than finding truth.
  • Demonizing / De-legitimize One’s Opponent: An ad hominem attack is made in such a way as to portray those who disagree as wicked or threatening. This tactic is a substitute for discussing the issue at hand using sound reasoning.
  • Denialism: Known reality is ignored or denied.
  • Denying a Conjunct: It is believed, implied, or asserted that since two things cannot both be true and one of the things is not true, the other has to be true. They could both be false.
  • Denying the Antecedent / Inverse Error: The inverse is inferred from the original statement. “If A, then B. Not A. Therefore, not B.” If you know that A is not true, you can’t say whether or not B is true.
  • Denying the Correlative Conjunction / Denying the Correlative: Two statements are considered where one must be true and the other must be false (the correlative conjunction), but a third, unreal option is introduced, stating that it is a real third option. It is an attempt to add alternatives when there are no other alternatives. This is often fallacy abuse of the false either-or fallacy.
  • Determinism / Determination / Determinist Fallacy: It is believed, implied, or asserted that free will is an illusion. There is no way to come to this conclusion without making assumptions; therefore, it is irrational to use it as a basis for further thought.
  • Diminished Responsibility Fallacy: It is believed, implied, or asserted that an offender is less responsible because of some factor, but the factor doesn’t support the idea that the offender is less responsible. Example: “I’m not responsible to worship Jesus Christ, because He has not convinced me of His existence.” God knows that this person is willingly ignorant and is suppressing the truth of His Being in unrighteousness.
  • Discrimination: Systematic discrimination against certain worldviews limits those in control of an organization (that claims to be neutral) to only those who are sympathetic to a certain point of view or who meet a certain criteria. There are organizations that are said to be neutral. Whether such a thing as a neutral organization can exist is doubtful. Generally, some ideology takes over. Sometimes, those in control see a benefit to claiming neutrality. Of course, because of the way that worldviews work, the group-held paradigm seems like reality itself. And, it makes sense to keep those who are not dealing with “reality,” meaning the group-held worldview, out of leadership. On the other hand, there are organizations that were started in order to further some truth, to further something that is perceived to be truth. Examples would be the Young Men’s Christian Association (YMCA) or the American Humanist Association. Of course, the YMCA has been infiltrated and flipped to anything but Christian as have many organizations that were formerly Christian denominations. This shows the importance of discrimination in organizations that are focused on Christ or a certain goal. If the American Humanist Association were to be infiltrated by Christians who networked to take over the leadership, it would soon be teaching the reality of Christ, so the Humanist must discriminate, at least when it comes to selecting leaders. However, when any organization claims to be neutral, such worldview discrimination is a fallacy.
  • Disjunction Fallacy: A subset or member of the more general class is mistaken for an alternative of equal standing with the class. The disjunction fallacy is similar to the conjunction fallacy, but with the difference that the falsely chosen “alternative” is a subset of or member of, rather than a superset of, the correct choice.
  • Dismissing All Personal Testimony: All personal testimony is dismissed simply because it is personal testimony. Keep in mind that every recorded scientific experiment is a personal testimony. Yet, a distinction is made between some personal testimony and other personal testimony. By personal testimony of two or three witnesses, a murderer can be sentenced to death. In the Law given to Moses, no one could be sentenced to death without the personal testimony of two or three witnesses. Generally, the dismissing of all personal testimony fallacy is only used to refute testimony that conflicts with a certain worldview. In other words, this is just one more way of committing the card stacking fallacy.
  • Distorted Evidence: Significant omissions or changes are made in the evidence on which an argument depends.
  • Distortion of Senses in Observation: The senses are unable to sense what doesn’t fit the worldview/fake-reality in the form of distortion of the senses.
  • Division / False Division / Ecological Fallacy / Ecological Inference Fallacy: It is believed, implied, or asserted that what is true for the whole must be true of the individual parts. “Cake is tasty; flour is used in cake; therefore, flour is tasty. Let’s have flour for supper tonight.”
  • Dodging by Answering a Different Question / Answering a Question That Was Not Asked: A question is dodged by answering a different question. This is one example of dodging the question.
  • Dodging by Answering a Question with a question / Answering a Question with a Question: A question is dodged by asking another question. This is one example of dodging the question.
  • Dodging the Question / Politician’s Side-Step: The reaction to a question is to avoid answering the question. This is one example of avoiding the issue.
  • Dominating the Conversation: One person or group of persons attempts to eliminate opinions other than their own by talking non-stop or interrupting constantly.
  • Double Entendre: A word or phrase that can be understood in two ways is used for the purpose of articulating something perfectly but indirectly. In other words, everyone, or nearly everyone, understands that there are two meanings and that the less obvious meaning is the one that was intended. This is generally used to say something that should not have been said. It is a form of hedging.
  • Drawing a Negative Conclusion from Affirmative Premises / Illicit Affirmative: A negative conclusion is drawn when both premises of a categorical syllogism are not also negative, that is, one or both premises are positive to prove a negative conclusion. Major Premise: “No professors at this university who don’t fully support molecules-to-man evolution will be given tenure.” Minor Premise: “All professors who are given tenure are guaranteed a position for life.” Conclusion: “Therefore, all professors at this university who don’t fully support molecules-to-man evolution are guaranteed a position for life.” This is obviously false, but changing the word, “all,” in the conclusion to the word, “no,” would make it valid form and sound reasoning.
  • Elephant Repellent: It is believed, implied, or asserted that one thing prevents some other thing, but that other thing doesn’t happen anyway. It is a false cure based on a false cause for a non-existent problem.
  • Emotion-Biased Decision-Making Phenomenon: A decision is influenced by emotion and then rationalized to make it appear to be based on facts and logic.
  • Emotive Language / Argument by Emotive Language: Emotional language is substituted for true premises that support a conclusion. This is a type of loaded language.
  • Emphasis / Accent / Accent Fallacy / Accent by Emphasis / Emphatic Fallacy: A word or a phase is emphasized by any means to change what the statement actually says. Pace, pause, voice inflection, voice quality, etc. may convey contempt, anger, fear, or some other emotion. Accenting certain words can affect the meaning of a sentence. Accenting certain paragraphs in a book can change the meaning of the book. Emphasis on certain scientific observations can change the meaning of the observations.
  • Emphasis by Abstraction / Accent by Abstraction: The meaning of an idea or statement is changed by taking it out of its context. This is a type of emphasis fallacy.
  • Equating Opposites: An argument is made that two opposites are the same thing. One of the ways this is done is by substituting nonessential characteristics for essential characteristics until all differences are obliterated.
  • Equivocation: Ambiguous expressions are used to confuse, mislead, or hedge. Equivocation can include bait and switch, vagueness, doublespeak, the P. T. Barnum effect, sly suggestion, innuendo, lexical ambiguity, syntactic ambiguity, homonymy, shingle speech, use-mention error, double entendre, quantifier fallacy, euphemism, and the list could go on.
  • Error in Observation: The supposed observations do not reflect reality. Errors in observation are usually challenged and retested unless they confirm the current bias of the majority.
  • Error in Sampling: A bad data set is chosen, creating a false impression. A sampling error is defined by the differences between the sample and the entire group that the sample is supposed to represent. This is a statistical fallacy. It must be emphasized that no statistics can yield anything more than inductive reasoning, which is not concrete or definitive.
  • Escape to the Future / Argument to the Future: A conclusion is supported by evidence that will “surely” be discovered in the future. This is a variation of appeal to false prophecy. Often, this will take the form of stating that science will discover the solution to a certain problem with a favored theory.
  • Escape via Ignorance: A case cannot be made rationally, but it is asserted that other people could make the case, or it is asserted that there is evidence, but the debater just doesn’t happen to know what it is.
  • Essentializing Fallacy: It is believed, implied, or asserted that whatever currently exists was always as it now is and will always remain as it now is. This fallacy is usually applied to some small part of life and not to the whole of life.
  • Etymological Fallacy: An argument is based on ignorance that the meaning of a certain word has changed. Arguments about the Bible frequently fall into this fallacy. This could also include translation errors in various versions of the Bible that sometimes aren’t very close to the original Greek or Hebrew meanings.
  • Euphemism: A softer, vaguer, or even pleasant expression is used for something that is a negative or unpleasant.
  • Evolution of the Gaps Fallacy: An argument from ignorance is used to prove evolutionism. “Using Naturalistic assumptions and scientific method alone, you cannot absolutely prove that the Big-Bang-Billions-of-Years-No-Flood-Molecules-to-Man story didn’t take place; therefore, evolutionism is fact.” This is the exact same logical process as the God of the gaps fallacy.
  • Exaggeration / Stretching the Truth / Overstatement: A point is made, and it would be true, but a lie or unsupported assertion has been added to the truth.
  • Exception That Proves the Rule Fallacy / Exception That Tests the Rule Fallacy / Exceptio Probat Regulam Fallacy: An exception to a conclusion (rule) is seen as evidence for the rule.
  • Exclusive Premises: Both premises of a categorical syllogism are negative. At most, only one premise can be negative. INVALID FORM “No A are B. Some B are not C. Therefore, some C are not A.” INVALID FORM “No A are B. No B are C. Therefore, no C are A.”
  • Exclusivity Fallacy: A limited number of options are presented, but the options are not exhaustive (other options are available), or not mutually exclusive (multiple options can be chosen together), yet the conclusion would require exhaustive and mutually exclusive options.
  • Existential Instantiation / Existential Fallacy: It has not been established that X exists. X could be anything. Let’s say that X represents people who don’t know that God exists. We have not instantiated X, so we have not established the fact that everyone knows that God exists and there are none of the supposed people who don’t know that God exists. As God says, He reveals Himself to every person through the things that He has created. Two universal premises (all or no) are used in a categorical syllogism using X (people who don’t know that God exists).

No people who don’t know that God exists are saved.

All people who are not saved are destined for hell.

Therefore, some people are going to hell just because they don’t know that God exists.

The trouble is that there are no people who don’t know that God exists. The premises would be true if there were any people who don’t know that God exists, but there are none. The logic is flawed because a class of people has been created using language (people who don’t know God exists), but there are no such people.

  • Experiential Blank Argument Fallacy: It is claimed that death is not a problem because “we” won’t be around to experience it. This is also an unsupported assertion. How would the person making this assertion know that what is being asserted is true? And it is an assertion contrary to fact, since God has revealed that “we” will be around to experience death and we will be around to experience what comes after death. Once again, this is Divine revelation versus arbitrary assumptions.
  • Experimenter Bias: A measurement or observation allows for leeway or interpretation, and the person taking the measurement or making the observation is swayed by presuppositions, opinions, or worldviews.
  • Extended Analogy: Two things that are similar to a third thing are said to be like each other without further proof that they are like each other. This is a type of faulty analogy.
  • Extension: A statement or argument is exaggerated and then the exaggerated version of the statement or argument is refuted rather than dealing with the real statement or argument. This is a type of straw man argument.
  • External Inconsistency: Statements are asserted to be true, but those statements are not consistent with the world around us. There are many such statements that cannot be checked against reality, but others can be checked. For instance, there are ancient books with statements the indicate that the Earth rests on the back of a giant turtle. This can be checked and shown to be externally inconsistent. In the same way, where that statements regarding external reality in the Bible can be checked against external reality, they are consistent. However, they are not consistent with the arbitrary assumptions or worldviews of every person.
  • Fading Affect Bias / FAB: The details or information associated with negative autobiographical emotional experiences fade from memory more quickly than the details or information associated with positive emotional experiences. One of the effects of this is that people more likely to remember past experience in a way that enhances their own personal rationality, goodness, and righteousness beyond what the actual experience was. In the process, they may describe the behavior of others as being bizarre or evil.
  • Failure to Consider the Logical Ramifications of an Assertion: A true-sounding statement is made, but the impacts of this statement (which make it impossible, improbable, or undesirable) are not considered. Sometimes, these impacts are even hidden, but the victim may find out later. Many assertions seem to make sense on their own. However, no statement stands alone. One part of reality is interrelated with other parts of reality. There are ramifications. Something that is not really part of reality can be boldly stated and can sound true. If you consider what the ramifications would be on other parts of reality if the assertion is true, you can more easily assess the rationality of the assertion. (A type of not connecting the dots)
  • Failure to Distinguish Reality from Worldview / Failure to Discern between Reality and Worldview: A worldview seems to be more real than reality. This is true for every person, and all people have worldviews. God can shine light on this distinction, and anyone can seek (inquire of) God to receive Divine revelation of this distinction. This ability to discern is part of spiritual maturity and comes little by little as a child of God grows in Christ.
  • Failure to Elucidate: The definition of a word or concept is more difficult to understand than the word or concept itself or a definition doesn’t describe the word or concept in a realistic way.
  • Failure to Make the Necessary Observations: Some observations were needed to draw a conclusion but were not made. This usually happens because of carelessness, lack of access, or presuppositions that keep one from considering various possibilities.
  • Failure to Look at Both Sides / Audiatur Et Altera Pars: One side of an issue is considered but the other side has no voice, either in a person’s mind, an organization, or a situation. A twist on this fallacy is to present a straw man argument of the other side(s) of a controversy. Then, by making a presentation of both sides, the favored side and the distorted straw man of the disfavored side, the disfavored side is shown to be silly. Of course, straw men are designed to be silly, so this is an easy “win.”
  • Failure to Observe because of a Closed Mind: The mind has closed due to an accepted paradigm, resulting in observations being missed.
  • Failure to State Assumptions / Hidden Assumptions / Unspoken Assumptions: A logical argument is stated without divulging the assumptions on which the argument is based. Believing made-up stuff is irrational. Assumptions are made-up stuff. Making Up stuff is lying. Hidden made-up stuff is particularly deceiving.
  • Failure to State the Conclusion / Failure to Make a Point: The conclusion is not stated, giving the illusion that the premises somehow must support the overall point of the discussion or implying a conclusion. When the conclusion is not stated, it is sometimes impossible to guess the point that is being made. Those who are favorable to the person stating the premises are likely to assume that the person must know something that they don’t know and that the premises must then prove something important to his or her case.
  • Failure to State Position: The position of one side of a discussion is not disclosed. Sometimes, lack of belief is asserted (claim: no position at all). Therefore, the other party has the burden of proof. This is an insincere win-lose debating mindset. The person using this type of fallacy will say, in effect, “Prove your belief, but my belief is not disclosed.” In this way, the person using the fallacy actually becomes irrelevant in a last-ditch effort to protect an irrational belief.
  • Failure To State Premises: The premises for a claim are not stated. Failure to state premises does not disprove a claim, but it does bring up the question, “What makes you think so?” Time doesn’t always allow for stating all premises, so this isn’t always a malicious fallacy.
  • Fait Accompli Tactic / It’s Easier Asking Forgiveness than Permission: An action is taken without agreement, and then the result is presented with the attitude of, “Now, I’ve done it; what are you going to do about it?” The problem with this is that it destroys trust. Don’t do this to your spouse or your boss if you want to keep the relationship.
  • Fake Consensus / False Majority / Phantom Consensus: Consensus (or majority) is falsely claimed for the purpose of committing a bandwagon fallacy. The claimed consensus/majority may be pure fabrication. The claimed consensus/majority may have been gotten through intimidation, firings, and other random acts of terrorism. If intimidation is involved, silence can be enforced, but silence doesn’t equal agreement.
  • Fake Ignorance of God: A lack of knowledge of God’s existence is asserted or implied. This implication or assertion is contrary to fact, since God clearly reveals that He has made Himself known to all people through the things that He has created. What has happened instead is that some people have refused to acknowledge Him, and they have suppressed the truth in unrighteousness. By disobeying God (they also know a lot about the will of God, because God reveals that to them as well), they sear their consciences until they are much less able to sense the leading of God. For this reason, God turns them over to their own reprobate minds, and they do those things that result in God’s judgment. It is possible to build up such a shield against God that any mention of God is offensive and any mention of God seems to be unreal. Yet, they know that God exists. In fact, they know enough to resist seeking God sincerely, with respect and submission. They recoil at that possibility.
  • Fake Precision / Over Precision / False Precision / Misplaced Precision / Spurious Accuracy: The language to communicate statistics implies much more accuracy than the data allows. Sometimes, just the comment that one thing is more likely than another is false precision, a statistical fallacy that avoids specific numbers. It must be emphasized that no statistics can yield anything more than inductive reasoning, which is not concrete or definitive.
  • Fallacies of Omission: Important information is left out.
  • Fallacies of Relevance: Attention is diverted away from the issue. Fallacies of relevance can be appeals to authority, or emotion, pressure. They can be one of many distractions or attacks against the source.
  • Fallacious Abstraction: A quote, observation, experiment, event, or anything else is taken out of its full context resulting in a distortion. Keep in mind that all scientific models are abstractions. Language forces abstraction, since you can’t say everything at once. Abstractions are partial representations of reality, so they are always distortions in the sense that the fullness of the reality is not present in the abstraction. It is always a fallacy to confuse an abstraction with reality.
  • Fallacy Abuse / False Fallacy: Something is claimed as a fallacy that is not a fallacy.
  • Fallacy of Antecedent / Fallacy of Time: One of two things is assumed—”It never happened before, so it never will happen.” or “It happened, so it will happen again. Neither of these can be proven true. (The only exception would be if God were to reveal something about the future.) The problem with these assertions is that they both assume that the future is identical to past. Also, barring Divine revelation, to make any statements about the past that you have not directly observed will require assumptions.
  • Fallacy of Multiplication / Cause Multiplication: Extra non-causes are included among the actual causes.
  • Fallacy of the Crucial Experiment: A single experiment is claimed to have proved or disproved something. It is unlikely that a single experiment could do such a thing. Science doesn’t work that way. Generally, a number of experiments are used with inductive reasoning, and assumptions (or Divine revelation), to come to a tentative, pragmatic course of action.
  • False Attribution: A quote or opinion is attributed to a source that is not the true source in order to lend false credibility, imply false authority, or launch an ad hominem attack.
  • False Bravado / Bluffing / Appeal to False Bravado / False Show of Confidence / Turning Up the Rhetoric / Bluster : A theatrical false show of confidence is used as proof for a conclusion rather than real evidence and rational thought.
  • False Conversion / Illicit Conversion: The terms of a premise are switched in the conclusion when the premise uses the word all, some or no. Invalid forms:
    • “All A are B. Therefore, all B are A.”
    • “No A are B. Therefore, no B are A.”
    • “Some A are B. Therefore, some B are A.”
  • False Criteria Fallacy / Fallacy of Questionable Criteria: Irrelevant standards are applied to test the truth or the falsity of a proposition.
  • False Dichotomy / Black-and-White Fallacy / Black-and-White Thinking / Bifurcation / False Correlative / False Either-Or /Either-Or Fallacy: It is falsely assumed that there are only two mutually exclusive choices when in fact there is at least one additional possibility. This is a type of exhaustive hypotheses fallacy.
  • False Dilemma: Two undesirable choices are presented as being the only choices and as being mutually exclusive or as negating each other when one of three situations exists: they can both coexist without conflict, there are more than two choices, or the choices are not both negative or undesirable. The word, dilemma, indicates a decision between two equally undesirable choices. It indicates that these are the only two choices and that a difficult choice must be made. It indicates the these two choices are mutually exclusive. False dilemma is a type of exhaustive hypotheses fallacy.
  • False Faith / Make-Believe Faith: Make-believe faith (not the same as biblical faith) is used to support a premise or to support a conclusion rather than using true evidence. It is a misuse of Biblical faith, the free gift received by acknowledging God’s leading. Biblical faith comes by hearing the word (Greek: rhema = utterance) of God. When God speaks and we acknowledge Him, Proverbs 3:5-6 Biblical faith comes.
  • False Open-Mindedness: Open-mindedness is claimed while also refusing to look at evidence supporting conclusions that differ from what is currently believed. This is one way to play to the crowd. It is also a way to claim the high ground. This is a form of lie, but it is seldom the most important point, but rather a way to protect the most cherished lie.
  • False Premise: A premise (statement that is supposed to support/prove a conclusion true) is itself an assertion contrary to fact.
  • False or Faulty Analogy / Weak Analogy / Bad Analogy / Appeal to the Moon / Ad Lunam /Spurious Similarity: Two things are said to be like each other in a way that they are not like each other or an analogy is made between two things that are not similar in a way that makes it reasonable to make the analogy.
  • False Choice: A choice is presented that is not reasonable. There are many ways that this can be done: false dilemma, false trilemma, magician’s choice, false dichotomy, single choice, Hobson’s choice, etc.
  • False Trilemma Fallacy: Only three of four or more possibilities are presented as the only possibilities. A trilemma is a choice between three unpleasant options, just as a dilemma is a choice between two unpleasant options.
  • Falsified Inductive Generalization: A class is defined too narrowly to omit certain members that are removed to make a point about the class. This is a form of circular reasoning.
  • Fast Talking / Argument by Fast Talking: Speaking too quickly, especially when speaking about complex things, can create information overload. When the human mind becomes overloaded with too many new thoughts or trying to keep up with many ideas that are rapidly introduced, it starts making mistakes and becoming confused. Sometimes, confusion is used as one of the steps of brainwashing.
  • Faulty Comparison: Errors are made in making a comparison, and this creates a false impression about one or both of the entities that were compared. This could be an incomplete comparison, inconsistent comparison, package deal fallacy, equating opposites, extended analogy, red-herring comparison, or any other type of error in comparison.
  • Faulty Sign / Faulty Predictor: An observable event or circumstance is erroneously assumed to be a predictor of another event or circumstance.
  • Fear Mongering/Scare Tactics: Fear is used to persuade people.
  • Feigned Powerlessness / I Wish I Had a Magic Wand: It is asserted or implied that there is nothing that can be done in cases where there is something that can be done.
  • Fighting Fire with Fire: The same irrational, dishonest, or irritating methods that one person is using are copied and used by the other person. If one tells a lie, the other counters that with a lie. If one goes beyond fact, the other goes beyond fact. If one attempts to censor, the other responds by trying to censor.
  • Finish the Job Fallacy: Work continues on a project because of duty to finish rather than for the purpose of the project. When the purpose of a project ceases to exist or the project ceases to be justifiable for whatever reason, the project is not ended.
  • Fishing for Data / Data Dredging / Data Fishing / Data Snooping / Equation Fitting: Patterns in data seem to point to certain conclusions, but those patterns are actually the result of random chance (the natural ordering that we would expect as God is controlling all things in an orderly way, enforcing what we call the laws of nature, including the laws of probability). Data mining is used to uncover relationships. In this process, statistics can yield patterns that give the impression of relationships that don’t really exist. Patterns just happen to fall together when no real relationship exists. This is a statistical fallacy. It must be emphasized that no statistics can yield anything more than inductive reasoning, which is not concrete or definitive.
  • Flat Earth Navigation Syndrome: A false concept or worldview is still used as the presupposition for future solutions. In these cases, a lot of time and energy can be wasted trying to solve problems that don’t exist. With this fallacy, the false concept must be actually proven false. Often, the “flat Earth” claim is merely a smear that is used by people who don’t want to admit that the stories (evolutionism, big-bangism, no-floodism, Biblical-errorism, Atheism, etc.) they are promoting are nonsense. In these cases, the fallacy abuse in conjunction with an appeal to ridicule fallacy works to maintain message control. Yet, there can be a real fallacy here if the concept is actually proven false. Stories based on arbitrary assumptions cannot prove anything false. See Cherishing the Zombie.
  • Flawed Evidence: The evidence cannot be shown to be true or testable by anyone, The evidence is based on made-up stuff: assumptions and stories.
  • Forestalling Disagreement: Tactics are used to make raising an objection seem to be contrarian or otherwise embarrassing, and thus to try to keep others from disagreeing. This is often coupled with the assumption correction assumption fallacy.
  • Formal Fallacy: An error is made in the form, or structure, of reasoning. These would include the formally correct fallacy, according to the rules fallacy, affirming the consequent, four terms fallacy, illicit contraposition, illicit major, illicit minor, illicit observation, illicit process, and many others.
  • Formally Correct Fallacy / According to the Rules Fallacy (type of): It is thought that reasoning is sound because it has valid form. Sound logic not only has valid form, but also has true premises and a true conclusion.
  • Four Terms Fallacy / Quaternio Terminorum: A fourth term is introduced into a formal syllogism, generally by changing the meaning of one of the terms in the middle of reasoning. See Bait and Switch.
  • Framing Fallacy / Not Understanding the Problem / Defining the Problem Incorrectly: A problem is defined incorrectly. A question is asked that diverts attention away from the real problem. Sometimes an issue is stated in a way that implies a predetermined solution, which is a form of circular reasoning.
  • Frozen Abstraction Fallacy: A personal view of what a given thing is (a subset of the class), is confused with what the thing actually is (the wider class). Someone looks at an example of a certain thing, say a scientist. The class is scientist. However, this person sees a certain kind of scientist (a subset of all scientists) who believe in the Big-Bang-Billions-of-Years-No-Flood-Molecules-to-Man story as being the definition of “scientist” (the wider class). Their concept of “scientist” is frozen on the level of one of the species of scientist, rather than being integrated to the higher, genus level, so as to include all of the species of scientists.* See No True Scotsman.
  • Furtive Fallacy: Outcomes are asserted necessarily to have been caused by the malfeasance of decision makers.
  • Galileo Wannabe Fallacy / Galileo Argument (Appeal to Pity): An appeal to pity fallacy is committed while making a comparison to what Galileo went through. The state of science in Galileo’s day was much like the state of science today. There was a majority group of scientists who were resistant to new ideas. They were not as anti-God as today’s scientists, but they were just as closed-minded to things outside of their group-think. Generally, this fallacy is used as fallacy abuse in the form of a straw man that is used as a summary dismissal of anyone who notes the problem that the scientific establishment is now having with scientific integrity. What happens today is very similar to what happened when the majority of scientists used the government to censor Galileo.
  • Galileo Wannabe Fallacy / Galileo Argument (Formal): Invalid form: “A is B and A is D. C is B. Therefore, C is D.” “Galileo was ignored, suppressed, and censored and he was right. I am ignored, suppressed, and censored, therefore, I am right.” Of course, this is very rarely if ever done, but it perhaps has happened at least once. More often, this fallacy is used as a straw man for fallacy abuse to discredit anyone who dares point out the problems of confirmation bias and censorship within the scientific establishment. What happens today is very similar to what happened when the majority of scientists used the government to censor Galileo.
  • Gambler’s Fallacy / The Monte Carlo Fallacy / The Doctrine or the Maturity of Chances / The Doctrine of Chances / Hot Hand Fallacy: The odds of a truly random event happening are thought to increase or decrease over time and over repeated events.
  • Garden Path Ambiguity: A thought is temporarily misunderstood but then is made clear as the complete sentence or idea is expressed. Sometimes, this is a tactic of communication, often humorous. What seems to be going down a familiar or obvious line of reasoning has a surprise ending.
  • General Rule Fallacy: It is assumed that something is a certain way in a particular case, because things are that way in most cases. The general rule fallacy is a form of hasty generalization. It must be emphasized that no statistics can yield anything more than inductive reasoning, which is not concrete or definitive. In other words, a statistical conclusion is not made concrete just because this fallacy has not been committed.
  • Genetic Fallacy / Origins / Fallacy of Virtue: A perceived defect in the origin of a claim or thing is taken to be evidence that discredits the claim or thing itself. It is a logical fallacy because it fails to assess the claim on its merits.
  • Gibberish / Argument by Gibberish / Bafflement / Snow Job / Prestigious Jargon: Obscure language, examples, diagrams, etc. are used (or normal words are used in an uncommon way) without explanation. The result is that concepts become incomprehensible. Sometimes, this becomes a way to avoid answering a question. Sometimes, it is used as intimidation with the implication that anyone who doesn’t understand is simply stupid (sort of like the emperor’s new clothes).
  • God of the Gaps Fallacy: An argument from ignorance is used to prove the existence of God. It is never necessary to commit this fallacy. The way to avoid it is to openly confess Jesus Christ and your relationship with Him. There are only two options for knowing anything: Divine revelation and making it up. Divulge that you know Christ, and that He leads you as you acknowledge Him. Proverbs 3:5-6 Your other option will be the God of the gaps.

It is possible that someone may challenge you, claiming that there is no evidence for God and that it is your responsibility to prove that to them. This is an argument from ignorance fallacy. They, in fact, are making a claim by saying this. They are asserting the universal negative: “There is no evidence for God.” Interestingly, they are doing this right after you have told them how you know that God exists. They are also throwing in the prove it to me fallacy, so they are at once making a radical claim of amazing knowledge and also trying to commit the shifting the burden of proof fallacy. They may also throw out some magic words, such as “science,” “evidence,” or “logic,” but you won’t see any real science, evidence, or logic. This will be phantom science, phantom evidence, and phantom logic. In these cases, it is appropriate that you ask how they prove to themselves this extraordinary claim that “there is no evidence for God.” What is the scientific method by which they determine that there is no evidence?

One other thing is that God has revealed that every person knows of His existence, but the claim that “there is no evidence for God” is a claim of not knowing God. In the light of Divine revelation, the claim of no knowing that God exists is an assertion contrary to fact. When someone makes an assertion contrary to fact, they ought to be able to tell how they know that what they claim is true. How do they know that they don’t know of God’s existence? How do they know that they haven’t simply suppressed this truth in unrighteousness. Be careful here. It is as irrational for you to ask them to prove to you that they don’t believe in God as it is irrational to them to ask you to prove to them that you have an ongoing, moment-by-moment relationship with Christ in which He leads you and teaches you. You can only ask them to explain the method by which they know that they have no knowledge of God. How do they know that they have not suppressed the truth in unrighteousness? How do they know that they have not built a personal worldview that blinds their eyes to God, but, deep down, they know that He exists? The reality is that they do not know any such thing.

  • God Wildcard Fallacy: Divine mystery is used as an excuse for errors in logic. Divine revelation is not an error in logic. Divine revelation is not a mystery but a Divine revelation of reality. However, “Divine mystery” or “Divine revelation” are not to be spoken of lightly. Claiming Divine revelation for something that God didn’t reveal is false prophecy. If something is unknown, God didn’t reveal it yet. That is indeed a Divine mystery. See Science Wildcard.
  • Golden Hammer Fallacy / Maslow’s Hammer / Universal Reply: The wrong reasoning (or tool) is used because it is the only reasoning (or tool) known. Generally, this applies to using the tool of made-up stuff: assumptions and made-up stories. Made-up stuff has zero truth value. A chain of reasoning is only as strong as its weakest link. If there is even a single assumption, the strength of the reasoning is zero. If the only tool you have for reasoning is made-up stuff, then everything that fits your own inner worldview looks like reality. Here is a reality. Jesus Christ is the answer to every question. He is the Truth. Jesus is not a tool but the Person Who has access to all knowledge, wisdom, and understanding. None of these is available anywhere else. In every situation, if you seek Him, you will know something that He leads you to do, even if He leads you to wait and do nothing. Because the fullness of all knowledge, wisdom, and understanding resides in Jesus Christ (the LIVING Christ who lives in everyone who is born again), and because He is the only source for knowledge, wisdom and understanding, He alone is the answer to every question and the solution to every problem. The other thing is that He is the One Who is enforcing all the laws of nature and holding everything together, so He has all the resources.
  • Government Solipotence: It is assumed that only the government can solve a certain problem.
  • Grasping at Straws: A desperate attempt is made to find some reason to believe a desired lie. In these situations, reasons are given that don’t even come close to what could be considered rationality.
  • Group Fallacy: A person is discredited, or else given special credibility, because he or she belongs to a certain group. Membership in any group would neither validate nor negate every statement made by a person from that group simply because the person belongs to the group.
  • Group Think / Group-Held Paradigm: An entire group is restricted in their ability to logically process thought because of a group-held paradigm that is reinforced by confirmation bias. A group-held paradigm (worldview or fake-reality) is much more limiting than an individual paradigm, since the group affirmations, repudiations, and coercion add to the problem of confirmation bias. This is closely related to the team player fallacy.
  • Guilt by Association Ad Hominem / Bad Company Fallacy / The Company that You Keep Fallacy / Ex Concessis: An attempt is made to associate a person with something or someone negative (or seen to be negative) to discredit the other person/position rather than using sound reasoning.
  • Guilt Induction Fallacy / Appeal to Guilt: Guilt is used as a reason to believe a proposition. Guilt cannot prove something true. On the other hand, guilt is a very real thing, and it is helpful. It lets us know when we have violated our consciences, our innermost sense of right and wrong. However, consciences can be seared, so they can become unreliable if we continually disobey God’s leading.
  • Halo Effect / Honor by Association: A positive association is made between two persons, organizations, products, etc. for the purposes of attributing the positive qualities of the one to the other. See Reverse Halo.
  • Hasty Generalization / False Generalization / Glittering Generalities / Jumping to Conclusions / Hasty Decision / Leaping to Conclusions / Where There’s Smoke, There’s Fire / Lonely Fact / Proof by Example: A claim is made based on an incomplete or insufficient amount of evidence, which may include claims based on a sample too small or not considering all the variables. This is a statistical fallacy. It must be emphasized that no statistics can yield anything more than inductive reasoning, which is not concrete or definitive.
  • Hate Mongering: Hate is used to persuade. Hate mongering is the act of trying to stir up hate.
  • Head in the Sand / Ostrich Fallacy: A problem is ignored. Certain information is not considered, usually because it is in conflict with either a personal or group-held worldview.
  • Hedging / Having Your Cake / Failure to Assert / Diminished Claim / Failure to Choose Sides / Talking out of Both Sides of Your Mouth / If by Whiskey / Weasel Words: A claim or theory is stated in an unclear way so that the position can be modified, refined, or changed if it is not accepted by the majority or if evidence against it is shown.
  • Hidden Assumption: To assume is to pretend. Assumptions are often hidden. If something doesn’t seem to make sense, but everyone is raving about how it does makes sense, search for the hidden assumptions. The majority is seldom right.
  • Hidden Presupposition: A hidden assumption has been accepted as fact and begins to seem as if it were part of reality—but it is only a hidden arbitrary assumption that has become a Presupposition.
  • Hifalutin’ Denunciations: Vague, but grandiose, language is used to speak against something or someone.
  • Hindsight Bias / Knew-it-all-Along Effect / Creeping Determinism: An event is believed to be predictable when, in fact, little or no objective basis ever existed for predicting it prior to its occurrence.
  • Hobson’s Choice: A choice is offered between one thing and nothing. It is a take it or leave it ultimatum.
  • Homonymy: A word is a homonym, having two meanings, and either meaning could make sense in the sentence. This is a type of lexical ambiguity.
  • Hooded Man Fallacy / Masked Man Fallacy: Two names are given to the same thing, but it is thought that they are different things. “I know who my brother is. I don’t know who that masked man is. Therefore, my brother is not that masked man.” (The brother is the masked man.) Related: intentional fallacy, intensional context, illicit substitution of identicals, epistemic fallacy, ontic fallacy, Leibniz’s Law, and confusing ontology and epistemology.
  • Hyperbole: A claim is made with extreme exaggeration. This could include extreme exaggeration in a straw man argument.
  • Hypocrisy: Virtue is claimed that is not really there. Basic to hypocrisy is the fact that there is none good but God.
  • Hysteron Proteron: A proposition that is yet to be proved is put forth as a true premise. Because a premise is sometimes called an assumption, some people get confused and think that arbitrary assumptions can be premises in sound logic. They cannot. They must be proved to be true. Except in the case of Divine revelation, this requires another premise that must be proved to be true, which requires yet another premise that must be proved—to infinity. This is the problem of infinite regression, so all premises are hysteron proteron unless they are supported by Divine revelation.
  • Idiosyncratic Language: Words or phrases are loaded with personal meanings rather than what those words are commonly known to mean. This is not a fallacy in itself, but it can cause misunderstandings. The meanings of words are constantly being changed. New technologies lead to new meanings. The English of the King James translation is not the English of today. To many people, assumptions and made-up stories are “science.” Made-up stuff is evidence. It is good to clarify the meanings of words. It is a fallacy to deceive self or others by changing the meanings of words and not bringing awareness to the changed meanings.
  • If God Exists Fallacy: Logic similar to this is used, “If the all-powerful and benevolent God defined in the Bible exists, then (such and such condition) wouldn’t exist. However, (such and such condition) exists; therefore, God does not exist. This logic makes several assumptions in every case. For one, it assumes that a mortal human being has more wisdom than God, knows what God would do. If there is no God, how would anyone determine what was wisdom, knowledge, logic, fairness, justice, right, or wrong? Where does one acquire these concepts, and others like them, if not by Divine revelation.
  • Ignorance of Refutation: A set of facts lead to one conclusion perfectly, yet another conclusion is shoehorned to fit the facts.
  • Ignoring Differences / Denying Differences / Overlooking Differences / False Equivalence / Ignoring Differences / Greyness Fallacy: Differences are overlooked, ignored, or denied, resulting in faulty comparisons of various kinds. This can result in faulty analogy, equating opposites, or the package deal fallacy.
  • Ignoring Historical Example: The lessons that God has given in the past are not applied to the present.
  • Illicit Contraposition: The subject and predicate terms of a categorical proposition are swapped and negated (adding not or no). INVALID FORM: “No A are B. Therefore, no non-B are non-A.”INVALID FORM: “Some A are B. Therefore, some non-B are non-A.”
  • Illicit Major / Illicit Process of the Major: A premise is stated referring to only part of the class, but the conclusion refers to the whole class. Another way to state this is that a major term which is distributed in the conclusion is undistributed in the major premise of any categorical syllogism. INVALID FORM: “All A are B. No C are A. Therefore, no C are B.”
  • Illicit Minor / Illicit Process of the Minor: The minor term of any form of categorical syllogism is distributed in the conclusion, but not in the minor premise. INVALID FORM: “All A are B. All A are C. Therefore, all C are B.” INVALID FORM: “All A are B. All A are C. Therefore, all B are C.”
  • Illicit Observation Fallacy: Two terms are used in a way that implies that one negates the other but they don’t or that they are opposites when they are not. This fallacy often involves that distinction between contrary and contradictory terms. This is a type of ambiguity fallacy.
  • Illicit Process: A term which is distributed in the conclusion is undistributed in the premise of any categorical syllogism. These can be illicit process of the major or illicit process of the minor.
  • Imaginary Evidence: Evidence for a conclusion rests on something known to be fantasy. One of the problems with recognizing this fallacy is in proving that something is known to be fantasy. Such proof is impossible without Divine revelation because of the Münchhausen Trilemma which eliminates the ability of Secularists (those who deny God’s existence and Divine revelation) to know for certain the difference between reality and fantasy.
  • Imagination-Based Reasoning / Argument by Imagination: Imagination is offered as the proof for a proposition.
  • Implied Unsupported Assertion / Implied Outright Lie: Making the assertion directly would be unacceptable, but making it by innuendo allows a way out if called on the tactic. By using innuendo, it is possible to sometimes tell a very bold outright lie without being detected.
  • Impossible Conditions / Argument by Demanding Impossible Perfection / Demanding Impossible Evidence: Impossible evidence is demanded to believe or disbelieve something. Impossible evidence generally takes the form of an irrational proof. It is not a fallacy to demand absolute evidence. For instance, an Atheist may say that they only thing that would make them believe in God would be for the sky to open up and for God to begin speaking to them from Heaven in an audible voice. However, God has already given them many irrefutable proofs of Himself, and the evidence given would not sway them. The sky opening up would not turn them to God. Another example is Bill Nye’s claim that he would change his mind about evolution if even a single fossil were found out of place. Every time one is found out of place, the goal posts are moved by explaining away the evidence, hiding the evidence, or explaining away the criteria, so it is impossible to get to the ever-moving criteria. This fallacy is often a type of argument from ignorance. “Just convince me that my default position is wrong.” The evidence brought is always met with new assumptions and made-up stories.
  • In a Certain Respect and Simply / Secundum Quid Et Simpliciter: An attribute of a smaller domain is assumed to apply to a wider domain. For example, the error of one person is applied generally to all people who hold a similar belief or have a similar color of skin.
  • Inability to Observe: It is impossible to observe those things that need to be observed to come to a certain conclusion, yet the conclusion is asserted.
  • Incomplete Comparison Fallacy: Insufficient information is provided to make a complete comparison, yet a comparison is proposed.
  • Incongruent Thinking: Two mutually exclusive are asserted to be true in the same way and at the same time. Incongruent thinking can be inconsistent, not making the connection between mutually exclusive assertions. Generally, it is possible to be fooled by these thoughts because the incongruence is not obvious at first. This is actually a spiritual issue. Part of ongoing sanctification involves the Holy Spirit coming into the lives of Christ-followers and purging out the lies. When the lies go, all the incongruent thinking goes with it. This isn’t instantaneous, but it is a maturity process.
  • Inconsistency / Conflict: Two or more contrary or contradictory statements are asserted to be true at the same time and in the same way or when statements are made that are inconsistent with known reality. This fallacy could apply to a person, a book, a play, a movie, or any other entity. There are two types of inconsistency: internal inconsistency and external inconsistency.
  • Inconsistent Comparison Fallacy: Different methods of comparison are used, leaving one with a false impression of the whole comparison.
  • Induction for Deduction Fallacy / Using an Inductive Conclusion as a Premise in a Deductive Argument: Inductive Reasoning, reasoning that uses assumptions, is used to come to a conclusion and that conclusion is then used as a premise for a deductive argument. Since the conclusion was derived using an assumption of some form, it cannot be said to be true. Deductive arguments require true premises.
  • Inductive Fallacy: A fallacy of inductive reasoning is committed. The term, “Inductive Fallacy,” is very broad and would include all inductive fallacies. One of the most common inductive fallacies is to consider any inductive conclusion to be conclusive or to use an inductive conclusion as a premise in a deductive argument.
  • Inevitability / Retrospective Determinism / Path Dependency: An excuse is made for behavior: “There was no choice in the matter, since what happened had to happen.” Example: “Look, if God is all-powerful and all-knowing, then it’s His fault if I sin.”
  • Inference from a Label: It is assumed that labels attached to people, things, concepts, or organizations are accurate in defining them. Labels are not always accurate.
  • Infiltration Tactic / Hostile Takeover: An organization is infiltrated or taken over by those opposed to the organization’s purpose. This has happened to many Christian organizations including many major universities.
  • Infinite Possibilities / Appeal to Infinite Possibilities: It is asserted that something is possible because nothing is impossible. The opposite of this fallacy is the fallacy of claiming impossibility, which is asserting a universal negative. This is a statistical fallacy.
  • Infinite Regress / Homunculus Argument: An argument forms an endless string of dependent premises, never reaching a premise that can stand as true on its own. Infinite regression is a smokescreen to hide an unsupported assertion. This can happen a couple of different ways. One is circular infinite regress of the homunculus argument. “How do you know?” “Because.” “Why because?” “Because because.” “Why because because.” “Because because because.” etc. The other is infinitely regressive unsupported assertions. B proves A. C proves B. D proves C. Then, continue this process forever never coming to a premise that can stand on its own. There are three solutions to this problem, two of which are fallacies. One fallacy is to stop the infinite regress at a certain point with a circular reference fallacy. Another fallacy is to stop the infinite regress with an axiom fallacy. The only way to rationally avoid infinite regression is to base reasoning on Divine revelation.
  • Inflation of Conflict: It is assumed that incomplete knowledge of an issue means that there is nothing that can be known about the issue.
  • Information Overload: There are several ways to overload the mind’s ability to process: speaking too quickly, moving from subject to subject, nesting fallacies, introducing many new terms quickly, etc. When the human mind becomes overloaded with too many new thoughts or trying to keep up with many ideas that are rapidly introduced, it starts making mistakes and becoming confused. These are common experiences in military boot camp or in post-secondary education. Sometimes, this confusion is used as one of the steps of brainwashing.
  • Innuendo / implication: A conclusion is suggested to be true without directly stating the point. This is a fallacy only when it is a deceptive tactic. It can potentially be used as a hedging mechanism. It can also be used to make a vague (fill in the blanks) statement that each person will interpret individually, creating wider acceptance by people who would normally be at odds about their conclusions. This is known as the Barnum effect fallacy. Since the conclusion isn’t spoken, each person is certain that the speaker meant what he or she wanted to hear.
  • Insignificant / Insignificant Cause / Genuine but Insignificant Cause: The thing that is identified as the cause is a genuine cause but not the main cause.
  • Instantiation of the Unsuccessful: What has not worked in the past is blindly repeated.
  • Internal Inconsistency: Two or more contrary or contradictory statements are asserted to be true at the same time and in the same way.
  • Intimidation: Any of the many forms of intimidation tactics are used rather than rational reasoning.
  • Invalid form using “Or” / Confusing “Inclusive Or” with “Exclusive Or”: An “inclusive or” is confused with an “exclusive or.” Another way to state this is that an “or” changes its meaning between exclusive and inclusive during the process of reasoning.
  • Invincible Authority Fallacy / Appeal to Invincible Authority: A false claim is made that a source of information cannot be questioned. The only invincible authority is God. All others must prove their statements. If God reveals something, He is the Invincible Authority, and the fallacy has not been committed. This often takes the form, “I think I’ll trust the mainline Xs on this.” The “Xs” can be theologians, scientists, philosophers, or whatever you like to assign invincible authority to. A number of words could be substituted for “mainline,” such as established, normal, regular, or traditional. Every major breakthrough has gone against the majority view—by definition.
  • Invincible Ignorance Fallacy: Real evidence and real reason are ignored.
  • Ion / Regression Fallacy: Cause is claimed when none exists in reality. It is a failure to acknowledge natural fluctuations, and it is a particular type of post hoc fallacy.
  • Irrelevant Conclusion / Ignoratio Elenchi: It is assumed that proving an irrelevant point has proved the point of the issue.
  • Irrelevant Evidence: There is an attempt to prove the conclusion with irrelevant evidence. Examples would be thinks like true statements that don’t prove the conclusion, emotion, or needling.
  • Irrelevant Purpose Fallacy: It is assumed that something is not true because it has not fulfilled its supposed purpose (but the supposed purpose was never the real purpose). There are also incremental fulfillments, so something can be truly part of reality without fully completing the purpose for which it was created. In an immature state, something can be real.
  • Irrelevant Question: A question is asked that changes the subject, switches the focus, or otherwise misdirects the discussion to an irrelevant issue. This is a kind of red herring.
  • Irrelevant Thesis: A premise is not relevant to the conclusion. True premises that don’t support the conclusion can be very deceiving.
  • Isolated Examples / Unrepresentative Sample: Non-typical or non-representative examples are used to ‘prove’ a general claim. This is associated with hasty generalization. This fallacy involves giving some of the facts but leaving out pertinent facts that would change the conclusion if they were to be disclosed. This is a statistical fallacy. It must be emphasized that statistics can yield no more than inductive reasoning (which is not concrete or definitive).
  • Is-Ought / Is-Ought Fallacy / Arguing From Is to Ought / Is-Should Fallacy / Hume’s Law / Hume’s Guillotine: Statements are used as premises (for conclusions) that use “ought” statements as their basis and no reason is given for the “ought” statements. The problem is that there is no logical way to get from descriptive statements to prescriptive statements. There is no way logic can get you from “is” to “ought.” This is related to the Naturalistic fallacy.
  • It Could Be Better: There is something to thank God about, but, rather than being thankful, it is pointed out that “things could have been better.” There is honor due to some person, but, rather than giving honor, the response is nitpicking. This is a type of relative privation fallacy.
  • It Could Be Worse: A problem is presented, but, rather than solve the problem or admit wrong-doing, it is suggested that “it could be worse.” This is a type of the relative privation fallacy.
  • Jingoism: Something is to be believed because not believing it would be unpatriotic. The term, “Jingoism,” was coined by British Secularist George Holyoake (1817-1906) as a political label against those who favor a foreign policy that protects the rights of a nation. More recently, the term has been used in the liberal press as a slur against conservatives, accusing the conservatives of saying that “something should be believed because not believing it would be unpatriotic.”
  • Joint Effect / Common Cause / Confounding Factor: One thing is thought to cause another, but, in reality, both are caused by a third thing.
  • Just In Case Fallacy / Worst Case Scenario Fallacy: The worst-case scenario is used rather than the most-likely scenario in making an argument. Keep in mind that the term, “most-likely,” can be very subjective. Even if the actual most-likely scenario is used, it can never show anything to be true or false.
  • Just-World Hypothesis: It is believed or asserted that the world is just and that what happens to us (or others) is justice—according to one’s own definition of “just” and “justice.” This is a statistical fallacy of generalizing from a small sample of the eternal continuum.
  • Knights and Knaves Fallacy: Some people are identified as consistently truthful and others as consistently untruthful without evidence that this is the case. This is only a fallacy if no rational proof is given for some people being consistently truthful and others consistently untruthful. Generally, this is coupled with an ad hominem fallacy or a genetic fallacy. Often, this is a form of circular reasoning in which those who disagree with the favored conclusion are disqualified as liars because they disagree, thus showing that everyone who is not a liar agrees with the favored conclusion.
  • Lack of Imagination / Argument by Lack of Imagination / Argument by Lack of Knowledge: An argument is made that claims to examine all possibilities; however, the only way to know that all possibilities have been fully examines would be by Divine revelation. The logical fallacy of argument by lack of imagination is a type of argument from ignorance. “If I can’t think of another answer that is suitable to myself, then such and so answer is true.” The other side of argument by lack of imagination is the argument by imagination. There is always the possibility of imagining another story, another ad hoc rescuing hypothesis. The only way to eliminate dependency on made-up stories is by Divine revelation. The only way to know truth is by Divine revelation.
  • Least Plausible Hypothesis: A hypothesis that conflicts with known facts is chosen over one that doesn’t conflict with known facts or a hypothesis that requires more arbitrary assumptions/stories is chosen over one that requires less arbitrary assumptions/stories.
  • Lexical Ambiguity / Ambiguous Terms: A word or phrase is given more than one definition in the same argument (or there are two or more possible meanings within a single word or phrase).
  • Limited Depth / Effect Without a Cause: A hypothesis doesn’t explain the underlying causes for what is being claimed. If A causes B, for instance, there should be an explanation of how A causes B or else a hypothesis has not even been developed yet. It is a fallacy to dogmatically state that something happened a certain way when no cause is given. One of the ways to hide a limited depth fallacy is to give an explanation that is rooted in axiomatic thinking. Limited depth is a violation of one of the most basic laws of logic, the Law of Cause and Effect.
  • Limited Scope: A theory can’t logically explain all of what is observed.
  • Limiting Presuppositions: Worldviews or presupposed assumptions severely limit the ability to perceive reality or to discern between reality and make-believe.
  • Lip Service: Verbal agreement or commitment is given but action or true conviction is lacking.
  • Loaded Language / Loaded Words / Colored Words / Colored Phrases / Slanted Language / Slanting (type of): Presuppositions or emotional connotations are deceptively attached to language. This is a type of slanting. It bypasses the reasoning process and tends to directly impact the inner worldview. This is true whether someone else uses them on you or you use them on yourself in a form of confirmation bias.
  • Loaded Sample / Biased Statistics / Prejudiced Statistics / Prejudiced Sample / Loaded Statistics / Biased Induction / Biased Generalization / Unrepresentative Sample / Unrepresentative Generalization / Sampling Bias: A data set is chosen in biased way that is designed to get a certain result. This is a statistical fallacy. It must be emphasized that no statistics can yield anything more than inductive reasoning (which cannot be concrete or definitive).
  • Lobbying: Appeals are made to power, particularly governmental power, to support one’s own opinion, oppose other opinions, or both. By the way, if you ever wonder why some laws are so irrational, you must understand that laws are generally created by the lobby process.
  • Loki’s Wager: It is unreasonably insisted that a concept cannot be defined and therefore cannot be discussed.
  • Ludus / Ludic Fallacy: Statistical models are constructed and applied in complex domains where there are too many variables to account for or some variables cannot be known with certainty. Ludus involves applying naive and simplified statistical models in complex domains. The ludic fallacy is very common in supposed predictions in the scientific community. Anyone entering any of the sciences as a career choice would be advised to avoid ludus. This is a statistical fallacy. It must be emphasized that no statistics can yield anything more than inductive reasoning, which is not concrete or definitive anyway.
  • Lurking Variable / Confounding Factor: A lurking variable is a variable that is not considered when coming to a conclusion of any kind. Lurking variables, like hidden assumptions, can change the conclusion completely. It is very difficult, if not impossible, to know that every factor has been accounted for. Sometimes, a persuader will purposely fail to mention a known factor if that factor is detrimental to the persuader’s purpose.
  • Magical Thinking / Miracle Thinking: Claims are made that would require magic or a miracle, yet there is no agent identified by which, or by whom, the magic or miracle could be performed. Sometimes, it is implied that belief that God can act is a fallacy. In fact, it is a fallacy to assume that God doesn’t sometimes do something different (which is the actual definition of a miracle). What could possibly prevent Him from doing so?
  • Magical Thinking Fallacy Abuse: Claims are made that are outside of the worldview of a person or group (or the agent by which, or by whom, the claim is carried out is outside of the worldview of the person) so the person or group falsely makes an accusation of “magical thinking” or of “miracle thinking.” Things that are outside of worldviews always seem insane, since worldviews seem like reality—but worldviews are not reality.
  • Magic Words: Authoritative-sounding words (science, evidence, Bible, logic) are used as proof rather than providing actual proof. The words are mentioned, but they (the concepts that are represented by the words) do not support the conclusions.
  • Magician’s Choice / Closer’s Choice / Fallacy of False Alternatives / Fallacy of False Choice / The Fallacy of Exhaustive Hypotheses/ Limited Alternatives Fallacy: A certain number of choices are implied, but either more or less choices are available. You are given limited choices when there are other choices available. An assumption is believed or asserted that all of the possible choices have been stated, but one or more choices have not been stated. This is a form of false choice in which all the possible choices are not offered.
  • Marginalization: It is implied that people holding a certain viewpoint are a fringe group and that their viewpoint is therefore false. The logical fallacy of marginalizing is an extreme form of the bandwagon fallacy. As with all bandwagon fallacies, this one uses popular opinion (or implied popular opinion) as the measure of what is true rather than using evidence and logic. Marginalization is also a kind of peer pressure.
  • McNamara Fallacy: A conclusion is made based solely on quantitative observations and ignoring all others.
  • Meaningless Question: A question is asked that cannot be answered in a way that is rational. Alternatively, the question is not relevant to the discussion at hand.
  • Message Control / Censorship: Attempts are made to keep any information, opinion, or comment from being stated if it conflicts with the favored opinion/story. For instance, some people want only the Secular Humanist religion taught in public schools. They want it taught as the default position, and they want any objective analysis of that stance censored.
  • Metaphorical Ambiguity: A metaphor is taken literally.
  • Middle Puzzle Part Fallacy: A spurious connection is made between different things by changing the meaning of words.
  • Mind Game of Playing Dumb: A mind game of fake lack of understanding is used as a dodge to avoid dealing with issues rationally. This is used a lot by Internet trolls.
  • Mind-Reading / Reading Into Things: The source of the claim is supposed mind-reading. “I know what you are thinking.” Claiming to know motivations of others is a form of mind-reading. Unless you have a Divine revelation, it is impossible to know that motivations and inner thoughts of others. At the same time, God does reveal some motivations in some instances. One of these is the motivation for rejecting Christ. God says that they love darkness rather than light, that they don’t want to be directed by Him.
  • Misdirection / Distraction / Relevance Fallacies: Causing the focus of attention to move to one thing in order to avoid detection of another thing.
  • Misinterpretation: Concerning statements: A statement is interpreted, but the interpretation was not what was meant. Concerning reality: A part of reality is interpreted, but the interpretation doesn’t reflect reality.
  • Misleading Context Fallacy / Contextomy: A word, phrase, concept, quote, entity, or proposition is presented in a way that gives a false impression by leaving out the circumstance or surrounding issues, words, etc.
  • Misleading Vividness: Many details are included in a description of something, which has the effect of making it seem more likely or probable.
  • Misquoting: A quotation is cited with small changes that completely change the message.
  • Misreporting in Mass Media: Various forms of large-scale communication are used promote a lie.
  • Misrepresenting the Facts: A premise is based on incorrect information. Distorting the facts is a fallacy of misrepresentation.
  • Missing Link: Reasoning leaves out critical information (missing link) that would change the outcome of the reasoning.
  • Missing the Point: An argument or comment is made that is not relevant to the topic being discussed. Often, the point may seem to be relevant, but it is not. Sometimes, the other person doesn’t hear or understand the point. Sometimes the point is so far outside the other person’s worldview that it seems unreal. Sometimes, purposely missing the point is a tactic to avoid an issue, so the point is missed on purpose, building a straw man argument.
  • Misunderstanding the Nature of Statistics / Innumeracy: A statistical fallacy is committed due to ignorance of the math. These fallacies include the gamblers fallacy, hasty generalization, false precision, biased statistics, the ludic fallacy, and others. It must be emphasized that no statistics can yield anything more than inductive reasoning, which is not concrete or definitive.
  • Misuse of Averages Fallacy: It is believed, implied, or asserted that something is acceptable based on the mean or the average value of the total of all cases. This is a statistical fallacy. It must be emphasized that no statistics can yield anything more than inductive reasoning, which is not concrete or definitive.
  • Misuse of Etymology: It is believed, implied, or asserted that the oldest or original meaning of a word is its true of proper meaning.
  • Modal (Scope) Fallacy / Fallacy of Modal Logic / Misconditionalization: The scope of what is necessary or possible (in a statement or argument) is confused. A modal operator of necessity is applied to the consequence instead of the conditional.
  • Monopolizing the Conversation / Filibustering: A conclusion is promoted to the point where any conflicting information is blocked, censored, or buried: and thus not seen.
  • Monopolizing the Question / Hypophora: A question is asked and then immediately answered by the same speaker/writer. This is not necessarily a fallacy, nor is it necessarily a method of deception. It is a presentation technique. If the answer given is an unsupported assertion or is not true, then it is a fallacy, and a very effective way to lie.
  • Moralistic Fallacy / Moral Fallacy / Moralism: It is believed, implied, or asserted that morals or good works can be rationalized without the Creator God of the Universe. What should be moral is assumed a priori to be naturally occurring. What actually happens is a combination of several things. One is that God reveals right and wrong to every person. Another is that a person reaches into his or her own worldview/paradigm/fake-reality and, from this source, formulates assumptions about what ought to be moral. Another is that there are many influencers that affect personal beliefs about right and wrong. There is also the human ability to rationalize and defend sin. When sin is rationalized, the conscience can be seared and become calloused. See Ought-Is Fallacy
  • Morton’s Fork: Different (conflicting) observations lead to the same conclusion. No matter what evidence is found, it always proves the same thing. It doesn’t matter what evidence is found, it will always prove evolutionism to those who are committed to evolutionism.
  • Motivated Reasoning: Those things that disagree with our preconceived notions are more carefully scrutinized and rejected, a kind of emotion-driven and selective skepticism. It is an extreme form of confirmation bias, where the worldview, or fake-reality, is the filter that determines what reality is.
  • Moving the Goal Posts / Raising the Bar: The criteria for acceptable proof or for falsification keeps moving repeatedly. The excuse (for example, “That’s how science works. When we discover something new, we change.”) may seem to make sense, but actually the purpose of moving the goal posts is to rescue the sacred cow, which never changes.
  • Multiple Question / Plurium Interrogationum / Fallacy of Many Questions / Surfeit of Questions: A question that requires several answers is asked. Often, a single simple answer is demanded. The question or problem is often posed in a way that steers the conclusion or when a solution or answer is sought without first correctly defining the problem/question. Alternately, a volume of questions is asked as a debate persuasion technique. Each question may require an hour of discussion. Since there isn’t time for the other person to fully answer, the persuader is able to confuse the audience.
  • Name Calling / Labeling / Misnomer: A faulty label (either positive or negative) is applied to a person, organization, or concept. Labels are powerful. They change attitudes of people who are labeled and of people who hear/see the label being applied.
  • Narcissism: Self-centeredness and unwarranted self-confidence that comes from failure to distinguish between one’s own worldview and reality itself. This usually results in putting too much stock in one’s own opinions.
  • Naturalistic Fallacy: Evaluative conclusions are drawn from purely factual premises. This is related to the is-ought fallacy.
  • Necessity / Felacia Necassitas: The conclusion of a syllogism indicates necessity, but this same necessity is not stated in both premises.
  • Needling / Baiting: One person tries to make another person angry rather than dealing with the issues being discussed. Generally, the idea is that if the other person becomes angry, leaves the conversation, or otherwise reacts to the needling, that proves that they are wrong. Needling can also be a method of intimidation to try to get you to conform. Sometimes, the logic is as simple as, “I can say irritating things, therefore, I am right and you are wrong.” If you watch comedy on TV, there is a theme: those who are right or cool show how right or cool they are by how effectively they are rude to other people. Since TV has a great influence on culture, this mindset has become part of the culture.
  • Negating Antecedent and Consequent / Improper Transposition: The antecedent and consequent are transposed in the conclusion and the negation is reversed in propositional logic. INVALID FORM: “If A then B. Therefore, if not-A then not-B.”INVALID FORM: “If not-A then not-B. Therefore, if A then B.” If you substitute various words for A and B, you will find that this sometimes seems to make sense, but, with other words, it doesn’t make any sense at all. Using this form of logic, you can easily deceive yourself.
  • Negative Premise / Illicit Negative / Drawing a Positive Conclusion from Negative Premises / Drawing an Affirmative Conclusion from Negative Premises Fallacy: The conclusion of a standard form categorical syllogism is affirmative and one or more of the premises are negative. INVALID FORM: “A is not a subset of B. B is (is not) a subset of C. Therefore, A is a subset of C.”
  • Nesting: Fallacies can be nested, or stacked up, resulting in more confusion through information overload. Generally, this fools more people than simply committing a single fallacy.
  • Neuro Linguistic Programming: Many techniques of persuasion have been formalized into a complex hypnotic technique (combination of techniques) that can be learned for sales, politics, personal agendas, flimflam, or mental therapy. A search of the Internet for “Neuro Linguistic Programming,” will turn up multiple sites on the subject. Here is one example: http://www.hypnosisandnlp.net/
  • NIGY / Now I’ve Got You: One question is asked after another, usually with rapport-building techniques to reduce apprehension, until some piece of information is turned up that can be twisted to use against you in some way.
  • No True Scientist Fallacy (a type of stacking the deck): A subset of all scientists is selected, and then an attribute of those selected scientists is added to the definition of the word, “scientists.” In this way, the scientists without the given attribute (usually, complete blind obedience to the Big-Bang-Billions-of-Years-No-Flood-Molecules-to-Man story) are artificially filtered out. The purpose is persuasion. The no true scientists fallacy is a targeted application of the no true Scotsman fallacy.
  • No True Scotsman (a type of stacking the deck): A persuasive definition fallacy is used in order to place artificial limits on what will be defined by a certain label. The no true scientist fallacy is a type of this fallacy.
  • Nominalization / Nouning: someone makes an action (or other part of speech) into a noun. The result is that it makes the action by the person begins to seem as if it is part of the essence of what the person is. This makes it more difficult for a person to change bad behavior. On the other hand, if the noun is used to describe a person whose attitudes and actions don’t reflect the noun that is used (for instance, Christian), it can make the person think that he or she is something that he or she is not.
  • Non Sequitur / Inductive Fallacy: The conclusion doesn’t follow from the premises, that is, the premise does not prove the conclusion.
  • Not Connecting the Dots / Failure to Think Things Through: Failure to consider the ramifications of either decisions, actions, or assertions.
  • Not Invented Here: Anything that originates from outside of a certain defined category (this could be an organization, a nationality, an ethnic group, a gender, an age group, or any such category) is false or less acceptable based on its origin. This is a variation of the genetic fallacy.
  • Notable Effort: Effort is used as proof that a claim is true rather than using sound reasoning.
  • Observation Distortion by Expectations: There is a failure to take into account observations that do not fit the expectations or worldviews. Data is discarded, and observations are not recorded because it is thought to be an anomaly. Sometimes, this is based on fear of rejection by those who are fixed on a certain worldview. Sometimes, one’s personal worldview makes it impossible to tell the difference between reality and make-believe.
  • Observation Distortion by Preconceived Ideas: Preconceived ideas, expectations, and worldviews affect the concentration and the direct attention in such a way as to skew the observation.
  • Only I Can Ask Questions: A skeptic’s position is taken in which it is claimed that nothing is known by anyone and it must be proven that someone can know something. This primarily comes out of the Secular worldview. Note that if the Secular worldview were valid, then nothing would be able to be known, and skepticism would make sense. Even one’s own existence could not be shown to be true. Science and logic would be unprovable. The skeptic takes this position then claims that he or she doesn’t have to show support for the position, since they claim that they really are not making any claim. However, they are making a claim. They are claiming that no one can know anything. For them to know such a thing would require absolute knowledge of everything. The best that they could rationally claim is that they personally know nothing. However, they can’t even claim that, since, if they personally know nothing, they don’t know that they personally know nothing. They don’t know that they are not suppressing the truth in unrighteousness. In other words, the entire debate strategy is self-refuting and insane.
  • Opposition Fallacy / Fallacy of Opposition: It is asserted that anyone who disagrees is not credible, and the fact that they disagree is proof of that fact that they are not credible. You probably already notice that this is circular reasoning.
  • Ought-Is Fallacy / It Ought To Be True, So It Is: An arbitrary assumption is used as a basis to assert what ought to be true and this arbitrary assumption is used to reason that the arbitrary assumption is true, that what “ought to be true” is true. This is a form of circular reasoning, since it assumes the conclusion in the premise. See Moralistic Fallacy, Moralism
  • Outdated Information: A premise is put forward in support of a conclusion, but the information is known to be false—it is outdated. Note that for any controversial subject, there will always be those who refute any information, either successfully or unsuccessfully. Be aware that many claims are made concerning science that are really based on axiomatic thinking.
  • Outright Lie / Total Lie: A lie is totally fabricated with no truth in it. Most lies contain a considerable amount of truth in them. They are like rat poison that is 98% good food and 2% poison. For this reason, outright lies are usually found when exploring the details of a statement to sort out the lies from the truth. When you look closely, you can separate the true statements from the outright lies. When you get down close, there are no gray areas. Things are either true or false, but an entire paragraph may contain some true and some false, making things seem to be gray. It is a lie to claim that something is true when it is actually unknown.
  • Overlooking Secondary Consequences of a Decision or Action: Only the immediate effects of a decision or action are taken into account while other ramifications are ignored. This is a form of not connecting the dots. It is also possible to fail to consider the logical ramifications of an assertion.
  • Overwhelming Exception: An accurate generalization is made, but it has qualifications that eliminate so many cases that what is left to generalize about is much less than one would be led to believe. This is a statistical fallacy. It must be emphasized that no statistics can yield anything more than inductive reasoning in any case, which is not concrete or definitive.
  • Package Deal Fallacy: Things that are not necessarily connected are joined with a word such as “and” or a different technique of language or rationalization. One of those techniques is to simply insist that two unrelated things are the same thing. An example would be Bill Nye insisting that historical science is the same thing as operational science or engineering.
  • Packing the House Fallacy: An audience is chosen that will be supportive to one side of an issue as opposed to other sides.
  • Paradigms: A paradigm is a fake-reality. It is a complete worldview, a lying vision, a lie, that resides in a human mind. It is interesting that God gives us a vision of reality whenever He speaks to us. On the other hand, the liar, Satan, gives a vision of unreality in our minds. A vision of unreality is a paradigm. The Truth is a vision from Jesus Christ. What we often don’t realize is that lies are visions from Satan. A vision takes in all the senses and becomes a relatively permanent part of the mind. When Satan spoke to Eve about the forbidden fruit, God had given the Truth to Eve. Satan questioned what God had said and put a little twist on it. Then, Satan proposed an alternate story, a paradigm. Satan was planting seeds into Eve’s mind. Eve decided to believe Satan rather than God. This gave root to the plantings of Satan in Eve’s mind. That was the beginning of all the sorrows that we see today.
  • Paralipsis Attack / Paralepsis: Paralipsis is mentioning by saying that it should not be mentioned. Emphasis is actually added by talking about how the subject won’t be mentioned. “We ought not to talk about blah blah, so I’m not going to say anything about it.”
  • Paralysis of Analysis / Procrastination: No decision is ever made because, at any point in time, not all the data is in. Some new data may be discovered. There is never enough confidence to go forward on anything. Better to pray for the leading of God and expect Him to provide the decision.
  • Patently False Statement / Blatantly False Statement: These statements are obviously false. They are assertions contrary to fact that are obvious lies.
  • Peer Pressure: Pressure is brought to bear by actions or speech to squeeze you into the same mold as those who pressure you are in.
  • Perfect Solution / Nirvana Fallacy / Perfect Solution Fallacy / Perfectionist Fallacy: That which is real is compared to unrealistic, idealized alternatives, then a conclusion or solution is rejected because it doesn’t meet some definition of perfection. It is often suggesting that there is no sense in believing anything since it won’t be perfect, complete knowledge. This is usually selective disbelief, though. Most people who are skeptical in one area are totally gullible in many other areas of life. The reasons that the perfect solution fallacy is a fallacy is that God reveals what we need to know to make the necessary rational decisions and come to the necessary rational conclusions. For those things that don’t need to be decided or concluded, God may not provide Divine revelation.
  • Persimplex Responsum Fallacy / Very Simple Answer Fallacy / Very Simple Solution Fallacy: A single and simple answer is provided to a very complex problem that requires answers to multiple questions.
  • Personal Incredulity / Argument from Personal Incredulity / I Personally Don’t Believe It: It is asserted or implied that personal lack of belief makes something untrue. What people believe or disbelieve has no effect on reality.
  • Personal Conviction as Proof / Argument From Personal Belief / Argument from Personal Conviction: Personal belief is asserted as the reason that others should believe. Personal conviction cannot prove anything to be true.
  • Phantom Absurdity / Argumentum Ad Lapidem: A statement is dismissed as absurd without giving proof of its absurdity. This is a type of summary dismissal. It is avoiding the issue and an appeal to ridicule.
  • Phantom Cause / False Cause / Spurious Causation / Gratuitous Inculpation / Questionable Cause / False Cause and Effect / Non Causa Pro Causa: A claim is made that one thing causes another, but the claim is false. There is not proof that the one thing does cause the other.
  • Phantom Conflict / Phantom Inconsistency / False Conflict / False Inconsistency: A conflict is implied or claimed but no conflict exists. This is a specific type of false dilemma. The two choices may not be the only choices or they may indeed be the only two choices, but they are not mutually exclusive.
  • Phantom Distinction / Distinction Without a Difference / Sham Distinctions: Language is used to imply a difference between two things, and yet those two things are identical or at least not different in the ways described.
  • Phantom Impossibility / Phantom Improbability: Impossibility or improbability is claimed. Impossibility claims are assertions of a universal negatives. Improbability implies that extensive research has been performed to determine probabilities, yet no number can be put on this supposed improbability. Either no evidence is given for this impossibility or the evidence involves assumptions. In order to rationally state that something is improbable/impossible, every assumption must be given in favor of possibility. If you find any hidden assumption that could be changed to favor possibility, the claim of impossibility is irrational. Phantom impossibility/improbability is a statistical fallacy. It must be emphasized that no statistics can yield anything more than inductive reasoning, which is not concrete or definitive.
  • Phantom Logic: Logic and rational thought is mentioned, but no logic is presented that proves the claims. “Logic” and “reason” are magic words. Just mentioning them makes it seem as if some actual rational thought took place. Yet, with phantom logic, no real logic was used.
  • Phantom Relationship: A relationship is asserted to exist, but no such relationship exists.
  • Phantom Science: Scientific research is claimed to support something, but either no research has been done or the research that has been done is corrupted in some way to create a false impression. Perhaps some observations have been made, but only by making assumptions could the conclusions be made. One assumption can completely skew the conclusion.
  • Phantom Time: It is believed, implied, or asserted that billions of years have passed since the beginning to time. This becomes an underlying assumption that colors all science, philosophy, ethics, and every other discipline of thought. Somehow, people have forgotten that it is only a story and that it has no basis in fact. (worldview)
  • Pigeonholing Fallacy / Ahistoric Fallacy: Something or someone is sorted into a category incorrectly or inaccurately.
  • Pious Fraud / The Ends Justify the Means Fallacy: A fraud is committed for a supposed “good” result.
  • Poisoning the Well / Discrediting: An ad hominem attack is launched by exposing negative information (whether that negative information is true or false) about the other person/position in hopes of swaying the minds of the audience against the other person/position. Poisoning the well fallacy is used rather than relying on sound reasoning.
  • Polarization / False Excluded Middle / No Middle Ground: An either/or proposition is suggested between two extreme positions, but it excludes the middle ground of everything between the extremes. Polarization is a type of false either-or.
  • Political Correctness / Political Correctness Fallacy / PC Fallacy: It is assumed that something is true or right because of the political messages (based on nothing absolute) of some people who think that it is true or right or find it useful to claim that it is true or right. This is only a fallacy when political correctness is presented as any part of the proof for a conclusion or any part of the reason for an action.
  • Politicking / Playing to the Crowd: The object is to sway the opinions of a larger group rather than finding the truth. This objective leads to a debate mindset. Fallacies and tricks are used to bring support from a larger population than those involved in the discussion. Often, the ultimate objective is to bring about governmental coercion or message control. Message control is accomplished by routing funding, limiting displays, limiting what can be said, extending the places and conditions where the “wrong” messages won’t be allowed, and any other trick to censor the message.
  • Politics Abuse: Pray Fervently. “The king’s heart is in the hand of the LORD, as the rivers of water: he turneth it whithersoever he will.” Proverbs 21:1 The systems of this world are dying. If we put our hopes and efforts into them, then we will be frustrated. We will stunt our spiritual growth. At the same time, we must be led by the Spirit. The Spirit of God may lead you to vote for the right candidate. If you are getting your information from the ungodly, then you are sitting in the counsel of the ungodly. There is no rest for those who allow the world to squeeze them into the world’s mold. So many politicians are in favor of gross perversions, rebellion against God, murdering innocent children, promoting lawlessness, and other similar things. Most of these sinful leanings can be tracked directly to the 10 commandments. Often these politicians will try to manipulate you by appealing to base emotions such as envy. They will try to compose a false morality and lure you into it. They know how to manipulate what they call “religious people.” Don’t fall for it. Use politics and everything else God has provided, but don’t abuse it.
  • Pollyanna’s Ploy, Unbridled Optimism: Warnings, reprimands, signs of danger, etc. are ignored. This is the opposite side of the appeal to fear fallacy.
  • Popular image / Public Relations: A popular image is cast for a person, organization, or an opinion rather than dealing with the soundness of the argument. This is what is often done in advertising or public relations campaigns.
  • Possibility / Appeal to Possibility: It is asserted that something is true because it is possible. This is a statistical fallacy. It must be emphasized that no statistics can yield anything more than inductive reasoning, which is not concrete or definitive. The Big-Bang-Billions-of-Years-No-Flood-Molecules-to-Man is often taken as an axiom. That is, there is no need to attempt to prove that it actually happened. All that is needed is to imply that it could be possible.
  • Post Hoc, Ergo Propter Hoc / Post Hoc Reasoning / After This; Therefore Because of This: An assumption is made that just because something follows something it is caused by whatever it follows.
  • Presentism / Historian’s Fallacy / Hindsight / 20-20 Hindsight: It is assumed that elements of the present-day worldview were the same in the past; when it is assumed that decision-makers of the past held the same worldview as those decision-makers who followed. Presentism is uncritical adherence to present-day situations, technology, trends, or attitudes. If we interpret past events in terms of modern values, limitations, competencies, concepts, or anything else, we commit the fallacy of presentism.
  • Pressure Tactics: Pressure is used rather than reason.
  • Pretentious Antecedent: The antecedent (first part of a hypothetical proposition) is either merely assumed momentarily or is just briefly mentioned then, later, it is treated as if it were a fully proven fact.
  • Pretentious Premise: A premise (proof for something) is either merely assumed momentarily or is just briefly mentioned, then, later, it is treated as if it were a fully proven fact.
  • Pretentiousness: More knowledge, authority, understanding, etc. is claimed than is warranted. In some cases, claims may be made that would require omniscience.
  • Privileging the Hypothesis: More than one hypothesis is possible yet one of the possible hypotheses is granted a privileged position and assumed to be true when there is no rational reason to give the hypothesis this status.
  • Privileging Naturalism: The assumption of Naturalism is granted a privileged position and assumed to be true when there is no rational reason to give the hypothesis this status. An extreme example of this takes place when a Naturalist hears about a miracle and says, “There is a natural explanation for that.” The assumption is that if a story can be made up that excludes God, then that story is true and God is excluded. The alternative, which God has revealed, is that nothing happens for no cause. God is the Creator of the Universe and everything in it. All things consist (are held together) by Jesus Christ and His great faithfulness accounts for the regularity of the laws of nature, which He enforces faithfully. He directs everything and has everything under control. Miracles are just things that God does a bit differently, usually for a sign. However, as God tells us, there are some people who would not believe even if someone came back from the dead.
  • Process-Product Ambiguity / Act-Object Ambiguity: A statement is unclear as to whether it is referring to a process or the product of the process.
  • Projection: A person projects his/her own traits, thoughts, fallacies, culture, or actions onto another person or persons.
  • Proof by Agnosticism: Agnosticism is assumed and used as a premise to support a conclusion. This is a type of hysteron proteron.
  • Proof by Appeal to Materialism / Materialism as Proof: Materialism, the unfounded assumption that there is no spiritual realm, is used as a base assumption or axiom and treated as if it were a known fact. This is a type of hysteron proteron.
  • Proof by Appeal to Naturalism / Naturalism as Proof: Naturalism, the unfounded assumption that there is no spiritual realm, is used as a base assumption or axiom and treated as if it were a known fact.
  • Proof by Assumption / Proof by Presupposition: Axioms are assumptions (made-up stuff) usually coming from fake inner worldviews (fake realities) and having zero truth value. It is irrational to base reasoning on made-up stuff. This assumption is used to support a premise that is used to support a conclusion, or to directly support a conclusion. Assumptions have zero truth value. It’s not that they give partial knowledge. They have no power to give any knowledge. If a single assumption is necessary to proving any conclusion, that conclusion is not known at all. This is not the difference between absolute truth and proximate truth. It is the difference between truth and no truth at all. Assumptions consist of made-up stuff. Making Up stuff is lying. An assumption is an unsupported assertion fallacy. The bare assertion without proof is not a lie, but presenting it as a reality when there is no proof is a lie. Believing something without proof is loving a lie. A presupposition is an assumption that has been accepted as fact to the point where it is not even challenged—which is a fallacy.
  • Proof by Atheism: Atheism, the unfounded belief that there is no God, is used as a foundational assumption or axiom and treated as if it were a known fact. This is a type of hysteron proteron.
  • Proof by Confirmation Bias / Fishing for Evidence: A worldview/paradigm/fake-reality is used as a filter to twist evidence to confirm the worldview even when the evidence actually conflicts with the worldview. The person committing this fallacy is generally fishing for evidence to support his or her worldview. This is a type of hysteron proteron.
  • Proof by Fallacy: Every premise given in support of a conclusion is dependent on some assumption or other fallacy. Basing a premise on an assumption, or on a conclusion that depends on an assumption, is a fallacy.
  • Proof by Model: Models of reality are created but the fact that the model is only an abstraction of reality is forgotten and the model is treated as if it were reality itself. Then, the model is used as a premise to support a conclusion. Models explain concepts—not reality. Models cannot prove conclusions to be true. This is a type of hysteron proteron.
  • Proof by Relativism / Escape to Relativism: Relativism is assumed and used to defend a conclusion. This is a type of hysteron proteron.
  • Proof by Theoretical Stories / Storytelling Presented as Scientific Evidence / Argument by Scenario: A story/theory is made-up to fit the observations as much as possible, but somehow the fact that the story/theory is just a story/theory is forgotten, and the story/theory is used as evidence. The word, “evidence,” implies proof. Stories cannot prove anything, not even if you call the stories, “theories.” Scientific theories are stories that explain the facts perfectly, but fitting the facts doesn’t assure that the stories are true. Many stories are called theories while they fit the fact poorly—simply because the people who love them want them to be true. Many stories about the past (e.g. big bang, billions of years, molecules to man) are called “theories” when they aren’t even good hypotheses. They require ad hoc hypothesis to save them. The best that a theory can be is an explanation of an idea. It never can prove that the story actually happened. Often, when stories are taken as premises, they become proof of themselves in a vicious circle.
  • Proof by Uniformitarianism: The assumption or axiom that there was no catastrophic, worldwide, Genesis flood—that all processes have continued from the beginning as they are now, is treated as if it were a known fact and used to prove itself and other untruths. This is a type of hysteron proteron.
  • Proof Surrogate / Evidence Surrogate/ Phantom Evidence: Evidence is mentioned, which gives the illusion that there is evidence, when no evidence (or only evidence that depends on assumptions) has been provided. If any evidence is produced, it doesn’t prove what it is said to prove or the so-called evidence is mere opinion. The explanation of an observation or experience is not evidence. The interpretation of an observation of experience is not evidence. This difference is closely tied to knowing the difference between make-believe and reality.
  • Propaganda: A massive amount of disinformation is put out supporting a certain view without giving any alternative view or showing the problems with the favored view, repeating a false or  unproven message through many outlets (for instance, museums, schools, seminars, news, movies, songs, Internet trolls, disproportionate representations in webpages, and even churches). See Spamming.
  • Prove It Thinking / Prove It To Me: A request for proof is made by a contrarian or skeptic. You present proof—it doesn’t matter what you present—it won’t prove “it” to his or her satisfaction. You can’t prove the existence of the Sun to someone who wants to be contrary. Negative Proof, Proving Non-Existence.

“What Sun.”

“Look in the sky.”

“I don’t want to look. Give me some evidence for the Sun.”

This is an attitude. It was the attitude of those who rejected Jesus by saying, “Show us a sign and we will believe you.” Of course, He showed plenty of signs so this was not their problem. Their problem was rebellion against God. There is no way for anyone to prove anything to anyone else if that person doesn’t want to believe it. However, anyone can test and know that Jesus Christ is God by seeking Him with a will to do His will in sincerity, respect, and persistence.

  • Proving a Premise from a Conclusion Fallacy: A premise is claimed to be true because the conclusion is true. The conclusions may be true or it may seem to be true. That conclusion is used to demonstrate that one of the premises is true, but the premise is not necessarily true. Proving a premise from a conclusion is one of the forms of circular reasoning.
  • Proving Non-Existence / Demanding Proof of Non-Existence: A belief is held that something exists simply because it has not been proven false. Sometimes, Christians may resort to demanding proof for the non-existence of God if they are unwilling to admit that Jesus Christ is a real Person Who can be known. Demanding proof of non-existence is an argument from ignorance. More often, this fallacy is used by Atheists to commit fallacy abuse. The Atheist will imply that there is no God or that God cannot be known. They may imply that they know that God doesn’t exist. They may claim that they know something about the probability of God existing. In any case, it is not a fallacy to ask for the method by which the Atheist derives this “information.” This is not the same as the prove it to me fallacy. Of course they have no method. They are just making it up, but they will insist that “God doesn’t exist unless you prove that He does exist.” This is also an argument from ignorance, and it is the prove it to me fallacy.

The proof for God is Jesus Christ. Anyone who seeks Him finds Him. A dedicated Atheist is an Atheist because he or she is willingly ignorant of God and refuses to acknowledge God. God reveals that all people actually do know that He exists, but they suppress that truth in unrighteousness. It’s a spiritual problem, not an intellectual problem. A dedicated Atheist will not seek God. They will simply refuse—always citing some excuse. As a result, discussing philosophy or science with them is a fruitless mind game. They are refusing to look at the evidence, that is, to seek Christ. Related: Proving a Negative, Prove It to Me.

  • Proving Too Much: A premise is used that, if the premise were valid, could be used more generally to reach an absurd conclusion.
  • Psychogenetic Fallacy: An attempt is made to psychoanalyze a person who holds a certain view and this psychoanalysis is used as a reason that the person’s view is not correct. “You need to seek professional help. Therefore, your proposition is false.” That is circular reasoning.
  • Psychologist’s Fallacy: An observer assumes that his/her subjective experience reflects the true nature of an event. This is an example of using worldview as proof.
  • Putting Words in Other People’s Mouths: A statement or argument is attributed to someone who said no such thing. Putting words in other people’s mouths is often used to create a straw man. Sometimes, this tactic is to imply endorsement of an idea. It is common for people to say, “God says . . .” or “The Bible says . . .” or “Science says . . .” when these claims are contrary to fact. Anyone who says, “Thus sayeth the Lord,” must be careful to only say what the Lord says. Speak as of the oracles of God. Do not add to His words or He will show you to be a liar.
  • Quantificational Fallacy: The quantifiers of the premises are in contradiction to the quantifier of the conclusion. Quantifiers are words such as “all,” “none,” “many,” or “some.”
  • Quantifier Fallacy / Quantifier Shift Fallacy: The scope of the quantifiers is shifted in the middle of a logical argument or two quantifiers are reversed. This is a particular type of scope fallacy.
  • Quantum Physics Fallacy: Quantum physics is offered as proof for a conclusion; however, quantum physics doesn’t support the conclusion. This is symptomatic of a whole class of fallacies that appeal to the unknown or to what is not understood. It is also an example of grasping at straws. The way that God has constructed the Universe, the important things in life are simple so that a child or a fool can understand them. Only those who refuse to know Jesus are unable to understand, since they have already deceived themselves. This is not an intellectual problem or a matter of proof. It is a spiritual problem.
  • Quenching: A deliberate attempt is made to keep any opinions other than the favored opinion from receiving any attention rather than rational discussion. The desire not to have a high-profile debate with the likes of Richard Dawkins weighing in against the Bill Nye-Ken Ham debate, was a quenching tactic.
  • Question Begging Analogy / Question Begging Analogy: An analogy is made between two things, but the analogy rests on an assumption that amounts to circular reasoning. It is a type of circular reasoning.
  • Question-Begging Complex Question / Question-Begging Complex Question / Loaded Question / Trick Question: A question that requires several answers is asked as a single question that requests a single simple answer. The answer to one of the questions is already presupposed into the way that the question is worded. For instance, “Have you stopped beating your wife?” There are two questions here, but one is answered within the question by presupposition. It is circular reasoning, since the conclusion (you beat your wife) is presupposed.
  • Question-Begging Epithet / Question-Begging Epithet / Epithet: Biased, often emotional, language is used to persuade rather than logic. To be question-begging, it must presuppose the thing that it is trying to support or prove.
  • Question-Begging Rejection of Faith: Faith is rejected based on a presupposition.
  • Quibbling / Quibble / Logic Chopping / Splitting-Hairs / Nit-Picking / Trivial Objections / Megatrifle / Trivial Objections / Cavil / Spurious Superficiality: A diversion is created to make discussion of an issue difficult. The diversion is a specific kind of red herring that acts as a smokescreen to make it difficult to analyze the issue at hand.
  • Rationalizing Away Observations / Explaining Away Observation: Observations that don’t fit expectations are rationalized away.
  • Rationalizing: Rational-sounding language and/or visuals are used to make irrational thinking seem to be rational. The words, “rational,” “rationalize,” and “rationalism” sound similar, yet they are very different. “Rational” means sane, dealing with reality as it really is. The word, “rationalize,” means to attempt to make the irrational seem rational or to try to make the insane seem sane. The word, “rationalism,” refers to a philosophy that claims that the human mind can manufacture knowledge without the benefit of either observation or Divine revelation.
  • Reciprocity Norm / The Norm of Reciprocity: Some positive action is done merely to influence either the person who benefits from the action or some group of people. The action may be done to appear to benefit some people, the environment, or some other thing that will be highly visible.
  • Red Herring / Digression / Diversion / Evading the Issue / Side-tracking: An attempt is made to divert the discussion away from the point by bringing up something (topic, example, analogy, comparison, etc.) that is not relevant.
  • Redefinition Fallacy: A word is redefined in order to prove a point or to deceive. This is very different from clarifying the meaning of a word so that a point is not misunderstood. It is also not a fallacy to redefine a word for a specific purpose as in applying a common word to a specific technical discipline in which the word takes on a meaning that is very different from the common meaning of the word.
  • Red-Herring Comparison: Two entities are compared, but they are not the two entities that are really in play. This is a fictitious comparison to cover up the real relationship. In this sense, it is a red herring.
  • Reductio Ad Hitlerum / Ad Nazium / Hitler Card: Associating a position/person/concept with someone or something that is universally reviled is used as a faulty analogy in place of sound reasoning. This fallacy has been used politically to the point where it is quickly pointed out. On the other hand, the fallacy is sometimes used for fallacy abuse. When there are real similarities between what people are doing and what Hitler (or some other evil person) did, there is no fallacy in raising a warning.
  • Reductionism / Oversimplification: A complex concept is reduced to a subset of its components (or is stated as less than it is) as if this subset represented the whole. Related: Understatement, Causal Reductionism.
  • Refusing to Look at Evidence: Evidence is dismissed without examination. When someone has a prior commitment to a certain outcome, evidence against that outcome is not welcome. One of the most common places this fallacy is committed is when Atheists refuse to seek Christ.
  • Relative Privation / Greek Math: Something is made to appear better by comparing it to something that is worse or when something is made to appear worse by comparing it to something better. There are two types of relative privation: It could be worse, and it could be better.
  • Relevance Fallacies Against the Source: The Person, Organization, Book, etc. is attacked rather than using reasoning to find truth.
  • Repeated Assertion / Proof by Repetition / Proof by Repeated Assertion / Argument by Repetition / Argumentum Ad Nauseam / Nagging / Argument to the Point of Disgust: An argument is simply repeated when evidence is requested or when the argument is refuted by evidence or reason. Alternately, evidence for an assertion has been given, and a request for evidence is repeated as if no evidence had been given.
  • Retrogressive Causation: It is assumed that doing more of the something (call it X) will negate or reduce the effect that comes from doing X.
  • Retrospective Determinism: It is assumed that because some event has occurred (or is claimed to have occurred), its occurrence must have been inevitable beforehand.
  • Revenge: Something is done with the motive of getting even. Revenge is irrational because God reveals that this is His responsibility, not a human responsibility. Therefore, revenge is contrary to reality or contrary to fact. It doesn’t prove anything true.
  • Reverse Halo Effect / Devil Effect: A negative association is made between a negative thing (person, organization, product, etc.) and a second thing, and the attributes of the negative thing are attributed to the second thing. See Halo Effect.
  • Reversible Logic: An argument is put forward as a reason to believe a conclusion, but that argument can be reversed and make just as much sense.
  • Reversing Cause and Effect / Wrong Direction: Two things happen together and the real cause is seen as the effect and the effect is seen as the cause. The cause and effect are swapped. What was thought to be the cause is actually the effect and what was thought to be the effect was actually the cause.
  • Rewriting History / Have it Your Way: Events of the past are distorted or just fabricated in any way to support any conclusion.
  • Rigged Game: An illusion is created that there is a level playing field and open-mindedness, but the reality is that the outcomes are pre-programmed and nothing is determined by justice or truth. The game can be rigged by any number of fallacies.
  • Sacred Cow Fallacy: A conclusion is considered off limits to any challenge. It is considered settled knowledge or settled science. Sacred Cows are fiercely defended. No one may challenge them without meeting coercion, firings, ostracism, and many other tactics.
  • Sanctioning the Devil Fallacy: A debate or discussion is avoided on the rationale that debating or discussing would give undue credit to an opinion.
  • Scapegoating / Blame a Scapegoat / Framing / Blame A Non-Factor: A person, organization, concept, or factor is blamed for an error or problem that was not caused by the person, organization, concept, or factor. Framing here is not to be confused with the framing fallacy. The framing fallacy has to do with asking the wrong question. Framing has to do with trying to place blame wrongly.
  • Scope Ambiguity: The scope of a modifier is unclear. A statement is made that modifies other statements or another statement, but it is unclear which of the other statements it is supposed to modify.
  • Science Abuse: A very frequent claim of non-Christian’s (members of such groups as Scientism, Atheism, Agnosticism, etc.,) is that they follow “science” when the word they should be using is something else, perhaps Materialism, Naturalism, evolutionism, or old Earthism. These all fall into the realm of religious beliefs. There is no way that science (scientific observation apart from assumptions and stories) supports these. In fact, every one of these four main isms is scientifically impossible. Someone may define science as including assumptions and stories, and that is another form of science abuse. In these cases, a modifier must be used with the word, “science.” Theoretical science, historical science, empirical science, engineering, and operational science would be examples of clear terminology.
  • Science Wildcard Fallacy: Scientific mystery is used as an excuse for errors in logic, especially unsupported claims. This includes talk about evidence when no evidence is given. It includes so-called “evidence” that is really unsupported assertion. It includes all accusations against anyone who asks questions or points out fallacies of “not understanding science.” It includes all statements that claim that there will one day be proof of some theory. See God Wildcard.
  • Scoffing: An attitude of mocking, disapproval, jeering, disrespect, or any such attitude is projected rather than seeking truth by rational thought.
  • Scope Fallacy: The scope of a modifier is changed during an argument or the scope is never made clear. Scope fallacy is a type of amphiboly.
  • Secret Knowledge: Knowledge is claimed that is only given to a certain person or group of persons, and there is no way that anyone else can check out this secret knowledge.
  • Self-Declared Authority / Appeal to Self-Declared Authority / Self-Sell: A claim is made by a person that he or she is an authority, but no legitimate reason is given to take the person’s word. There is no one, other than God, who can declare himself or herself an authority and be rational in doing so.
  • Self-Exclusion: Rules, logic, standards of truth, etc. apply to other points of view but not one’s own. This is a form of special pleading.
  • Self-Referential Fallacy: A sentence, idea, or formula refers to itself. Example: Picking one’s self up by one’s own bootstraps. This is a form of circular reasoning.
  • Self-Refutation / Conflicting Conditions / Contradicto in Adjecto / Kettle Logic: A statement, presentation, or argument is made that is inconsistent with itself to the point that it refutes itself.
  • Self-Sealing Argument Fallacy: An argument is made that no evidence can possibly refute, and yet there is no evidence that proves that the conclusion is true. There is no way that the conclusion can be proven true to anyone.
  • Self-Selected Biased Sample: Return of a survey is voluntary, resulting in those people with strong feeling being over-represented (since these are the ones who are more likely to complete the survey). This is a statistical fallacy.
  • Selling the Defect / Marketing the Objection as a Benefit: The most negative thing about a belief, system, method, or product is presented as the greatest benefit.
  • Sherlock Holmes Fallacy / Process of Elimination: The method of thinking is to find every possible explanation and to disprove all but one. This is a claim to omniscience. How do you find every possible explanation without knowing all things? What if you missed the real one?
  • Shingle Speech: A case is made in an unorganized way so that it is impossible to tell assumptions and stories from observations, and it is difficult to tell what the relationships are between ideas and things. This is not a fallacy, but it may contain some fallacies that are hard to detect.
  • Shoehorning: Evidence is rationalized to support a conclusion or when a conclusion is rationalized to be supported by the evidence.
  • Short Term versus Long Term: A false either-or is presented that either the short-term need must be addressed or else the long-term need must be addressed. Perhaps both or neither of them needs to be addressed.
  • Single Choice Fallacy / What Else Could Explain it? / No Alternative: Only one alternative is claimed when at least one other alternative exists. This is the ultimate false choice fallacy. Often, the very idea of a second possible choice is not mentioned.
  • Slippery Slope / Absurd Extrapolation / Domino Fallacy / Domino Theory / Camel’s Nose / Thin Edge of the Wedge: A proposition is evaluated and the ramifications of that proposition are extended beyond what is reasonable.
  • Slothful Induction / Gravity Game Fallacy: A conclusion of a strong inductive argument is absolutely denied as being impossible. No exceptions have been found, and yet the conclusion is absolutely denied. All inductive reasoning can yield false results sometimes, even when the arguments are inductively strong. Yet, for some decisions, this may be all that is available. If there is risk, then the risks are weighed, and the least risky action is generally taken in spite of only having an inductive conclusion. A much better method would be to pray for wisdom and allow God to direct between the various alternatives. It is also a fallacy to claim that inductive reasoning is absolute when inductive reasoning is always mere circumstantial evidence. Nothing can be said to be known by inductive reasoning. It can be used for pragmatic answers, especially when the risks are low, there is absolutely no the evidence to the contrary, and no competing possible conclusion. In any case, a conclusion should be held lightly if even a single assumption was required to make the conclusion.
  • Sly Suggestion: Innuendo is used to suggest claims, but no statement of the claim is made without the hedge of innuendo. Suggestion has an element of hypnotic effect in that is bypasses the conscious mind and evades critical thinking.
  • Smokescreen / Blowing Smoke / Befogging the Issue / Clouding the Issue / Cover-up: Any tactic or fallacy that is used to cover the fact that the reasoning is irrational and the conclusion is based on made-up stuff is a smokescreen. The smokescreen can be used to cover for either another smokescreen or an unsupported or untrue assertion. Ultimately, there is a main point that is being protected by fallacy. This main point, if it cannot be shown to be true, will likely be hidden under many nested smokescreens. Some of those smokescreens may be secondary unsupported or untrue assertions. Smokescreens protect or hide made-up stuff (unsupported assertions, lies, etc.). In the final analysis, there are two kinds of fallacies: the unsupported or untrue assertions and the smokescreens that hide them. Often, these smokescreens are used to divert attention or otherwise keep anyone from knowing that axiomatic thinking is taking place.
  • Snob Appeal / Snob Approach / Appeal to Snobbery: A certain conclusion is supported by a premise that implies that you will be more popular or people will think better of you because you believe the conclusion or take action as a result of the conclusion.
  • Social Conformance: Fitting in and getting along requires irrational thinking.
  • Socratic Fallacy: A false claim is made that terms are required to be defined before examples of those terms can be given. This is not to say that it isn’t vital that everyone is using the same definition of a given term.
  • Sour Grapes: That which is out of reach (even if only by currently choosing something else) is depreciated or despised.
  • Spamming: One side of an argument is stated universally across many forms of communication to the exclusion of the other sides of the argument. This is a form of message control and the opposite side of quenching. It is an attempt to dominate the mediums of communication.
  • Special Pleading / Selective Skepticism / Selective Gullibility / Double Standard: Standards, principles, and/or rules are not applied universally. This is often associated with a false open-mindedness or hidden bigotry.
  • Specificity: An overly specific conclusion is drawn from the evidence. This is a statistical fallacy, and a kind of jumping to conclusions.
  • Speculation / Guessing / Conjecture: Assumptions and stories are made up as answers to scientific, theological, historical, philosophical, or any other questions.
  • Spin Doctoring: Information is presented in a way that leads people to conclusions that aren’t necessarily true.
  • Spiritual Excuse / Spiritual Fallacy: A fallacy is committed that relates to the spiritual realm. Any assertion about the spiritual realm that doesn’t come by Divine revelation commits this fallacy. A related fallacy, known as “Naturalism,” is the denial of the spiritual realm. Naturalism is a spiritual fallacy.
  • Spotlight: It is assumed that all members or cases of a certain class/type are similar to those that receive the most attention or coverage in the media.
  • Squinting Modifier: A modifying word, usually an adverb, could be modifying more than one word. It is impossible to know what the word is modifying.
  • Stacking the Deck / Card Staking / Cherry Picking / Cherry Picking Data / Suppressed Evidence / Selective Evidence / Fallacy of Incomplete Evidence / Argument from Selective Observation / Argument by Half-Truth / Fallacy of Exclusion / Ignoring the Counter Evidence / One-Sided Assessment / Slanting (a type of) / One-Sidedness / Eclecticism / Eclectic Fallacy / Exclusion / Concealed Evidence / Ignoring the Counterevidence / Under-Reporting the Facts: Information that is relevant to the truth or falsity of the conclusion is either purposely or innocently eliminated. Note that eclecticism claims to select the best evidence from all areas, but that assumes that the person doing the selecting is able to select the best. Of course, that is a circular reference fallacy, since the person must have some criteria for selecting evidence.
  • Statement of Conversion / Feel Felt Found Fallacy: A changed mind is used as proof for something. “I know how you feel; I felt the same way; but now I have found . . .” You still need proof. “I was a Christian, but then I found out that there was no God.” You still need proof. What is the method by which you can know such a thing for certain without making any assumptions or telling any stories? “I was an Atheist until I opened my mind and met Jesus Christ. Now, He leads me and teaches me moment by moment.” Notice the difference? This conversion gives a reason to believe other than hearsay, assumptions, or stories.
  • Stereotyping / Association: An assumption is believed or asserted that what is considered to be true (or thought to be true) of a larger class/group is true for ALL the members of that class/group. This is a statistical fallacy.
  • Stolen Concept / Smuggled Concept: Proof is presented that is dependent on the thing against which the argument is being raised.
  • Stonewalling: Communication is blocked by refusing to acknowledge refutations, refusing to acknowledge points that have been presented, refusing to answer questions or giving evasive replies.
  • Storytelling: Made-Up Stories are used to bypass critical thinking. Often, these made-up stories are put forward as if they were known facts.
  • Straw Man: Rather than dealing with the actual position, a debater misstates the opposing position as something ridiculous, and then refutes misstated version of the position (straw man) or argument, pointing out how ridiculous the straw man is. This is likened to a man challenging another man to a fight but, rather than fighting the other man, the challenger constructs a straw man and fights with the straw man. Of course, the challenger is able to knock down the straw man. Straw men are exaggerated or distorted pictures of you or your point of view. They are purposely constructed to be ridiculous so that they can be easily knocked down. At the same time, they are constructed so that they can fool people into thinking that they are what you stand for.
  • Style Over Substance: Presentation is more important that rational thoughts and facts. Just because people are generally much more easily persuaded by irrational, emotional methods does not mean that it is sane to live that way or that it is ethical to abuse other people by taking advantage of their weaknesses.
  • Subjectivity / Relativist / Subjectivist / Subjective Application of Facts: An objective fact is claimed to be true for one person or situation and not for another person or situation. This fallacy doesn’t apply to personal taste but only to objective facts. Related: Special Pleading.
  • Subversion: Attempts are made to subvert loyalty or belief.
  • Subverted Support / Non-Support: An explanation is given of why, how, under what conditions, or some other detail, but there is no evidence that the event happens, or happened. In effect, the assertion is presupposed that the thing happens, or happened. This fallacy diverts the attention away from the unsupported assertion that the phenomenon happens, or happened, by presupposing that it happens, or happened.
  • Suggestion: Certain ideas are implanted in minds indirectly through suggestion rather than being plainly stated. See Sly Suggestion.
  • Summary Dismissal: All of the reasoning (against or for a certain position) is discarded in one summary statement such as, “That isn’t compelling.” Key to summary dismissal is that it dismisses statements of others without giving any reason for dismissal. Summary statements are fine when you are being spammed by twenty contrarians on twitter, or when someone has tossed the elephant in a debate, but, in a respectful discussion, they are uncalled for. If the other person is being respectful, summary dismissal becomes a tactic that destroys reason and trust.
  • Sunk Cost / Concorde Fallacy: There is a temptation to continue defending or favoring a project, a line of research, a theory, an idea, an action or any other thing rather than admitting the error and ending the insanity.
  • Superficially Convincing Fog / Semi-Attached Figure: A true premise is given, but the implication is not true.
  • Suppressing the Correlative / Suppressing the Correlative Conjunction / Suppressed Relative / Fallacy of Lost Contrast: When there are two statements where one must be true and the other must be false, one of the options is irrationally defined as encompassing the other. One of the most prevalent places where this fallacy is used is in regards to Divine revelation versus made-up stuff. The skeptic comes to grips with the Münchhausen Trilemma and absolutely rejects it. However, the skeptic finally realizes that there is no way out in his or her worldview. There is no way to account for knowing anything. Once the skeptic turns the corner, there is a complete change in thinking—but not toward rational thought. The skeptic is confronted with the contrast between Divine revelation and made-up stuff. Since the skeptic has now realized that every thought, every reason and logical argument he or she has ever made or thought of, is based on made-up stuff, the skeptic redefines Divine revelation to be made-up stuff and begins to use tactics to try to prove that the follower of Christ is in the same boat (tu quoque). Of course, this involves both circular reasoning and a claim of amazing familiarity as the skeptic claims to understand the intricacies of the spiritual experience of every person who ever lived. In reality, the skeptic is not interested in truth or the skeptic would have received Christ during the conversation. This is covered in detail here.
    • The correlative: The options are either X or not X.
    • Suppressing the correlative: “I am defining all the things that are not X as being part of X.”
  • Suppressing the Truth in Unrighteousness: Truth can be suppressed in one’s own mind by unrighteous thought, speech, and action. God reveals, for instance, that everyone knows of His existence and holy judgment, but that some people refuse to acknowledge Him and suppress the truth in unrighteousness. God leads. People either follow or they do not. Before any person comes to Christ, they cannot come to Christ except for the fact that God the Father leads them to Christ the Son.

After a person receives Christ, that person has a new vision that comes with the new birth, and the same Spirit Who was in Christ leads and teaches the person. When God leads and you acknowledge Him Proverbs 3:5-6 in submission to Him, He gives you faith, a supernatural belief that what He shows you is true and right. This faith gives you access to God’s grace, and God’s grace is the power by which you are able to obey God concerning what He is leading you into. When you obey God in this way, it is called righteousness. Nothing else is righteousness ever. Righteousness leads to holiness, which is a change in your very nature. In the process, your senses are exercised by reason of use, and it is easier for you to discern the Voice of God the next time.

However, for those who are disobedient, the opposite happens. They fail to acknowledge God’s leading. They do not receive faith or grace, so they do not obey God, and this is unrighteousness. Unrighteousness sears the conscience. It makes the person unholy and unreceptive to God’s leading. It dulls the spiritual senses and the ability to discern between the Voice of God and the voice of the human mind or even evil spirits. The Truth (Jesus Christ) has been suppressed in unrighteousness.

  • Suppression of the Agent: The person or thing doing the acting is not specified in such a way that it creates a false impression, acts as a hedging mechanism, avoids detection of what is really being implied, or commits some other fallacy. This is one of the problems of using passive voice. Passive voice makes it hard to identify the agent. (Passive voice can also speak to emotional issues with less negative emotion, which is not a fallacy. In writing, it can avoid the use of “me” and “I.”)
  • Sweeping Generalization / Dicto Simpliciter: A statistical syllogism ignores or eliminates an exception that affects the conclusion. This is a statistical fallacy. It must be emphasized that no statistics can yield anything more than inductive reasoning, which is not concrete or definitive.
  • Syntactic Ambiguity / Structural Ambiguity / Grammatical Ambiguity / Amphiboly / Semantic Ambiguity / Semantical Ambiguity Fallacy / The Syntactic Ambiguity Fallacy / Structural Ambiguity / Grammatical Ambiguity: Two or more meanings are possible because of the arrangement of words and phrases.
  • Taboo Fallacy: Certain subjects, standpoints, people, or concepts are off limits for thinking, then other options are assumed the default. “We can’t talk about religion, so schools must teach from the default: no God.” “We can’t consider a young Earth.” “We can’t consider a worldwide flood, because one is mentioned in the Bible, and considering the possibility would then be religion. Besides, a worldwide flood eliminates millions and billions of years for the age of the Earth and we need that for molecules to turn into people. And, without billions of years, molecules-to-man goes out the window, which is taboo.”
  • Tactics and Mind Games: Deceptive tricks of various kinds or other methods that go beyond statements or reasoning are used rather than seeking truth. Tactics would include message control, politicking, discrimination, selective funding, etc.
  • Taking a Quote Out of Context / Contextomy (type of) / Abstraction / Quote Mining: A quote is taken out of context.
  • Taking Undeserved Credit: Credit is taken for work by a minor contributor, or a non-contributor, who has the power or opportunity to take the credit. This is a false cause fallacy.
  • Tautology / Proof by Logical Tautology: A statement is made that cannot be falsified simply because of its form. It isn’t a fallacy unless it used as an explanation of something or proof of something since the statement contains no real information. For instance, if you say, “Everyone who follows Christ knows Him and is led and taught by Him,” this doesn’t prove that Christ exist. It doesn’t explain how this happens. It is only true if some people are following Christ. What proves Christ to you is that you are having this experience. What would prove this to a person who doesn’t know Christ would be for him or her to seek Christ and come to know Him—to yield to Him and dedicate his or her life to obedience to Christ as Christ leads.
  • Teacher’s We / Preacher’s We / Salesman’s We / Politician’s We Fallacy: A word such as “we” or “us” is used to give a hedge when talking about a specific person or specific persons (usually the audience).
  • Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy: Cherry-Picked Data, observations, quotes, etc. are selected, the target is adjusted to fit the cherry-picked evidence, and the target is then shoehorned to appear to be evidence for the desired conclusion. It must be emphasized that, even if used correctly, no statistics can yield anything more than inductive reasoning, which is not concrete or definitive.
  • The Way We Have Always Done It: A new idea, concept, Divine revelation, or any such thing is rejected because it is a new concept to the person who rejects it. This is a variation of the appeal to tradition fallacy.
  • Time Pressure: Time pressure is used as a negotiating technique.
  • Tokenism: Verbal agreement/commitment is given, and a token effort is made, but there is no follow-through.
  • Tooth Fairy Science: Research is done on a phenomenon before establishing that the phenomenon exists.
  • Tossing the Elephant / Elephant Hurl / Throwing Mud at the Wall to See What Will Stick / Shotgun Argumentation / Ad Infinitum: So many arguments are given or questions are asked that it becomes impossible to respond to all of them in any detail. Then it is assumed that not answering them means they are reasonable (the assumption correction assumption fallacy).

If you deal with Secularists at all, you will encounter the elephant hurl tactic. The elephant hurl consists of putting out arguments quickly so that all the arguments cannot be dealt with. It is an attempt to overwhelm. On social media, this is usually accomplished by having a gang of Secularists throwing out arguments. The way to handle an elephant hurl is with summary dismissal. This is easy to do when dealing with a Secularist. You know that the Secularist is hampered completely by the Secularist fallacy. The Secularist cannot make a statement that doesn’t require some made-up stuff: stories or assumptions. The Secularist may add some smokescreens to cover the fact that the made-up stuff is made-up stuff. These are the only two options for Secularists. The summary dismissal follows the following form: point out the Secularist fallacy and restate the absolute nature of Divine revelation. Example: “Every argument that can be offered against Jesus Christ or the Bible, including all of these, is based on made-up stuff (assumptions and stories). Yet, everyone who is following Christ is being led and taught by Christ in a moment-by-moment relationship. In fact, Divine revelation is the only way to interpret any evidence to come to a rational conclusion.”

  • Truism: A statement is made that is obviously true because it doesn’t say anything beyond a definition of its own terms. This is not a fallacy in itself, but can be a component of a fallacy. Sometimes, it can be used as phantom evidence for something not implied by its own terms.
  • Tu Quoque / You Too / Appeal to Hypocrisy: An attempt is made to turn an accusation back on the accuser rather than addressing the issue. Turning back the accusation, even if it’s true, never answers the accusation.
  • Twisting Words: Meanings of words or sentences are changed from what would reasonably be understood. This can take the form of a straw man argument or it can take the form of twisting evidence when the evidence is in the form of words.
  • Unacknowledged Refutation: A point has been refuted, but the refutation is treated as if the point were never refuted, and the point is then restated in either a big lie tactic or an argument by repetition. This tactic has an element of willful ignorance. It is also an extreme form of selective refutation and a failure to recognize evidence presented.
  • Uncontrolled Factors Fallacy: Some factors are compared between two or more groups, but other factors are left out, which means the results could be due to those factors rather than the factors that were counted for comparison. In other words, you haven’t learned anything if you have uncontrolled factors.
  • Understatement: An idea or concept is expressed as less than it is and that understatement is used as proof for something or the understatement otherwise gives a false impression. This is a form of reductionism. Related: Reductionism, Causal Reductionism.
  • Undoability Fallacy: It is believed, implied, or asserted that something cannot be done. This is the fallacy of asserting a universal negative.
  • Unfalsifiable Claims / Unfalsifiability / Untestibility / Uncheckable Lie / Undisprovable Statements: No matter what evidence is presented against a proposition, ad hoc rescuing hypotheses are made up and the proposition is declared true. The proposition is claimed to be falsifiable (that you can prove it false). When a criteria for falsification is met, that criteria is dropped and a new criteria is created. Nothing is falsifiable if ad hoc rescuing hypothesis are constantly developed to save the story. The fact that something cannot be falsified doesn’t prove that it is untrue. It just makes it difficult or impossible to test using scientific method.
  • Unintended Self-Inclusion: A statement is made that was meant to point to others and yet it points to the one making the statement, which wasn’t the intent.
  • Unknown as Proof / Appeal to the Untested / Appeal to the Unknown: A theory is claimed to be fact based on proof, but the so-called “proof” is not proved to be true. The proof is hysteron proteron.
  • Unnatural Fallacy: An argument that something (object, being, phenomenon, etc.) in existence is not a result of natural causes and, therefore, cannot exist. One would first need to prove the non-existence of that which is not the result of natural causes. That would be trying to prove a universal negative, which is only possible by Divine revelation.
  • Unrecorded Observations: An observation is not recorded because of fear of consequences when the observation is not politically correct or violates some sacred cow of the ruling culture.
  • Unsubstantiated Inference: A premise is given but cannot be shown to be true. This is the same or very close to a hysteron proteron. An inference is a conclusion. Every premise is supposed to be a conclusion of its own logical reasoning. It must be true or the logic is not sound. To be true, it must not be dependent on axioms, assumptions, stories, the opinion of experts, or any other fallacious problem. If it is not true, then the entire argument is not sound.
  • Unteachable / What I Don’t Know Is Not Important: Arrogance or laziness cause a lack of desire to move forward in understanding.
  • Untestability / Uncheckable Lie: A theory/story is put forward, but there is no way to test the theory/story. Stories about history often fall into this classification, especially if they go beyond the written historical accounts and the written artifacts of that day. The attempt to eliminate God’s account of history in Scripture and to limit the basis of scientific reasoning to assumptions is an attempt to make every interpretation of observation an uncheckable lie. The assumptions and stories that are chosen are untestable. As soon as they become testable and are falsified, new assumptions and stories are made up.
  • Unverified Evidence: Overwhelming evidence for a conclusion is claimed, but the person making the claim has never really looked into the evidence, nor have they ever truly understood the supposed evidence to any degree of depth.
  • Unwarranted Contrast / Some Are-Some Are Not: It is assumed that because members of one class (organization, type of plant, field of study, material, etc.) have a certain characteristic, then members of some other class must not have that characteristic or vice versa.
  • Unwarranted Extrapolation: Known facts related to one set of circumstances are used to make predictions or judgments about another set of circumstances, but either too much weight is given to the extrapolation or the extrapolation goes beyond what is reasonable.
  • Vacuous Explanation / Vacuous Statement / Null Value Fallacy: A statement contains no meaningful information or a question cannot gain any meaningful information, especially when the illusion is given that information has been gained. Note that “null” is not a “zero” value or a “no” value, but “null” is an unknown value.
  • Variant Imagization: Dissimilar images, graphs, or other graphics are created for similar concepts, situations, or people. It is a kind of special pleading using images.
  • Verbosity / Proof by Verbosity / Argumentum Verbosium: A conclusion is supported with an argument too complex and verbose to reasonably deal with in all its intimate details. This fallacy is similar to the fallacy of information overload. Sometimes, verbosity can be a means of appeal to intimidation, especially when insider jargon is used to confuse and overwhelm the listener/reader.
  • We Have to Do Something / Moving the Overton Window: A crisis (possibly created) is used to push for a change (new normal). Joseph Overton originated the idea that at any moment there is a window of politically acceptable policies, but that window can be moved during a crisis. This is one of the ways that governments move toward totalitarian power. This is also the way that students are put into a crisis situation (overloaded) so that their basic beliefs and morals can be changed.
  • Weak Inference: A conclusion is not shown to be true given the evidence or reasoning presented. This is closely related to hysteron proteron.
  • Weak Premise: A premise is not shown to be true given the evidence or reasoning presented to support the premise. Yet, the premise is given as evidence for another conclusion.
  • Wicked Alternative: The first position/alternative is denounced in order to support the second when the two positions/alternatives are not opposites.
  • Willful Ignorance / Obtuseness / Willed Ignorance: Rather than discussing the issue or misunderstanding, there is a deliberate effort to appear not to understand. This willful lack of understanding eventually becomes part of the worldview, especially as behaviors are guided by the ramifications of ignoring reality. Willed ignorance results in a dulling of the minds ability to know the difference between reality and make-believe. As this progresses, reality increasingly seems strange and make-believe increasingly seems real.
  • Wishful Thinking: An appeal is made to whatever is pleasing to imagine rather than dealing with reality. This is related to fake hope.
  • Word Magic: An entity, event, or concept is given the illusion of existence simply because there is a word for it.

Losing Touch with Reality

  • Conceptual Fallacy: Concepts are misused in some way. The term, “conceptual fallacy,” is a general term covering many kinds of conceptual fallacies. This could be confusing a concept with something in reality or confusing something in reality with a concept. Concepts are impressions. Impressions are usually distorted.
  • Confusing Abstraction with Reality: It is believed, implied, or asserted that an abstract idea about reality is reality itself. You abstract a part of reality, which happens every time you try to analyze anything, but you forget that it’s an abstraction and begin to confuse the abstraction with reality itself. This is a type of the generalizing from a hypostatization fallacy or reification.
  • Confusing a Model with Reality: It is believed, implied, or asserted that a model of some part of reality, is actual reality. There is a tendency to forget that it is only a model and not reality itself. This is a type of the generalizing from a hypostatization fallacy and reification. This is a conceptual fallacy.
  • Confusing Ontology with Epistemology: Confusing reality with worldview (internalized ideas or beliefs about what actually is). Ontology is the study of reality. Epistemology is the study of ideas or beliefs about reality. Being is confused with knowing about being. What exists is confused with knowing about what exists. Ontology is the study of empirical knowledge, that is, raw perceptions. Epistemology is the study of how you can know about things. Note: it is questionable that raw perception is possible, given the power of worldviews to filter perceptions. There is only one way that the human limitation can be bypassed, and that is by Divine intervention known as Divine revelation. Even then, revelation is a stepwise process in which God reveals progressively, renewing the human mind from glory to glory. Related: intentional fallacy, intensional context, hooded man fallacy, illicit substitution of identicals, epistemic fallacy, Leibniz’s Law, and ontic fallacy.
  • Confusing Theory with Reality: It is believed, implied, or asserted that a theory is real and not just a theory. A theory is created and perfected. In the process, some people forget that it’s just a story and think that it’s part of reality. This is a type of the generalizing from a hypostatization fallacy and reification.
  • Confusing Worldview with Reality: It is believed, implied, or asserted that a worldview is reality itself, resulting in an inability to reliably discern between what is observed and what is coming from the worldview. This happens without effort and seems to be a universal problem. A worldview (fake-reality constructed in the mind) is thought to be actual reality. Everyone has a worldview and a worldview seems more real than reality to the person who holds the given worldview. In fact, it is common for facts and observations that conflict with the worldview to be disregarded because reality seems unreal when viewed through the filter of the worldview. This is a type of the generalizing from a hypostatization fallacy and reification.
  • Context Imposition: It is believed, implied, or asserted that one’s own context (worldview) is reality. An argument is made from one’s own position without acknowledging the existence of other possibilities. This is an attempt to impose one’s own context (worldview) on another person. It seems rational to the person imposing his or her context since he or she cannot tell the difference between his or her own inner worldview and reality itself.
  • Epistemic Fallacy: A reality is thought to be a belief about the reality. For instance, God is thought to be a belief about God. Statements (or thoughts) about being (existence) are interpreted as statements about belief or ideas. For instance, statements about God are interpreted as statements about beliefs about God. Epistemology has to do with ideas or beliefs about what actually is. Reality is confused with beliefs and ideas about reality. Something that exists is confused with belief about something that exists. Related: intentional fallacy, hooded man fallacy, illicit substitution of identicals, intensional context, ontic fallacy, Leibniz’s Law, and confusing ontology and epistemology.
  • Fantasy Projection / Worldview Projection / Fake-Reality Projection / Paradigm Projection / Context Projection: It is assumed that one’s own worldview is real reality but any conflicting worldview is fantasy.
  • Floating Abstraction Fallacy: A conclusion is drawn from a concept that is disconnected from reality.
  • Generalizing from a Hypostatization: To hypostatize is to regard or treat a concept or idea as a distinct substance or reality. A hypostatization is something that is dreamt up and yet considered real. This is a statistical fallacy. It must be emphasized that no statistics can yield anything more than inductive reasoning, which is not concrete or definitive.
  • Idola Fori / Idols of the Market Place: Words are used that give a false impression of reality. There are two kinds of idola fori.
    • One consists of names for things that don’t exist, such as evolution (when the word is used to describe small steps of living things transforming from one kind—family or genus—to another) or big bang.
  • The other consists of names for things that exist, but those names are confused and ill-defined, and hastily and irregularly derived from realities, such as the various equivocations with words like “science,” “evidence,” or “logic.” “Evolution” is a word that fits both types of idola fori.
  • Idola Specus / Idols of the Cave: The particular biases of individuals lead them to errors.
  • Idola Theatri / Idols of the Theater: Philosophies are received by the human mind and then become something that is seen as fact by the human mind. These are idols that have become parts of worldviews, imparted by means of dogmas, philosophies, or faulty ways of coming to know truth. They are received through movies, classes, books, lectures, conversations, rationalizations, visualizations, etc.
  • Idola Tribus / Idols of the Tribe: Falling for the natural human tendencies to make errors in thinking based on the lens of the worldview, the desires of the innermost mind, the dullness and deception of the senses, or from the interpretations of impressions. This would include:
    • the tendencies to imagine more order than there is, to use every observation to confirm one’s own inner worldview,
    • to think that all of creation is similar (though not knowing how it could be) to those things that have stirred the emotions and the imagination,
    • to think that there can be no limit or end to the world,
    • to believe what is preferred to be true,
    • to allow that which strikes the senses more vividly to have more importance that that which is more subtle—which may be more important,
    • or to give a substance and reality to things that are fleeting.
  • Idola Tribus (Interpretation by Worldview): One’s own worldview becomes a lens, or filter, to interpret everything else.
  • Idola Tribus (Interpretation by Desire): One’s own desires and preferences become a lens, or filter, to interpret everything else. You prefer to believe what you prefer to be true.
  • Idola Tribus (Interpretation by Sensory Limitation): One’s own limited knowledge and ability to observe is used as a lens, or filter, to interpret everything else. This is the tendency to assert one’s own experience as being the sum total of possibility.
  • Idola Tribus (Interpretation by Sensory Deception): One’s senses are fooled, and the resulting impressions are used as a lens, or filter, to interpret everything else.
  • Idola Tribus (Interpretation by Impressions): One’s own interpretations of impressions that stand out from other impressions become a lens, or filter, to interpret everything else.
  • Illicit Substitution of Identicals / Leibniz’ Law Fallacy: Two things are claimed to be identical, but it is not known that they are identical. Generally, the only way that two things can be identical is if they are the same thing but called by a different name or label. You, for instance, are identical with yourself even if you go by several names. All those names refer to you, so each name is identical to all the others. “I know who X is. I don’t know who Y is. Therefore, X is not Y.” (X and Y are the same person.) “I know what X is. I don’t know what Y is. Therefore, X is not Y.“ (X and Y are the same thing.) “X is Y. Z is Y. Therefore, X is Z.” “Bill is 5’-11”. John is 5’-11”. Therefore, Bill is John.” (Bill is not John. They both are 5’-11”. The hooded man fallacy and intensional fallacy are examples of illicit substitution of identicals. Related: intentional fallacy, intensional context, hooded man fallacy, epistemic fallacy, Leibniz’s Law, ontic fallacy, and confusing ontology and epistemology.
  • Intensional Fallacy: A worldview (the intensional context) is confused with reality (the extensional context). This fallacy has to do with intensional context (not intentional). An intensional context is one that has to do with personal recognition or beliefs that are based on worldviews or not realizing human cognitive limitations. Related: intensional context, hooded man fallacy, illicit substitution of identicals, epistemic fallacy, ontic fallacy, Leibniz’s Law, and confusing ontology and epistemology.
  • Loss of Discernment Between Make-Believe and Reality: A number of fallacies combine to strip the mind of the ability to discern between that which is a mere figment and that which actually exists in the real world. There are several smokescreen fallacies that sit on the borderline of totally losing it. These are listed here as well as being listed as smokescreens.
  • Generalizing from a Hypostatization Fallacy: It is irrational to try to draw a conclusion from something that is made up, a concept or idea.
  • Imaginary Evidence: At this point, the imagination seems like evidence, and that imaginary evidence serves the purpose of confirmation bias.
  • Phantom Evidence: Evidence is mentioned, which gives the illusion that there is evidence, when no evidence (or only evidence that depends on assumptions) has been provided. If any evidence is produced, it doesn’t prove what it is said to prove or the so-called evidence is mere opinion. The explanation of an observation or experience is not evidence. The interpretation of an observation of experience is not evidence. This difference is closely tied to knowing the difference between make-believe and reality.
  • Phantom Science: While phantom science isn’t always a part of the equation, it often is. Scientific facts (or Bible facts) are mentioned, but no real science (or Scripture) is involved.

These fallacies are very important to recognize. Once reality and make-believe are confused, it becomes difficult or impossible to tell the difference between reality and make-believe. Keep in mind that these fallacies are often overlapping to the point that it’s difficult to tell the difference between them. Since every person is subject to these fallacies, it is important to know how to be able to overcome this problem. The key is found here. A specific example is found here.

  • Willful Ignorance / Obtuseness / Willed Ignorance: Rather than discussing the issue or misunderstanding, there is a deliberate effort to appear not to understand. This willful lack of understanding eventually becomes part of the worldview, especially if behaviors are guided by the ramifications of ignoring reality. At that point, reality seems strange and make-believe seems real.
  • Mistaking an Interpretation for an Observation: Observations are made and subconsciously interpreted, resulting in the observer not being able to know the difference between observation and fantasy (interpretation). This happens when the actual observation is not in line with the observer’s worldview or expectation.
  • Objectification / Reification / Anti-Conceptual Mentality Fallacy / Attributing Concreteness to the Abstract / Concretism / Hypostatization Fallacy / Misplaced Concreteness: Concepts, theories, assumptions, or abstractions are treated as concrete facts or realities. The fallacy is attributing concreteness to the abstract.
  • Ontic Fallacy / Ontological Fallacy: It is assumed that knowledge is obtained through raw perceptions, ignoring the filter of the human sensory and worldview limitations. It is questionable that raw perception is possible, given the power of worldviews to filter perceptions. This is a type of confusion between ontology and epistemology. Ontology is what actually is. Epistemology has to do with ideas or beliefs about what actually is. Ontology is the study of empirical knowledge, that is, raw perceptions. Epistemology is the study of how you can know about things. There is only one way that the human limitation can be bypassed, and that is by Divine intervention known as Divine revelation. Divine revelation is not initiated, generated, or executed by the human mind. God reveals. We acknowledge (or not). Even then, it is a stepwise process in which God reveals progressively, renewing the human mind from glory to glory and from faith to faith. The reason that it is a progressive process is because the natural self must die and Christ must be formed in us. Galatians 4:19, Ephesians 4:15 The ontic fallacy is sometimes brought up irrationally to try to create doubt about Divine revelation. The skeptic will take the position that the human mind must interpret even Divine revelation. However, interpretation always involves adding to God’s words or taking from God’s words. While the tendency of the human mind to get involved and distort what God says, the Divine revelation is not dependent on human reasoning or interpretation. We, as humans, have to learn to submit to God, to listen, and to acknowledge and glorify God rather than leaning on our own intellects. Related: intentional fallacy, intensional context, hooded man fallacy, illicit substitution of identicals, epistemic fallacy, and confusing ontology and epistemology.
  • Personification / Disney Fallacy / Anthropomorphism / Anthropomorphization / Pathetic Fallacy: Concepts or inanimate objects are spoken of (or treated) as if they had intelligence and were persons.
  • Theoretical Stories as Reality: A theory seems as if it were part of reality. When theories are considered to be part of reality, they become part of a worldview. This is very deceptive, since worldviews seem to be more real than reality itself.
  • Type-Token Ambiguity: A statement is made that is ambiguous because the same word can mean either a type or a token. A token is an example, in reality, of a type. A type is the concept of a token.
  • Use-Mention Error / UME: The word that is used to describe an entity is confused with the entity itself.
  • Worldview as Proof / Appeal to Worldview / Appeal to Fake-Reality / Appeal to Paradigm / Mind Projection Fallacy / Subjectivism: An inner fake-reality is mistaken for reality itself and used as proof. This results in either declaring something true because it matches the inner fake-reality or declaring it false because it doesn’t match. This is a type of hysteron proteron. Everyone has an inner worldview. Worldviews are very powerful, even having the ability to eliminate objective observation. What makes these fake inner realities so deceptive is that they seem more real than real reality. One’s own fake inner world seems to be actual reality. In this way the worldview filters out all reality that conflicts with it.

Distorted Paradigms / Worldviews / Filters / Fake-Realities

A paradigmError! Bookmark not defined., also called a worldview, is a mental construct of the world around us. In communication theory, it is called a filter. It is actually the world with which we interact. This worldview filters our perceptions so that we never really deal with reality as it really is. We are able to adapt our paradigms to fit circumstances, but events or ideas that conflict with our paradigms cause us to react negatively to them.

The un-anointed human mind is such that no matter how hard we try not to hold dogmatic positions regarding things about which we know little or nothing, we still find ourselves holding various positions. Paradigms play a big part in this problem. Paradigms seem real when they are not real.

The trouble with a paradigm is that the elements of the paradigm seem to be reality itself when they are not real. They are mental constructs. Of necessity, they are part truth and part lie. The parts that are truth are incomplete. The parts that are lie are distortions of truth. Those lies that distort truth are often the most convincing lies.

Paradigms generally start with assumptions. Those assumptions may be made consciously, but they are generally made unconsciously. The assumptions become presuppositions that filter what we can sense in the real world. Eventually, these presuppositions are pieced together into a complete, though flawed, view of the world around us, a worldview or paradigmError! Bookmark not defined.. Why not just deal with reality as it is? Why are we so protective of our worldviews and so unwilling to change them?

Consider the person who is in a familiar city but gets turned around, thinking north is south and east is west. As this person drives down the streets, things are surreal as streets appear in reverse order and addresses proceed in the wrong direction. Suddenly they realize that they have gotten themselves turned around and they adjust their thinking. What caused them to hold onto the wrong paradigm for more than a split second when all the evidence pointed to dropping the paradigm?

A magician’s patter, the words magicians say while performing the trick, has the purpose of creating a paradigm in the mind of the audience. This paradigm is part of the misdirection that makes the magic trick work. The trick creates surprise because the magician has built a paradigm describing what is happening at the moment, but the magician’s description is not what is actually happening. The magician adds the false paradigm to your already established paradigm and you make it fit. When the trick is executed, it violates your current paradigm and gets a reaction of surprise from you. Different people react in different ways to this surprise.

Any person who must find new solutions must break out of old paradigms. Unfortunately, they usually break out of an old limiting paradigm and bind themselves into a new limiting paradigm. A skeptic tries to use skepticism to get around this problem, but they actually just choose the most deceptive of all paradigms, the skeptical paradigm.

When an entire society or group within society agrees on a group-held paradigm, this is even more limiting. Think of politics, religion, science, philosophy, or you name it, and you will see groups developing around a paradigm. Is there an alternative?

Both individually and in group paradigms, the conviction that the current paradigm is reality tends to disqualify evidence that might undermine the paradigm itself. For instance, in the scientific community, the prevailing paradigm among those who hold political power will make it very hard to get research funding for any project that might threaten the prevailing paradigm. The prevailing paradigm becomes the measure of how science is defined, what science is done, what science is taught, and what progress is made to understand reality as it really is. Paradigms limit real progress in all fields. In science, one of the most obvious examples is the Creation/evolution issue. Those who have the political power have a paradigm built around Naturalism, Materialism, Uniformitarianism, and evolutionism. Thus, they control funding to assure that these are supported and no research is done that might threaten the paradigm. They also successfully control most education to instill this same paradigm in those who will replace them as defenders of the paradigm. When any fact is brought forward that conflicts with their paradigm, the level of emotion, personal attacks, profanity, loopy logic, and such like that is employed to dispute with reality is amazing. When asked to use science to show that Naturalism is a fact, they say, “It’s self-evident,” which is not scientific. The same holds true for Uniformitarianism and Materialism. When asked to show that evolutionism actually happened (not stories about how it might have happened), they can’t do it, so they just say something unscientific such as, “Evolution is science.” If pressed further, they leave the conversation.

Theories are created and confused with reality. Is there an alternative, or are we trapped to be captives of false reality. Are we forever going to be unable to discern between make-believe and reality, or is there a way out?

There is a way out, but we must break out of the paradigm of paradigms. We must break out of the paradigm that says that we must live by the paradigm. We must break out of the paradigm of Naturalism that says that God cannot renew our spiritual senses to see reality as it really is.

There are many opinions, and all of them are based on faith. Yet, all faith is not equal. There is faith that is based on nothing at all, and there is faith that is based on hearing the Voice of the Almighty, All-wise, Creator God and Savior Who cannot lie. Just ask a Naturalist to show, using science, that Naturalism is valid. You find that their Naturalistic paradigm filters God out and makes Naturalism self-evident through circular reasoning. Paradigms look like reality from inside.

The alternative to living in a paradigm is to live in reality. Truth and reality are synonyms. Reality is truth. Jesus is The Truth. Jesus said, “My sheep hear My Voice.” Hebrews says, “Today, if you hear His Voice, don’t harden your hearts/minds.” Millions of Christians are witnesses to the fact that God leads. God speaks.

However, Christians are influenced by a culture that has been saturated with a paradigm of Naturalism. If ungodly people hear a follower of Christ talking about God leading and speaking to them, the ungodly person will often use appeal to ridicule to silence the follower of Christ. These extreme tests of faith may make those who are learning to lean on the leading of Christ question themselves and question Jesus. If they can come through this test victoriously, they will have tremendous strength, and their spiritual senses will be exercised by reason of use.

All humans have a corrupted natural mind that is filled with lies from Satan, the culture, and our own sinful natures. We are called to allow the Holy Spirit to transfigure our minds to be like Jesus Christ. These sinful lies, with which the corrupt the natural mind is filled, are the paradigms within which each person is trapped. Jesus Christ, leading us and doing His works through us, is the solution to this. “Moment by moment He’s changing me. Line upon line, He’s setting me free. Jesus is changing me.”

So God’s plan is that ultimately we would be able to fully embrace reality/truth. In the meantime, we are led by the Holy Spirit and we have the option at every moment to believe Him rather than believing our own paradigm and the paradigm of the corrupted culture.

Worldviews are developed over lifetimes by the incidents of life. False teachings that are based on other worldviews and many fallacies have a great influence. Rationalizations are added to the worldviews. Worldviews are seldom congruent throughout. They generally have many internal inconsistencies and external inconsistencies. Each worldview seems more real than real reality to the person who has the worldview. The worldview seems to be reality. For this reason, distorted worldviews are a problem for rational thinking. There are as many worldviews as there are people, but certain elements are more problematic and lead to destructive thinking that leads to destructive behaviors.

  • Agnostic Christianity: An assumption is believed or asserted that God cannot be known in any real way. The question here is the authority of the God and the ability of God to reveal Himself, His will, and His knowledge to humanity. It is common for an Agnostic who uses the tag, “Christian,” to use circular reasoning. They are seeking to prove that God doesn’t communicate, and their evidence for this is an assertion that God doesn’t communicate. It is circular reasoning when they, in any way, give as evidence the very thing that they are trying to prove. Agnosticism is the notion that no one can know anything about God, but Christian Agnostics just assert that you cannot know God in a personal relationship where He actually interacts with you on a moment-by-moment basis. Agnostics not only believe that they know nothing about God, but they also feel that no one else knows anything about God. However, everyone knows that God is. Romans 1:19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God has showed it to them. Romans 1:20-21 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: You see? You know because God has showed it to you and to all of us. Agnostic Christianity is very common among the liberal Christians, but it is not uncommon among Christians who consider themselves conservative. There are many who think that they are far better off depending on the god of raw human reasoning (the rationalizing of the human mind without the Intelligence of the Creator flowing through the human mind) rather than the God of the Bible. They try to understand the Bible by the power of raw human reasoning (the reasoning of the human mind without the Intelligence of the Creator flowing through the human mind) even though the Bible says that the natural man cannot receive the things of the Spirit of God. They deny such things as prophecy, the word of wisdom, or the word of knowledge. They prefer, instead, a rationalized explanation of Scripture.
  • Agnosticism: An assumption is believed or asserted that God cannot be known. Agnosticism is irrational, but it tends to be presented as the only rational view. It is based on Agnosticism’s presupposition, the unfounded claim that God can’t be known. From that premise, Agnostics seek to prove that God cannot be known. That is circular reasoning. Every single “proof” that Agnostics present is dependent on their presupposition of the supposed unknowable nature of God. To add to the insanity, the Agnostic is claiming to know the personal spiritual experiences of every person. This is the fallacy of amazing familiarity. So, why would you, as a Christian absorb any of this nonsense. For two reasons. You have a fleshly nature and your fleshly nature hates God. Also, you are exposed to a constant bombardment from every media source, TV, movies, magazines, schools, news, and many of the churches. Everywhere you look, the precepts of Agnosticism have crept in. This is so much the case that many Christians live as if they were Agnostics, not knowing God at all. They get involved in sin about as much as the Agnostics do. The problem is that sin sears the conscience so that the Christian loses the ability to discern between truth and error and between good and evil. For a more complete explanation, go here.
  • Alien/UFO Religion: There are many people who believe that aliens are trying to contact the people of Earth. Many testimonials of encounters and abductions are similar enough to indicate that there is something to this. However, these encounters involve messages to the persons involved. These messages reject almost every Biblical truth about Jesus. Also, the abductions are indistinguishable from demon possessions. That doesn’t absolutely mean that God didn’t create extra-terrestrial life (a universal negative that God has not revealed through Scripture). The Bible doesn’t specifically eliminate the possibility, just as it doesn’t eliminate the possibility of flying spaghetti monsters. Some Christians feel very strongly that God could not have created any life on any other planets, but some assumptions are required in the theologies they use to support this belief. At the same time, every story about extraterrestrial life is a made-up story, so it would be irrational to even speculate about such a thing. Another option is to follow God’s word in Deuteronomy 29:29. God has certainly revealed enough that we are not fully walking in. It is His will that we walk in all of the Divine revelation that He has given and not to spend a moment of our lives on fantasy. Every evidence is that so-called aliens are not aliens at all but something much more sinister. For more on this, read Aliens, Evolution, and the Occult.
  • At Ease Christianity: Amos 6:1 “Woe to those who are at ease in Zion.” Revelation 3:15-17 “I know thy works, that thou art neither cold nor hot: I would thou wert cold or hot. So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth. Because thou sayest, I am rich, and increased with goods, and have need of nothing; and knowest not that thou art wretched, and miserable, and poor, and blind, and naked:” God is calling His people to come up higher. Staying where we are would be disobedience.
  • Atheism: The word, “Atheism,” has more than one meaning. God declares that all Atheists know that He exists, and that they know what can be known about the Godhead. They know that God is just and that He judges sin. They refuse to acknowledge God, so God turns them over to their own corrupt minds.
  • Bibliolatry: It is believed, implied, or asserted that Scripture is a god. The Scripture is not a god. God speaks to us through Scripture. The Scripture is only authoritative when the Holy Spirit speaks to us through it. When interpreted by the carnal mind, the Scripture is filtered into error. This is the reason that there are so many denominations all claiming to have the correct interpretation of Scripture and all rejecting what the Scripture says about its own interpretation. (caveats about hearing God’s Voice) Bibliolatry is a term that has been used since 1847 to refer to the worship of the Bible rather than the worship of God. It is idolatry to worship the Bible, though God speaks to us through the Bible. The Bible is not God. We trust God, not the Bible. Yet, we can be absolutely certain that God has not given us an impure Bible, at least in the original Hebrew and Greek. Though there are errors in translation in every version, we have the original text in the original languages. God speaks through the Bible; the Bible doesn’t speak without the Holy Spirit. This fact is obvious to most Christians, but people become confused. It is equally a sin of idolatry and much more dangerous to worship the human mind and to think that the human mind can produce knowledge without the benefit of observation or Divine revelation. This is known as Rationalism. Most often, Bibliolatry is mixed with a high level of Rationalism. (Read about the false religion of Rationalism.) It is then possible for a person to claim a high level of authority for their rationalized theology, quoting Scripture but mixing it with the interpretation that comes from rationalizing.
  • Communism: It is believed, implied, or asserted that it is possible to create a socialist utopia. In reality, there is no such thing as Communism. Communism is to Socialism what Nirvana is to Hinduism or the Kingdom of God is to Christianity. While the walk with Christ leads toward the coming Kingdom of God, Socialism will never actually lead to Communism, the Atheist Utopia. Keep in mind that the word, “utopia,” means: “It doesn’t exist.” Communism is the Kingdom without King Jesus–the Atheist Kingdom. It doesn’t exist. It is the theoretical outcome of Socialism.
  • Cults: For the purposes of this book, cult is defined as that which looks to anything other than the living Lord Jesus Christ for salvation, righteousness, satisfaction, fulfillment, revelation, wisdom, power, or solutions. A cult is that which is of any spirit other than the Spirit of Christ, the Holy Spirit. Often times, cults look to a “different Jesus.” Cults are often identified as organizations, but they really are spirits or ideas, and they infiltrate organizations and churches to varying degrees. Cults seldom, if ever, want to be identified as cults, and rationalism, modernism, Secularism, and liberalism are not exceptions.
  • Demagogue Christianity: The demagogue seeks to stir up the flock of God against someone or some group of people either inside or outside the church. Sometimes this is for power and popularity, and sometimes it is because of a lack of understanding about the nature of what God is doing. This doesn’t mean that every doctrine must be accepted as being equal. The demagogue demonizes all who disagree with the demagogue. This is quite different from stating that some idea or theology is not correct and explaining why. “The truth is, you have to be deaf, dumb, and blind to think that this earth that we live in only has 6,000 years of existence.” ~ Pat Robertson
  • Democracy Worship: Sadly, many Christians worship democracy. Some Christians think that their hope is in democracy. They think that bringing democracy to the world will cause a fundamental change in human nature. What is called democracy in the U. S. is actually a very restricted form of democracy known as a republic. The benefit of being so restricted has been, in the past, that it was difficult to make laws to persecute any one group of people. Originally, it was difficult to engage in religious persecution from the Federal level of government. That has changed, however, and the U. S. continues to drift in the direction of raw democracy and even oligarchy through the courts. Democracy is thought, by some, to be the saving grace of the Earth. It is not. The United States Founding Fathers were very much afraid of democracy. They established a republic.
  • Disconnected Christianity: Colossians 2:8-19 says that in Christ dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily, and we are complete in him, but some are not holding the Head. In other words, they have a dead religion that they are calling Christianity, but they are not connected to Christ any more. Something went wrong, and they have lost touch.
  • Divided Christianity: It is not uncommon for Christians to think that a divided Church is normal and that it is acceptable to God to have divisions. God says, through Scripture: “Is Christ divided?” Individual Christians can cause division in various ways. God addresses this through Scripture. Theology that uses assumptions causes division—going beyond what God says through Scripture concerning end-times prophecy, origins of the Earth and Universe, sin, salvation, baptism, communion, the worship service, Church offices, ministries, Spiritual gifts, Heaven, Hell, etc. Competition between Christians (and organizations of Christians) is certain to cause division. God hates division in the Universal Church. Jesus prayed,

“I do not ask on behalf of these alone, but for those also who believe in Me through their word; that they may all be one; even as You, Father, are in Me and I in You, that they also may be in Us, so that the world may believe that You sent Me. The glory which You have given Me I have given to them, that they may be one, just as We are one; I in them and You in Me, that they may be perfected in unity, so that the world may know that You sent Me, and loved them, even as You have loved Me.” John 17: 20-23

  • Dogma-Based Christianity: Dogma becomes a god along with the true God Who gives revelation. Dogma and doctrine become disconnected from the only Revelator, Jesus. Dogma and doctrine are transformed into the dead letter. When the dogma-based Christian reads the Bible, all they see is their dogma, which has become a filter in their minds. “The letter killeth” 2 Corinthians 3:6 They no longer hear the Voice of God.
  • Emotion-Based Christianity: Emotion-based Christianity substitutes human emotion for the power of the Holy Spirit. It confuses human emotion with the Holy Spirit. While the human body may have a reaction of feeling in the Presence of the Holy Spirit, the feeling is not the Holy Spirit. Christians may experience a feeling because they have submitted themselves to the Holy Spirit. When they fail to respond to the leading of the Holy Spirit, the Spirit lifts and they miss the feeling. Rather than coming to God in repentance, prayer, and fasting until the Spirit returns, they may seek other ways (and there are many from certain types of music to showmanship to human-generated enthusiasm) to re-create that feeling they once had.
  • Entertainment Christianity: There is a growing trend to substitute entertainment for ministry and emotion for the Holy Spirit. When intellectual stimulation, fun, activities, grandeur, and pizzazz are the focus, Jesus is not the focus. If Christ is not getting all the glory, then something else or someone else is getting the glory.
  • Evanjellyfish Christianity: Evanjellyfish go with the flow. They have no back bone. They have no leading of the Spirit. They are careful to avoid any persecution. They are willing to deny the Lord Jesus in order to save their own skins.
  • Evil For Good Christianity: You have no doubt noticed that there are those who are calling evil good, both inside and outside what is called Christendom. Isaiah 5:20 “Woe to them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!”
  • Faulty Conclusions / Worldviews that Affect Future Reasoning: The faulty conclusions from previous faulty reasoning become part of the inner paradigm or presupposition and are not challenged again because they are thought to be part of reality. These supposed “realities” are then inserted into reasoning as if they were based on actual existence. However, they are not real. They are make-believe that has been internalized.
  • Gnosticism: The Gnostics combined various doctrines from Hellenistic Judaism, Greco-Roman mystery religions, Zoroastrianism (especially Zurvanism), Neoplatonism, and Christianity, and it crept into the early Church. It was never any real part of Christ’s Church (called-out Body) at any time.
  • Human Goodness Cult: Secular Humanism is probably the most recognized name for the natural-human-goodness belief. Another word for the human goodness cult is “self-righteousness.”
  • Human Potential Movement / HPM: HPM is a mix of New Age Occultism, Cultic Secularism (using language that sounds, on the surface, Christian, intellectual, and scientific) and good sound advice for life and business. By mixing truth with make-believe, the line of division between real and fake becomes blurred. HPM is packaged for acceptance by corporations, governments, small businesses, churches, and education in the form of countless “motivational seminars” or “Learning to Learn” skills.
  • Humanism / Secular Humanism: Humanism is yet another synonym for Atheism. Humanism dogmatically supposes and preaches that there is no God other than humanity. Humanists are Atheists. Atheism/Humanism is one of the most violent of all religions, and, like all religions, it claims to be peaceful. If Humanists/Atheists were truly not a religion bent on control and conversion, there would not be the angst for spreading their false gospel and defending their make-believe belief system. Yet, Humanists are people whom the Lord, Jesus Christ loves. He calls to them daily. He sends His servants to talk to them to try to warn them of what will happen if they continue on the way they are going. Christianity is based on Jesus Christ, the Living Christ, Who reveals Himself to the Christian on an ongoing basis. Believers have the supernatural trust that is a gift from God. By this trust, we see Jesus and hear His Voice. It is Jesus Himself who reveals to us that the Bible is His Word, His Utterance. And it is Jesus Himself Who speaks to us through His Word. Jesus speaks to us through many different means: Scripture, intuition, bringing Scripture to our remembrance, apostles, prophets, etc. John 14:26 When God speaks to us, faith comes. And with faith comes a vision of hope. This vision shows us who we are in Christ in an ever-more-clear understanding. When God speaks, He instructs us concerning what to think, what to say, and what to do. Then, He does the work through us by His grace, His free gift of righteousness. This righteousness of God in us is the moving of the Holy Spirit that transfigures us from glory to glory to be like Jesus, killing our fleshly nature and causing Christ to be more fully formed in us. And this death to self, to the old Adamic sin nature, and building up of Christ is the very thing that redeems us, sets us free from slavery. This slavery is a bondage to the fleshly nature, to Satan, to the pressures of the world, and to death. Humanism/Secularism/Atheism is based on mental exercise. All of creation speaks to us about God through the things that we can easily observe, yet Humanists are in denial.
  • Intellectualism / Leaning on One’s Own Understanding: Many people attribute god-like power to the intellect, and such attribution makes this form of intellectualism a cult. The intellect is just one of God’s marvelous creations. When intellectualism begins to mean that the human mind is the source of wisdom, understanding, and knowledge, intellectualism becomes idolatry and it is a cult. The reality is that, since the fall, the intellect cannot be trusted. We need the revelation that only comes from God. The intellect invariably twists the Scripture and misinterprets observation, ending up in error and causing division in the Church.
  • Islamophobia: Given the fact that there are large numbers of people in Islam who desire to establish Sharia law at all costs and using every means including deception and violence, some Christians have become fearful. This is wrong. Fear leads to anger and anger leads to hate. First, this fear, anger, and hate does not proceed from the Holy Ghost. It is not of faith. Whatever is not of faith is sin. Sin is what takes us out of the Kingdom of God and into the kingdom of Satan. Love is what takes us into the Kingdom of God and into the kingdom of God. Second, how can we fulfill the command of God to witness fearlessly to the Muslims unless we love them and care deeply for their souls. There may even be physical danger in doing so, but there has always been physical danger in following Jesus. We are to pour ourselves out on God’s alter, and this is part of that.
  • Liberal Christianity: There are many definitions of the word, liberal, so some definition of terms is in order. In general, the type of liberalism that is spoken of here is a liberalism that makes the human mind equal to or greater than Biblical authority. Liberal Christianity either tries to say we don’t need Jesus or that saved or unsaved people can do good by their own effort. Liberal Christianity often denies the power and goodness of God and asserts the natural goodness of most people. Liberal Christianity presents a non-biblical church, often looking to human-designed church government, human creativity, human effort, human patterns and orders, and human-designed religion to do the work of the church.
  • Materialism: Materialism is the belief that physical nature, matter, and energy is all that exists (Naturalism and Materialism). Materialism is the dogmatic belief that there is no God other than humanity, no spirits, no angels, and no spiritual realm. The assumption is that only material things exist. Materialism is based on asserting a universal negative–declaring God to NOT exist would require that the person making the declaration be all-knowing. Another argument for Materialism is not based argument from ignorance. “I don’t know about it so it doesn’t exist.” Plus, Materialists are just making stuff up! In other words, they are lying. Their lies aren’t even well-hidden because the people who are swallowing their lies love to be lied to. Materialism has no logical basis. There are several related cults that work in concert: Agnosticism, Atheism, evolutionism, Humanism, Intellectualism, Liberalism, Materialism, Modernism, Naturalism, Post Modernism, Rationalism, Relativism, and Secularism. Under Materialism, each person becomes his or her own god, determining his or her own “moral” code. Materialistic ethical and moral codes can only be based on rationalization, that is, speculation—in plain English, making it up. Materialism is a dogma that is one of the primary pillars upon which Atheism and evolutionism depend. In addition, Materialism becomes a religion that stands on its own-though it is usually associated with evolutionism to try to explain how all of creation got here if the assumption of “no God” were to be valid.  Circular reasoning is used in a way that each of these religions “prove” the other to be valid.

Materialism was one of the basics of Modernism, but Materialists are moving toward Post Modernism. Evolutionism, upon which Materialism depends for survival, has failed under the assumptions of Modernism and requires the Relativism, Chaos, and Compartmentalization of Post Modernism. For the same reason, and because of the hopelessness of Materialism, many Materialists are moving toward New Age Religion or Neo Paganism. Materialism has crept into many Christian churches, causing them to reject miracles, spiritual gifts, etc. All logic must be based on something. Even if the logic is correct, there must be a basis for the proof that is given. Christians have a basis. That basis is Divine revelation and the basis for the Divine revelation is God Himself. This is what it means to build on the Rock rather than sand. Materialism is built on assumption or the belief that the human mind can pull knowledge from the air without the benefit of Divine revelation or observation. And then, Materialists will claim that there is no such thing as Divine revelation, but that claim is circular in that it is simply a restatement of their original claim of materialism.

  • Modernism: Given the presupposition of Rationalism, the modernists make three more assumptions: Materialism, Naturalism, and Uniformitarianism. Materialism assumes that there is no God. Naturalism assumes that God does nothing. Uniformitarianism assumes no Creation or Flood. All of these made-up lies are part of modernism. Modernism, given these three assumptions, sets out to prove that there was no God, to prove God did nothing, to prove that there was no Creation or Flood. You recognize the obvious circular reasoning, but otherwise intelligent people have gone along with this. Of course, modernism leaves humanity, nature, or both as god and ruler of the universe.
  • Moralism: Moralism is a seductive false gospel. It is the teaching of a morality apart from God. It came from Christians who forgot what the gospel was. The Letter of Paul the Apostle to the Galatians deals with this very issue. For Atheists and others who don’t have Christ, moralism is as close to righteousness as they can get. It is sad that so many Christians spend their life frustrating the grace of God through moralism.

You may receive nice emails or watch nice movies where a nice person has a crisis and does a nice thing–all without Christ or with Christ as sort of a non-participant. This is moralism. Morality without Christ! Righteousness without Christ! Christ is our righteousness. “Far too many believers and their churches succumb to the logic of moralism and reduce the Gospel to a message of moral improvement. In other words, we communicate to lost persons the message that what God desires for them and demands of them is to get their lives straight.” ~ Albert Mohler

The flip side of the false gospel of moralism is the false gospel of what has been called easy grace. It isn’t grace at all, as you will see. This is actually the false gospel of permissiveness, the gospel of the wide way. “It doesn’t matter what you do.” “We are under grace not under law.” “Go ahead and shack up with that girl.” “Sexual sin makes no difference.” “It doesn’t matter if you steal a little bit.” “Don’t take the Bible so literally.”

So is there a balance between these two? No. These are both doctrines of demons. A balance between them would also be a doctrine of demons. The gospel of moralism and the gospel of the wide way and any gospel between them are doctrines of demons. They are very seductive lies. God is going in a completely different direction.

Here is what God is actually doing: When you are born again by believing in Jesus Christ, this is your first righteous act. But you didn’t do anything, did you? How can it be a righteous act? The same way that anything can be a righteous act. God does it, but He has a specific way of doing it. Whatever is not of faith is sin, Romans 14:23. This applies to every righteous act. Nothing else is righteousness ever. First, God leads. God speaks. Jesus said, “My sheep hear My Voice.” “Today, if your hear His Voice, don’t harden your heart.” Once you realize that God speaks, you begin to see that God reveals this fact a lot throughout all of Scripture. God speaks to us, leads us. We respond. At any moment, both your fleshly nature and the Holy Spirit are speaking to you. They are telling what to think, say, and do. Your fleshly nature will always lie and make sin seem glorious or fun or cool and make righteousness seem trite, silly, old fashioned, boring, and even wrong. When you ignore the voice of your own fleshly mind and listen to Christ, He speaks a vision of hope into your mind/heart/soul. Faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word (literally, utterance) of God. Romans 10:17 Faith is supernatural trust in God. It is actually the faith of God that is a gift to you “lest any man should boast.” Faith gives us access to grace. Romans 5:2 It is through Grace that we are able to serve God. Hebrews 12:27-29 Grace reigns through righteousness. Romans 5:18-21 This righteousness is a free gift from God. Romans 5:17 That’s what grace means, free gift. It is a free gift, and if we will yield our hands, feet, ears, eyes, and mind to this righteousness of God, then God will do His work through us. Romans 6:13 God does any righteousness that is done, and He works greatly through His people.

  • Naturalism: It is assumed that there is no spiritual realm. “Naturalism” is another term for “Atheism.” Naturalism is a fallacy for several reasons. It is a bare assertion in that there is no evidence to support it. It is a fallacy of amazing familiarity in that it claims to be familiar with the spiritual experiences of every person who ever lived. And it also It is a fallacy of asserting a universal negative in that it declares that there is no God, human soul, human spirit, spiritual realm, or spiritual beings. It is self-refuting in that it claims to have knowledge that would only be available by Divine revelation. Yet that is what it is denying, Divine revelation. It is a statement contrary to fact in that every person who follows Jesus Christ is led by Jesus Christ, knows Christ, and is taught by Christ. This is statement is testable and repeatable. It is available to anyone. Anyone can test the existence of Christ by coming in sincerity to Jesus Christ and praying persistently that He would reveal Himself and His will to the person praying. There are a few necessary elements: a deep respect for God, a desire to know God’s will, a desire to do God’s will and a desire to leave sin behind.

Naturalism is based on two assumptions: The first assumption is that physical nature is all that there is. (This is the simple belief known as Naturalism). The second assumption is that the mind is the brain. (This is one of the logical consequences of the belief known as Naturalism). Proof that Naturalism is self-refuting and therefore irrational: If Naturalism is fact, then a person’s belief in Naturalism is produced purely by the workings of inanimate nature. Therefore, the Naturalist’s brain chemistry made the Naturalist believe in Naturalism. Therefore, the Naturalist didn’t reason to belief. Reason could not have anything to do with it because of Naturalism, or reason is just part of a chemical interaction. Therefore, the Naturalist’s brain could be fooling them to keep them alive and they would never know the difference. Therefore, there is no reason to trust in reason because of Naturalism. Therefore, the doctrine of Naturalism is self-refuting. To hold a self-refuting doctrine is to be irrational.

One starting point for Methodological Naturalism: “Science can only explain what happens in the universe in terms of observed or testable natural mechanisms” However, this is merely an assumption, so it is arbitrary and thus irrational. It is also self-refuting since, by its own definition, science cannot observe Naturalism or test Naturalism.

Another starting point for Methodological Naturalism: “If there are any supernatural beings, they never interfere directly in nature, and especially in prehistory.” However, if nature acted as if it were all there is, it would be more likely to be chaotic than ordered and our minds would not be dependable for telling whether or not is was ordered because they could be fooling us to keep us alive. Therefore, Naturalism is an incoherent answer to the question: “Why is nature predictable?” And without nature being predictable, science could not be done.

Why Methodological Naturalism is self-refuting: Methodological Naturalism is a doctrine that some people assert as being an essential aspect of the methodology of science, the study of the natural universe. It is, of course, a bare assertion. If it were true that methodological naturalism were essential to science, which it is not, then science could not have had the spectacular successes that science has had over the last four centuries. It is sometimes claimed that Methodological Naturalism was the assumption of scientists for the last four centuries. This is an assertion contrary to fact. The concept of science was developed based on the Divine revelation that God maintains a regularity in nature and enforces natural laws on which we can base science. Methodological Naturalism provides no method by which natural laws would be either established or maintained. Divine providence does provide a method. For this reason, Methodological Naturalism, if it were part of reality, would eliminate the ability to do science. However, Secularists can do science because they also embrace the Divine revelation that there are natural laws—they do this without giving glory to God. They arbitrarily assign the benefits of this Divine revelation to their doctrine of Methodological Naturalism, which is non sequitur. The benefits come from the regularity of nature, not the false assumption of Methodological Naturalism.

Why the concept of prehistory is self-refuting: There is no reason that God (or any spiritual entity) could not do miracles in prehistory (if prehistory were to exist). Therefore the only way we could know whether or not God did any miracles in prehistory would be if God (or spiritual beings) told us. Therefore, if God (or spiritual beings) told us, then there would not be prehistory. Therefore, the notion of prehistory is self-refuting, arbitrary, and thus irrational.

If Naturalism were to be fact, then a person’s belief in Naturalism is produced purely by the workings of inanimate nature. As it is, all forms of the Naturalism paradigm spring from arbitrary assumptions that are arbitrarily asserted to be true. Naturalists ignore this fact and try to apply their paradigm of Naturalism to Christian belief and ignore the fact that their paradigm is, first, merely a paradigm, and, second, would mean than none of the Naturalists reasoning could be trusted either. In fact, if Naturalism were a reality, then we really could not know anything about anything.

  • New Age Movement: The New Age Movement is primarily a networking system with a focus on unity in diversity. The New Age movement has two sides that are surprisingly different and surprisingly the same. On the one side you have the Materialist/naturalist faith groups. On the other side you have the neo-pagan religion. One denies any spirit, and the other worships demons (gods). Yet they are very similar in that they follow both relativism and the belief that the human mind can reveal knowledge without the benefit of observation. They network and cooperate against Christ and His Church at every chance. Both sides push the anti-God, anti-ten-commandments, political correctness agenda. Both sides deny Jesus Christ—the real Jesus Christ. It’s Called The Culture War. The naturalists and Materialist have worked their way into many good churches, pushing the naturalistic and Materialistic agendas, and pushing those churches away from any real spiritual experience with Jesus Christ. The neo-pagans have worked their way into other churches, pushing those churches into metaphysical mysticism and new age techniques. Some of the main precepts that Atheism, Agnosticism, and Secular Humanism believe based solely on human faith are: Materialism, Naturalism, Uniformitarianism, evolutionism.
  • Occultism: The occult is actually demon worship. The occult uses evil spirits (demons) as an alternative to God in one or more of the following: Knowledge, Power, Union. By their own testimonies witches, neo-pagans, Wiccans, Satanists, and New Age adherents, without exception, attempt use occult methods to get knowledge or power. In addition, they seek to make contact (have fellowship) with evil entities, though these evil entities sometimes disguise themselves as being good or harmless. God forbids seeking to get knowledge or power in this way, and He forbids yielding to these evil entities and fellowshipping with them. In contrast, God desires that we seek His face with all our heart, soul, and mind. God desires that we exercise gifts of the Spirit of God and that we manifest the fruit of the Spirit of God; that is that He promises that, if we seek Him and obey, He will give us the knowledge and power that we need. He does His work through us. The occult is actively promoted and glamorized through much of fictional writing (including the Harry Potter series), movies, TV dramas, university courses, etc.
  • Old-Earth Stories: Stories about a very old Earth and Universe have been the most effective tool that Satan has used to turn people from faith to disbelief. These stories, when coupled with the stories about evolutionism, become even more effective for Satan and his followers. In fact, we might ask who even cares how old the Earth is and how old the Universe is? Guesses about these ages really make no difference at all. The only use for old Earth and old Universe stories is to support the molecules-to-man story or to try to discredit Scripture. However, stories about an old Earth and an old Universe are the weapons that the enemies of Christ have found most effective for turning Christians from Christ. All old-Earth stories and old-Universe stories are fabrications based on arbitrary, false, assumptions and rationalizations. They are not valid. That is not to assert a universal negative that there cannot possibly be billions of years. In fact, one of the young-Earth cosmologies speculates that billions of years could have passed in outer space while no time at all passed on Earth. This is possible. It is possible that there is something else that is unknown. However, there is no evidence, either in Scripture or in the Creation, for billions of years.
  • Pantheism: Pantheism is any belief system where everything is thought to be a part of god. It could be stated as “All is god.” or “The Universe/Nature is the same thing as god.” Often, Pantheism will promote an idea of a god that is a mindless force or a force that doesn’t interact on a personal basis with each person. Alternately, Pantheism may promote the idea of a Universe that has a mind and godlike abilities. We are using the small “g” here, because the god of Pantheism is not the God of the Bible. The God of the Bible is the Creator of the Heavens and the Earth and all that is in them. Pantheism does recognize the universal presence of God, which is correct, but then it goes on to create a definition of a god that is not the true God. God created and controls nature, and He holds all of Creation together. However, God is not part of the Creation. Daniel 11:38 states, “But in his estate shall he honor the God of forces: and a god whom his fathers knew not shall he honor with gold, and silver, and with precious stones, and pleasant things.” Compare this god of forces with the true God. “He [Jesus Christ] is before all things, and in Him all things hold together.” Colossians 1:17

Sometimes, Pantheism is called, “monism,” though monism is a more general term. This worldview is a set of filters. It is a set of lies that keep the person trapped inside the lies as a captive. The Pantheist does not know that he or she is a captive but rather thinks that he or she is free. Jesus had to say to the ruling religious people of His day that they would remain in their sin as long as they believed that they did not have any need for a Savior. These poor folks are trapped in the same lie but with different window dressing. How can you help them? You may use whatever sales technique that you think would be successful to “sell” them on Jesus, but you will find that they will just add Jesus to their growing pile of gods and goddesses. That is because they have a relativistic “both-and” worldview. Even though it is impossible, they have been brainwashed into thinking that two mutually exclusive things can co-exist. In Biblical terms, they try to put new wine into old wineskins. They try to sew new cloth to the old cloth. Buddhism, The New Age Movement, Alien & UFO Movements, Taoism, Christian Science, and Shintoism are all examples. Their only hope is that they recognize the Holy Spirit as they hear the true Gospel, and they submit themselves to Him, repenting of all their pantheistic beliefs.

  • Post Modernism: Post Modernism is a final desperate attempt to imagine or suppose a world without God by rejecting both Divine revelation and rational thought. Post Modernism may seem sophisticated, but it is self-refuting, therefore, irrational. Post Modernism is relativistic. In this philosophy/religion, there is no right or wrong or truth or error. There are only winners and losers. Students are advised to be winners.

One way to win is through presentation. For this reason, presentation is held in high esteem among Post Modernists. This high regard for presentation has pervaded society, including Churches. This may be the reason that the bar keeps being raised.

In addition, since there is no truth or error, there is thought to be nothing wrong with self-refuting ideas or mutually exclusive ideas. However, presenting mutually exclusive ideas where they can be compared, exposing the obvious foolishness, is not effective presentation. For this reason, Post Modernism encapsulates various groupings of thoughts to keep them separate from each other. This is known as encapsulation. Through encapsulation, two mutually exclusive ideas based on different assumptions can be presented as separate ideas while not exposing the fact that the overall presentation is self-refuting. An example of this is the way that the term evolution is carefully separated from abiogenesis.

  • Progressivism: Progressivism has been around for over a century, though the label has gone in and out of fashion. It is currently in fashion.

“All that progressives ask or desire is permission — in an era when development, ‘evolution,’ is a scientific word—to interpret the Constitution according to the Darwinian principle; all they ask is recognition of the fact that a nation is a living thing and not a machine.” ~ Woodrow Wilson

Thus, using the slogan, Evolution is science!” the progressives sought to apply this principle to every aspect of life. They redefined the role of Government as being the same as the role of the Church. What of the Church then. Well, now that this role of defining morality and ethics had evolved to a duty of the State, then the Church should get out of it because of the “separation of Church and State.” And as far as taking care of the poor, this has evolved to be the government’s job as well. And education has evolved to being the government’s job. Progressives falsely claim that the government must be Secular since (they claim) the Secular (Atheist) view is neutral where Christians are biased. And the Progressives are the morally superior ones.

Progressivism gains much of its power by creating dependencies. When you give freebies to people over a long period of time, those people eventually become dependent on the freebies. Since they are dependent, they are captive. In a sense, they become slaves—taken care of but not free because they are dependent on the State. In a democratic form of government, those people are votes to the Progressive system.

  • Racism: Racism is that belief that races, various human races, exist. This belief system is contrary to the Divine revelation that God gives in the Bible. We are all of one race, not divergent races struggling for survival against each other. We are all descendants of the first two created people, Adam, and Eve. Evolution predicts that there will be various human races. Creation predicts that we will find out that we are one race. Now, genetic research has confirmed the Bible. There is only one race. There is only one skin color, brown, in various shades. The racism of Hitler, based on evolution, is now verified to be false. Racism has its basis in evolution. Evolution isn’t science.
  • Rationalism: To rationalize is to think something that is irrational and to believe that it is rational. rationalizing is irrational, that is, insane. Unlike Christianity, Rationalism defines the human mind as basically good and capable of generating knowledge without the benefit of observation or Divine revelation. This self-generated knowledge, this supposed miraculously-revealed information, is thought to be superior or equal to Divine revelation, observation or both. Rationalists are just making stuff up! “Making stuff up” is another term for lying. Their lies don’t even need to be well-hidden because the people who are swallowing their lies love to be lied to. You can rationalize anything.
  • Rationalized Christianity: Speculation remains simple-minded speculation regardless of the verbiage used to try to make it sound scientific, or else Biblical. Even if it is phrased in scientific or theological terminology, speculation is simply guessing. It is the art of making stuff up. In essence, it is the art of lying, since these speculations are stated as if they were facts. To state a rationalized speculation as fact is to lie.
  • Relativism: Relativism is a belief that there is no absolute truth, there are no absolutes, and there is no right or wrong. Sometimes, this is stated as, “absolute truth cannot be known.” Relativism is based on a logical error of asserting a universal negative. Rationalism is self-refuting since, if nothing can be absolutely known, then it cannot be absolutely known that nothing can be absolutely known. So, a person who claims that nothing can be absolutely known has not said anything. They have made a claim, but they are telling you not to believe their claim. Relativists tend to be intolerant of anyone who believes in such things as an absolute God, absolute truth, or absolute morals. They tend to be intolerant of those who believe that the Bible is the inspired Word of God without error. They tend to really get upset with those who know Jesus Christ personally in a moment-by-moment revelation of truth.
  • Science Worship: Science originally meant knowledge. All knowledge comes from God. However, at present, the word, “science,” is used to mean “the current opinion of the most vocal and politically powerful scientists.”

When it is assumed that the telling of a compelling fairytale (the age of the Earth, the origin of the universe, the fossils that are found, etc.) magically transforms fairytale into reality. A theory can be created for which current knowledge cannot absolutely disprove the theory and yet be a false theory. And, the current opinion of the most vocal and politically powerful scientists is generally protected by many rationalizations and threats to try to keep anyone from examining the opinion in the light of actual facts. Some prominent Christians are even enlisted in shouting down anyone who is willing and qualified to look at the facts. The word, “science,” is used as a magic word to add false credibility to all of this nonsense.

We can look at science as one of the tools for knowing what God has given to us, or we can look at science as sort of a magical god that is the answer to everything and the source of all wisdom, knowledge, and understanding. The naïve, fake-god view of science is quite prominent in the educational system at every level, in the entertainment industry, in every type of print media, in the courts, and in the news industry. By invoking the magic word, “science,” the merchants can sell everything from abortion to beauty products. Just by adding the magic word, “science,” to a sentence, a politician can create a false credibility for any rationalized concept, including evolutionism, global warming, speculations about the age of the earth, socialism, or any other thing that adds to the politician’s power.

  • Scientism: Scientism is the self-refuting unsupported assertion that science or the scientific method is the best way to know anything. This claim cannot be shown to be true using scientific method. It is just asserted as fact with no evidence. Bare assertions of this sort are anti-science.
  • Secularism: Secularism is a belief system that is based on a fallacy of asserting a universal negative and a logical fallacy of an argument from ignorance. There are many denominations of Secularism: Agnosticism, Humanism, Atheism, etc. And each of these words come with different definitions, so one word is used to define several different denominations. They all assert universal negatives of some sort. Asserting a universal negative is irrational unless you know the universal negative is true. You can only know a universal negative is true by receiving Divine revelation from Someone Who knows all things, Who cannot lie, and Who is qualified to say that something doesn’t exist. Of course, that description is limited to Jesus Christ, Who is the Person that Secularism is all about denying.

Arguments from ignorance are also fallacies, and Secularism depends on arguments from ignorance. Atheism depends on the twin dogmas of Naturalism and Materialism, both of which are also irrational beliefs based on universal negatives and arguments from ignorance. Atheism is also dependent on evolutionism, a fabrication about the history of the world that requires a belief that conflicts with several known laws of science, ignoring a lot of the evidence, explaining much of the evidence with convoluted logic with ad hoc hypotheses, and a dependence on the dogmas of Old Earthism and Uniformitarianism. Uniformitarianism is based on asserting a universal negative and an argument from ignorance plus ignoring much or the evidence or explaining it in a way that is irrational. Old Earthism is a fabrication of the history of the Earth that must rule out the catastrophic Worldwide Flood of Noah’s day, of which the Bible speaks and which is so evident in geology. Old Earthism is based on circular reasoning and wishful thinking. Secularists are subject to a trilemma that only affects those who believe the unsupported assertion (another fallacy) that God cannot reveal Himself and His creation. This trilemma is most commonly known as the Münchhausen Trilemma.

  • Self-Christianity: The Self Cult is particularly deceptive. It is cloaked in such deliciously good-sounding phrases. When Christians adopt its principles, they follow a path toward frustration. The Self Cult even works its way into Churches, robbing them of spiritual power that is their inheritance in Christ. Instead of focusing on Christ and His will, Christians can lose touch with Jesus. They no longer hear His voice. Then, they stop reading His Word, the Bible. They say words out of their own mind rather than seeking the mind of God and saying His words. They become involved with their own self-worth, self-image, self-confidence, self-actualization, and self-indulgence. They become self-seeking and spend their time trying to discover themselves or re-invent themselves. The problem is that they are not keeping step with the Spirit of God. They are not allowing God’s Spirit to transform them and transfigure them by letting the Holy Spirit renew their minds.
  • Self-Fulfilling Prophecy: A false prophecy is given, but, by its very nature, it tends to be fulfilled, so it is used for proof that the original claim was true. A self-fulfilling prophecy may work through suggestion.
  • Self-Righteousness: It is believed, implied, or asserted that the self can be righteous. God has revealed that this is not the case. The self cannot be righteous. Part of the problem is in the definition of righteousness. One person says, “I’m righteous. I don’t kill and rape. Those are the only two rules.” Another, who can’t meet that standard, loosens the definition up a bit. The fact is that whatever is not of faith is sin. Faith is a supernatural belief and trust that comes with God speaks/leads/teaches, which gives access to grace to that God’s grace can to works of righteousness through people. Nothing else is righteousness ever according to God’s definition of the word.
  • Skepticism: Skepticism is the unsupported assertion that nothing can be known for certain. Skepticism is a universal negative, so the skeptic is claiming that nothing can be known while claiming extraordinary knowledge. If nothing can be known, does it make any sense to make a statement, “Nothing can be known.” If nothing can be known, then that statement cannot be known. That makes skepticism self-refuting. The skeptic is calling himself or herself a liar. Skepticism is often insincere—the skeptic may have very dogmatic beliefs about things like Scientism, Naturalism, Agnosticism, Materialism, or Uniformitarianism. Having dogmatic beliefs is contradictory to skepticism.

Skepticism is closely related to the Münchhausen Trilemma, the Secularist Trilemma. According to the Münchhausen Trilemma, all assertions must be based on fallacies. However, the Münchhausen Trilemma is a false trilemma. It assumes no all-knowing God Who cannot lie and Who reveals truth. The skeptic is also basing the claim, “Nothing can be known,” on a presupposition that “God doesn’t reveal.” A presupposition is an unsupported assertion that has been hidden by making believe that it is a settled fact. Since everyone who follows Christ is led by Christ, the assertion that “God doesn’t reveal,” is an assertion contrary to fact.

  • Social Gospel: The Social Gospel movement has been operative since the late 1800s. The Social Gospel movement attempts to apply “Christian ethics” to social problems. The Social Gospel Movement is an attempt to establish the Kingdom of the Heavens on Earth by human means. Originally, there was a kind of end-times theology attached to the Social Gospel that predicted that the return of Christ could only happen after human beings got rid of all the social ills. The Social Gospel became associated and still remains associated with progressivism and liberalism. The movement declined for a while but revived in the rebellion of the 1960s. The Social Gospel tends to focus on using the government to coerce believers and unbelievers alike, usually through taxation and regulation, to support liberal and progressive goals. Some of the goals and tactics of the social gospel seem good on the surface. Who could argue against helping the poor? Yet, because God is not in their efforts, they destroy instead of helping. The social welfare system, for instance, has destroyed the inner-city homes. It pushed women into prostitution. It pushed men into gangs where they kill or else are killed. We can see the results of the Social Gospel in the destruction of the home, the rampant immorality and violence, the envy of Socialism, the rebelliousness against all authority, and many other social ills that have been made far worse because of the efforts of those who pushed the Social Gospel.
  • Socialism: The subject of Socialism has done much to divide the Church. It may be possible that Christians should not be putting their efforts into establishing these dying systems. Socialism is simply an economic system. This is an argument about money between the Socialists (left wing) and the Free Enterprise people (right wing). Both groups claim to be absolutely correct. This is polarizing in the Church. There are differing opinions on Socialism among Christians. This is a very divisive issue in which all sides try to claim that they have the high moral ground. The real question is, what is God saying about this? A second question to ask yourself: have you made any assumptions? If you allow yourself even a single assumption, you can prove anything to yourself. Anything.
  • Solipsism: It is believed, implied, or asserted that nothing can be known except the existence of self. There are many variations of these claims, some of which declare that nothing exists outside of self or that nothing exists, not even self. Solipsists tend to be skeptical of sense data. Solipsism is related to Rationalism. Solipsism is a made-up story that claims that no evidence is valid. It is based on, “because I said so.” The person who believes in solipsism is asserting that nothing can be known outside of self. If nothing can be known, then the solipsist cannot know that nothing can be known. That makes solipsism self-refuting, but that is not the only problem with the philosophy. For those solipsists who reject all observation or knowledge, without knowledge, no science or engineering would be possible. There is the problem that things are engineered and work. The solipsist may deny this fact, but others can certainly look around and see that the solipsist is wrong. They can also check the solipsist’s contention that they don’t exist and see that the solipsist is wrong.

As a fallback position, the solipsist could claim that he or she doesn’t know anything. This is an assertion contrary to fact, since God reveals that solipsists (all people) know that He exists, that there is right and wrong, and that God judges sin. God further reveals that those who refuse to acknowledge Him do so because they love darkness rather than light. God reveals that they suppress the truth with their unrighteousness, cutting themselves off from God, and that God turns them over to their own reprobate minds in these cases.

  • Statism: Statism is a form of idolatry in which the state becomes the god. It is, at its heart, totalitarianism. In Statism and Totalitarianism, the state (government) becomes a god with absolute control. Statists look to the state as a savior, a substitute for the true God, so Statists are involved in idolatry, and will be disappointed. Statists are serving a god that will turn out to be cruel and that will not give them the satisfaction that they were desiring. Statists become Statists for several reasons. Some Statists are eager for power. Most of these Statists think that they are good people and that they are wise, so who better than themselves to run everything. They desire to take the place of God in every life. Some are fully aware of their own evil nature, but they desire control for their own profit. Some Statists become Statists because someone in control found some way to put them into slavery, bondage to the State. Government programs to “help” people generally create dependencies. The dependencies lead to slavery for the individuals who become dependent. There are other Statists who become Statists because of education, which teaches lies and ignores the lessons of history and of the Bible.
  • Style-Based Christianity: The problem of churches applying style rather than substance is a major problem that stops spiritual growth. They are concerned about how to draw people in through entertainment, grand buildings, grand PR programs, free give-aways, cross-over music, barroom or coffee shop atmosphere, using liberty for an occasion to the flesh, emotional appeal, false healings/miracles, or any other such means. It’s not that any of these things would be sin of themselves, but whatever is not of faith is sin. Romans 14:23 Did God really lead them to it? If He did, then fine. If He did not, then it is sin. Jesus never tried to reach out without substance and depending on style. Jesus never put this style feature into the design of the Church. You cannot find anything like this is Scripture. In fact, the pattern for the Church in Scripture is a pattern that is simple and elegant, but not appealing to the natural mind at all.
  • The Big-Bang-Billions-of-Years-No-Flood-Molecules-to-Man story / Evolution Myths / Evolutionism: The myth of molecules-to-man evolution has been one of the two the most effective tools that Satan has used to turn people from faith to disbelief. Actually, the myth of molecules-to-man evolution is a collection of cleverly devised fables or myths. These myths, are dependent on the myths about a very old Earth and Universe, a starting point from nothing for no known reason (Big Bang), elimination of the Genesis Flood, and life from non-life (abiogenesis). None of these myths can exist without all the others.

Those who have a real experience with the power of the Holy Spirit to solve problems, reveal truth, bring peace, heal the sick, do miracles, and do righteousness through His people—those people are not swayed by these myths that conflict with the Bible. They may be temporarily confused by the lies (lies put forward as “science”), but if they are in contact with the Real Jesus Christ, there is nothing that can shake them off of that Foundation. For those who have a rationalized faith or who are double-minded, the complex Big-Bang-Billions-of-Years-No-Flood-Molecules-to-Man story becomes a believable assertion that claims that the truth that is in the Bible is a myth. The Big-Bang-Billions-of-Years-No-Flood-Molecules-to-Man story is merely a made-up myth that is based on many more made-up myths, arbitrary assumptions, irrational statements, and outright lies.

  • Trans Humanism: God has a plan for our perfection through Jesus Christ. Transhumanism is mankind’s plan to attempt to do the same thing through technology. Genetic experimentation, Eugenics, and machine-man merging are the tools.
  • Transcendental Meditation: Transcendental Meditation (TM) is a way to avoid God by using evil Spirits. It is a form of demon worship. The mantra that is assigned is the name of a demon. It is also an alternate way to God’s way of approaching God, or a god. God has a way for us to be born again and He has a way for us to grow up into Him. There are many religious things that we could do to try to help ourselves spiritually. God has provided a way to spiritual fulfillment. It is through simple submission to Jesus Christ. God speaks to us about His Way through Scripture. His Way is Christ, the Head in Heaven and Body on Earth. We cannot redesign His Way. For the Body on Earth, God defines that gifts, ministries, offices, and orders in Scripture. Transcendental Meditation (TM) is an alternate method, a satanic method, of finding supposed spiritual fulfillment. It will not lead to spiritual fulfillment, though. There is a huge difference between the meditation of which the Bible speaks and the meditation of the Eastern religions. God has promised that anyone who seeks the Holy Spirit from Him will receive the Holy Spirit and not a serpent. God has promised that anyone who seeks the Christ will receive the Christ and not the natural mind. All who keep on seeking do find, and they find the King of Kings if He is the Person whom they are seeking. Those who blank their minds for a spiritual experience will get something else, however. They are not seeking God. They are seeking something and they don’t know what it is.
  • Uniformitarianism: Uniformitarianism is the assertion contrary to fact that there was no flood and, by implication, that there was no creation. God reveals the flood as history, while flood denial is made-up and then supported by data mining. God reveals this fact through both the Bible and science. The Uniformitarian doctrine is anti-Bible, anti-God, and anti-Christ. It puts death before sin. Any believe that puts death before sin makes the Gospel meaningless. The Gospel says that sin caused death and Jesus came to save us from the punishment for our sin and from our slavery to sin so that we can have life. This belief is taken on faith by Naturalists and Materialists. The faith of Naturalists, Materialists, Atheists, Secular Humanists, and Agnostics is different from Christian faith. The faith of Naturalists, Materialists, Atheists, Secular Humanists, and Agnostics is merely speculation or unsupported declaration. Christian faith is quite a different substance and authority.
  • Wiccan Witchcraft: Witches believe in Lucifer as a god and worship a god that they call the horned one and conjure by Barabbas (a name for the devil), by Satanas, by the devil. The serpent is the Wiccan symbol of eternal life. Wiccans draw on occult information, rituals, and ceremonies from idol worshippers of the past. Magical recipes, sorcery, drugs, spells, rituals, divination, covens, curses, orgies, nudity, five-fold kiss, frantic dancing, candles, and apparatus to develop one’s power, arouse lust, attain vengeance, etc. are part of Wicca. Wicca is a perversion-oriented cult and fertility religion.
  • Yoga: Classical Yoga assumes an ultimate reality. The goal is to come in tune with what they call the Absolute Impersonal Divine. Understand that this is demonic. The Absolute Almighty God is not impersonal. Exercise is a fine thing to do. Sometimes, the religious aspect of Yoga is brought along as part of the exercise. It is taught in the class, though the person teaching the class may not even be aware of what they are doing. This is also true of simple classes in relaxation or karate or judo. Many aspects of life are tied to ancient demon-worshipping religions. And the demonic portion is brought along with what would normally be quite harmless or even helpful. Satan can make you feel good. You end up taking what would be reserved for your relationship with Christ and replacing that with a relationship with an evil spirit. Just because something makes you feel good at first does not mean it is good. The breathing techniques may even relax you, but do not blank your mind. You can do exercise, but do meditate on the Scripture. Do meditate on the Living Utterance of God, that is, Jesus Christ. In that case, it is no longer really Yoga at all. If you call it Yoga, you are hijacking the name and creating confusion.

Destructive Behaviors and Bondages

Being separated from God by not receiving the free gift of salvation makes it impossible to see the Kingdom of Heaven. Obeying Satan, the urgings of the human body, the urgings of the fallen human mind in its natural state, and the pressures of society results in destructive decisions. These destructive decisions lead to bondages, distorted worldviews and destructive behaviors. These, in turn, make it increasingly difficult to know the difference between reality and make-believe. A few destructive behaviors are listed below:

  • Addictions: Addictions are caused by seeking to get satisfaction in something that cannot possibly satisfy. Human nature buys into phony promises of satisfaction. It could be money, debating, sexual sin, work, laziness, luxury, drugs, alcohol, parties, friends, successes, popularity, clothes, or you name it. All sin is addictive. Each of these give you a little of something that feels like it could lead to satisfaction, but they all leave you hungry and thirsty for real satisfaction. This hunger and thirst results in you going back to them, over and over.
  • Anger: Anger is largely misunderstood. Sometimes Christians (Christ-ones) will speak of righteous anger as a way of justifying or making provision for what is actually fleshly anger. God doesn’t speak of righteous anger in relationship to humans other than Jesus Christ, so care must be exercised in this area. They will justify judging people for their sins and holding anger against them. Anger, when held, turns to bitterness. This is very different from judging sin to be against God’s will. And, this is very different from Church discipline, which is carried out by specific Biblical offices that function according to a specific Biblical order that governs discipline in the Church Universal and the local churches. Church discipline is always an act of love with the goal of restoration of the person under discipline.
  • Choosing My Own Way: Iniquity (disobedience to the direction of the Holy Spirit and slipping or stepping off of the narrow way that leads to life) is allowed to create a separation from God so that God’s Voice becomes less distinct. “My own ways” is another way of saying, “sin.” Sin always makes it harder to know the difference between reality and made-up stuff. (disorder)
  • Choosing Ungodly Friends: A Christian chooses ungodly people to be close friends. As Christians, we should love everyone and get along with everyone, but, if everyone loves us, it is a sign that there is something wrong with us. What? Does that make any sense in our politically correct world? Yes it does. God does not change to fit the culture. The culture, meaning the world, will reject you if you walk in the Spirit.
    • Luke 6:26 “Woe to you, when all men shall speak well of you! for so did their fathers to the false prophets.”
    • Proverbs 18:24a “A man of many companions may come to ruin.”
    • 1 John 3:13 “Marvel not, my brethren, if the world hate you.”

Any Christian who truly walks the walk of the Spirit will not fit in with the worldly, and that Christian will never be allowed into the inner circle of friendship. Because of the humility of Christ that is in a Christian that is called to the first resurrection, the Christian can bear being somewhat of an outcast. They can love those who don’t love them. They will show honor, be polite, be gracious, and not get into angry arguments even when the ungodly try to provoke and bring pressure. The ungodly will bring pressure because they are led by Satan. They are slaves and cannot help it. They think that they are free, but they are in bondage.

Some Christians are obnoxious, and they justify this by claiming that the Spirit of Christ is in them and people don’t like the Spirit of Christ. Christians ought to be the most polite and gracious people on Earth. Opposition is to the message of the Gospel, not the personality of the Christian.

What happens when Christians begin to make concessions to fit in and reduce the pressure on themselves? Since these hypocritical Christians have already made concessions, they just continue to be squeezed into the mold of the world. Then, they will contend with God and argue with Him that this is not a problem. Contending with God leads to hardness of heart toward God. They just slide away from God slowly. Their ungodly friends are not true friends. Their ungodly fake friends would not accept them if they were to stop making all the compromises. Their ungodly friends will not make any real compromises—they just keep on putting gentle pressure on the hypocrite to conform more to ungodliness.

The exact opposite happens with their godly friends. Compromisers have to keep up their guard against their godly friends. Compromisers have to fake it, but they can never let out the fact that they are leading a double life. They can never feel comfortable with their godly friends though their godly friends are the only true friends they have.

It is pride that makes a Christian seek out close friendship with unbelievers. This is especially true among teens who don’t have a very close walk with God. Because they are not too close to God, they feel a need to be popular. This is like a disease among the young. Here is the problem with that: James 4:4 “Ye adulterers and adulteresses, know ye not that the friendship of the world is enmity with God? whosoever therefore will be a friend of the world is the enemy of God.” God calls this spiritual adultery. It is idolatry, which God considers spiritual adultery. The Christian loves worldly acceptance more than God.

  • Drifting: A follower of Christ decides to simply drift rather than listening to the direction of the Holy Spirit, receiving the imparted faith of God, and allowing God’s grace to do God’s will through them.
  • Drug Abuse: The Greek from which we get the word, “pharmacy,” is “pharmakeía,” which is translated as “sorcery.” Sorcery is the use of drugs to conjure spirits. One of the ways to come under the power of evil spirits is by taking drugs. As a Christian, you are called to lead others to righteousness. Revelation 21:8 “But the cowardly, unbelieving, abominable, murderers, sexually immoral, sorcerers [Greek: PHARMAKIA], idolaters, and all liars shall have their part in the lake which burns with fire and brimstone, which is the second death.”
  • Fear: Love casts out fear. We do not minister by fear. For many of the things mentioned above, the follower of Christ is set to be the one who has the responsibility of being the ambassador of Christ to these people so that the Holy Spirit can deliver them. If they will not receive the ambassador, the ambassador must not be discouraged or frustrated. They are simply rejecting Christ so that God can rightly judge them in the Day of Judgment.
  • Forms & Rituals: Forms and rituals are substituted for a relationship with Christ.
  • Rejecting Jesus Christ: “He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved. But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God.” John 3:18-21
  • Seeking Ungodly Counsel: If you allow the Spirit to lead you to Spiritual music, teaching, reading, meditation, and action, then you will find that the soil of your heart becomes increasingly open to God’s good seed. The weeds will slowly die out. The fruit of the Spirit will spring up. God will create a clean heart in you. God gives good counsel. God has given wonderful counsel in the Church by speaking through the ministries in the Church. He speaks to us through the Bible. He leads us in a still small voice through our conscience. He shows us His nature through His creation. What happens when a Christian turns to ungodly counsel? Consider the effects of ungodly counsel in the form of the ungodly news, education, friends, advisers, movies, TV, radio, and music. The relationship with God suffers. Iniquities begin to create a separation from God. The Christian can easily be fooled, since spiritual hearing has become so dull. Spiritual eyes can no longer tell the difference between the holy vision and the corrupt imagination. The Christian becomes wise in his or her own eyes. If a person wants to be a follower of Christ, that person cannot be like a puppet on a string thinking whatever the ungodly influence tells them to think, saying whatever the ungodly influence tells them to say, and doing whatever the ungodly influence tells them to do.
  • Separation from God: mankind was never designed to function without God. There are some Christians who prefer to think their thoughts without God’s Anointing. They lean on their own understandings rather than acknowledging the Holy Spirit’s leading. They are so full of themselves that they refuse to acknowledge God in all their ways. They prefer emotion or intellectual guidance from within themselves or from some other person rather than listening to and obeying God. Man, being spirit, soul, and body, was meant to be joined to God, but our rebellion has separated us from God. Isaiah 59:2 Scripturally, the soul includes the intellect, mind, heart, and will. Our souls were meant to be in submission to our spirits, and our bodies are meant to be in submission to our souls. 2 Corinthians 3:18
  • Sexual Sin: Sex outside of marriage is always a display of selfish desire. No one has every helped or built up any other person by having sex outside of marriage. Jesus defined sex quite clearly as including even the desire in the mind for someone who is not your spouse, let alone touch. Sex outside of marriage can be a thought, a flirt, a tease, a look, a word, music, choosing to go where temptation exists, reading the wrong book, magazine, or website, shacking up, hooking up, and all the various perversions that are now being called “politically correct.” Don’t be fooled by the rationalizations of the popular culture. Sex outside of marriage is selfish. It turns the purpose of sex and marriage backwards from serving your spouse to serving your ungodly self-nature, your fleshly nature, and serving Satan as his slave in the process. It draws you away from God and away from maturity in Christ. It re-crucifies Christ, Who is in you, and it builds up your carnal mind. You, and anyone you influence, is left less of a fulfilled person and more in slavery to Satan–more of a slave to the corrupt culture and social pressures—more of a slave to your own sinful flesh. Perhaps more than any other corruption, sexual corruption quickly removes the ability to know the difference between reality and make-believe.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *